Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper No. 7
`Entered: April 8, 2019
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`RALPH LAUREN CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`Vv.
`
`LEXOS MEDIAIP, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2018-01749
`Patent 5,995,102
`
`Before PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN,J. JOHN LEE, and SHARON FENICK,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`FENICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Jnter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper No. 7
`Entered: April 8, 2019
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`RALPH LAUREN CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`Vv.
`
`LEXOS MEDIAIP, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2018-01749
`Patent 5,995,102
`
`Before PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN,J. JOHN LEE, and SHARON FENICK,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`FENICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Jnter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01749
`Patent 5,995,102
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Ralph Lauren Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 2,
`
`“Pet.”), requesting an inter partes review of claims 70-73 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,995,102 (Ex. 1001, “the °102 patent”). Lexos Media IP, LLC (‘Patent
`
`Owner”) waivedits right to file a preliminary response. Paper6.
`
`Wehaveauthority under 35 U.S.C. § 314 to institute an inter partes
`
`review,if “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail
`
`with respect to at least 1 of the claims challengedin the petition.” For the
`
`reasonsset forth below, upon considering the Petition and evidence of
`
`record, we determinethat the information presented in the Petition
`
`establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to
`
`at least one of the challenged claims. As discussed below,weinstitute an
`
`inter partes review.
`
`Ourfindings of fact and conclusions of law discussed below are based
`
`on the evidentiary record developed thus far and madefor the sole purpose
`
`of determining whetherthe Petition meets the threshold for initiating review.
`
`This decision to institute trial is not a final decision as to the patentability of
`
`any challenged claim or the construction of any claim limitation. Any final
`
`decision will be based on the full record developed duringtrial.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`A. Real Parties in Interest and Related Proceedings
`
`Petitioner and Patent Ownereach indicate that the ’102 patentis at
`
`issue in: Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Ralph Lauren Corporation et al., No. 1:17-
`
`cv-01319-LPS (D. Del.). Pet. 1-2; Paper 3, 2. Petitioner and Patent Owner
`
`additionally indicate that the ’102 patentis at issue in: Lexos Media IP, LLC
`
`v. Jos A Bank Clothiers, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-01317 (D. Del). Pet. 2; Paper 3,
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01749
`Patent 5,995,102
`
`2. Patent Owner additionally indicates that the ’102 patent is at issue in:
`
`Lexos Media IP, LLC v. TJX Companies, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-01320 (D. Del)
`
`and Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Boscov’s Department Store, LLC, No. 2-17-cv-
`
`00373 (E. D. Tx.). Paper 3, 2-3. Along with these pendinglitigations,
`
`Petitioner and Patent Ownerdescribeorlist additional, now-terminated,
`
`cases in which Patent Ownerasserted the ’102 patent and/or U.S. Patent No.
`6,118,449 (Ex. 1002,“the °449 patent”), which claimspriority from the °102
`
`patent. Pet. 2~3; Paper 3, 2-4. The ’449 patent is the subject of IPR2018-
`
`01755, filed by Petitioner, which has beeninstituted. Pet. 2; Paper 3, 4;
`
`IPR2018-01755, Paper7.
`
`Petitioner identifies itself and Club Monaco Corporation, Club
`
`Monaco US LLC, Ralph Lauren Media LLC, PRL USA Holdings,Inc., and
`
`AdobeSystemsIncorporated as real parties in interest. Pet. 1. Patent Owner
`
`identifies itself as the real party in interest, and notes that Cote IP Services,
`
`LLC and Lexos Media, Inc. each own 50% ofPetitioner Lexos MediaIP,
`
`LLC’s stock. Paper4, 2.
`
`B. Overview ofthe ’102 Patent
`
`The ’102 patentis directed to “[a] system for modifying a cursor
`
`image, as displayed on a video monitor of a remote terminal, to a specific
`
`image having a desired shape and appearance.” Ex. 1001 [57]. The context
`
`of the invention relates to a graphical user interface in which a pointing
`
`device is used by the user to navigate a video display, and in which
`
`movementof the pointing device is indicated by a corresponding movement
`
`of a cursor on the video display.
