Download pdf - Rackspace v Rotatable Tech IPR Ruling

[email protected] Paper 10

571-272-7822 Entered: October 1, 2013

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

____________

RACKSPACE HOSTING, INC.

Petitioner,

v.

ROTATABLE TECHNOLOGIES LLC

Patent Owner

Case IPR2013-00248

Patent 6,326,978

Before MICHAEL P. TIERNEY, MICHAEL W. KIM, and MIRIAM L. QUINN,

Administrative Patent Judges.

KIM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION

Institution of Inter Partes Review

37 C.F.R. § 42.108

tarekfahmi

Typewritten Text

IPR2013-00248 Rackspace v. Rotatable Tech. Rotatable Technologies Ex. 2002

Case IPR2013-00248

Patent 6,326,978

2

I. INTRODUCTION

Rackspace Hosting, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a petition requesting inter partes

review of claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 6,326,978 (Ex. 1001, “the ’978 patent”).

Paper 2, “Pet.” Rotatable Technologies LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a preliminary

response. Paper 9, “Prelim. Resp.” We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314.

The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C.

§ 314(a) which provides as follows:

THRESHOLD -- The Director may not authorize an inter partes

review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the

information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any

response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable

likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of

the claims challenged in the petition.

Upon consideration of the petition and Patent Owner’s preliminary response,

we determine that the information presented by Petitioner has established that there

is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in showing the unpatentability

of claims 1-18 of the ’978 patent. Accordingly, we grant the petition and institute

an inter partes review of these claims.

A. Related Proceedings

Both Petitioner and Patent Owner indicate that the ’978 patent was asserted

against Petitioner in a co-pending litigation captioned Rotatable Tech., LLC v.

Petroleum Geo-Services, Inc., Case No. 2:13-cv-00177 (E.D. Tex.). Pet. 1; Paper

8, Related Matters, at 2. Both Petitioner and Patent Owner further indicate that the

following litigations also involve the ʼ978 patent:

Rotatable Tech., LLC v. Acer Am. Corp., 2:12-cv-00263 (E.D. Tex.)

Case IPR2013-00248

Patent 6,326,978

3

Rotatable Tech., LLC v. Nokia Inc., 2:12-cv-00265 (E.D. Tex.)

Rotatable Tech., LLC v. Apple Inc., 2:12-cv-00292 (E.D. Tex.)

Rotatable Tech., LLC v. HTC Am., Inc., 2:12-cv-00718 (E.D. Tex.)

Rotatable Tech., LLC v. Citgo Petroleum Corp., 2:13-cv-00108 (E.D. Tex.)

Rotatable Tech., LLC v. Fossil Inc., 2:13-cv-00109 (E.D. Tex.)

Rotatable Tech., LLC v. Lennox Indus., LLC, 2:13-cv-00110 (E.D. Tex.)

Rotatable Tech., LLC v. The Variable Annuity Life Insur. Co., 2:13-cv-

00111 (E.D. Tex.)

Rotatable Tech., LLC v. Burns & McDonnell, Inc., 2:13-cv-00215 (E.D.

Tex.)

Rotatable Tech., LLC v. Blastro, Inc., 2:13-cv-00262 (E.D. Tex.)

(Pet. 1; Prelim. Resp. 2.)

B. The ’978 Patent

The subject matter of the ’978 patent relates to graphical user interfaces

(“GUIs”) and display methods for selectively rotating windows on a computer

display. Ex. 1001, 1:7-10. According to the ’978 patent, a typical computer

system contains a computer, a keyboard, an input device such as a mouse, and a

display monitor. Ex. 1001, 1:21-23. An operating system and application

programs running on the computer generate GUIs that are displayed on the display

monitor or screen. Ex. 1001, 1:28-31. These GUIs are referred to commonly as

“windows.” Ex. 1001, 1:31. The screen may contain one window or multiple

windows, depending on the circumstances and user preferences. Ex. 1001, 1:31-

33. A window typically includes a frame and a display portion surrounded by the

Case IPR2013-00248

Patent 6,326,978

4

frame. Ex. 1001, 1:34-35.

With advancements of computer processing speeds, an average computer

now has the ability to perform multiple tasks simultaneously, or to “multi-task.”

Ex. 1001, 1:66-2:1. At least one window is associated with each task being

performed, and sometimes multiple windows are associated. Ex. 1001, 2:2-3.

These windows are often displayed one on top of the other. Ex. 1001, 2:4.

“Unfortunately, management of the various windows can become cumbersome.”

Ex. 1001, 2:5-6. This is especially true if a user needs or desires to see a portion of

one window or all of the multiple windows at the same time. Ex. 1001, 2:6-8.

The user may receive information in a window that is not oriented as the

user needs or desires, for example, so as to arrange more efficiently the multiple

windows. Ex. 1001, 2:13-15. Depending on the program, the user may not be able

to reorient the information for proper or desired viewing. Ex. 1001, 2:15-17.

According to the ’978 patent, therefore, a need exists for a display method for

selectively rotating windows on a computer display, such that the user may

experience greater interface flexibility. Ex. 1001, 2:18-22. A system employing

such a display method would operate by providing a mechanism for the user

selectively to rotate the windows as needed or desired, thus providing the user with

a more manageable computer interface. Ex. 1001, 2:22-26.

To that end, Figure 1 of the ’978 patent, shown below, depicts a window 10

for the computer display that provides selective rotation in a manner that facilitates

human interfacing. Ex. 1001, 2:57-59.

Case IPR2013-00248

Patent 6,326,978

5

Figure 1 illustrates a schematic of a window for a computer display

that provides selective rotation in a manner which facilitates human

interfacing.

Window 10, depicted above in Figure 1, is generated by a program running on the

computer, such as the operating system or the application program. Ex. 1001,

2:59-61. In the lower left hand corner of window 10 is rotation button 28.

Ex. 1001, 3:39-40. To rotate window 10, the user clicks and holds rotation button

28 with the input device (e.g., a mouse) while dragging window 10 to a selected

orientation, which is depicted in the example shown below in Figure 2. Ex. 1001,

1:21-23, 3:42-44.

Case IPR2013-00248

Patent 6,326,978

6

Figure 2 illustrates a schematic of a window for a computer display

that has been rotated approximately 310 degrees and that shows

potential preselected rotation points.

