Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 19
`
`
`
`Entered: November 19, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SURFCAST, INC.
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Cases IPR2013-00292, IPR2013-00293,
`IPR2013-00294, and IPR2013-00295
`Patent 6,724,403
`
`
`
`Before MICHAEL P. TIERNEY, JONI Y. CHANG, and
`MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 19
`
`
`
`Entered: November 19, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SURFCAST, INC.
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Cases IPR2013-00292, IPR2013-00293,
`IPR2013-00294, and IPR2013-00295
`Patent 6,724,403
`
`
`
`Before MICHAEL P. TIERNEY, JONI Y. CHANG, and
`MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2013-00292, IPR2013-00293,
`IPR2013-00294, and IPR2013-00295
`Patent 6,724,403
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) filed four petitions requesting inter
`partes review of claims 1-52 of U.S. Patent No. 6,724,403 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’403
`patent”). The patent owner, SurfCast, Inc. (“SurfCast”), filed a preliminary
`response in each of the four proceedings:
`
`Case No.
`
`Claims
`
`IPR2013-00292 1-13, 15-21
`IPR2013-00293
`
`IPR2013-00294
`
`
`22-45
`
`IPR2013-00295
`
`
`46-52
`1-3, 5-8, 11-17, 19-
`22, 25, 27, 28, 30,
`32, 34, 37-40, 43-
`47, 50-52
`To administer the proceedings more efficiently, we exercise our authority
`under 35 U.S.C. § 315(d) to consolidate the four proceedings and conduct the
`proceedings as one trial for the reasons discussed below.
`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.
`
`Petition
`Paper No.
`Paper 6
`(“292 Pet.”)
`Paper 5
`(“293 Pet.”)
`Paper 4
`(“294 Pet.”)
`
`Preliminary
`Response Paper No.
`Paper 18
`(“292 Prelim. Resp.”)
`Paper 13
`(“293 Prelim. Resp.”)
`Paper 13
`(“294 Prelim. Resp.”)
`
`Paper 3
`(“295 Pet.”)
`
`Paper 13
`(“295 Prelim. Resp.”)
`
`2
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2013-00292, IPR2013-00293,
`IPR2013-00294, and IPR2013-00295
`Patent 6,724,403
`
`
`Upon consideration of the petitions and SurfCast’s preliminary responses,
`we determine that the information presented by Microsoft establishes that there is a
`reasonable likelihood that Microsoft would prevail in showing unpatentability of
`claims 1-52 of the ’403 patent. Accordingly, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we
`institute an inter partes review for claims 1-52 of the ’403 patent.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`Microsoft indicates that the ’403 patent is involved in co-pending litigation
`captioned SurfCast, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2:12-cv-00333 (D. Me), filed
`October 30, 2012. Pet. 1-2.1
`
`B. The ’403 Patent
`The subject matter of the ’403 patent relates to a graphical user interface that
`organizes content from a variety of information sources into a grid of tiles, each of
`which can refresh its content independently of the others. Ex. 1001, Abstract. As
`described in the “Background of the Invention,” at the time of the invention,
`display technologies lacked a user interface capable of presenting any type of
`information in a consistent manner and in such a way that all open channels could
`indicate their activity on a continual basis. Ex. 1001, 4:24-31. In response to this
`need, the ’403 patent describes a graphical user interface comprising a grid of tiles
`that resides on the user’s computer desktop. Id. at 4:37-38. The grid of tiles
`provides a uniform graphical environment in which a user can access, operate,
`
`1 For the purpose of clarity and expediency, IPR2013-00292 is representative. All
`citations to “Pet.” are to IPR2013-00292, unless otherwise noted. All citations to
`“Ex.” are to exhibits to IPR2013-00292, unless otherwise noted.
`3
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2013-00292, IPR2013-00293,
`IPR2013-00294, and IPR2013-00295
`Patent 6,724,403
`
`and/or control multiple data sources on electronic devices. Id. at 4:37-41. Figure 1
`illustrates an embodiment of the graphical user interface, and is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`C. Exemplary Claims
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 22, and 46 are independent claims.
