Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 7
`Entered: March 29, 2019
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`RALPH LAUREN CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`LEXOS MEDIAIP, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2018-01755
`Patent 6,118,449
`
`Before PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN,J. JOHN LEE, and SHARON FENICK,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`FENICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 7
`Entered: March 29, 2019
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`RALPH LAUREN CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`LEXOS MEDIAIP, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2018-01755
`Patent 6,118,449
`
`Before PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN,J. JOHN LEE, and SHARON FENICK,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`FENICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01755
`Patent 6,118,449
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Ralph Lauren Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 2,
`
`“Pet.”), requesting an inter partes review of claims 1-3, 5—7, 12-15, 27-29,
`
`31-33, 38-41, 53-56, 58-63, 72-75, and 77-82 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,118,449 (Ex. 1002, “the ’449 patent”). Lexos Media IP, LLC (“Patent
`
`Owner’) waivedits right to file a preliminary response. Paper6.
`
`Wehave authority 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 determine that 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 made for the sole purpose
`
`of determining whetherthe Petition meets the threshold for initiating review.
`
`This decisionto institute trial is not a final decision as to the patentability of
`
`any challenged claim or the construction of any claim limitation. Anyfinal
`
`decision will be based on the full record developed during trial.
`
`Il.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`A. Real Parties in Interest and Related Proceedings
`
`Petitioner and Patent Ownereach indicate that the 449 patentis at
`
`issue in: Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Ralph Lauren Corporation et al., No. 1:17-
`
`cv-01319-LPS (D. Del.). Pet. 1; Paper 4, 2. Petitioner and Patent Owner
`additionally indicate that the ’449 patentis at issue in: Lexos Media IP, LLC
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01755
`Patent 6,118,449
`
`v. Jos A Bank Clothiers, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-01317 (D. Del). Pet. 1; Paper 4,
`
`2. Patent Owner additionally indicates that the ’449 patentis 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 4, 2-3. Along with these pendinglitigations,
`
`Petitioner and Patent Owner describe or list additional, now-terminated,
`
`cases in which Patent Ownerasserted the ’449 patent and/or U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,995,102 (Ex. 1001, “the ’102 patent’), from which the ’449 patent claims
`
`priority. Pet. 2-3; Paper 4, 2-4. The ’102 patent is the subject of IPR2018-
`
`01749, filed by Petitioner, in which a decision oninstitution is pending. Pet.
`
`2, Paper 4,4.
`
`Petitioner identifies itself and Club Monaco Corporation, Club
`
`Monaco US LLC, Ralph Lauren Media LLC, PRL USA Holdings,Inc., and
`
`Adobe Systems Incorporated as real parties in interest. Pet. 1-2. Patent
`
`Owneridentifies itself as the real party in interest, and notes that Cote IP
`
`Services, LLC and Lexos Media, Inc. each own 50% of Petitioner Lexos
`
`Media IP, LLC’s stock. Paper4, 2.
`
`B. Overview ofthe '449 Patent
`
`The ’449 patent is 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
`
`' Ex. 1001 is the ’102 patent, which appears to have an identical
`specification to the ’449 patent, excepting the claim ofpriority (Ex. 1002,
`1:45) and the claims. For consistency with the petition in IPR2018-01749,
`Petitioner’s citations to the identical portions of the specification are to the
`’102 patent’s specification. Pet. 2 n.2. We adopt this convention.
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01755
`Patent 6,118,449
`
`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. Jd. at 8:24-37. A generic cursor may be an
`
`arrow, pointing hand, hourglass, etc. Jd. at 3:57-61. The ’449 patent relates
`
`to changing that generic cursor by sending data and control signals from a
`
`remote computer to replace such a cursor with a cursor with an appearance
`
`that is associated with other content being displayed to the user, e.g., a logo,
`
`mascot, or an image ofa productorservice, related to the other content
`
`being displayed to the user. Jd. at 3:4—9, 17:5-18:3. Figure 8 of the ’449
`
`patent, reproduced below, shows a web page according to the invention.
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`
` Welcome igSP:portsNews
`= cit
`—
`clelseiaiSiniglslel@l1a! a
`
`
`[Enter|
`a)
`Try Fizzy Cola!
`Get Busy With Fizzy
`
`————
`
`
`
`
`
`News
`
`Stocks
`
`IV
`
`Weather
`
`
`
`SearchTime
`CC Bae Sas
`
`foeFinder -
`EmallLookup« YellowPages - Maps
`+BookFlights - Newsgroups + Shareware
` Arts&Entertainment
`[ChannelBySearchit=By Searchit!