During the rotation, window 10 rotates about a rotation point, an example of which

is shown above in Figure 2 as rotation point 30. Ex. 1001, 3:44-46, 4:22-24. By

clicking and holding rotation button 28, the user may choose any orientation within

the 360 degree circle or the choices may be limited to certain preselected

orientations such as 0, 90, 180, and 270 degrees. Ex. 1001, 3:46-50.

C. Exemplary Claims

Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 9, and 14 are independent claims, and

provide as follows:

1. A computer display window comprising:

a display portion;

a frame surrounding the display portion; and

Case IPR2013-00248

Patent 6,326,978

7

means for selectively rotating the window about a rotation point

at the discretion of the user;

wherein the plane of the window, the plane of rotation, and the

rotation point are coplanar.

9. A method of selectively rotating a computer display

window having a display portion and a frame surrounding the display

portion, the method comprising the steps of:

determining a rotation point; and

rotating the window about the rotation point at the discretion of

the user;



14. A system for selectively rotating a computer display

window having a display portion and a frame surrounding the display

portion, the system comprising:

means for determining a rotation point; and

means for rotating the window about the rotation point at the

discretion of the user;



D. Prior Art Relied Upon

Petitioner relies upon the following prior art references:

Bruder U.S. Patent 6,327,393 Dec. 4, 2001 (Ex. 1003)

Kreegar U.S. Patent 5,396,590 Mar. 7, 1995 (Ex. 1004)

Takano U.S. Patent 5,045,844 Sep. 3, 1991 (Ex. 1005)

Martinez U.S. Patent 6,137,468 Oct. 24, 2000 (Ex. 1006)

Capps U.S. Patent 5,345,543 Sep. 6, 1994 (Ex. 1007)

Adobe Photoshop 5.0 User Guide (“Adobe”) (Ex. 1008)

Petitioner also relies on the Declaration of Don Turnbull (Ex. 1009).

Case IPR2013-00248

Patent 6,326,978

8

E. The Asserted Grounds

Petitioner contends that the challenged claims are unpatentable based on the

following grounds:

Reference(s) Basis Claims

Challenged

Martinez and Capps § 103(a) 1-4, 6-9, 11-14, 16, and 18

Martinez, Capps, and Adobe § 103(a) 5, 10, 15, and 17

Bruder § 102(e) 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13-15,

and 18

Bruder and Takano § 103(a) 3, 11, and 16

Bruder and Kreegar § 103(a) 8, 12, and 17

Bruder and Adobe § 103(a) 5

II. ANALYSIS

A. Claim Construction

In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are interpreted

according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of

the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Office Patent Trial

Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48766 (Aug. 14, 2012). Also, claim terms are

given their ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one of

ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic

Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

1. Computer Display Window

Independent claims 1, 9, and 14 each recite “computer display window.”

The term “computer display window” is cited only in the preamble of these claims,

Case IPR2013-00248

Patent 6,326,978

9

but it is given patentable weight as it provides an antecedent basis for “the

window” recited in the body of each of these claims. C.W. Zumbiel Co., Inc. v,

Kappos, 702 F.3d 1371, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v.

Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed.Cir.2002)) (the preamble

constitutes a limitation when the claim(s) depend on it for antecedent basis).

The specification does not provide a definition of “computer display

window.” Both Petitioner and Patent Owner present proposed constructions, and

disagree as to whether a “computer display window” includes a “bounding box,”

(Pet. 9-10; Prelim. Resp. 6-8). However, neither proposed construction actually

defines “window.” The dictionary defines “window” as follows: “A division of a

display screen in which a set of information is displayed.” ‘window’ 1992, in

ACADEMIC PRESS DICTIONARY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, ELSEVIER SCIENCE

& TECHNOLOGY, Oxford, United Kingdom,

http://www.credoreference.com/entry/apdst/window (last viewed September 10,

2013). This definition of “window” is consistent with the specification, and also

accounts for the recited modifier “computer display,” as the “window” is rendered

on a “display screen.” Accordingly, we adopt the above definition of “window” as

the proper construction of “computer display window.”

2. Display Portion

Independent claim 1, 9, and 14 each recite a “display portion” of the

“computer display window.” “[D]isplay portion” is recited only in the preamble of

independent claims 9 and 14. However, it is a structural element of the “computer

http://www.credoreference.com/entry/apdst/window

Case IPR2013-00248

Patent 6,326,978

10

display window,” which is given patentable weight for the reasons set forth above.

Accordingly, we also give patentable weight to “display portion” in those claims.

The specification does not provide a definition of “display portion.”

Petitioner contends that “display portion” should be construed as “an interior

portion of a computer display window.” Pet. 10. Patent Owner contends that

“display portion” is identified in column 1 of the ’978 patent as “the portion of the

window that allows the user to view, update and manipulate information displayed

in the window.” Prelim. Resp. 8-9.

Beginning with the word “portion,” it is clear that “display portion” must be

a portion of the “computer display window.” Moving on to “display,” the ’978

patent discloses the following:

If the window displays only a portion of the total information, then the

user is provided with one or more scroll bars that allow the user to

move the display portion to view other portions of the total

information.

’978 patent, col. 1, ll. 46-49 (emphasis added). Accordingly, we construe “display

portion” as “the portion of ‘computer display window’ that provides viewable

information.”

3. Toggling the window between two preselected orientations

Dependent claims 12 and 17 each recite “toggling the window between two

preselected orientations.” Petitioner contends that “toggling . . .” should be

construed as “switching the window from one preselected orientation to another

preselected orientation.” Pet. 10. Patent Owner does not provide a proposed

construction of “toggling . . .” The specification does not provide a definition of

Case IPR2013-00248

Patent 6,326,978

11

“toggling.” The dictionary defines “toggle” as follows: “A switching action

performed on an object with two states.” ‘toggle’ 2000, in THE AUTHORITATIVE

DICTIONARY OF IEEE STANDARD TERMS, Standards Information Network, IEEE

Press, New York, NY,

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=4116808 (last viewed

September 17, 2013). This definition is consistent with the specification and claim

language, which recites two states: one preselected orientation and another

preselected orientation. Accordingly, we construe “toggle” as “a switching action

performed on an object with two states,” and construe “toggling the window

between two preselected orientations” as “a switching action performed on a

window with two preselected orientations.”

4. Means for [selectively] rotating the window about the rotation point

at the discretion of the user

Independent claim 1 recites “means for selectively rotating the window

about a rotation point at the discretion of the user.” Independent claim 14 recites

“means for rotating the window about the rotation point at the discretion of the

user.” We note that independent claim 1 recites “selectively rotating” as opposed

to just “rotating” in independent claim 14. However, we cannot discern a

difference between “selectively rotating” and “rotating” in the context of the rest of

the claim limitation, as “rotating . . . at the discretion of the user” would be

commensurate with being “selective.” Accordingly, we construe both “means for

rotating . . .” phrases together.

