UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`LEXOS MEDIA IP, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2023-01001
`U.S. Patent No. 6,118,449
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,118,449
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 6,118,449
`
`
`Page
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST ...................................................................................................... vii
`I.
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(B) ............................ 1
`A.
`Real Parties-in-Interest ......................................................................... 1
`B.
`Related Matters ..................................................................................... 1
`C.
`Counsel and Service Information ......................................................... 5
`PAYMENT OF FEES .................................................................................... 6
`III.
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ....................................................................... 6
`V.
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ................................................................. 6
`A.
`Challenged Claims ............................................................................... 6
`B.
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge ........................................................... 6
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL ................................................................... 7
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE ’449 PATENT ........................................................... 8
`A.
`Priority Date of the ’449 Patent............................................................ 8
`B.
`State of the Art Before the Application for the ’449 Patent................. 8
`1.
`Cursors in Graphical User Interfaces ......................................... 8
`2.
`Client/Server Systems .............................................................. 10
`Summary of the ’449 Patent ............................................................... 10
`C.
`VIII. PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS .................................................. 12
`A.
`Claim Term Previously Construed ..................................................... 13
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 6,118,449
`IX. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS ........................................... 14
`A. Overview of Prior Art References ...................................................... 14
`1. Malamud (EX1004) ................................................................. 14
`2.
`Nakagawa (EX1005) ................................................................ 17
`3.
`Nielsen (EX1006) .................................................................... 18
`B. Motivation to Combine References.................................................... 20
`1.
`Legal Standard ......................................................................... 20
`2. Motivation to Download Malamud’s Application
`Program from a Server, and the Obviousness of Doing So ..... 21
`3. Motivation to Combine the Teachings of Malamud and
`Nakagawa, and the Obviousness of that Combination ............ 23
`4. Motivation to Combine the Teachings of Nielsen and
`Malamud, and the Obviousness of that Combination .............. 24
`Ground 1: The Challenged Claims Are Rendered Obvious by
`Malamud ............................................................................................. 26
`1.
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 26
`2.
`Claim 27 ................................................................................... 33
`3.
`Claim 53 ................................................................................... 34
`D. Ground 2: The Challenged Claims Are Rendered Obvious by
`Malamud and Nakagawa .................................................................... 42
`1.
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 42
`2.
`Claim 27 ................................................................................... 46
`3.
`Claim 53 ................................................................................... 47
`Ground 3: The Challenged Claims Are Rendered Obvious by
`Nielsen and Malamud ......................................................................... 49
`1.
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 49
`
`C.
`
`E.
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 6,118,449
`Claim 27 ................................................................................... 55
`2.
`Claim 38 ................................................................................... 56
`3.
`Claim 53 ................................................................................... 56
`4.
`X. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL IS NOT APPROPRIATE ............................ 62
`A.
`The Board Should Not Deny Institution Under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 314(a) ............................................................................................... 62
`The Board Should Not Deny Institution Under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 325(d) .............................................................................................. 65
`XI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 69
`LISTING OF CHALLENGED CLAIMS OF THE ’449 PATENT ....................... 71
`Claim 1 ........................................................................................................ 71
`Claim 27 ...................................................................................................... 72
`Claim 38: ..................................................................................................... 74
`Claim 53 ...................................................................................................... 74
`
`B.