`
`/d. at 8:24-37. A generic cursor may be an
`
`arrow, pointing hand, hourglass, etc. /d. at 3:57-61. The ’102 patent relates
`to changing that generic cursor by sending data and control signals from a
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01749
`Patent 5,995,102
`
`remote computer to replace such a cursor with a cursor with an appearance
`
`that is associated with other content being displayedto the user,e.g., a logo,
`
`mascot, or an image of a productor service, related to the other content
`
`being displayed to the user. Jd. at 3:4—9, 57-64, 17:5-18:3. Figure 8 of the
`
`’102 patent, reproduced below, shows a web page accordingto the
`
`invention.
`
`Welcometo S. portsNews
`
`FIG. 8
`
`Try Fizzy Cola!
`
`Get Busy With Fizzy
`
`(New Things
`
`People Finder - Email Lookup- Yellow Pages - Maps
`
`StockQuotes -oeNewsgroups«Shareware
`
`In Figure 8, web page 60ais displayed to a user, including banner ad 62 for
`
`Fizzy Cola. Jd. at 5:31-33, 13:31-41. The cursor to be used with this web
`
`page changes from a standard cursor(e.g., an arrow) to cola-bottle-shaped
`cursor 44a in association with the banner ad 62. Id.
`|
`
`The ’102 patent describes interactions between a server system and a
`
`user’s terminal to effect the cursor change. Id. at 4:4—9, 5:37-49, 5:48-65,
`
`7:16-40. The user terminal is controlled by an operating system (“OS”), and
`
`application programs such as a browserrunning onthe user terminal use an
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01749
`Patent 5,995,102
`
`application programminginterface (“API”) to interface with the OS.
`
`/d. at
`
`7:29-40, Fig. 2.
`
`The server system transmits specified content informationto the user
`
`terminal, including information to be displayed on the user’s computer (such
`
`as a hypertext markup language (“HTML”) web page), cursor display
`
`instruction, and cursor display code. Jd. at 8:4—23. The cursor display
`
`instruction indicates where the cursor image data corresponding to the new
`
`appearanceofthe cursorresides. /d. at 8:49-64. The cursor display code
`
`causesthe user’s terminal to display that cursor image data in place of the
`
`original cursor, using the API of the operating system to effect these
`
`changes. Jd. at 8:34-37, 8:52-57; 13:19-30.
`
`C. Illustrative Claims
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 70—73 of the ’102 patent, which are each
`
`independent claims. Claims 71 and 73 are reproduced below, with
`
`formatting changes for readability:
`
`Claim 71 recites:
`
`[Preamble] ' A server system for modifying a cursor
`71.
`imageto a specific image having a desired shape and appearance
`displayed on a display of a remote user’s terminal, said system
`comprising:
`[a] cursor image data correspondingto said specific image;
`[b] cursor display code, said cursor display code operable to
`modify said cursor image; and
`[c.i] a first server computer for transmitting specified content
`information
`to
`said
`remote
`user
`terminal,
`
`' The Petition provides bracketed labels for the elements of the independent
`claims. See, e.g., Pet. 30-44; Ex. 1008. For clarity, we use these labels in
`this Decision.
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01749
`Patent 5,995,102
`
`[c.1i] said specified content information including at least
`one cursor display instruction indicating a location ofsaid
`cursor imagedata,said cursor display instruction andsaid
`cursor display code operable to cause said user terminal to
`display a modified cursor image on said user’s display in
`the shape and appearance of said specific image,
`
`information is
`[c.iii] wherein said specified content
`transmitted to said remote user terminalby said first server
`computer responsive to a request from said user terminal
`for said specified content information, and wherein said
`specified
`content
`information
`further
`comprises
`information to be displayed on said display of said user’s
`terminal,
`
`[c.iv] said specific image including content corresponding
`to at least a portion of said information to be displayed on
`said display of said user’s terminal, and wherein said
`cursor display code is operable to process said cursor
`display instruction to modify said cursor image to said
`cursor image in the shape and appearanceofsaid specific
`image responsive to movementof said cursor image over
`a display of said at least a portion of said information to be
`displayed on said display of said user's terminal.
