throbber
Case: 15-1810
`
`Document: 55-1
`
`Page: 1
`
`Filed: 11/15/2016
`
`(1 of 17)
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`NOTICE OF ENTRY OF
`
`JUDGMENT ACCOMPANIED BY OPINION
`
`OPINION FILED AND JUDGMENT ENTERED: 11/ 15/2016
`
`The attached opinion announcing the judgment of the court in your case was filed and judgment was entered on
`the date indicated above. The mandate will be issued in due course.
`
`Information is also provided about petitions for rehearing and suggestions for rehearing en banc. The questions
`and answers are those frequently asked and answered by the Clerk's Office.
`
`No costs were taxed in this appeal.
`
`Regarding exhibits and visual aids: Your attention is directed Fed. R. App. P. 34(g) which states that the clerk
`may destroy or dispose of the exhibits if counsel does not reclaim them within a reasonable time after the clerk gives
`notice to remove them. (The clerk deems a reasonable time to be 15 days from the date the final mandate is issued.)
`
`FOR THE COURT
`
`[sz Peter R. Marksteiner
`Peter R. Marksteiner
`Clerk of Court
`
`cc: Peter Andrew Detre
`
`William M. Jay
`Adam R. Lawton
`Michael V. Messinger
`Joseph E. Mutschelknaus
`Brett M. Schuman
`Deirdre M. Wells
`
`_
`
`Jon Wright
`Eleanor M. Yost
`David Zimmer
`
`15-1810 - Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc.
`United States Patent and Trademark Office, Case No. lPR2014-00036
`
`

`

`Case: 15-1810
`
`Document: 55-2
`
`Page: 1
`
`Filed: 11/15/2016
`
`(2 of 17)
`
`fltiniteh fitates Qtnurt of gppeals
`
`for the jfeheral Qliirtutt
`
`UNWIRED PLANET, LLC,
`Appellant
`
`V.
`
`GOOGLE INC.,
`Appellee
`
`2015-1810, 2015-1811
`
`Appeals from the United States Patent and Trade-
`mark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board,
`in Nos.
`IPR2014-00036, CBM2014-00005.
`
`Decided: November 15, 2016
`
`WILLIAM M. JAY, Goodwin Procter LLP, Washington,
`DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by ELEANOR
`M. YOST; BRETT M. SCHUMAN, DAVID ZIMMER, San Fran-
`cisco, CA.
`
`JON WRIGHT, Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox, PLLC,
`Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by
`MICHAEL V. MESSINGER, DEIRDRE M. WELLS, JOSEPH E.
`MUTSCHELKNAUS; PETER ANDREW DETRE, Munger, Tolles
`& Olson, LLP, San Francisco, CA; ADAM R. LAWTON, Los
`Angele s, CA.
`
`

`

`Case: 15-1810
`
`Document: 55-2
`
`Page: 2
`
`Filed: 11/15/2016
`
`(3 of 17)
`
`2
`
`UNWIRED PLANET, LLC V. GOOGLE INC.
`
`Before REYNA, PLAGER, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
`
`REYNA, Circuit Judge.
`
`Unwired Planet, LLC (“Unwired”) appeals from the
`final Written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal
`Board (“Board”) in Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) No. 2014-
`00036 and Covered Business Method (“CBM”) Patent
`Review No. 2014-00005. Google Inc. v. Unwired Planet,
`LLC, IPR2014-00036, 2015 WL 1478653 (P.T.A.B. Mar.
`30, 2015) (“IPR Final Decision”); Google Inc. v. Unwired
`Planet, LLC, CBM2014-00005,
`2015 WL
`1519056
`(P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2015) (“CBM Final Decision”). For the
`reasons stated below, we affirm the Board’s decision that
`the challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,024,205 (the
`“’205 patent”) are invalid as obvious in the IPR appeal
`and dismiss the CBM appeal as moot.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,024,205
`
`The ’205 patent is entitled “Subscriber Delivered Lo-
`cation-Based Services.” It describes a system and method
`for providing wireless network subscribers (e.g., cell
`phone users) with prioritized search results based on the
`location of their mobile device (e.g., the nearest gas sta-
`tion). The specification describes how search results can
`be personalized for subscribers by taking into account, for
`example, “favorite restaurants; automobile service plans;
`and/or a wide variety of other subscriber information.”
`’205 patent col. 2 11. 18-19.
`
`the specification also describes how
`In contrast,
`search results can be ordered to give priority to “preferred
`service providers defined by the network administrator.”
`Id. at col. 8 11. 35-36. This allows the network to generate
`revenue by charging service providers to be put on the
`preferred-service-provider list.
`Id. at col. 8 11. 46-52.
`Preferred-provider status,
`in turn,
`leads to preferred
`
`