Case IPR2013-00248

Patent 6,326,978

12

Petitioner proposes that both “means for rotating . . .” be construed as

covering “a rotation button, ([‘978 patent], 3:57-59); menu commands, (id. at 3:65-

66); key strokes, (id. at 3:66-67); or a rotation cursor that appears over a designated

portion of the frame (id. at 4:1-4).” Pet. 11. Patent Owner proposes that both

“means for rotating . . .” be construed as follows:

A computer program that (i) shows a phantom frame identifying a

new location of the window and then replaces the phantom frame with

the new window after receiving a user input, or (ii) simultaneously

rotates the window with receipt of a user input (and, as applicable,

wherein the computer program limits rotation of the window to

predetermined increments, or toggles the window between preselected

orientations, or returns the window to a zero degree orientation, upon

receipt of each user input), and equivalents thereof.

Prelim. Resp. 10.

We agree with the Patent Owner that both “means for rotating . . .” are

means-plus-function limitations under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. Prelim.

Resp. 10-12. Accordingly, we look to the specification of the ’978 patent to

identify the structure, material, or acts which are described as performing the

recited functions.

The claimed function is “rotating the window about the rotation point at the

discretion of the user.” The specification of the ’978 patent discloses the claimed

function as follows:

In the lower left hand corner of the frame of the window 10 is

the rotation button 28. This represents the preferred location for the

rotation button 28, but other locations are possible. The user clicks

and holds the rotation button 28 with the input device while dragging

the window to the selected orientation. The window 10 rotates about

a rotation point (not shown) which will be discussed in greater detail

Case IPR2013-00248

Patent 6,326,978

13

with respect to FIG. 2 below. Through clicking and holding the

rotation button 28, the user may be able to choose any orientation

within the 360 degree circle or the choices may be limited to certain

preselected orientations such as 0, 90, 180, and 270 degrees. By

single clicking on the rotation button 28, the user can rotate the

window 10 by a preselected amount or to a preselected orientation.

For example, single clicking could rotate the window 10 by small

angles such as 1 or 5 degrees for minor reorientations or by large

angles such as 90 or 180 degrees for major reorientations.

Alteratively, [sic] single clicking could toggle between two

preselected orientations. By double clicking on the rotation button 28,

the user can return the window 10 to the home orientation. Rotation

could of course be in either the counter-clockwise direction or the

clockwise direction as desired. One of ordinary skill in the art will

realize that the above described functions of the rotation button 28

could also be the result of other input device combinations of

clicking, holding, or both. Such skilled persons will further realize

that the above described functions could be accomplished through

menu driven commands or special key strokes in addition to or in

place of the use of the rotation button 28. Under Microsoft®

Windows® the rotation button 28 could be replaced with a rotation

cursor (not shown) that appears when the user moves the cursor over a

designated portion of the frame

‘978 patent, 3:39-4:4 (emphasis added). See also, ’978 patent, 2:56-66, 4:5-11;

4:57-59. All of the above disclosures in the specification show rotation being

accomplished via a computer on a computer display. Based on these disclosures in

the specification, the structure corresponding to the recited “means for

rotating . . .” covers a computer. However, because the claimed function is not

implemented just by a computer, but also by software running on a general purpose

computer, the corresponding structure under § 112, sixth paragraph, is not the

Case IPR2013-00248

Patent 6,326,978

14

general purpose computer, but the disclosed algorithm for performing the claimed

function.

We discern the following algorithm from the aforementioned portions of the

specification: (1) generating a window on a computer display including a rotation

option; (2) receiving user input into the computer; and (3) based on the user input,

using a phantom frame to show the new location of the rotated window or rotating

the window simultaneously with the user input. Accordingly, we construe both

“means for rotating . . .” as corresponding to a computer that implements the

aforementioned algorithm.

5. Means for determining a rotation point

Independent claim 14 recites “means for determining a rotation point.”

Petitioner proposes that “means for determining a rotation point” be construed as

“a mouse or similar input device.” Pet. 11. Patent Owner proposes that “means

for determining a rotation point” be construed as follows: “A computer program

that selects (i) a default rotation point, or (ii) a user-selected rotation point for a

window, and equivalents thereof.” Prelim. Resp. 13. We agree with Patent

Owner’s construction.

Using the analysis set forth above in our construction of “means for

rotating . . .” under 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 6, we construe “means for

determining a rotation point” as corresponding to a computer that implements an

algorithm. The specification discloses the following concerning the function of

“determining a rotation point:”

Turning now to FIG. 2, a schematic of a window 10 for a

computer display that has been rotated approximately 310 degrees and

Case IPR2013-00248

Patent 6,326,978

15

that shows potential preselected rotation points according to one

embodiment of the present invention is shown. The window 10

shown has the same elements as 20 described with respect to FIG. 1

above but the reference numerals have been omitted for clarity. The

home orientation is shown in phantom for reference purposes. In this

case, the rotation point has been selected as point 30 which is located

at the midpoint of the left frame. Eight other potential rotation points

are shown as points 32, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42, 44, and 46. Together, these

nine points represent the corners, the midpoints of the sides, and the

center of the window 10. Preferably, these points would not be

shown to the user except as part of a preselection routine. Any of

the nine points could be initially selected as the default rotation

point. One of ordinary skill in the art will realize that any number of

points within or on the window 10 are potential rotation points. Such

skilled persons will further realize that any number of points outside

of the window, such as the upper left corner of the display, may be

selected as rotation points. Selection of a rotation point outside of

the window 10 will result in both rotation and translation of the

window from the starting orientation to the final orientation.

‘978 patent, 4:15-40 (emphasis added). Using the analysis set forth above in our

construction of “means for rotating . . .,” we discern the following algorithm for

“means for determining a rotation point” from the aforementioned portions of the

specification: determining a default rotation point or receiving a user selection

into a computer of any rotation point within, on, or outside of a window on a

display of the computer. Accordingly, we construe “means for determining a

rotation point” as corresponding to a computer that implements the aforementioned

algorithm.