`
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 6,118,449
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`
`Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische
`Geräte GmbH,
`IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) .......................................... 65, 66
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) ....................................... 62, 63
`Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG,
`IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) ............................................... 66
`Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC,
`805 F.3d 1064 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 21
`ClassCo, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.,
`838 F.3d 1214 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 21
`Equipmentshare.com Inc. v. Ahern Rentals, Inc.,
`IPR2021-00834, Paper 19 (PTAB Nov. 16, 2021) ............................................. 64
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ................................................................................................ 20
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ...................................................................................... 20, 21
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`No. 2:22-cv-00169-JRG (E.D. Tex.) ...........................................................passim
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. APMEX, Inc.,
`No. 2:16-cv-00747-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.) ...................................................passim
`Microchip Tech. Inc. v. Bell Semiconductor, LLC,
`IPR2021-00148, Paper 19 (PTAB May 14, 2021) ............................................. 63
`Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc.,
`587 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................................................... 21
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 6,118,449
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .......................................................... 12
`Ralph Lauren Corp. v. Hirshfeld,
`852 Fed. App’x 540 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ................................................................... 5
`Ralph Lauren Corp. v. Lexos Media IP, LLC,
`IPR2018-01755, Paper 22 (PTAB Mar. 25, 2020) ................................... 5, 13, 68
`Resi Media LLC v. Boxcast Inc.,
`IPR2022-00067, Paper 16 (PTAB Apr. 26, 2022) ............................................. 64
`Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.,
`IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) ............................................... 63
`Synthego Corp. v. Agilent Techs., Inc.,
`IPR2022-00403, Paper 12 (PTAB May 31, 2022) ............................................. 69
`Target Corp. v. Proxicom Wireless, LLC,
`IPR2020-00904, Paper 11 (PTAB Nov. 10, 2020) ............................................. 13
`Thorne Rsch., Inc. v. Tr. of Dartmouth Coll.,
`IPR2021-00491, Paper 18 (PTAB Aug. 12, 2021) ............................................. 66
`Toyota Motor Corp. v. Cellport Sys., Inc.,
`IPR2015-00633, Paper No. 11 (PTAB Aug. 14, 2015) ...................................... 12
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .................................................................................................... 6, 20
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ................................................................................................... 62
`35 U.S.C. § 314(b) ................................................................................................... 64
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ....................................................................................... 65, 66, 69
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(B) .................................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ................................................................................................ 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) .................................................................................................. 5
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 6,118,449
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a) ................................................................................................. 76
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(c) ............................................................................................... 64
`37 CFR § 42.24(d) ................................................................................................... 76
`
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`

`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 6,118,449
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS1
` U.S. Patent No. 5,995,102 entitled Server System and Method for
`Modifying a Cursor Image to James Samuel Rosen et al. (“the ’102
`Patent”).
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,118,449 entitled Server System and Method for
`Modifying a Cursor Image to James Samuel Rosen et al. (“the ’449
`Patent”).
`
`Declaration of Dr. Craig Rosenberg.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,437,800 to Mark A. Malamud (“Malamud”).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,835,911 to Toru Nakagawa, et al. (“Nakagawa”).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,937,417 to Jakob Nielsen (“Nielsen”).
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. APMEX, Inc., No. 2:16-cv-00747-JRG-RSP
`(“APMEX”), Early Claim Construction Opinion and Order, Dkt. 86
`(E.D. Tex., Mar. 16, 2017).
`Lexos Media IP, LLV v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00169-JRG,
`Parties’ Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement, Dkt. 89
`(E.D. Tex., May 16, 2023) (including the exhibits attached thereto).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,754,176 to Chris Crawford (“Crawford”).
`
`File History of the ’102 Patent.
`
`File History of the ’449 Patent.
`
`EX1001
`
`EX1002
`
`EX1003
`
`EX1004
`
`EX1005
`
`EX1006
`
`EX1007
`
`EX1008
`
`EX1009
`
`EX1010
`
`EX1011
`
`
`1 Given the near complete overlap of the documents relied upon in this IPR
`
`Petition and those relied upon in the IPR Petition on the related ’102 Patent, Peti-
`
`tioner has included in this list and in all both Petitions all documents relied upon in
`
`the two IPR Petitions so that the Board need only refer to one set of Exhibits.
`
`- vii -
`
`

`

`
`
`EX1012
`
`EX1013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 6,118,449
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Craig Rosenberg.
`
`Appendices to the Declaration of Dr. Craig Rosenberg.
`
`
`
`
`
`- viii -
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 6,118,449
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. (“Petitioner”) requests inter partes review (“IPR”) of
`
`claims 1, 27, 38, and 53 (the “Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,118,449
`
`(“the ’449 Patent”) (EX1002) assigned to Lexos Media IP, LLC (“Patent Owner”).