`Claims 2-9 and 11-21 depend from claim 1; claim 10 depends from claim 9.
`Claims 23-41 and 43-45 depend from claim 22; claim 42 depends from claim 41.
`Claims 47, 48, and 50-52 depend from claim 46; claim 49 depends from claim 48.
`Claims 1 and 22 are representative and are reproduced below:
`
`1. A method executed by a device under the control of a program,
`said device including a memory for storing said program, said method
`comprising:
`
`4
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2013-00292, IPR2013-00293,
`IPR2013-00294, and IPR2013-00295
`Patent 6,724,403
`
`
`selecting a plurality of information sources;
`partitioning a visual display of the device into an array of tiles,
`wherein each tile in said array of tiles is associated with an
`information source in said plurality of information sources;
`assigning a first refresh rate to a first tile of said array of tiles
`and a second refresh rate to a second tile of said array of tiles;
`updating information from a first information source in said
`plurality of information sources presented to said first tile in
`accordance with said first refresh rate; and
`simultaneously updating information from a second information
`source in said plurality of information sources presented to said
`second tile in accordance with said second refresh rate.
`22. An electronic readable memory to direct an electronic device to
`function in a specified manner, comprising:
`a first set of instructions to control simultaneous
`communication with a plurality of information sources;
`a second set of instructions to arrange a display into an array of
`
`tiles;
`
`a third set of instructions to associate a first information source
`of said plurality of information sources to a first tile of said array of
`tiles and a second information source of said plurality of information
`sources to a second tile of said array of tiles;
`a fourth set of instructions to retrieve information from said
`first information source in accordance with a first retrieval rate and
`retrieve information from said second information source in
`accordance with a second retrieval rate; and
`a fifth set of instructions to present information to said first tile
`in accordance with said first retrieval rate and present information to
`said second tile in accordance with said second retrieval rate.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2013-00292, IPR2013-00293,
`IPR2013-00294, and IPR2013-00295
`Patent 6,724,403
`
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`Microsoft relies on the following prior art references, as well as the
`
`declaration of David R. Karger (Ex. 1003):
`Chen
`US 5,432,932
`Miller
`US 5,550,968
`DorEl
`US 5,721,951
`Farber
`US 5,819,284
`Jambhekar
`US 5,848,356
`Crawford
`US 5,901,228
`Duhault (“Duhault I”) US 6,118,493
`
`July 11, 1995 Ex. 1015
`Aug. 27, 1996 Ex. 1027
`Feb. 24, 1998 Ex. 1025
`Oct. 6, 1998
`Ex. 1016
`Dec. 8, 1998
`Ex. 1031
`May 4, 1999
`Ex. 1029
`Sept. 12, 2000 Ex. 1013
`
`Haddock
`Brown
`
`US 6,104,700
`US 6,278,448
`
`Aug. 15, 2000 Ex. 1024
`Aug. 21, 2001 Ex. 1030
`
`Duhault (“Duhault II”) US 6,456,334 B1 Sept. 24, 2002 Ex. 1014
`
`Duperrouzel
`MSIE Kit
`
`US 6,832,355 B1 Dec. 14, 2004 Ex. 1011
`Microsoft
`Oct. 1998
`Exs. 1006,
`Internet Explorer
`1007, 1008,
`Resource Kit,
`1009, 1010
`Microsoft Press
`(1998)
`
`E. The Alleged Grounds of Unpatentability
`Microsoft alleges that the challenged claims are unpatentable based on the
`following grounds:
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2013-00292, IPR2013-00293,
`IPR2013-00294, and IPR2013-00295
`Patent 6,724,403
`
`
`Reference[s]
`Duhault I
`
`Basis
`§ 102
`
`Duhault I and Miller
`Duhault I and Brown
`Duhault II
`
`Chen
`
`Chen