`
`Ex. 1001, 23:47-24:9.
`Claim 73 recites:
`73. [Preamble] A method for modifying an initial cursor image
`displayed on a display of a user terminal connectedto at
`least one server, comprising:
`[a] receiving a request at said at least one server to provide
`specified content information to said user terminal;
`{b] providing said specified content information to said user
`terminal in responseto said request, said specified content
`information including at
`least one
`cursor display
`instruction andat least one indication of cursor image data
`corresponding to a specific image; and
`[c.i] transforming said initial cursor image displayed on said
`display ofsaid user terminal into the shape and appearance
`of said specific image in response to said cursor display
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01749
`Patent 5,995,102
`
`instruction, wherein said specified content information
`includes informationthat is to be displayed onsaid display
`of said user’s terminal, wherein said specific image
`includes content correspondingto at least a portion ofsaid
`information that is to be displayed on said display of said
`user’s terminal, and
`
`[c.ii] wherein said cursor display instruction indicates a
`cursor display code operableto processsaid cursor display
`instruction to modify said cursor image to said cursor
`image in the shape and appearanceof said specific image
`responsive to movement of said cursor image over a
`specified location on said display of said user’s terminal.
`
`Ex. 1001, 24:37-62.
`
`D. Evidence Relied Upon by Petitioner
`
`Petitioner relies on the following references:
`
`.
`
`
`
`Anthias U.S. Patent No. 5,920,311|July 6, 1999 | Ex. 1005
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Malamudet. al.|U.S. Patent No. 6,437,800|Aug. 20, 2002
`Ex. 1004
`
`(“Malamud”)|B1 (filed Oct. 26, 1994)
`
`
`
`
`
`|
`(filed Dec. 6, 1993)
`
`
`
`
`
`Baker U.S. Patent No. 5,715,416|Feb. 3, 1998 Ex. 1007
`
`
`(filed Sept. 30, 1994)
`
`
`
`Petitioneralso relies on a declaration from Benjamin B. Bederson,
`
`Ph.D. (Ex. 1003).
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01749
`Patent 5,995,102
`
`Petitioner presents the following grounds of unpatentability, each on
`
`E. Asserted Grounds
`
`the basis of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a):
`
`
`
`
`70-73
`
`70-73
`
`Pet. 1.
`
`
`
`
`Malamudand Anthias
`
`Baker and Anthias
`
`
`
`
`Ill. DISCUSSION
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`Petitioner contends that the ’102 Patent is expired. Pet. 11; see also
`
`Ex. 1001, at [22]. “[T]he Board’s review of the claims of an expired patent
`
`is similar to that of a district court’s review.” In re Rambus Inc., 694 F.3d
`
`42, 46 (Fed. Cir. 2012). In this context, claim terms generally are given their
`ordinary and customary meaning, as understood by a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art, at the time of the invention, taking into consideration the language
`
`of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history of record
`
`because the expired claims are not subject to amendment. Phillips v. AWH
`
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-19 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`
`Only terms whichare in controversy need to be construed, and then
`only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Vivid Techs., Inc. v.
`Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Petitioner
`99 66
`
`“specific
`
`suggests interpretations for “cursor image”/ “initial cursor image,”
`33 66
`
`“modifying a cursor image” / “modified
`99 66
`
`“cursor display code,” and “cursor
`
`image”/ “specific cursor image,”
`99
`6e
`
`cursor image,”
`
`“cursor image data,”
`
`display instruction.” Pet. 12-18. In a litigation involving the ’102 patent
`
`and the °449 patent, the phrase “said specific image including content
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01749
`Patent 5,995,102
`
`correspondingto at least a portion of said information to be displayed on
`
`said display of said user’s terminal” was construed to mean “an image
`
`representative of at least a portion of the subject or topic being displayed on
`
`the screen.” Ex. 1010, 9-13. Petitioner does not request that we construe
`
`this phrase or adopt this claim construction. Pet. 12.