`
`5
`
`This Petition demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of invalidity of the Chal-
`
`lenged Claims. For the reasons set forth below, review should be instituted, and
`
`the Challenged Claims should be found unpatentable and canceled.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(B)
`A. Real Parties-in-Interest
`
`10
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), Petitioner identifies the following as the
`
`real parties-in-interest: Amazon.com, Inc.; Amazon.com Services LLC; and Ama-
`
`zon.com Sales, Inc.
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`The ’449 Patent, U.S. Patent No. 5,995,102 (“the ’102 Patent”), and U.S. Pa-
`
`15
`
`tent No. 7,975,241 (“the ’241 Patent”) (collectively, “Lexos Patents”) are asserted
`
`against Petitioner in Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-
`
`00169-JRG (E.D. Tex.) (the “District Court Litigation”).1 Patent Owner served the
`
`complaint in the District Court Litigation on Petitioner on June 6, 2022. Petitioner
`
`
`1 Lexos alleges in the District Court Litigation that it is the owner of the ’102
`
`and ’449 Patents. Lexos is also recorded as the current assignee of those Patents.
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 6,118,449
`is contemporaneously filing a petition for IPR of claim 72 of the ’102 Patent,
`
`
`
`which is the parent to the ’449 Patent.2
`
`Lexos is currently asserting the ’102 and ’449 Patents in the following addi-
`
`tional cases:
`
`5
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. N. Tool & Equip. Co., No. 2-22-cv-00355 (E.D.
`Tex.);
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC. v. ABT Elecs., Inc., No. 1-22-cv-04878 (N.D. Ill.);
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Walmart Inc., No. 2-22-cv-00316 (E.D. Tex.);
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Overstock.com, Inc., No. 2-22-cv-02324 (D. Kan.);
`
`10
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Nike, Inc., No. 2-22-cv-00311 (E.D. Tex.);
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. MSC Industrial Direct Co., No. 3-22-cv-01736
`(N.D. Tex.);
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Gap Inc., No. 2-22-cv-00299 (E.D. Tex.);
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Ultra Beauty, Inc., 2-22-cv-00292 (E.D. Tex.);
`
`15
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. CDW LLC, No. 2-22-cv-00275 (E.D. Tex.);
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Office Depot, LLC, No. 2-22-cv-00273 (E.D. Tex.);
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. eBay Inc., No. 6-22-cv-00648 (W.D. Tex.); and
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Target Corp., No. 2-22-cv-00175 (E.D. Tex.).
`
`
`2 For consistency and ease of reference for the Board across the two related
`
`IPR Petitions, all citations to the specification herein will be made to the column
`
`and line numbers of the ’102 Patent (EX1001).
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 6,118,449
`Additionally, Lexos previously asserted the ’102 Patent and/or the ’449 Pa-
`
`
`
`tent or those patents were at issue in the following cases, all of which are now ter-
`
`minated:
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Ace Hardware Corp., No. 2-22-cv-00304 (E.D.
`Tex.);
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. The TJX Cos., No. 2-22-cv-00285 (E.D. Tex.);
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. La-Z-Boy Inc., No. 6-21-cv-00205 (W.D. Tex.);
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. ASICS Am. Corp., No. 6-21-cv-00117 (W.D. Tex.);
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Luxottica Grp. SpA, No. 6-21-cv-00096 (W.D.
`Tex.);
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Gift Svcs., Inc., No. 6-20-cv-01156 (W.D. Tex.);
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Urban Outfitters, Inc., No. 6-20-cv-01142 (W.D.
`Tex.);
`
`Ralph Lauren Corp. v. Hirshfeld, No. 20-1862 (Fed. Cir.);
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Jos A Bank Clothiers, Inc., No. 1-17-cv-01317 (D.
`Del.);
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Oriental Trading Co., No. 1-17-cv-01318 (D. Del.);
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Ralph Lauren Corp., No. 1-17-cv-01319 (D. Del.);
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. TJX Cos., No. 1-17-cv-01320 (D. Del.);
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Williams-Sonoma, Inc., No. 1-17-cv-01321 (D.