`M
`inne!
`
`in
`i
`
`
` Careers&Education ft
`
`
`Computers & Internet
`Politics
`Games
`i
`
`ience
`
`
` Lifestyle
`
`
`
`
`FIG. 8
`
`In Figure 8, web page 60ais displayed to a user, including banner ad 62 for
`
`cola. Id. at 13:31-37. 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.
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01755
`Patent 6,118,449
`
`- The ’449 patent describes interactions between a server system and a
`
`user’s terminal to effect the cursor change. Jd. at 4:4-9, 5:37-49, 5:48-65,
`
`7:16-40. The user terminalis controlled by an operating system (“OS”), and
`
`application programs such as a browser running on the user terminal use an
`
`application programming interface (“API”) to interface with the OS. Jd. at
`
`7:29-40, Fig. 2.
`
`The server system transmits specified content information to 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. Jd. at 8:49-64. The cursor display code
`causes the user’s terminal to display that cursor image data in place ofthe
`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 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, of which claims1, 27,
`
`53, and 72 are independent. Claims 27 and 53 are reproduced below, with
`
`formatting changes for readability:
`
`Claim 27 recites:
`27.
`[Preamble] * A server system for modifying a cursor
`imageto a specific image having a desired shape and appearance
`
`* The Petition provides bracketed labels for the elements of the independent
`claims. See, e.g., Pet. 30-44; Ex. 1009. For clarity, we use these labels in
`this Decision.
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01755
`Patent 6,118,449
`
`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 user_terminal,to said remote
`
`
`
`
`
`[c.ii] said specified content information includingatleast
`one cursordisplay instruction indicating a location ofsaid
`cursor image data, said cursor display instruction and said
`cursor display code operable to cause said user terminalto
`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 terminalbysaid 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 imageto said
`cursor image in the shape and appearanceofsaid specific
`image in response to movementofsaid 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, and
`wherein said specific image relates to at least a portion of
`said information to be displayed on said display of said
`remote user’s terminal.
`
`Ex. 1002, 18:39-19:6.
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01755
`Patent 6,118,449
`
`Claim 53 recites:
`53. [Preamble] A method for modifying an initial cursor image
`displayed on a display of a user terminal connected to 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 response to said request, said specified content
`information including at
`least one
`cursor display
`instruction and at 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 terminalinto the shape and appearance
`of said specific image in response to said cursor display
`instruction, wherein said specified content information
`includes informationthatis to be displayed on said 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 operable to processsaid cursordisplay
`instruction to modify said cursor image to said cursor
`image in the shape and appearance ofsaid specific image
`in response to movement of said cursor image over a
`specified location on said display of said user’s terminal,
`and wherein said specific image has a shape and
`appearancerelating to said information to be displayed.
`
`Ex. 1002, 22:29-58.
`
`D. Evidence Relied Upon by Petitioner
`
`Petitioner relies on the following references:
`
`(filed Oct. 26, 1994)
`
`Reference
`
`Malamudet. al.|U.S. Patent No. 6,437,800|Aug. 20, 2002 Ex. 1004
`
`
`(“Malamud”)
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01755
`Patent 6,118,449
`
`
`
`
`
`Reference
`Exhibit
`
`
`Anthias U.S. Patent No. 5,920,311|July 6, 1999 Ex. 1005
`(filed Dec. 6, 1993)
`
`
`
`Nielsen U.S. Patent No. 5,991,781|Nov. 23, 1999 Ex. 1006
`
`(filed Sept. 27, 1996)
`.
`
`
`(filed Sept. 30, 1994)
`
`
`Petitioner also relies on a declaration from Benjamin B. Bederson,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Baker U.S. Patent No. 5,715,416|Feb. 3, 1998 Ex. 1007
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ph.D. (Ex. 1003).
`
`Petitioner presents the following grounds of unpatentability, each on
`
`E. Asserted Grounds
`
`the basis of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a):
`
`Claims Challenged
`1, 7, 15, 27, 33, 41, 53, 54, 63,
`72, 73, 82
`12, 14, 38, 40, 60, 62, 79, 81
`
`.
`Malamud and Anthias
`Malamud, Anthias, and Nielsen
`
`2, 3, 5, 6, 28, 29, 31, 32, 55, 56,
`58, 59, 74, 75, 77, 78
`13,7 39, 61, 80
`
`.