Case IPR2013-00248

Patent 6,326,978

16

6. Means for rotating the window by predetermined increments

Dependent claim 16 recites “means for rotating the window by

predetermined increments.” Petitioner proposes that this “means for rotating . . .”

be construed as “a rotation button, (‘[978 patent], 3:57-59); menu commands, (id.

at 3:65-66); key strokes, (id. at 3:66-67); or a rotation cursor that appears over a

designated portion of the frame, (id. at 4:1-4).” Pet. 11-12. Patent Owner proposes

the same construction for this “means for rotating . . .” as the “means for

rotating . . .” recited above in independent claim 14. Prelim. Resp. 10.Using the

analysis set forth above,” we construe this “means for rotating . . .” as

corresponding to a computer that implements an algorithm. The specification

discloses the following examples of the function of “rotating the window by

predetermined increments”:

Through clicking and holding the rotation button 28, the user may be

able to choose any orientation within the 360 degree circle or the

choices may be limited to certain preselected orientations such as 0,

90, 180, and 270 degrees. By single clicking on the rotation button

28, the user can rotate the window 10 by a preselected amount or to a

preselected orientation. For example, single clicking could rotate the

window 10 by small angles such as 1 or 5 degrees for minor

reorientations or by large angles such as 90 or 180 degrees for

major reorientations. Alteratively, [sic] single clicking could toggle

between two preselected orientations.

‘978 patent, 3:46-57 (emphasis added). Using the analysis set forth above, we

discern the following algorithm for “means for rotating the window by

predetermined increments” from the aforementioned portions of the specification:

(1) generating a window on a computer display including a rotation option having

predetermined increments; (2) receiving user input into the computer; and (3)

Case IPR2013-00248

Patent 6,326,978

17

based on the user input, using a phantom frame to show the new location of the

rotated window at the predetermined increments or rotating the window through

the predetermined increments simultaneously with the user input. Accordingly, we

construe “means for rotating the window by predetermined increments” as

corresponding to a computer that implements the aforementioned algorithm.

7. Means for toggling the window between two preselected orientations

Dependent claim 17 recites “means for toggling the window between two

preselected orientations.” Petitioner proposes that “means for toggling . . .” be

construed as “a rotation button, ([‘978 patent], 3:57-59); menu commands, (id. at

3:65-66); key strokes, (id. at 3:66-67); or a rotation cursor that appears over a

designated portion of the frame, (id. at 4:1-4).” Pet. 12. Patent Owner proposes

the same construction for “means for toggling . . .” as the “means for rotating . . .”

recited above in independent claim 14. Prelim. Resp. 10. We construe “means for

toggling . . .” as corresponding to a computer that implements an algorithm. The

specification discloses the following concerning the function of “toggling the

window between two preselected orientations”: “single clicking could toggle

between two preselected orientations.” ‘978 patent, 3:46-57 (emphasis added).

Taking into account our previous construction of “toggling the window between

two preselected orientations,” we discern the following algorithm for “means for

toggling . . .” from the aforementioned portions of the specification: (1) generating

a window on a computer display including only two preselected orientations; (2)

receiving user input into the computer; and (3) based on the user input, switching

from one to the other of two possible preselected window orientations.

Case IPR2013-00248

Patent 6,326,978

18

Accordingly, we construe “means for toggling . . .” as corresponding to a computer

that implements the aforementioned algorithm.

8. Means for returning the window to a zero degree orientation

Dependent claim 18 recites “means for returning the window to a zero

degree orientation.” Petitioner proposes that this “means for returning . . .” be

construed as “a rotation button, ([‘978 patent], 3:57-59); menu commands, (id. at

3:65-66); key strokes, (id. at 3:66-67); or a rotation cursor that appears over a

designated portion of the frame, (id. at 4:1-4).” Pet. 12. Patent Owner proposes

the same construction for “means for returning . . .” as the “means for rotating . . .”

recited above in independent claim 14. Prelim. Resp. 10. We construe “means for

returning . . .” as corresponding to a computer that implements an algorithm. The

specification discloses that the home orientation is the equivalent of a zero degree

orientation. ‘978 patent, 3:5-8; 3:46-59. We discern the following algorithm for

“means for returning . . .” from the aforementioned portions of the specification:

(1) generating a window on a computer display including a home or zero degree

orientation; (2) receiving user input into the computer; and (3) based on the user

input, returning the window to a home or zero degree orientation. Accordingly, we

construe “means for returning . . .” as corresponding to a computer that implements

the aforementioned algorithm.

B. Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-14, 16, and 18 – Obvious over Martinez and Capps

Petitioner contends that claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-14, 16, and 18 are unpatentable

under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Martinez and Capps. Pet. 13-31.

Case IPR2013-00248

Patent 6,326,978

19

Martinez (Exhibit 1006)

Martinez discloses a method and apparatus for altering a display within a

data processing system in response to a change in orientation and hardware

associated with the data processing system. Ex. 1006, 2:8-12. Specifically,

Martinez discloses rotating a laptop around one axis that results in a change in

orientation in another axis, and maintaining windows level with respect to a

preselected reference plane during such a rotation. Ex. 1006, 4:21-22, 5:42-44. In

particular, Martinez discloses that one can change the display from a “landscape”

mode to a “portrait” mode by simply rotating the display 90 degrees either way

around one axis. Ex. 1006, 4:43-46. For example, as shown below, Figures 6A-

6C of Martinez depict window 600 containing object 602 on display 301 of laptop

300. Ex. 1006, 4:61-65.

Case IPR2013-00248

Patent 6,326,978

20

Figures 6A-6C illustrate a process for maintaining window objects

level through changes in attitude.

Case IPR2013-00248

Patent 6,326,978

21

As shown in Figures 6B and 6C above, object 602 in window 600 remains

level even though laptop 300 has been rotated 45 degrees and 75 degrees,

respectively. Ex. 1006, 4:65-5:4. Furthermore, as shown below, Figures 5A-5C of

Martinez disclose windows 500, 502 on display 301 of laptop 300. Ex. 1006, 4:52-

55.

Figures 5A-5C illustrate diagrams of different displays.

When laptop 300 has been rotated 90 degrees from Figure 5A to Figure 5C,

windows 500, 502 also have been rotated 90 degrees.

A process for implementing the above rotation operations are as follows: if

a rotate feature of laptop 300 is ON, the process waits until a selected amount of

predefined movement of laptop 300 is detected. Ex. 1006, 5:48-50. Next, a query

is made to determine an amount of tilt or rotation. Ex. 1006, 5:50-52. A

determination then is made as to whether the windows are to be rotated. Ex. 1006,

5:52-54. If the windows are to be rotated, a system coordinate table is updated

Case IPR2013-00248

Patent 6,326,978

22

with the amount of tilt or rotation. Ex. 1006, 5:54-55. Thereafter, the windows are

redrawn in response to the update of the system coordinates table. Ex. 1006, 5:58-

60.