`Del.);
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. AmeriMark Direct, LLC, No. 2-17-cv-00372 (E.D.
`Tex.);
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Boscov’s Dep’t Store, LLC, No. 2-17-cv-00373
`(E.D. Tex.);
`
`5
`
`10
`
`15
`
`20
`
`25
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 6,118,449
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. APMEX, Inc., No. 2-16-cv-00747 (E.D. Tex.);
`
`
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 2-16-cv-00748 (E.D.
`Tex.);
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Musician’s Friend, Inc., No. 2-16-cv-00749 (E.D.
`Tex.);
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Nordstrom, Inc., No. 2-16-cv-00750 (E.D. Tex.);
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Saks Inc., No. 2-16-cv-00751 (E.D. Tex.);
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Victoria’s Secret Stores Brand Mgmnt., Inc., No. 2-
`16-cv-00752 (E.D. Tex.);
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Recreational Equip., Inc., No. 2-15-cv-02107 (E.D.
`Tex.);
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Sears Brands, LLC, No. 2-15-cv-02098 (E.D. Tex.);
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, No. 2-15-cv-
`02100 (E.D. Tex.);
`
`5
`
`10
`
`15
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Express, LLC, No. 2-15-cv-02073 (E.D. Tex.);
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Avon Prods., Inc., No. 2-15-cv-02052 (E.D. Tex.);
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. The Home Depot USA, Inc., No. 2-15-cv-02051
`(E.D. Tex.);
`
`Lexos Media, Inc. v. Zynga, Inc., No. 1-12-cv-07994 (S.D.N.Y.);
`
`20
`
`Lexos Media, Inc. v. Zynga, Inc., No. 2-12-cv-00395 (M.D. Fla.); and
`
`Zynga Inc. v. Lexos Media, Inc., No. 5-12-cv-01952 (N.D. Cal.).
`
`In one of those cases in the Eastern District of Texas, the court construed a
`
`single claim term as discussed in the claim construction section below.
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 6,118,449
`Ralph Lauren Corporation (“RLC”) previously petitioned for inter partes re-
`
`view of claims 1-3, 5-7, 12-15, 27-29, 31-33, 38-41, 53-56, 58-63, 72-75, and 77-
`
`82 of the ’449 Patent (IPR2018-01755), and review was instituted. In a Final Writ-
`
`ten Decision (“FWD”), the Board held that RLC (1) had demonstrated that claims
`
`5
`
`27, 33, 40-41, 72, and 81-82 of the ’449 Patent were unpatentable as obvious, but
`
`(2) had not demonstrated unpatentability of claims 1-3, 5-7, 12-15, 28-29, 31-32,
`
`38-39, 53-56, 58-63, 73-75, and 77-80. Ralph Lauren Corp. v. Lexos Media IP,
`
`LLC, IPR2018-01755, Paper 22 at 44-45 (PTAB Mar. 25, 2020). RLC appealed,
`
`and the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s decisions. Ralph Lauren Corp. v.
`
`10
`
`Hirshfeld, 852 Fed. App’x 540 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
`
`C.
`
`Counsel and Service Information
`
`Counsel for Petitioner Amazon.com, Inc.
`Lead Counsel
`Back-up Counsel
`Jon R. Carter
`Daniel T. Shvodian
`(Reg. No. 75,145)
`(Reg. No. 42,148)
`carter-ptab@perkinscoie.com
`shvodian-ptab@perkinscoie.com
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`3150 Porter Dr.
`1155 Avenue of the Americas
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`New York, NY 10036-2711
`Phone: 650-838-4413
`Phone: 212-262-6900
`Fax: 650-838-4350
`Fax: 212-977-1649
`
`Powers of attorney pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) accompany this Petition.
`
`Petitioner consents to electronic service at the following address:
`
`15
`
`Shvodian-ptab@perkinscoie.com.
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 6,118,449
`
`The PTO is authorized to charge any fees due to Deposit Account No. 50-
`
`0665.
`
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`5
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’449 Patent is available for review, and Petitioner
`
`is not barred/estopped from requesting review on the grounds herein.