`Chen and Haddock
`Chen and MSIE Kit
`Chen and Crawford
`Chen and DorEl
`Chen and Duhault I
`Chen and Miller
`Chen and Brown
`Farber
`Farber and MSIE Kit
`Farber and Jambhekar
`MSIE Kit
`
`§ 103
`§ 103
`§ 102
`
`§ 102
`
`§ 103
`§ 103
`§ 103
`§ 103
`§ 103
`§ 103
`§ 103
`§ 103
`§ 102
`§ 103
`§ 103
`§ 102
`
`MSIE Kit and Duperrouzel § 103
`
`7
`
`Claims challenged
`1, 3-5, 7-13, 18, 19, 21-24,
`26, 27, 30-33, 35-37, 40-43,
`46-50
`29
`38
`1-13, 17-28, 30-33, 35-37,
`39-43, 46-50
`1-3, 6-13, 19, 22, 23, 27,
`30, 39-43, 46-50
`21, 34
`4, 31
`15, 16, 29, 44, 45, 51, 52
`15, 16, 44, 45, 51, 52
`18, 26
`24, 33
`29
`38
`1, 17, 20, 22, 25, 28
`1, 17, 20, 22, 25, 28
`17, 25
`1-3, 5-8, 11, 12, 14-16, 19,
`21, 22, 27, 30, 32, 34, 37-
`40, 43-47, 50-52
`2, 11, 15, 16, 43-45, 50-52
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2013-00292, IPR2013-00293,
`IPR2013-00294, and IPR2013-00295
`Patent 6,724,403
`
`
`§ 103
`MSIE Kit and Dunhault I
`MSIE Kit and Dunhault II § 103
`MSIE Kit and Brown
`§ 103
`MSIE Kit and Jambhekar
`§ 103
`Duperrouzel
`§ 102
`
`Duperrouzel and Duhault I § 103
`Duperrouzel and Brown
`§ 103
`Duperrouzel and Farber
`§ 103
`Duperrouzel and
`§ 103
`Jambhekar
`
`5, 32
`5, 32
`17, 20, 25, 28
`17, 25
`1-3, 5-8, 12-14, 19, 21, 22,
`27, 30, 32, 34, 37-40, 46,
`47
`5, 32
`17, 20, 25, 28
`17, 25
`17, 25
`
`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).
`Microsoft and SurfCast identify twenty-two claim terms for construction.
`292 Pet. 5-20; 293 Pet. 5-19; 294 Pet. 4-15; 295 Pet. 5-19; 292 Prelim. Resp. 9-37;
`293 Prelim. Resp. 9-30; 294 Prelim. Resp. 9-28; 295 Prelim. Resp. 9-38.
`
`8
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2013-00292, IPR2013-00293,
`IPR2013-00294, and IPR2013-00295
`Patent 6,724,403
`
`
`For this decision, we make explicit the construction of thirteen of those
`terms that we determine necessary to decide on whether to institute a review. The
`resolution of the other nine terms is not necessary to this decision.
`1. “tile” (claims 1-5, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 22, 25-30, 32-38, 41, 44, 45, 46, 48, 51,
`52)
`Microsoft’s Proposal
`a visual element (including a
`window or icon) that occupies
`less than the entire display, and
`may contain active areas or
`control elements (Pet. 6-9)
`
`SurfCast’s Proposal
`a graphical representation of an
`associated information source
`capable of displaying refreshed
`content, the graphical
`representation being persistent,
`and selectable to provide access
`to underlying information of the
`associated information source
`(Prelim. Resp. 10-17)
`On this record, we determine that the broadest reasonable interpretation for
`“tile” in the context of the specification of the ’403 patent is “a graphical user
`interface element whose content may be refreshed and that, when selected,
`provides access to an information source.”
`SurfCast contends that “tile” has a special meaning within the context of the
`’403 patent. Prelim. Resp. 10. The ’403 patent explains that “[a] tile is associated
`with a program, file or datastream, in the same way that an icon and a window
`are.” Ex. 1001, 8:57-58. However, a “tile” is unlike “existing elements of
`graphical user interfaces,” particularly icons and windows. Id. at 7:62-64. “A tile
`presents content from any information source.” Id. at 7:64-65. “Tiles are
`selectable and live.” Id. at 9:25. With respect to being “selectable,” the ’403
`patent explains that “[w]hen a tile is selected, whether by mouse click or otherwise,
`9
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2013-00292, IPR2013-00293,
`IPR2013-00294, and IPR2013-00295
`Patent 6,724,403
`
`the tile instantly provides the user with access to the underlying information.” Id.