`
`On this record and for purposes of this Decision, we need not construe
`
`these terms at this time. See Vivid Techs, 200 F.3d at 803.
`
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Petitioner proposesthat a person ofordinary skill in the art would
`have had “at least a master’s degree in Computer Science, Computer
`
`Engineering, or a related field, or hold a bachelor’s degree in Computer
`
`Science, Computer Engineering, or equivalent and haveat least two years of
`
`relevant work experiencein the fields of UI [(user interface)] design and
`
`OSs.” Pet. 10-11. Although Petitioner cites no evidenceforthis
`
`proposition, we note that the priorart itself demonstrates the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v.
`
`Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific
`findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the priorart
`itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown”’)
`
`(quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158,
`
`163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). On this record, and for the purposes of this Decision,
`
`we adoptPetitioner’s definition.
`
`.
`
`C. Analysis ofthe Asserted Grounds
`
`1. Principles ofLaw
`
`It is a petitioner’s burden to demonstrate unpatentability. See
`
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat'l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01749
`Patent 5,995,102
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d
`
`1316, 1326-27 (Fed. Cir. 2008)).
`
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
`
`differences between the claimed subject matter and theprior art are “such
`
`that the subject matter as a whole would have been obviousat the time the
`
`invention was madeto a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`
`subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved based on underlying factual
`
`determinations, including: (1) the scope and contentofthe prior art; (2) any
`
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the priorart; (3) the level
`
`of skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness,i.e.,
`
`secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18
`
`(1966). “To satisfy its burden of proving obviousness, a petitioner cannot
`
`employ mere conclusory statements. The petitioner mustinstead articulate
`specific reasoning, based on evidence of record, to support the legal
`
`conclusion of obviousness.” Jn re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d
`
`1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016). We analyze the asserted grounds with the
`
`principles stated above in mind.
`
`2. Alleged Obviousness of Claims 70-73 over Malamud and Anthias
`
`Petitioner argues that claims 70—73 would have been obvious over a
`
`combination of Malamud and Anthias. Pet. 3149. Forthe reasons
`
`discussed below, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable
`
`likelihood that it would prevail in showing that claims 71 and 73 are
`
`unpatentable over Malamud and Anthias.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01749
`Patent 5,995,102
`
`a. Overview ofMalamud (Ex. 1004)
`
`Malamudrelates to information cursors for use in an operating system
`
`or application programs. Ex. 1004, at [57]. Each “information cursor
`
`includes a pointing 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.” Jd. One such information cursoris a
`
`“combined name andpreview cursor,” which is shown in Malamud’s Fig.4,
`
`reproduced below:
`
`|
`
`| | |
`
`|
`|
`
`i,B00K
`(CON
`
`LO
`
`JP
`
`COMBINED NAME AND 4G. 7
`
`;
`
`PREVIEW CURSOR
`
`Figure 4 illustrates combined name and preview cursor 38 pointing to book
`
`icon 32. Id. at 2:47-49, 3:36—38, 4:4-18. Combined nameand preview
`
`cursor 38 includes pointing portion 28 in the shape of an arrow pointing to
`
`book icon 32. Jd. at 3:65-68, 4:4—6, 4:8-9. Preview portion also includes
`
`name box 30, which displays the nameof the object the cursoris pointing to.
`
`Id. at 3:39-43, 4:9-13. Lastly, combined nameandpreview cursor 38
`
`1]
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01749
`Patent 5,995,102
`
`includes preview portion 36, which holds a preview ofthe contents ofthe
`
`object the cursor is pointing to.
`
`/d. at 4:14-18. Other cursors include only
`
`some ofthis information; a name cursor may includeonly the pointing
`
`portion and the name, and a preview cursor only the pointing portion and
`
`preview portion.
`
`/d. at 3:30-43, 3:59-4:3.