`
`V.
`
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`A. Challenged Claims
`
`Petitioner requests review of the Challenged Claims and cancellation of
`
`10
`
`those claims as unpatentable.
`
`B.
`
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge
`
`The Challenged Claims should be canceled for the following grounds:
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1, 27, and 53 are obvious under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103 over U.S. Patent No. 6,437,800 (“Malamud”).
`
`15
`
`Ground 2: Claims 1, 27, and 53 are obvious under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103 over Malamud and U.S. Patent No. 5,835,911 (“Nakagawa”).
`
`Ground 3: Claims 1, 27, 38, and 53 are obvious under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103 over U.S. Patent No. 5,937,417 (“Nielsen”) and Malamud.
`
`For this proceeding only, Petitioner assumes the earliest effective filing date
`
`20
`
`of the ’449 Patent is June 25, 1997.
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 6,118,449
`Malamud issued on August 20, 2002 from Application No. 08/329,724,
`
`
`
`which was filed on October 26, 1994, as a continuation of Application No.
`
`08/054,564, filed on April 28, 1993. Nakagawa issued on November 10, 1998
`
`from Application No. 517,133, which was filed on August 21, 1995, as a continua-
`
`5
`
`tion-in-part of Application No. 385,460, filed on February 8, 1995. Nielsen issued
`
`on August 10, 1999 from Application No. 08/643,893, which was filed on May 7,
`
`1996. Therefore, Malamud, Nakagawa, and Nielsen each qualify as prior art under
`
`at least § 102(e) (pre-AIA).
`
`As addressed in Section X(B) below, none of the grounds presented herein
`
`10
`
`have been previously considered.
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the claimed priority date
`
`would have had experience in the fields of human factors engineering or human
`
`computer interaction. (EX1003 at ¶¶31-35.) The POSITA would have at least a
`
`15
`
`bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, human factors engi-
`
`neering, or a related field and would have had at least two years of relevant work
`
`experience in the fields of UI design, or equivalent experience.3 (Id.)
`
`3 Dr. Rosenberg qualified as a POSITA by the asserted priority date, and he
`
`remains qualified to testify to what a POSITA would have understood at the time
`
`of the claimed invention. (EX1003 at ¶36.)
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE ’449 PATENT
`Priority Date of the ’449 Patent
`A.
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 6,118,449
`
`The ’449 Patent issued on September 12, 2000 from U.S. Patent Application
`
`No. 09/400,038, which was filed on September 21, 1999. The ’449 Patent claims
`
`5
`
`to be a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 08/882,580, which was filed on
`
`June 25, 1997 and issued as the ’102 Patent. Therefore, the earliest possible priori-
`
`ty date for the ’449 Patent is June 25, 1997.
`
`B.
`
`State of the Art Before the Application for the ’449 Patent
`
`1.
`
`Cursors in Graphical User Interfaces
`
`10
`
`A graphical user interface (“GUI”) is one form of human-computer interface
`
`that was in widespread use by 1997. (EX1003 at ¶40.) Through the use of GUIs,
`
`users were able to interact with displayed icons, objects, or text using a pointing
`
`device, such as a mouse, rollerball, or touchpad. (Id.)
`
`Computer interface devices, including pointing devices and display screens,
`
`15
`
`generally have “drivers,” which are programs dedicated to communicating between
`
`the device and other software like application programs or the operating system
`
`(“OS”). (Id. at ¶¶43-44.) The OS manages computer hardware and software re-
`
`sources, and it can be an intermediary between application programs and hardware
`
`drivers. (Id.) For example, a “display driver” can accept commands from the OS
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 6,118,449
`and generate signals to the display device to render the desired text or image on the
`
`
`
`display device’s screen. (Id.)
`
`When a user moves a pointing device, such as a mouse, an image called a
`
`“cursor” moves correspondingly onscreen. (Id.) The cursor image is controlled by
`
`5
`
`the OS or an application to indicate the cursor’s position on the screen. (Id.) Cur-
`
`sor images generally include a single pixel, called the “hotspot,” that identifies the
`
`location on the screen where input from a user would have an effect. (Id. at ¶49.)