`Malamud, Anthias, and Baker
`Malamud, Anthias, Nielsen, and Baker
`
`
`
`1, 7, 15, 27, 33, 41, 53, 54, 63,
`72, 73, 82
`12, 14, 38, 40, 60, 62, 79, 81
`
`.
`Baker and Anthias
`Baker, Anthias, and Nielsen
`
`Pet. 1.
`
`_ > Petitionerrefers to claim 3, not claim 13, in its table listing the grounds and
`references, but this appears to be a typographical mistake. Compare Pet. |
`with id. at 52-53.
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01755
`Patent 6,118,449
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`Petitioner contendsthat the ’449 Patent is expired. Pet. 11; see also
`
`Ex. 1002, 1; Ex. 1012, 135-138 (terminal disclaimerto the term of the ’102
`
`patent); Ex. 1001, at [22]. “[T]he Board’s review ofthe claims of an expired
`
`patentis 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 languageof 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 which are 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
`29 <¢
`
`“specific
`
`suggests interpretations for “cursor image” / “initial cursor image,”
`39 66
`
`“modifying a cursor image” / “modified
`39 66
`
`“cursor display code,” and “cursor
`
`image”/ “specific cursor image,”
`29
`66
`
`cursor image,”
`
`“cursor image data,”
`
`display instruction.” Pet. 12-18.
`
`Ina litigation involving the ’102 patent
`
`and the 449 patent, the phrase “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” 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.
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01755
`Patent 6,118,449
`
`On this record and for purposes of this Decision, we do not see where
`
`any argument regarding the grounds proposedbythe Petition requires these
`
`constructions, and thus, we decline to construe these termsatthis time. See
`
`Vivid Techs, 200 F.3d at 803.
`
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary 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 evidence for this
`
`proposition, we note that the priorart itself demonstrates the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajimav.
`
`Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific
`
`findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “wherethe prior art
`
`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 purposesof this Decision,
`
`we adopt Petitioner’s definition.
`
`C. Analysis ofthe Asserted Grounds
`
`1. Principles ofLaw
`It is a petitioner’s burden to demonstrate unpatentability. See
`
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC vy. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378
`(Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d
`
`1316, 1326-27 (Fed. Cir. 2008)).
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01755
`Patent 6,118,449
`
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)if the
`
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are “such
`
`that the subject matter as a whole would have been obviousat the time the
`
`invention was madeto a person havingordinary 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 obviousnessis 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).
`
`“Tosatisfy 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.” In 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 1, 7, 15, 27, 33, 41,
`53, 54, 63, 72, 73, and 82 over Malamud and Anthias
`
`Petitioner argues that claims 1, 7, 15, 27, 33, 41, 53, 54, 63, 72, 73,
`
`and 82 would have been obvious over a combination of Malamud and
`Anthias. Pet. 30-46. For the reasons discussed below, we determine that
`Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in
`showing that claims 27, 33, 41, 72, and 82 are unpatentable over Malamud
`and Anthias.
`
`a. Overview ofMalamud (Ex. 1004)
`
`Malamudrelates to information cursors for use in an operating system
`
`or application programs. Ex. 1004, at [57]. “[An] information cursor
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01755
`Patent 6,118,449
`
`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:
`
`TT Tipe
`|
`DISPLAY
`
`|
`
`ILBOOK
`CON
`
`LB
`
`| |
`
`|
`
`IPCOMBINED NAME AND YG 7
`
`PREVIEW CURSOR
`
`Figure 4 illustrates combined nameandpreview cursor 38 pointing to book
`icon 32. Jd. at 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 nameofthe object the cursoris pointing to. Jd. at 3:39-43, 4:9-
`
`|
`
`13. Lastly, combined nameandpreview cursor 38 includes preview portion
`36, which holds a preview ofthe contents of the object the cursor is pointing
`
`to. Id. at 4:14-18. Other cursors include only someofthis information; a
`
`name cursor may include only the pointing portion and the name, and a
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01755
`Patent 6,118,449
`
`preview cursor only the pointing portion and preview portion. Jd. 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. Jd. at 4:56-5:9. The
`
`application program can respond bypassing to the OS informationfor the
`
`cursor, e.g. a text string for a name box and a pointer to graphical
`
`information for a preview portion. Jd. at 5:47-65.