`
`To implementthe display of cursors, the OS of the terminal maintains
`
`a message queue for each program that generates windows, and when a
`
`mouse event occurs, such as positioning or a mouseclick, a message from
`
`the OS is placed into the queue for the program. Id. at 4:56-5:9. The
`
`application program can respond bypassing to the OS information for the
`
`cursor, e.g. a text string for a name box and a pointer to graphical
`
`information for a preview portion. Jd. at 5:47-6S.
`
`b. Overview ofAnthias (Ex. 1005)
`
`Anthias relates to a distributed windowpresentation system in which
`
`graphics data, generated in a remote system,is displayed for a user. Ex.
`
`1005, at [54], [57], 1:24-33. Anthias refers to the remote system as the
`
`client, and the user’s system as the server presentation system. Jd. 1:24-33.
`
`The remote system can associate a particular cursor type with a display area
`
`displayed at the user’s system, and different cursors can be displayed in
`
`different parts of the display area. Jd. at 4:16—-23. For example, the cursor
`
`might change shape,color, or flashing frequency as it passes from the
`
`background windowareasto an area associated with an application. Jd. at
`
`3:4-7, 4:21-24.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01749
`Patent 5,995,102
`
`c. Claims 70 and 71
`
`Claim 70 and claim 71 are identical, except with respect to limitation
`
`[c.iv] of the claims. We address these claims together, except as noted
`
`below with respect to the differences in that limitation.
`Petitioner argues that claim 70 would have been obvious over
`Malamudand Anthias. Pet. 31-44. For claim 71, Petitioner refers back to
`
`the Petition arguments for claim 70, adding only a reference to
`
`Dr. Bederson’s declaration regarding the differences. Pet. 44 (citing Ex.
`
`1003 {{ 417-420).
`
`(1) Claims 70 and 71 [Preamble]: A server system
`for modifying a cursor imageto a specific
`image having a desired shape and appearance
`displayed on a display ofa remote user’s
`terminal
`
`Petitioner argues that Malamud’s information cursor teaches the
`
`modification of a cursor to appear as a specific image having a desired shape
`
`and appearance,including an information portion, which is displayed on a
`
`user’s terminal. Pet. 31-32 (citing Ex. 1004, 3:59-4:3; Ex. 1003 Yf 116,
`
`414-416). Petitioner argues that a “server” and “remote user’s terminal” are
`
`found in Anthias’ teaching of a data processing system implemented with a
`
`client/server model, in which an application running on a remote system
`
`(denoted “client” in Anthias) controls a display on a terminal, including the
`
`use of a modified cursor in certain windowareas. Jd. at 32-33 (citing Ex.
`
`1005, 1:24-33; Ex. 1003 ff 117, 118, 414-416).
`
`Petitioner contendsthat one of ordinary skill would have combined
`
`Malamudand Anthias, as contemporary references each dealing with
`
`responding to a cursor location on a screen, in order to reduce storage
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01749
`Patent 5,995,102
`
`requirements and processing overheadat the user terminal. Jd. at 28-30
`
`(citing Ex. 1005, 2:30—34; Ex. 1003 7112.)
`
`On this record, we determine that Petitioner has established
`
`| sufficiently, for purposes of this Decision, that one of ordinary skill in theart
`at the time of the invention would have combined Malamud and Anthias,
`
`and that the combination of Malamud and Anthias teaches or suggests the
`
`recitations in the preamble of claim 70 and of claim 71.
`
`(2) Claims 70 and 71 [a]: cursor image data
`corresponding to said specific image
`Petitioner argues that Malamudteacheslimitation [a]. Pet. 35-36.
`
`Petitioner argues that Malamuddiscloses that the graphical preview portion
`
`of its information cursor is stored as a bitmap.
`
`/d. (citing Ex. 1004, 5:16-18,
`
`5:59-62; Ex. 1003 Jf 122, 414-416). Petitioner contends that the pointers to
`
`the bitmaps teach the cursor image data of limitation [a]. Jd.
`
`On this record, we determine that Petitioner has established
`
`sufficiently, for purposes of this Decision, that the combination of Malamud
`
`and Anthias teaches or suggests the recitations in limitation [a] of claim 70
`
`and claim 71.