`
`Applications and code other than the OS can affect the cursor’s appearance.
`
`(Id. at ¶45.) For example, an application may modify the cursor image by sending
`
`10
`
`data and/or commands to the OS. (Id.)
`
`While OSs have for decades provided standard images for cursors, such as
`
`an arrow, they also allowed applications to customize the cursor appearance. (Id.
`
`at ¶¶51-54.) Because cursors were a core part of the user experience, and the us-
`
`er’s attention was often focused on or near the cursor onscreen, computer designers
`
`15
`
`commonly placed additional information around the cursor. (Id. at ¶¶59-60.) For
`
`example, U.S. Patent No. 5,754,176 to Crawford (filed on October 2, 1995) de-
`
`scribes a “tooltip” system built into Microsoft Windows to display help infor-
`
`mation when a user held the cursor over an object displayed on the screen.
`
`(EX1009 at 2:28-37.)
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Client/Server Systems
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 6,118,449
`
`The client/server architecture is a fundamental system design that has been
`
`well-known for decades. (EX1003 at ¶¶61-63; EX1005 at 3:1-5.) Client/server
`
`systems can function in many ways. For example, a client can download an appli-
`
`5
`
`cation from a server and run that application locally. (EX1003 at ¶64.) Alterna-
`
`tively, applications can be run on a remote server, with display information sent to
`
`the client computer for display to a user. (Id.)
`
`Client/server systems have long been a critical part of the internet, such as
`
`where web browsers allow users’ computing devices (i.e., “clients”) to download
`
`10
`
`web pages from servers. (Id. at ¶65.) The well-known use of custom cursors and
`
`the equally well-known use of client/server systems were frequently combined
`
`such that an application that modified a cursor image could be downloaded from a
`
`server. (Id.) This approach was built into the widely used “X Windows” system,
`
`first released in 1986. (Id. at ¶¶52-54.)
`
`15
`
`C.
`
`Summary of the ’449 Patent
`
`Consistent with the foregoing description of the state of the art in June 1997,
`
`the ’449 Patent admits that it was not new for applications to change the shape of
`
`cursor images. (EX1001 at 3:36-44.) The ’449 Patent, however, asserts that those
`
`changes generally reflected “an internal state of the computer or the present func-
`
`20
`
`tion within an application.” (Id. at 3:44-46.) The ’449 Patent asserts that this was
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 6,118,449
`deficient because the cursor could not convey “advertising” or “change to corre-
`
`
`
`spond with on-line content being displayed on the screen.” (Id. at 3:36-50, 2:27-
`
`32.)
`
`The ’449 Patent purports to address those deficiencies through “[a] system
`
`5
`
`for modifying a cursor image … to a specific image having a desired shape and
`
`appearance” (id. at Abstract) where the specific image represents advertising or re-
`
`lates to content displayed on the screen. (Id. at 2:44-47, 2:58-3:3, 3:64-4:3, 7:7-9.)
`
`For example, the patent discloses that the cursor modification can be the rendering
`
`of the cursor as a baseball bat on a sports website (id. at 17:33-34) or as a pink cur-
`
`10
`
`sor on a website about the Pink Panther (id. at 17:34-35).
`
`Figure 8 of the ’449 Patent, annotated below, shows an example where the
`
`cursor is modified from a standard arrow into the “specific image” of a bottle (an-
`
`notated with the red circle) to advertise a cola drink:
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 6,118,449
`
`
`
`Figure 8 (annotated).
`
`VIII. PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`Under Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc),
`
`5
`
`claim terms are typically given their ordinary and customary meanings as under-
`
`stood by a POSITA at the time of the invention based on the claim language, speci-
`
`fication, and the prosecution history. Id. at 1312-16. The Board, however, con-
`
`strues claim terms only to the extent necessary to resolve the present controversy.