`at 9:25-27. With respect to being “live,” the ’403 patent explains that “[t]he tiles
`are live in that each contains real-time or near-real-time information.” Id. at 9:32-
`33; see also id. at 8:36-38 (“A tile is different from an icon because it provides a
`real-time or near-real time view of the underlying information in that it contains
`continually refreshed content.”). The content presented in a “tile” can be
`refreshed, e.g., once per day. Id. at 12:56-58 (describing a tile containing
`infrequently updated HTML data from the Internet to refresh at a certain time each
`day). Alternatively, the content presented in a “tile” can be refreshed multiple
`times per second. Id. at 12:58-65 (“At the other extreme, a user might configure an
`active tile to display a television channel at a refresh rate of 29 frames per second,
`while at the same time configuring inactive tiles to display different channels at a
`refresh rate of once every five seconds. In this way, a user could monitor many
`channels until program content of interest appeared in one of the tiles without the
`burden of actively refreshing each tile.”).
`Microsoft’s contention that “tile” be interpreted to cover an “icon” is
`overbroad. An icon, unlike a “tile,” is not refreshed. Id. at 8:36-38. Microsoft’s
`contention that “tile” be interpreted to cover a “window” is not as problematic.
`The ’403 patent does not draw the same distinction between a “tile” and a window,
`stating only that “a tile will typically be smaller in size, allowing the user to view
`multiple files simultaneously if desired.” Id. at 8:38-41 (emphasis added). The
`’403 patent also states that “[a] tile . . . does not necessarily have the large number
`of active areas associated with windows such as title bar, menu bar and scroll
`bars.” Id. at 8:42-45 (emphasis added). These distinctions suggest that some
`10
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2013-00292, IPR2013-00293,
`IPR2013-00294, and IPR2013-00295
`Patent 6,724,403
`
`embodiments of a “tile” may be the same size as a window or may have the active
`areas associated with windows. As a result, on this record, we agree that the
`broadest reasonable interpretation of “tile” encompasses a window.
`SurfCast’s contention that “tile” be construed to require “being persistent” is
`overbroad. Prelim. Resp. 12-13. SurfCast’s reliance on column 15 of the
`specification improperly attempts to import a limitation from what the
`specification describes as merely a “preferred embodiment.” Ex. 1001, 14:27.
`SurfCast’s reliance on the use of “resides” at column 4, lines 37 to 38, also is
`unavailing because it is unclear in that sentence whether “resides” modifies the
`“tiles” or the “grid.”
`2. “array of tiles” (claims 1-3, 9, 13, 15, 16, 22, 25-29, 32, 35, 36, 38, 41, 44,
`45, 46, 48, 51, 52)
`
`Microsoft’s Proposal
`
`any arrangement on a display of
`one or more tiles (Pet. 9-10)
`
`SurfCast’s Proposal
`multiple tiles displayed in an
`orderly fashion
`(Prelim. Resp. 17-19)
`On this record, we determine that the broadest reasonable interpretation for
`“array of tiles” in the context of the specification of the ’403 patent is “an ordered
`set of two or more tiles.”
`The ’403 patent does not define explicitly “array of tiles.” Outside of the
`Summary of Invention and the Claims, that phrase is used only twice. In one
`instance, the ’403 patent refers to tile 406 as displaying “a further array of tiles that
`may be displayed in full by expanding tile 406 to occupy the full area of the
`display.” Ex. 1001, 9:8-10. In the other instance, the ’403 patent describes a tile
`being “partitioned into a further array of tiles” by using the grid configuration
`11
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2013-00292, IPR2013-00293,
`IPR2013-00294, and IPR2013-00295
`Patent 6,724,403
`
`wizard. Id. at 13:59-60. Nevertheless, we agree with SurfCast that the term “array
`of tiles” as used in the specification of the ’403 patent connotes order. Prelim.