`
`(3) Claims 70 and 71 [b]: cursor display code, said
`cursor display code operably [claim 71:
`operable] to modify said cursor image
`
`Petitioner contends Malamud’s conventional OS would be understood
`
`by a person of ordinary skill in the art to “include[] functions or applications
`
`to display and modify graphics” on the user interface including cursors. Pet.
`
`36-37 (citing Ex. 1004, 3:6-8, 5:47-53, Fig. 6; Ex. 1003 9f 125, 414-416).
`
`Petitioner specifically notes Malamud’s discussion relating to how cursor
`
`display is effectuated, in which a window procedure “passes a message to
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01749
`Patent 5,995,102
`
`the operating system.. . that tells the operating system what type of cursor
`to display and sets forth the contents and type of information to be displayed
`in the cursor.” /d. at 37 (quoting Ex. 1004, 5:49-52). Thus, Petitioner
`
`argues that the functions or applications in the OS that display the cursors
`
`teach the cursor display code operable to modify the cursor image. Jd. at
`
`36-37.
`
`On this record, we determinethat Petitioner has established
`
`sufficiently, for purposes of this Decision, that the combination of Malamud
`and Anthias teaches or suggests the recitations in limitation [b] of claim 70
`
`and of claim 71.
`
`(4) Claims 70 and 71 [c.i]: a first server computer
`for transmitting specified content information
`to said remote user terminal
`
`Petitioner argues that the combination of Malamud and Anthias
`teaches limitation [c.i], as Malamudteaches that a window procedure
`
`transmits a message (analogized to “the specified content information”) to
`
`the OS, which employs functionsor applications to display the information
`
`portion of an information cursor. Pet. 37-38 (citing Ex. 1004, 4:53-54,
`
`5:53—57, Ex. 1003 ff] 129-130, 414-416). With respect to the transmission
`
`from a first server computerfor display by a remote user terminal, Petitioner
`refers to its arguments regarding Anthias’s teachings regarding the preamble
`
`of claim 70. Pet. 38.
`
`Onthis record, we determinethat Petitioner has established
`
`sufficiently, for purposes of this Decision, that the combination of Malamud
`
`and Anthias teaches or suggests the recitations in limitation [c.i] of claim 70
`
`and of claim 71.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01749
`Patent 5,995,102
`
`(5) Claims 70 and 71 [c.ii]: said specified content
`information including at least one cursor
`display instruction indicating a location ofsaid
`cursor image data, said cursor display
`instruction and said cursor display code
`operable to cause said user terminal to display
`a modified cursor image on said user’s display
`in the shape and appearance ofsaid specific
`image
`
`Petitioner, as discussed, argues that the “cursor image data”
`
`corresponds to Malamud’s preview portion of an information cursor, which
`
`is stored as a bitmap. See supra § III.C.2.c.2 (discussing limitation [a]).
`
`Consistently, Petitioner contendsthat the pointer to the location of that
`
`bitmap for the preview portion, described by Malamudas being transmitted
`
`from the window procedure to the OS, teaches or suggests limitation [c.1i]’s
`
`“at least one cursor display instruction indicating a location of said cursor
`
`image data.” Pet. 39-40 (citing Ex. 1004, 5:57-62; Ex. 1003 Jf 136, 414—-
`
`416). Petitioner additionally notes that this pointer and the functions or
`
`applications in the OS (whichPetitioner argues teaches cursor display code,
`
`as discussed supra § III.C.2.c.3) operate together to cause the display of a
`
`modified cursor image including the preview portion. Pet. 37 (citing Ex.
`
`1004, 3:6-8, 4:53-55, 5:47-57, Fig. 6; Ex. 1003 J] 134, 414-416).
`
`On this record, we determine that Petitioner has established
`
`sufficiently, for purposes of this Decision, that the combination of Malamud
`
`and Anthias teaches or suggeststhe recitationsin limitation [c.ii] of claim 70
`
`and of claim 71.