Sensors for detecting changes in position may be located within the data

processing system, or externalized with a peripheral device associated with the

data processing system, such as a mouse or some other pointing device. Ex. 1006,

3:18-22. The sensors provide numeric values to a register that represent a tilt of

hardware relative to a reference plane. Ex. 1006, 5:24-28. The values are in

degree increments ranging from -179 degrees to +179 degrees. Ex. 1006, 5:36-37.

Capps (Exhibit 1007)

Capps discloses that a user may wish to rotate an image on a screen of a

computer system. Ex. 1007, 1:20-23. According to Capps, these functions are

accomplished by selecting items to be manipulated and then entering a suitable

keyboard command that indicates an angle by which the items should be rotated.

Ex. 1007, 1:23-27. Some applications require that the user choose the desired

rotation function from a menu, and then “rotate” the selected items through use of

a screen pointer which grabs a “gravity point” or “handle” on the selected item.

Ex. 1007, 1:27-32. The selected item then is rotated as a function of the pointer’s

movement. Ex. 1007, 1:32-33.

For example, as shown below, Figure 4 of Capps depicts crank 62, crank

axle 65, and crank handle 67.

Case IPR2013-00248

Patent 6,326,978

23

Figure 4 illustrates a screen of a computer display assembly including

a crank icon.

To rotate a selected object using crank 62, a rotate mode is selected, and crank 62

is moved to a position such that axle 65 is located at a desired center of rotation.

Ex. 1007, 6:58-62. Then, stylus 38 is placed on or near crank handle 67 and is

moved roughly in a circular direction about axle 65. Ex. 1007, 6:61-63. The

Case IPR2013-00248

Patent 6,326,978

24

computer system routinely updates the screen so that the selected object rotates as

crank 62 is being rotated. Ex. 1007, 7:1-3. Capps discloses that, while the method

of its present invention is described in the context of a pen-based system, other

pointing devices such as a computer mouse, a track ball, or a tablet can be used to

manipulate a pointer on a screen of a general purpose computer. Ex. 1007, 3:43-

48.

Claims 1-4, 6-9, 13, 14, and 18

Petitioner contends that claims 1-4, 6-9, 13, 14, and 18 are unpatentable

under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) obvious over Martinez and Capps. Pet. 13-31. In

support of this asserted ground of unpatentability, Petitioner provides detailed

explanations as to how each claim limitation is met by a combination of Martinez

and Capps, and relies, as support, on a declaration of Dr. Don Turnbull (“Dr.

Turnbull”). Pet. 13-31, citing to Ex. 1009, ¶¶ 95, 96, 98, 99. Patent Owner does

not challenge Petitioner’s application of Martinez and Capps to claims 1-4, 6-9, 13,

14, and 18.

Upon review of Petitioner’s analysis and supporting evidence, we determine

that Petitioner has demonstrated that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would

prevail with respect to claims 1-4, 6-9, 13, 14, and 18 on the ground that these

claims are obvious over Martinez and Capps.

As an example, independent claim 1 recites “[a] computer display window

comprising: a display portion; a frame surrounding a display portion.” Martinez

discloses windows 500, 502, and window 600 including a frame containing object

602. Ex. 1006, Figs. 5A-5C, 6A-6C; 4:52-53, 61-65. Independent claim 1 further

recites “means for selectively rotating the window about a rotation point at the

Case IPR2013-00248

Patent 6,326,978

25

discretion of the user.” As set forth above, we construed this “means” as a

computer implementing the following algorithm: (1) generating a window on a

computer display including a rotation option; (2) receiving user input into the

computer; and (3) based on the user input, using a phantom frame to show the new

location of the rotated window or rotating the window simultaneously with the

user input. We note that for step (3) of the algorithm, by using the word “or”

between two sub-steps, only one of the two sub-steps needs to be disclosed by the

prior art in order meet step (3).

Figures 5A through 5C of Martinez disclose that windows 500, 502 retain

the same orientation with respect to a reference plane, even though a user has

placed laptop 300 into three different orientations. Figures 6B and 6C of Martinez

disclose that object 602 in window 600 remains level even though a user has

rotated laptop 300 45 degrees and 75 degrees, respectively. Ex. 1006, 4:65-5:4.

We note that Martinez discloses a rotation process (Ex. 1006, 5:48-60), but does

not disclose explicitly that the rotation is simultaneous with the user input, as set

forth in the second sub-step of step (3) of the algorithm. Martinez discloses,

however, rotating a laptop around one axis that results in a change in orientation in

another axis, and maintaining windows level with respect to a preselected

reference plane during such a rotation. Ex. 1006, 4:21-22, 5:42-44.

Moreover, similar to Martinez, Capps is directed to rotating an image on a

screen of a computer system. Ex. 1007, 1:20-23. Capps discloses a computer

system that routinely updates the screen so that the selected object rotates as crank

62 is being rotated by the user. Ex. 1007, 7:1-3. Accordingly, Capps sufficiently

shows that it was known to display updated rotation of an object simultaneous with

Case IPR2013-00248

Patent 6,326,978

26

the user input. Based on the record before us, there is sufficient evidence that

implementing this known element of Capps within the system of Martinez, for its

known purpose of updating rotation of an object simultaneous with user input,

yields a predictable result. Specifically, one of ordinary skill would have modified

Martinez to include updating rotation of the object simultaneous with user input of

Capps, so that user would be able to immediately ascertain whether the amount of

rotation input was adequate and desirable.

Independent claim 1 also recites “wherein the plane of the window, the plane

of rotation, and the rotation point are coplanar.” Figures 5A-5C and 6A-6C of

Martinez and Figure 4 of Capps disclose such planar window rotation.

Independent claim 9 essentially recites the same limitations as independent

claim 1, except in a method format, and additionally recites “determining a rotation

point.” Independent claim 14 essentially recites the same limitations as

independent claim 1, and additionally recites “means for determining a rotation

point.” We have construed these “means” as a computer implementing the

following algorithm: (1) determining a default rotation point or receiving a user

selection into a computer of any point within, on, or outside of a window on a

display of the computer. Capps discloses that in order to rotate an object using

crank 62, a rotate mode is selected, and crank 62 is moved to position such that

axle 65 is located at the desired center of rotation. Ex. 1007, 6:58-62.