`Resp. 17-18; see, e.g., Ex. 2001 (“[a]n orderly, often imposing arrangement” and
`“a rectangular arrangement of quantities in rows and columns, as in a matrix”).
`Claims 3, 8, 12, 13, 30, and 40 further define limitations of the array of tiles.
`While we agree with Microsoft that the limitations of the dependent claims 3, 8,
`12, 13, 30, and 40 should not be imported into the term “array of tiles,” Microsoft’s
`proposal to interpret the term to mean “any arrangement” would read out any
`requirement of order.
`In addition, Microsoft’s contention that an “array of tiles” can include only
`one tile is overbroad. Claim 1 requires “a first tile” and “a second tile.” Thus, the
`recited “array of tiles” must have at least the recited first and second tiles. The
`’403 patent’s description of an embodiment in which a “grid” can contain only one
`tile does not compel a different result. The “array” recited in claim 1 is broader
`than the “grid” recited in claim 12. An array may “comprise[] a grid,” as required
`by claim 12, and nevertheless include at least two tiles if, for example, the array
`comprised more than one grid.
`3. “partitioning a visual display of the device into an array of tiles” (claim 1) /
`“arrange a display into an array of tiles” (claims 22, 46)
`Microsoft’s Proposal
`SurfCast’s Proposal
`a presentation of two or more
`dividing some or all of a display
`tiles within a portion or region
`into a non-overlapping array of
`of the display, including within a
`tiles (Prelim. Resp. 19-22)
`window (Pet. 11-12)
`
`12
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2013-00292, IPR2013-00293,
`IPR2013-00294, and IPR2013-00295
`Patent 6,724,403
`
`
`On this record, we determine that the broadest reasonable interpretation for
`“partitioning a visual display of the device into an array of tiles” in the context of
`the specification of the ’403 patent is “dividing a display or window into two or
`more tiles.”
`The parties do not dispute that the partitioning may be within only “some” or
`“a portion or region” of a display. The parties’ sole dispute is whether the tiles
`may be overlapping. SurfCast contends that Microsoft’s proposed interpretation
`improperly encompasses a display of tiles in which the tiles overlap. Prelim. Resp.
`19-22. SurfCast argues that the requirement in claims 3 and 30 that the tiles be
`“non-overlapping” does not compel claims 1 and 22 to encompass overlapping
`tiles because claims 3 and 30 include other additional limitations. Prelim. Resp.
`20-21. SurfCast also notes that there are no embodiments of overlapping tiles in
`the specification or drawings of the ’403 patent. Id. While we acknowledge that
`no embodiments of overlapping tiles are disclosed in the ’403 patent, we also do
`not find any affirmative disclaimer of overlapping tiles. In one of two instances
`addressing overlap, the ’403 patent states that tiles “may”—not must—“be
`displayed simultaneously without overlapping with one another in the way that
`windows necessarily do.” Ex. 1001, 8:46-49. In the other instance, the ’403
`patent’s disclosure that “the tiles are not permitted to overlap” refers only to “a
`preferred embodiment.” Id. at 11:63-12:6. Neither disclosure precludes an
`embodiment in which tiles overlap. As a result, we decline to import this
`limitation into the construction of the claim phrase.
`
`13
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2013-00292, IPR2013-00293,
`IPR2013-00294, and IPR2013-00295
`Patent 6,724,403
`
`
`SurfCast’s Proposal
`criteria for updating
`(Prelim. Resp. 29-31)
`
`4. “refresh rate” (claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11) / “retrieval rate” (claims 22, 31, 33,
`39, 42, 43, 46, 49, 50)
`Microsoft’s Proposal
`a recurring time interval at
`which information displayed in a
`tile is refreshed or retrieved
`(Pet. 12-13)
`On this record, we determine that the broadest reasonable interpretation for
`“[refresh/retrieval] rate” in the context of the specification of the ’403 patent is “a
`recurring time interval at which information displayed in a tile is refreshed or
`retrieved.”