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01749
`Patent 5,995,102
`
`(6) Claims 70 and 71 [c.iii]: wherein said
`specified content information is transmitted to
`said remote user terminal by saidfirst server
`computer responsive to a requestfrom said
`user terminalfor said specified content
`information, and wherein said specified content
`information further comprises information to be
`displayed on said display ofsaid user’s
`terminal
`
`Petitioner argues, regarding limitations [c.i] and [c.ii], that the
`
`message transmitted by a window procedure to the OS in Malamudteaches
`
`the transmission of specified content information. See supra § III.C.2.c.4
`and § III.C.2.c.5. Consistent with those arguments, with respectto limitation
`
`[c.iii], Petitioner argues that that transmission is responsiveto the use of the
`
`mouse to move a cursorposition within a given window,which causesthe
`
`OS to generate and send a message requesting that the program’s window
`
`procedure send a message back identifying information regarding the cursor
`
`to be displayed. Pet. 40-41 (citing Ex. 1004, 5:7-10, 5:22~—28). Petitioner
`
`contends that the movementof the cursor position teaches the request by the
`
`user terminal (OS)to the first server computer (window procedure) for
`
`content information. Jd.
`
`Petitioner additionally notes that the message in Malamud transmitted
`
`by the window procedure to the OS also, in the case of a combined name
`
`and preview cursor, includes the nameofthe object the cursoris pointing to,
`
`to be displayed in the information cursor of Malamud. Pet. 41 (citing Ex.
`
`1004, 4:4-17; Ex. 1003 J] 140, 414-416.) Petitioner thus argues that the
`
`“information to be displayed on said display of said user’s terminal”is
`
`taught or suggested by the nameportion of the preview cursor. Jd.
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01749
`Patent 5,995,102
`
`On this record, we determine that Petitioner has established
`
`sufficiently, for purposes of this Decision, that the combination of Malamud
`
`and Anthias teaches or suggests the recitations in limitation [c.1ii] of claim
`
`70 and of claim 71.
`
`(7) Claim 70 [c.iv]: said specific image including
`content corresponding to at least a portion of
`said information to be displayed on said display
`ofsaid user’s terminal, and wherein said cursor
`display code is operable to process said cursor
`display instruction to modify said cursor image
`to said cursor image in the shape and
`appearance ofsaid specific image responsive to
`movementofsaid cursor image over a display
`ofsaid at least a portion ofsaid information to
`be displayed on said display ofsaid user’s
`terminal
`
`Limitation [c.iv] is different in claim 70 and claim 71, and we address
`
`them separately.
`
`Petitioner argues, similarly to the arguments presented above with
`
`reference to cursor display code, that the functions and applications of the
`
`OSare used to display cursors “in their initial, standard forms[,] as well as
`
`any subsequent modifications.” Pet. at 42-43 (citing Ex. 1004, 5:59-62; Ex.
`
`1003 Jf 144-145, 414-416.) Petitioner contends that Malamud’s
`
`information cursors, when pointing to an object displayed on the screen, are
`
`modified so that the modified cursor’s preview portion displays a preview of
`
`the contents of that object. Pet. 43-44 (citing Ex. 1004, 3:61-63).
`
`Limitation [c.iv] of claim 70 requires that the cursor display is
`
`modified “responsive to movementofsaid cursor image overa display of
`
`- said at least a portion of said information to be displayed onsaid display of
`
`said user’s terminal.” The Petition, as discussed with respectto limitation
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01749
`Patent 5,995,102
`
`[c.1ii], argues that the “said information to be displayed on said display of
`
`said user’s terminal” is the name of the object to be displayed in a combined
`
`nameand preview cursor. Pet. 41. The Petition does not explain for this
`
`limitation how a cursor image can be moved “overa display of” any portion
`
`of the name of the object displayed in the modified cursor.
`
`On this record, Petitioner has not established sufficiently, for purposes
`
`of this Decision, that the combination of Malamud and Anthias teaches or
`
`suggests the recitations in limitation [c.iv] of claim 70.