`
`b. Overview ofAnthias (Ex. 1005)
`
`Anthiasrelates to a distributed window presentation 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. Id. 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, 4:21-23.
`
`c. Claims 1 and 27
`
`Claim 1 and claim 27 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 1 would have been obvious over Malamud
`
`and Anthias. Pet. 30-38. For claim 27, Petitioner refers back to the Petition
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01755
`Patent 6,118,449
`
`arguments for claim 1, adding only a reference to Dr. Bederson’s declaration
`
`regarding the differences. Pet. 39 (citing Ex. 1003 4 156-160).
`
`(1) Claims 1 and 27 [Preamble]: A server system
`for modifying a cursor image to 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 appearas a specific image having a desired shape
`and appearance,including an information portion, whichis displayed on a
`
`user’s terminal. Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1004, 3:59-4:3; Ex. 1003
`
`116).
`
`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 window areas. Jd. at 31 (citing Ex. 1005,
`
`1:24-33; Ex. 1003 4§ 117, 118).
`
`Petitioner contendsthat one of ordinary skill would have combined
`
`Malamud and Anthias, as contemporary references each dealing with
`
`responding to a cursor location on a screen, in order to reduce storage
`
`requirements and processing overheadat the user terminal. /d. at 27-28, 31
`
`(citing Ex. 1005, 2:30-34; Ex. 1003 ff] 112, 117.)
`
`Onthis record, we determine that Petitioner has established
`
`sufficiently, for purposes of this Decision, that one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`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 1 and of claim 27.
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01755
`Patent 6,118,449
`
`(2) Claims 1 and 27 [a]: cursor image data
`corresponding to said specific image
`Petitioner argues that Malamudteacheslimitation [a]. Pet. 32.
`
`Petitioner argues that Malamuddisclosesthat the graphical preview portion
`
`of its information cursoris stored as a bitmap.
`
`/d. (citing Ex. 1004, 5:16-18,
`
`5:59-62; Ex. 1003 ¥ 122). Petitioner contendsthat the pointers tothe
`bitmapsteach 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 1
`
`and claim 27.
`
`(3) Claims 1 and 27 [b]; cursor display code, said
`cursor display code operable to modify said
`cursor image
`
`Petitioner contends Malamud’s conventional OS would be understood
`
`by a person ofordinary skill in the art to “include[] functions or applications
`
`to display and modify graphics” on the user interface including cursors. Pet.
`
`32-33 (citing Ex. 1004, 3:6-8, 5:47-53, Fig. 6; Ex. 1003 § 122). Petitioner
`
`specifically notes Malamud’s discussion relating to how cursor display is
`
`effectuated, in which a window procedure “passes a messageto 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 displayedin
`the cursor.” Jd. at 33 (quoting Ex. 1004, 5:49-52). Thus, Petitioner argues
`that the functionsor applications in the OS that display the cursors teach the
`cursor display code operable to modify the cursor image. Jd. at 32-33.
`
`On this record, we determinethat Petitioner has established
`
`sufficiently, for purposes ofthis Decision, that the combination of Malamud
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01755
`Patent 6,118,449
`
`and Anthias teaches or suggests the recitations in limitation [b] of claim 1
`
`and of claim 27.
`
`(4) Claims 1 and 27 [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 functions or applications to display the information
`
`portion of an information cursor. Pet. 33-34 (citing Ex. 1004, 4:53—54,
`
`5:53-57, Ex. 1003 44 129-130). With respect to the transmission from a
`
`first server computer for display by a remote user terminal, Petitioner refers
`
`to its arguments regarding Anthias’s teachings regarding the preamble of
`
`claim 1. Pet. 34.
`
`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 recitations in limitation [c.i] of claim |
`
`and of claim 27.
`
`(5) Claims 1 and 27 [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 appearanceofsaid 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]).
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01755
`Patent 6,118,449
`
`Consistently, Petitioner contends that the pointer to the location of that
`
`bitmap for the preview portion, described by Malamudas being transmitted
`
`from the window procedureto the OS, teaches or suggests limitation [c.ii]’s
`
`“at least one cursor display instruction indicating a location of said cursor
`
`image data.” Pet. 34 (citing Ex. 1004, 5:57-62; Ex. 1003 4 136). Petitioner
`
`additionally notes that this pointer and the functions or applicationsin the
`
`OS (which Petitioner 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. 34-35 (citing Ex. 1004, 3:6-8,
`
`4:53-55, 5:47-57, Fig. 6; Ex. 1003 § 134).