`
`Toyota Motor Corp. v. Cellport Sys., Inc., IPR2015-00633, Paper No. 11 at 16
`
`10
`
`(PTAB Aug. 14, 2015) (citation omitted). Aside from the previously construed
`
`claim term addressed below, Petitioner believes that no constructions of any other
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 6,118,449
`claim terms are necessary. 4 Ralph Lauren Corp. v. Lexos Media IP, LLC,
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01755, Paper No. 22 at 12 (finding no claim terms of the ’449 Patent
`
`needed construction).
`
`While the parties have agreed to the construction of some claim terms and
`
`5
`
`have proposed competing constructions for some claim terms in the pending Dis-
`
`trict Court Litigation (EX1008), Petitioner contends that those proposed construc-
`
`tions do not affect this Petition because the limitations of the Challenged Claims
`
`are disclosed in, or rendered obvious, by the prior art under both parties’ proposed
`
`constructions. The invalidity analysis set forth below would not differ under either
`
`10
`
`parties’ proposed constructions.
`
`A. Claim Term Previously Construed
`
`Lexos asserted the ’449 Patent in Lexos Media IP, LLC v. APMEX, Inc., No.
`
`2:16-cv-00747-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.) (“APMEX”), and the district court construed
`
`the term “said specific image including content corresponding to at least a portion
`
`15
`
`of said information to be displayed on said display of said user’s terminal” to mean
`
`4 Petitioner reserves all rights to raise claim construction and other argu-
`
`ments in district court as relevant to that proceeding. See, e.g., Target Corp. v.
`
`Proxicom Wireless, LLC, IPR2020-00904, Paper 11 at 11-13 (PTAB Nov. 10,
`
`2020). Infringement issues in the litigation may raise controversies that are not
`
`presented here.
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 6,118,449
`“an image representative of at least a portion of the subject or topic being dis-
`
`
`
`played on the screen.” (EX1007 at 12-13). Petitioner and Patent Owner agree
`
`with that construction (EX1008 at 3), and that construction should be applied
`
`here.5
`
`5
`
`That construction does not change the invalidity analysis for any of the
`
`grounds presented here because, as discussed below, Malamud’s preview cursor
`
`contains content representative of an object displayed on the user’s screen. Addi-
`
`tionally, Nielsen’s tooltips contain content representative of an object displayed on
`
`the user’s screen.
`
`10
`
`IX. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS
`A. Overview of Prior Art References
`1. Malamud (EX1004)
`
`Malamud relates to “information cursors” for use in an OS or in application
`
`programs. (EX1004 at Abstract.) “[An] information cursor includes a pointing
`
`15
`
`portion to point to objects displayed on a video display and an information portion
`
`to display information about an object to which the pointing portion points.” (Id.)
`
`One type of information cursor is a “preview cursor,” which is shown in Malam-
`
`ud’s Figure 3, reproduced below:
`
`
`5 No other claim terms have been previously construed.
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 6,118,449
`
`
`
`Figure 3 illustrates a preview cursor 34 pointing to book icon 32. (Id. at
`
`3:59-65.) The preview cursor 34 includes pointing portion 28 in the shape of an
`
`arrow pointing to book icon 32 (id. at 3:65–68), and it includes preview portion 36,
`
`5
`
`which holds a preview of the contents of the object to which the pointing portion is
`
`pointing (id. at 3:61-4:3).
`
`Figure 4 illustrates another type of information cursor, a “combined name
`
`and preview cursor” 38 pointing to book icon 32. (Id. at 4:4-18.)
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 6,118,449
`
`
`
`Like a preview cursor, a combined name and preview cursor include a pointing
`
`portion 28 in the shape of an arrow and a preview portion 36, which holds a pre-
`
`view of the contents of the object the cursor is pointing to. (Id. at 4:8-9, 4:14-15.)
`
`5
`
`But the combined name and preview cursor also includes a name box in which the
`
`name of the object being pointed to can be displayed. (Id. at 4:10-13.)
`
`To implement the display of information cursors, the OS of the computer
`
`maintains a message queue for each program that generates windows, and when a
`
`mouse event occurs, such as movement of the mouse or a mouse click, a message
`
`10
`
`from the OS is placed into the queue for the program. (Id. at 4