`
`(8) Claim 71 [c.iv]: said specific image including
`content corresponding to at least a portion of
`said information to be displayed on said display
`ofsaid user’s terminal, and wherein said cursor
`display code is operable to process said cursor
`display instruction to modify said cursor image
`to said cursor image in the shape and
`appearance ofsaid specific image responsive to
`movementofsaid cursor image over a specified
`location on said display ofsaid user’s terminal
`
`Asdiscussed above,Petitioner contends that claim 71 is unpatentable
`
`for the same reasons provided for the unpatentability of claim 70. Pet. 44.
`
`However, claim 71 describes modification of the cursor “responsive to a
`
`movement of said cursor image over a specified location on said display of
`
`said user’s terminal” and not, as in claim 70, responsive to movement“over
`a display ofsaid at least a portion of said information to be displayed on said
`
`display of said user’s terminal,” which display the Petition contendsis
`
`taught by a display of name information in a name and preview cursor
`
`according to Malamud. Petitioner’s contentions regarding the preview
`
`cursor being modified whenthe cursor is moved to point to an object
`
`displayed on the screen do not contain the same flaws noted with respect to
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01749
`Patent 5,995,102
`
`claim 70. As noted above,Petitioner contends that Malamud’s information
`
`cursor, when pointing to an object displayed on the screen, modifies the
`
`cursor so that the modified cursor’s preview portion displays a preview of
`
`the contents of that object. Jd. at 41 (citing Ex. 1004, 3:61-63).
`
`For purposes of this Decision, we determine that the combination of
`
`Malamud and Anthias teaches or suggests the recitations in limitation [c.iv]
`
`of claim 71.
`
`(9) Claims 70 and 71 - Conclusion
`
`Wedetermine on this record Petitioner has not shown a reasonable
`
`likelihood of prevailing in its contention that claim 70 is unpatentable as
`
`obvious over Malamudand Anthias, but that Petitioner has shown a
`
`reasonablelikelihood of prevailing in its contention that claim 71 is
`
`unpatentable as obvious over Malamud and Anthias.
`
`d. Claims 72 and 73
`
`Claim 72 is an independent method claim, which Petitioner arguesis
`
`unpatentable using similar logic and citations as those provided for claim 70.
`
`Pet. 44-49. Claim 73 is identical to claim 72, except for a difference in
`
`limitation [c.1i].
`
`As with claim 70, Petitioner argues that the claim term “specified
`
`content information further includes information that is to be displayed on
`
`said display of said user’s terminal”is taught or suggested by the name of
`
`the object, which is displayed in the combined name and preview cursor of
`
`Malamud.
`
`/d. at 48 (citing Ex. 1004, 4:4-17, 5:54-62). And as with
`
`Petitioner’s argumentsrelating to claim 70, Petitioner’s argument regarding
`
`claim 72 does not explain how,in light of that reading, the modification of
`
`the cursor image would occur “responsive to movementof said cursor image
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01749
`Patent 5,995,102
`
`over a display of said at least a portion of said information to be displayed
`
`on said display of said user’s terminal” — that is to say, how Malamud
`
`teaches the movementof a cursor image overthe display of a portion of the
`
`cursor image.
`
`Claim 73, however, like claim 71, recites in limitation [c.ii] that the
`
`cursor image is modified “in response to movementof said cursor image
`
`over a specified location on said display of said user’s terminal” and
`
`Petitioner arguesthat this is taught or suggested by Malamud and Anthias.
`
`Pet. 49.
`
`|
`
`On this record, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of
`
`prevailing in its contention that claim 72 is unpatentable as obvious over
`Malamud and Anthias, but Petitioner has shown a reasonablelikelihood of
`
`prevailing in its contention that claim 73 is unpatentable as obvious over
`
`Malamudand Anthias.
`
`e. Conclusion Regarding Ground Asserting Obviousness
`of Claims 70-73 over Malamud and Anthias
`
`With respect to this ground, we determine that Petitioner has
`
`established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showingthat
`
`claims 71 and 73 are unpatentable. With respect to claims 70 and 72, on this
`
`record, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likeli
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