`The ’403 patent states “[i]n a preferred embodiment, according to priorities
`that may be applied to individual tiles on a tile-by-tile basis if desired, the grid
`manages the refresh rate of each tile in the grid.” Ex. 1001, 12:50-53. As
`examples of the grid managing the “refresh rate of each tile,” the ’403 patent
`describes configuring “tiles containing infrequently updated HTML data from the
`Internet to refresh at a certain time each day,” or configuring “an active tile to
`display a television channel at a refresh rate of 29 frames per second, while at the
`same time configuring inactive tiles to display different channels at a refresh rate
`of once every five seconds.” Id. at 12:56-62. Thus, Microsoft’s proposed
`construction is consistent with the specification of the ’403 patent.
`SurfCast contends that Microsoft’s proposal (1) improperly excludes the
`embodiment in which a tile is configured “to refresh only when the underlying data
`is written to the local hard drive” and (2) is inconsistent with the plain and ordinary
`meaning of “rate.” Prelim. Resp. 29-31 (quoting Ex. 1001, 12:54-56). As an
`
`14
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2013-00292, IPR2013-00293,
`IPR2013-00294, and IPR2013-00295
`Patent 6,724,403
`
`initial matter, Microsoft’s proposal does not exclude embodiments in which
`underlying data is written to the local hard drive at a recurring time interval.
`Moreover, a claim need not be construed to encompass every disclosed
`embodiment when the claim language is clearly limited to one or more
`embodiments. TIP Systems, LLC v. Phillips & Brooks/Gladwin, Inc., 529 F.3d
`1364, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citing PSN Ill., LLC v. Ivoclar Vivadent, Inc., 525
`F.3d 1159, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). In addition, we are not persuaded by the
`extrinsic evidence cited by SurfCast. Although SurfCast has cited a dictionary
`defines “rate” in a manner not based on time, the example following the
`definition—“a rate of speed of 60 miles an hour”—is based on time. Ex. 2001. At
`best, this evidence is ambiguous as to whether a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would understand “rate” to imply time. On this record, we decline to construe
`“[refresh/retrieval] rate” to encompass “criteria for updating” other than time.
`5. “simultaneously updating information from a second information source . . .
`in accordance with said second refresh rate” (claim 1) / “control
`simultaneous communication with a plurality of information sources”
`(claims 22 and 46)
`Microsoft’s Proposal
`[No proposal]
`
`SurfCast’s Proposal
`performing the repetitive process
`of updating information presented
`to the second tile and waiting for
`the next time at which the update
`is to occur as set by the refresh
`rate assigned to the second tile at
`the same time or nearly the same
`time as said updating information
`from said first information source
`(Prelim. Resp. 32-35)
`15
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2013-00292, IPR2013-00293,
`IPR2013-00294, and IPR2013-00295
`Patent 6,724,403
`
`
`Microsoft does not assert a different interpretation but contends that
`SurfCast’s proposal would “encompass two processes (e.g., two refresh processes
`associated with two different tiles) that overlap at any point during their
`execution.” Pet. 14. We adopt SurfCast’s proposed construction because it is
`consistent with the ordinary meaning of the claim phrase and the specification of
`the ’403 patent.
`6. “user-defined array size” (claim 2)
`SurfCast’s Proposal
`Microsoft’s Proposal
`the number and arrangement of
`an amount of space determined
`tile positions in the array as
`to be necessary to present a user-
`specified by the user (Prelim.
`defined number of tiles in a
`Resp. 22-23)
`display (Pet. 13)
`On this record, we determine that the broadest reasonable interpretation for
`“user-defined array size” in the context of the specification of the ’403 patent is
`“the number and arrangement of tiles to display, as specified by the user.”
`The ’403 patent states that “a user may specify a presentation of the grid,
`consisting of its dimensions, (i.e., the number of tiles to display and their
`arrangement).” Ex. 1001, 11:9-11. Microsoft’s additional citations (Pet. 13, citing
`Ex. 1001, 14:4-14 and 13:28-30) provide no support for its proposed “amount of
`space determined to be necessary to present.” Similarly, the specification provides
`no support for SurfCast’s proposed tile “positions.”