We similarly are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable

likelihood that dependent claims 2-4, 6-8, 13, and 18 are unpatentable over

Martinez and Capps. Pet. 13-15, 19-23, 26-27, 30-31.

Case IPR2013-00248

Patent 6,326,978

27

Dependent Claims 11 and 16

Claim 11 recites “rotating the window by predetermined increments.” Claim

16 recites “means for rotating the window by predetermined increments.” For both

claim limitations, Patent Owner first contends Martinez refers to rotation of display

301, and not windows. Prelim. Resp. 20. We disagree. Figures 5A-5C of

Martinez disclose the rotation of windows 500, 502 on display 301.

Next, Patent Owner contends that just because a user can rotate laptop 300

90 degrees about an axis does not mean that (1) the 90 degree rotation was

predetermined or (2) the rotation was limited to 90 degrees, as opposed to 89

degrees or 91 degrees. Prelim. Resp. 21. Patent Owner’s assertions are misplaced.

Martinez discloses that sensor 702 outputs values in degree increments ranging

from -179 to +179 on both the X and Y axes. Ex. 1006, 5:34-37. Martinez

discloses adjusting visual components on a display device so that the components

are level regardless of a position of the display device. Ex. 1006, 4:41-43.

Accordingly, Martinez discloses rotating visual components on the display device

by predetermined increments of one degree, which meets the aforementioned

limitation.

Furthermore, Martinez discloses detecting selected amounts of predefined

movement, and, based on that determination, deciding whether to rotate the

windows. Ex. 1006, 5:48-55. Specifically, Martinez discloses determining

whether a detected tilt is greater than or equal to a default amount of tilt. Ex. 1006,

6:16-19. This default amount of tilt may be changed by the user or preset at some

other amount. Ex. 1006, 6:19-20. Any of these amounts of predefined movements

Case IPR2013-00248

Patent 6,326,978

28

or default tilts of Martinez could correspond to the recited “predetermined

increments.”

Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing

that dependent claim 11 is obvious over Martinez and Capps.

Dependent Claim 12

Claim 12 recites “toggling the window between two preselected

orientations.” We have construed “toggling the window between two preselected

orientations” as “a switching action performed on a window with two preselected

orientations.” Petitioner cites the “landscape” and “portrait” modes depicted in

Figures 5A and 5B Martinez as corresponding to the aforementioned limitation.

Pet. 26.

Figures 5A-5C illustrate diagrams of different displays.

Case IPR2013-00248

Patent 6,326,978

29

Patent Owner first contends Martinez refers to rotation of display 301, and not

windows. Prelim. Resp. 22. We disagree. Figures 5A-5C disclose rotation of

windows 500, 502.

Next, Patent Owner contends that just because a user can rotate laptop 300

90 degrees about an axis does not mean that (1) the 90 degree rotation was

preselected or (2) the rotation was limited to 90 degrees, as opposed to 89 degrees

or 91 degrees. Prelim. Resp. 22-23. We disagree. Martinez discloses detecting

selected amounts of predefined movement, and based on that determination,

deciding whether to rotate the windows. Ex. 1006, 5:48-55. Specifically, Martinez

discloses determining whether a detected tilt is greater than or equal to a default

amount of tilt. Ex. 1006, 6:16-19. This default amount of tilt may be changed by

the user or preset at some other amount. Ex. 1006, 6:19-20. In other words,

Martinez discloses that it was known to restrict window rotations to a certain

number of predefined movements or amounts.

Given this disclosure, there is sufficient evidence that it would have been

within the abilities of one of ordinary skill to limit that number of predefined

movements or amounts to just two, as limiting to any number of predefined

movements or amounts would have been within the abilities of one of ordinary

skill, for example, to simplify the user experience by limiting the number of

movements or amounts to those that are the most common. Indeed, modification

of Martinez is essentially an omission of other predefined movements or amounts

until only two exist, and omission of elements is presumed to be within the abilities

of ordinary skill, especially where such omission would be desirable, for the

reasons stated above. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 969 (CCPA 1965) (omission of

Case IPR2013-00248

Patent 6,326,978

30

additional framework and axle which served to increase the cargo carrying

capacity of prior art mobile fluid carrying unit would have been obvious if this

feature was not desired.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975) (deleting a

prior art switch member and thereby eliminating its function was an obvious

expedient).


that dependent claim 12 is obvious over Martinez and Capps.

Conclusion


that claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-14, 16, and 18 of the ’978 patent are unpatentable over

Martinez and Capps.

C. Claims 5, 10, 15, and 17 – Obvious over Martinez, Capps, and Adobe

Petitioner contends that 5, 10, 15, and 17 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.

§ 103(a) as obvious over Martinez, Capps, and Adobe. Pet. 31-35.

Adobe (Exhibit 1008)

Adobe is a user guide for Adobe Photoshop®. Ex. 1008, p. 1. Adobe

discloses that holding down a mouse button on a tool is the equivalent of

performing a dragging function on the tool. Ex. 1008, p. 14. Adobe discloses that

in order to rotate an image, a pointer is moved outside a bounding border (it turns

into a curved, two-sided arrow), and then dragged. Ex. 1008, p. 185. An example

of such a rotation is shown in the excerpt below.

Case IPR2013-00248

Patent 6,326,978

31

The above excerpt illustrates an image with a curved, two-sided

arrow.

Ex. 1008, p. 185. For example, as shown in the excerpt below, a pointer may be

moved outside selection handles, where the pointer then changes into the curved,

two-sided arrow, and then the arrow is dragged clockwise to rotate a CD about 30

degrees. Ex. 1008, p. 14.

The above excerpt illustrates a CD being rotated.

Ex. 1008, p. 14.

Case IPR2013-00248

Patent 6,326,978

32

Dependent Claim 5

Claim 5 recites “wherein the means for selectively rotating comprises a

rotation cursor.” Adobe discloses that in order to rotate an image, a pointer is

moved outside a bounding border (it turns into a curved, two-sided arrow).

Ex. 1008, p. 14, 185. The curved, two-sided arrow of Adobe corresponds to the

recited “rotation cursor.” Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s application

of Martinez, Capps, and Adobe to claim 5.


that dependent claim 5 is obvious over Martinez, Capps, and Adobe.


Claim 10 recites “wherein the step of rotating comprises the step of clicking

and holding the window while dragging the window to the selected orientation.”