`
`Onthis 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.1i] of claim 1
`
`and of claim 27.
`
`(6) Claims 1 and 27 [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 procedureto the OS in Malamudteaches
`
`‘ the transmission of specified content information. See supra § IUL.C.2.4 and
`
`§ III.C.2.5. Consistent with those arguments, with respect to limitation
`
`[c.iii], Petitioner argues that that transmission is responsiveto the use ofthe
`
`mouse to movea cursorposition within a given window,which causesthe
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01755
`Patent 6,118,449
`
`OSto generate and send a message requesting that the program’s window
`
`procedure send a messageback identifying information regarding the cursor
`
`to be displayed. Pet. 35-36 (citing Ex. 1004, 5:7-10, 5:22-28). Petitioner
`
`contends that the movementofthe 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 Malamudtransmitted
`
`by the windowprocedure to the OS also, in the case of a combined name
`
`and preview cursor, includes the nameof the object the cursoris pointingto,
`
`to be displayed in the information cursor of Malamud. Pet. 36 (citing Ex.
`
`1004, 4:4-17; Ex. 1003 § 140.) Petitioner thus arguesthat 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.
`
`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.iii] of claim |
`
`and of claim 27.
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01755
`Patent 6,118,449
`
`(7) Claim 1 [c.iv]: said specific image including
`content correspondingto 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
`appearanceofsaid specific image in response
`to movement ofsaid cursor image over a
`display ofsaid at least a portion ofsaid
`information to be displayed on said display of
`said user’s terminal, and wherein said specific
`image relates to at least a portion ofsaid
`information to be displayed on said display of
`said remote user’s terminal
`
`Limitation [c.iv] is different in claim 1 and claim 27, and we address
`
`them separately.
`
`Petitioner argues, similarly to the arguments presented above with
`
`reference to cursor display code, that the functions and applications ofthe
`
`OS are used to display cursors “in their initial, standard forms[,] as well as
`
`any subsequent modifications.” Jd. at 37-38 (citing Ex. 1004, 5:59-62; Ex.
`
`1003 F§ 144-145.) Petitioner contends that Malamud’s information cursors,
`
`whenpointing to an object displayed on the screen, are modified so that the
`
`modified cursor’s preview portion displays a preview ofthe contents of that
`
`object. Pet. 38 (citing Ex. 1004, 3:61—63).
`
`Limitation [c.iv] of claim 1 requires that the cursor display is modified
`
`“in response to movementofsaid cursor image overa display ofsaid at least
`
`a portion of said information to be displayed on said display of said user’s
`
`terminal.” The Petition, as discussed with respect to limitation [c.iii], argues
`
`that the “said information to be displayed on said display of said user’s
`
`terminal”is the nameofthe object to be displayed in a combined name and
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01755
`Patent 6,118,449
`
`preview cursor. Pet. 36. The Petition does not explain forthis limitation
`how a cursor image can be moved “over a display of” any portion of the
`nameof the object displayed in the modified cursor.
`_ Onthis record, Petitioner has not established sufficiently, for purposes
`of this Decision, that the combination of Malamud and Anthias teachesor
`
`suggests the recitations in limitation [c.iv] of claim 1.
`
`(8) Claim 27 [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
`appearanceofsaid specific image in response
`to movementofsaid cursor image over a
`specified location on said display ofsaid user’s
`terminal, and wherein said specific image
`relates to at least a portion ofsaid information
`to be displayed on said display ofsaid remote
`user's terminal
`
`Asdiscussed above,Petitioner contends that claim 27 is unpatentable
`
`for the same reasonsprovided for the unpatentability of claim 1. Pet. 39.
`
`However, claim 27 describes modification of the cursor “in response to a
`
`movementofsaid cursor image overa specified location on said display of
`
`said user’s terminal” and not, as in claim 1, in response to movement “over a
`
`display of said 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 movedto point to an object
`
`displayed on the screen do not contain the same flaws noted with respect to
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01755
`Patent 6,118,449
`
`claim 1. 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 38 (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 27.
`
`(9) Claims I and 27 - Conclusion
`
`Wedetermine onthis record Petitioner has not shown a reasonable
`
`likelihood of prevailing in its contention that claim | is unpatentable as
`
`obvious over Malamudand Anthias, but that Petitioner has shown a
`
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its contention that claim 27 is
`
`unpatentable as obvious over Malamuda
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