`
`16
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2013-00292, IPR2013-00293,
`IPR2013-00294, and IPR2013-00295
`Patent 6,724,403
`
`
`7. “assigning said first [second] refresh rate in accordance with a first [second]
`priority value of a first [second] information source associated with said first
`[second] tile” (claim 4) / “assign said first retrieval rate and said second
`retrieval rate in accordance with a predetermined priority scheme (claim 31)
`Microsoft’s Proposal
`SurfCast’s Proposal
`the refresh rate is assigned to a
`(i) either a user or a device
`tile based on a priority scheme
`defining a priority value, and (ii)
`such that a tile’s refresh rate is
`assigning refresh rates by any
`higher than the refresh rates of
`manner of reference to the
`other tiles that have lower
`priority value (Pet. 15)
`priority values (Prelim.
`Resp. 35-36)
`On this record, we determine that the broadest reasonable interpretation for
`“assigning said first [second] refresh rate . . . in accordance with a first [second]
`priority value of a first [second] information source associated with said first
`[second] tile” in the context of the specification of the ’403 patent is “assigning
`said first [second] refresh rate . . . in accordance with a first [second] priority
`value of said first [second] tile.”
`Although the claim phrase refers to the “priority value of a first [second]
`information source,” the ’403 patent describes a tile—not an information source—
`as having a priority. Ex. 1001, 12:50-52 (“according to priorities that may be
`applied to individual tiles on a tile by tile basis if desired”) (emphasis added),
`13:10-11 (“[T]he address of each tile, its priority and its refresh rate are stored by
`the grid program.”) (emphasis added); 13:14-15 (“The priority of a tile may be
`used to determine its refresh rate in one embodiment of the present invention.”)
`(emphasis added). Microsoft’s proposed interpretation imports a step of defining a
`priority value. SurfCast’s proposed interpretation imports a requirement that a tile
`17
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2013-00292, IPR2013-00293,
`IPR2013-00294, and IPR2013-00295
`Patent 6,724,403
`
`with a higher priority is assigned a higher refresh rate than a tile with a lower
`priority. Neither proposed limitation is required by the claim language or the
`specification of the ’403 patent.
`8. “wherein at least one attribute of each tile in said array of tiles is assigned
`uniformly” (claim 9) / “uniformly assigning at least one attribute of each tile
`in said array of tiles” (claim 41 and 48)
`Microsoft’s Proposal
`SurfCast’s Proposal
`assigning the same value of an
`assigning one value to at least
`attribute to each tile in the array
`one attribute in each tile in an
`(Prelim. Resp. 25)
`array, including by assigning a
`default value for an attribute of a
`tile that is created or displayed
`(Pet. 16)
`On the record before us at this stage of the proceeding, we determine that the
`broadest reasonable interpretation for “wherein at least one attribute of each tile in
`said array of tiles is assigned uniformly” (claim 9) in the context of the
`specification of the ’403 patent encompasses “assigning the same value of an
`attribute to each tile in the array” (Prelim. Resp. 25).
`The ’403 patent describes examples of an attribute of a tile, such as its size,
`position, priority, and refresh rate. Ex. 1001, 13:7-19, 21-23 (referring to attributes
`in Figs. 5 and 12). The parties dispute whether “uniformly” modifies “assigned” or
`“attribute.” Under Microsoft’s proposed interpretation, what is being assigned
`need not be the same value, or even the same attribute, as long as the way it is
`assigned is uniform (e.g., by default). However, the ’403 patent does not describe
`explicitly how values would be assigned uniformly. Under SurfCast’s proposed
`interpretation, each tile must be assigned the same value for the same attribute.