Claim 15 recites “means for clicking and holding the window while dragging the

window to the selected orientation.” Adobe discloses dragging a curved, two-sided

arrow to rotate an image. Ex. 1008, pp. 14, 185. Patent Owner does not challenge

Petitioner’s application of Martinez, Capps, and Adobe to claims 10 and 15.


that dependent claims 10 and 15 are obvious over Martinez, Capps, and Adobe.

Dependent Claim 17

Claim 17 recites “means for toggling the window between two preselected

orientations.” We have construed this “means” as corresponding to a computer

implementing the following algorithm: (1) generating a window on a computer

display including only two preselected orientations; (2) receiving user input into

the computer; and (3) based on the user input, switching from one to the other of

Case IPR2013-00248

Patent 6,326,978

33

two possible preselected window orientations. Patent Owner contends that Adobe

does not disclose the recited “means.” Prelim. Resp. 24-25. Patent Owner’s

assertions are misplaced. Martinez discloses the recited “means,” as set forth in

our analysis of dependent claim 12, supra.

Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in showing

that dependent claim 17 is obvious over Martinez, Capps, and Adobe.

Conclusion


that claims 5, 10, 15, and 17 of the ’978 patent are unpatentable over Martinez,

Capps, and Adobe.

D. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, and 18 – Anticipated by Bruder

Petitioner contends that 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, and 18 are

unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Bruder. Pet. 35-47.

Bruder (Exhibit 1003)

Bruder discloses a user interface for visually partitioning and optionally

transforming a region of interest within an image for further processing by a

machine-vision system. Ex. 1003, 1:7-10. For example, Figure 3A of Bruder,

shown below, depicts GUI 300 displaying bottle cap 304 with lettering 306 that

reads “BOTTLE CAP,” which is the region of interest. Ex. 1003, 4:30-36.

Case IPR2013-00248

Patent 6,326,978

34

Figure 3A illustrates an image displaying on a graphical user interface

having a deformable window and a top view of a bottle cap, where the

bottle cap contains a character string.

As shown in Figure 3B below, a user identifies the region of interest by deforming

window 302, 312 to enclose lettering 306 that reads “BOTTLE CAP.” Ex. 1003,

4:41-47.

Figure 3B illustrates a deformable window enclosing a character

string of a bottle cap.

As shown in Figure 5 below, accented window 500 includes circle symbol 504,

Case IPR2013-00248

Patent 6,326,978

35

which indicates the area of deformable window 500. Ex. 1003, 6:15-19. The user

should point to circle symbol 504 in order to change the rotation of deformable

window 500. Id.

Figure 5 illustrates an accented deformable window.

If the user selects and drags the corner having circle symbol 504, window 500 will

turn around a point of window 500, such as center point 510 or origin 502.

Ex. 1003, 6:56-59. As shown in Figure 6B below, by using circle symbol 504 to

rotate window 500 about origin 502, an initial window 612 translates clockwise

such that deformed window 614 is at an angle relative to initial window 612.

Ex. 1003, 6:59-64.

Case IPR2013-00248

Patent 6,326,978

36

Figure 6B illustrates a deformable window before and after rotation.

Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, and 18

Patent Owner contends that Bruder does not disclose a “display portion,” as

recited in independent claims 1, 9, and 14. Prelim. Resp. 26-27. We have

construed “display portion” as “the portion of ‘computer display window’ that

provides viewable information.” Petitioner identifies deformable windows 302,

312, 500, 612, 614 of Bruder as corresponding to the recited “computer display

window,” which makes the region of interest (e.g., lettering 306) within window

312 the “display portion.” Pet. 35-38. Patent Owner contends that this is

incorrect, because the region of interest within window 312 is a transparent

selection tool superimposed on a digital image and thus never displays anything.

Prelim. Resp. 27. However, the region of interest within window 312 does provide

viewable information. While Patent Owner is correct that the information on

display in the region of interest within window 312 is in fact a portion of the digital

image (e.g., bottle cap 304) on which window 312 is superimposed, nevertheless,

the region of interest within window 312 “provides viewable information,”

meeting our construction of “display portion.” Accordingly, we are persuaded that

Case IPR2013-00248

Patent 6,326,978

37

Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that independent claims 1, 9,

and 14 are anticipated by Bruder. Pet. 35-38, 41-46.

We are similarly persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable

likelihood that dependent claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 10, 13, 15, and 18 are anticipated by

Bruder. Pet. 38-41, 44, 46-47.

Conclusion


that claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, and 18 of the ’978 patent are anticipated

by Bruder.

E. Claims 3, 11, and 16– Obvious over Bruder and Takano

Petitioner contends that claims 3, 11, and 16 are unpatentable under

35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Bruder and Takano. Pet. 48-51.

Takano (Exhibit 1005)

Takano discloses a system for rotating a rectangular area using a stylus.

Ex. 1005, 1:13-14. When a position specifying “switch” attached to the stylus is

turned on, a rectangular area including an image to be moved on a screen can be

specified. Ex. 1005, 1:27-29. When a “menu switch” attached to the stylus is

turned on, a menu for various modes for moving the rectangular area is shown.

Ex. 1005, 1:31-38. Some of the various modes include a designed angle rotation

and move mode, a rightward 90 degree rotation and move mode, and a leftward 90

degree rotation and move mode. Id. As shown below in a progression from step

#3 to steps #4 and #6 in Figure 3 of Takano, rectangular area 23 containing image

22 is paralleled at position 24 and then rotated. Ex. 1005, 1:55-61.

Case IPR2013-00248

Patent 6,326,978

38

Figure 3 illustrates a portion of a flowchart for a system of rotating images.

Dependent Claim 3

Claim 3 recites “wherein the means for selectively rotating comprises a

menu command.” Takano discloses a stylus including a menu of options for

rotating a rectangular area. Ex. 1005, 1:13-14, 27-38. Patent Owner does not

challenge Petitioner’s application of Bruder and Takano to claim 3.


that dependent claim 3 is obvious over Bruder and Takano.


Claim 11 recites “wherein the step of rotating comprises the step of rotating

the window by predetermined increments.” Claim 16 recites “means for rotating

the window by predetermined increments.” We have construed this “means” as

corresponding to a computer implementing the following algorithm: (1)

generating a window on a computer display including a rotation option having

predetermined increments; (2) receiving user input into the computer; and (3)

based on the user input, using a phantom frame to show the new location of the

rotated window at the predetermined increments or rotating the window through

Case IPR2013-00248

Patent 6,326,978

39

the predetermined increments simultaneously with the user input. Takano

discloses rotating rightward or leftward in 90 degree increments. Ex. 1005, 1:31-

38. The progression from step #3 to step #6 in Figure 3 of Takano shows

rectangular area 23 containing image 22 being paralleled at position 24 and then

rotated. Ex. 1005, 1:55-61. The dashed rectangular area 23 at position 24

corresponds to the phantom frame of the first sub-step of step (3) of the algorithm.

Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s application of Bruder and Takano to

claims 11 and 16.


that dependent claims 11 and 16 are obvious over Bruder and Takano.

Conclusion


that claims 3, 11, and 16 of the ’978 patent are unpatentable over Bruder and

Takano.

F. Claims 8, 12, and 17 – Obvious Over Bruder and Kreegar

Petitioner contends that claims 8, 12, and 17 are unpatentable under

35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Bruder and Kreegar. Pet. 52-56.

Kreegar (Exhibit 1004)

Kreegar discloses a user interface for handling and manipulating graphical

objects in a graphical display computer environment. Ex. 1004, 1:10-12. Rotate

shape control, shown in Figure 5(a), is used to rotate selected shape 203. Ex. 1004,

6:45-47. To rotate selected shape 203 in Kreegar, rotate shape control 303 is

selected, as shown in Figures 5(b) and 5(c), with a dot in the center of rotate shape

Case IPR2013-00248

Patent 6,326,978

40

control 303 indicating selection. Ex. 1004, 6:45-46, 51-53. To rotate selected

shape 203 around rotation shape control 303, a mouse then is moved around rotate

shape control 303 to end up with the orientations shown in Figures 5(d)1 and 5(e).

Ex. 1004, 6:46-48, 53-55, 58-59.

Figures 5(a) to 5(e) illustrate rotating a selected shape, first about the

default center point, then about an arbitrarily chosen pivot point.

1 In order for the figures and specification of Kreegar to be consistent, the

reference to Figure 5(c) at column 6, line 58 of Kreegar should instead refer to

Figure 5(d), and the reference to Figure 5(d) at column 7, line 4 of Kreegar should

instead refer to Figure 5(c).

Case IPR2013-00248

Patent 6,326,978

41

Figures 5(a), 5(b), and 5(d) show rotation shape control 303 at a default center

rotation point. Ex. 1004, 6:58-61. However, rotation shape control 303 can be

moved anywhere in a visible display area of a display device. Ex. 1004, 6:61-63.

Figure 5(d) shows rotation shape control 303 of selected shape 201 dislocated from

a center location. Ex. 1004, 7:4-6. Figure 5(e) shows selected shape 201 having

been rotated around rotation shape control 303 dislocated from the center location.

Ex. 1004, 7:6-8.

Kreegar further discloses that “undo” commands are provided by most

graphics and computer systems which maintain a memory as to previously

executed operations, and are capable of restoring the system to a position just prior

to that operation. Ex. 1004, 6:27-31. To move back to an original position, an

“undo” command may be executed. Ex. 1004, 7:14-16.

Dependent Claim 8

Claim 8 recites “wherein the rotation point is outside the window.” Kreegar

discloses moving rotation shape control 303 anywhere in a visible display area of a

display device (Ex. 1004, 6:61-63), which would include outside of selected shape

201, 203. Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s application Bruder and

Kreegar to claim 8.


that dependent claim 8 is obvious over Bruder and Kreegar.


Claim 12 recites “toggling the window between two preselected

orientations.” Claim 17 recites “means for toggling the window between two

preselected orientations.” Petitioner contends that the “undo” command of

Case IPR2013-00248

Patent 6,326,978

42

Kreegar corresponds to the recited “toggling.” Pet. 55-56. Patent Owner contends

that this is incorrect, because neither current nor previous shape rotation positions

can be “preselected.” Prelim. Resp. 28-30. We agree with Patent Owner that

Petitioner has not shown how a current shape rotation position is “preselected.”

Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in

showing that dependent claims 12 and 17 are obvious over Bruder and Kreegar.

Conclusion


that claim 8 of the ’978 patent is unpatentable over Bruder and Kreegar.

Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in

showing that claims 12 and 17 of the ’978 patent are unpatentable over Bruder and

Kreegar.

G. Claim 5 – Obvious Over Bruder and Adobe

Petitioner contends that claim 5 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as

obvious over Bruder and Adobe. Pet. 56-58. Claim 5 recites “wherein the means

for selectively rotating comprises a rotation cursor.” Adobe discloses that in order

to rotate an image, a pointer is moved outside of a bounding border (it turns into a

curved, two-sided arrow). Ex. 1008, p. 14, 185. Patent Owner does not challenge

Petitioner’s application of Bruder and Adobe to claim 5. On this record, we are

persuaded that the curved, two-sided arrow of Adobe corresponds to the recited

“rotation cursor.”


that dependent claim 5 is obvious over Bruder and Adobe.

Case IPR2013-00248

Patent 6,326,978

43

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the information presented in

the petition establishes that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will

prevail in establishing unpatentability of claims 1-18 of the ’978 patent.

The Board has not made a final determination on the patentability of any

challenged claims.

IV. ORDER

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review is

hereby instituted as to the following claims and grounds:

1. Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-14, 16, and 18 are unpatentable under

35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Martinez and Capps;

2. Claims 5, 10, 15, and 17 are unpatentable under

35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Martinez, Capps, and

Adobe;

3. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13-15 and 18 are unpatentable under

35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Bruder;

4. Claims 3, 11, and 16 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as

obvious over Bruder and Takano;

5. Claim 8 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over

Bruder and Kreegar; and

6. Claim 5 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over

Bruder and Adobe.

Case IPR2013-00248

Patent 6,326,978

44

FURTHER ORDERED that all other grounds raised in the petition are

denied because they are deficient for reasons discussed above.

FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) and 37 C.F.R.

§ 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial; the trial commences on

the entry date of this decision; and

FURTHER ORDERED that an initial conference call with the Board is

scheduled for 2:00 PM, Eastern Time on October 22, 2013; the parties are directed

to the Office Trial Practice Guide2 for guidance in preparing for the initial

conference call, and should come prepared to discuss any proposed changes to the

Scheduling Order entered herewith and any motions the parties anticipate filing

during the trial.

2 Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48765-66 (Aug. 14,

2012).

Case IPR2013-00248

Patent 6,326,978

45

For PETITIONER:

David McCombs

Andrew S. Ehmke

Michael S. Parsons

Haynes and Boone, LLP

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

For PATENT OWNER:

Tarek Fahmi

Michael Davitz

Fahmi, Sellers, Embert & Davitz

[email protected]

[email protected]