`
`18
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2013-00292, IPR2013-00293,
`IPR2013-00294, and IPR2013-00295
`Patent 6,724,403
`
`While this interpretation is problematic for some attributes—e.g., if each tile were
`assigned the same position, the tiles in the array would overlap—other attributes
`are described as having the same value. For example, in one embodiment, the tiles
`have the same size. Id. at 11:63-12:4. In another embodiment, the tiles have the
`same refresh rate. Id. at 12:36-48. As a result, we adopt SurfCasts’s proposed
`interpretation.
`9. “grid” (claim 12)
`Microsoft’s Proposal
`any presentation of tiles in a
`row and column orientation
`(Pet. 17)
`
`SurfCast’s Proposal
`a regular layout of rows and
`columns where a single tile may
`occupy more than one row and/or
`column (Prelim. Resp. 25-26)
`On this record, we determine that the broadest reasonable interpretation for
`“grid” in the context of the specification of the ’403 patent is “any presentation of
`tiles in a row and column orientation.” The ’403 patent describes embodiments in
`which a single tile occupies more than one row and/or column. See, e.g., Ex. 1001,
`Fig. 9 (tiles 802-1-2), 12:13-19. Microsoft’s proposed interpretation encompasses
`such embodiments in fewer words.
`10. “wherein each of said tiles occupies a fixed position on said grid” (claim
`12)
`Microsoft’s Proposal
`presenting a tile in a specific cell
`within a row and column of a
`grid, and does not require the tile
`to remain in the identical
`location on the display (Pet. 17)
`
`SurfCast’s Proposal
`wherein each tile occupies a
`particular position in the regular
`layout of rows and columns
`(Prelim. Resp. 27-29)
`
`19
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2013-00292, IPR2013-00293,
`IPR2013-00294, and IPR2013-00295
`Patent 6,724,403
`
`
`On this record, we determine that the broadest reasonable interpretation for
`“wherein each of said tiles occupies a fixed position on said grid” (claim 12) in the
`context of the specification of the ’403 patent is “each tile occupies a particular
`cell or a particular plurality of cells of said grid.”
`Outside of the claims, the ’403 patent does not use the word “fixed” with
`respect to a tile’s position on the grid. As noted above, the ’403 patent describes
`embodiments in which a single tile occupies more than one row and/or column.
`See, e.g., Ex. 1001, Fig. 9 (tiles 802-1-2), 12:13-19. Microsoft’s proposed
`interpretation is unduly narrow because it excludes embodiments in which a tile
`occupies more than one cell. SurfCast’s proposed interpretation is unduly broad
`because it does not limit the “position” occupied by a tile to one or more specific
`cells. SurfCast does not dispute that a tile need not occupy a fixed position on the
`display, as long as the position is fixed with respect to the grid. Prelim. Resp. 28.
`11. “tile . . . has a fixed size that is equal to a unit tile size, or a multiple
`thereof” (claim 13)
`Microsoft’s Proposal
`[No proposal]
`
`SurfCast’s Proposal
`a single tile has a size that may
`occupy more than one row
`and/or column in an array of
`rows and columns (Prelim.
`Resp. 26-27)
`Because SurfCast’s proposed interpretation of the claim phrase is consistent
`with the ordinary meaning of the claim terms and the specification of the ’403
`patent, we adopt SurfCast’s proposed construction.
`
`20
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2013-00292, IPR2013-00293,
`IPR2013-00294, and IPR2013-00295
`Patent 6,724,403
`
`
`12. “storing said array of tiles on a second device” (claims 15 and 51) / “storing
`said array of tiles on a second electronic device” (claim 44)
`Microsoft’s Proposal
`SurfCast’s Proposal
`transmitting to, and saving on, a
`storing information about the
`second device, a specification of
`tile, e.g., attributes of the tiles,
`an array of tiles that includes, for
`layout of the array, size of the
`each tile, its position in the
`array, grid configurations,
`array, its refresh rate, and its
`passwords, and other user-
`assigned information source
`specific contents related to the
`(Prelim. Resp. 36-37)
`array of tiles such as refresh
`rates, on a device that does not
`perform the steps of claim 1
`(Pet. 19)
`On the record before us, we determine that the broadest reasonable
`interpretation for “storing said array of tiles on a second device” (claims 15 and
`51) i
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