`

`Case: 15-1810
`
`Document: 55-2
`
`Page: 3
`
`Filed: 11/15/2016
`
`(4 of 17)
`
`UNWIRED PLANET, LLC V. GOOGLE INC.
`
`3
`
`listings being prioritized in search results
`providers’
`provided to subscribers.
`
`Prioritization based on subscriber information and
`preferred provider status is independent of a subsci-iber’s
`location; hence, it can lead to service providers that are
`actually farther away from the subscriber being given
`priority over service providers that are nearer. As a
`consequence, the results returned to the subscriber can
`order preferred providers and other service providers that
`are farther away higher than nearer service providers.
`The parties and the Board refer to this result as “farther-
`over-nearer ordering,” although that term is not used in
`the patent.
`
`The sole independent claim of the ’205 patent, claim 1,
`claims farther-over-nearer ordering in the context of
`wireless location-based services through a series of meth-
`od steps. We treat claim 1 of the ’205 patent as repre-
`sentative and dispositive because the parties do not argue
`that any limitations of the dependent claims alter the
`obviousness analysis in the context of the asserted prior '
`art. Relevant here, it claims:
`
`identifying, on said network platform, first and
`second service providers and associated first and
`second service provider information[,] .
`.
`. wherein
`said first service provider is farther from [a] mo-
`bile unit than said second service provider; [and]
`**‘k
`
`based on said stored prioritization information,
`prioritizing said first and second service provider
`information, wherein said first [farther] location
`information is assigned a higher priority than said
`second [nearer] location information; and
`
`

`

`Case: 15-1810
`
`Document: 55-2
`
`Page: 4
`
`Filed: 11/15/2016
`
`(5 of 17)
`
`4
`
`UNWIRED PLANET, LLC V. GOOGLE INC.
`
`outputting both said first and second service in-
`formation on said mobile unit based upon said
`
`step of prioritizing.
`
`’205 patent, cl. 1, col. 10 11. 27-57.
`
`Asserted Prior Art
`
`Five asserted prior art references are relevant to the
`issues addressed below.
`
`The primary reference, U.S. Patent No. 6,108,533
`(“Brohoff”), is entitled “Geographical Database for Radio
`Systems.”
`It describes a system using a radio telecom-
`munication network in combination with a database of
`consumer services. Brohoff col. 2 11. 18-25. The system
`provides the information about nearby consumer services
`in response to search requests. To do so,
`the system
`determines the location of the mobile device sending the
`search request and provides information about nearby,
`relevant consumer services from its database. Id. at col. 2
`11. 33-42. Brohoff teaches using a database where the
`consumer services are grouped by geographic zones and
`returning location-based search results grouped by these
`geographic zones. Id. at col. 2 11. 48-58, col. 3 11. 13-19.
`
`One secondary reference is Wilbert O. Galitz’s book
`The Essential Guide to User Interface Design: An Intro-
`duction to GUI Design Principles and Techniques (John
`Wiley & Sons, Inc. (1997)) (“Galitz”).
`It discusses princi-
`ples for interface design,
`including discussing the ad-
`vantages
`of various
`techniques
`for ordering
`text
`information and menus.
`Id. at 120-21, 255-56.
`It also
`discusses the benefits and’ applications of several ordering
`techniques, including alphabetic order. Id. at 256. Galitz
`further suggests how the design principles it discusses
`may be applied in designing interfaces for future, special-
`ized devices. Id. at 32.
`
`Another secondary reference is Laura Rich’s article IQ
`News: New Search Engine Allows Sites To Pay Their Way
`
`

`

`Case: 15-1810
`
`Document: 55-2
`
`Page: 5
`
`Filed: 11/15/2016
`
`(6 of 17)
`
`UNWIRED PLANET, LLC V. GOOGLE INC.
`
`5
`
`To Top.1 It describes a search engine that orders search
`results “according to who paid the most for that particular
`keyword” in a search.
`It also discusses ranking sites
`“according to user and editor input.”
`
`is European Patent No. EP
`A fourth reference
`0647076 (“Remy”), entitled, “Cellular radio communica-
`tion system with access to location dependent service,
`location retrieving module and server module for person-
`al, location dependent services.”
`It describes a cellular
`radio communication system within a network of geo-
`graphical cells that responds to a location-based query
`with the nearest result.
`
`International Patent No. WO 97/22066
`Finally,
`(“Hopkins”) is entitled “Method for computer aided adver-
`tisement.” It describes a computer-implemented method
`for presenting vendor advertising information to a user.
`Hopkins discusses how users can search the information
`alphabetically, by name, by address, or by geographical
`area.
`
`Procedural History
`
`Google Inc. (“Google”) filed the IPR and CBM petitions
`on appeal on October 8, 2013. In both proceedings, Google
`challenged claims 1-6 of the ’205 patent. The Board
`consolidated the proceedings before the same panel and,
`on April 8, 2014, instituted both proceedings on all chal-
`lenged claims.
`IPR2014-00036,
`2014 WL 1410358;
`CBM2014-00005, 2014 WL 1396977. On March 30, 2015,
`the Board issued final written decisions invalidating all of
`
`the challenged claims as obvious.
`
`Laura Rich, IQ News: New Search Engine Allows
`1
`Sites To Pay Their Way To Top, http://www.adweek.com/
`news/advertising/iq-news-new-search-engine-allows-sites-
`pay-their-way-top-24893 (Feb. 23, 1998).
`
`

`

`Case: 15-1810
`
`Document: 55-2
`
`Page: 6
`
`Filed: 11/15/2016
`
`(7 of 17)
`
`6
`
`UNVVIRED PLANET, LLC V. GOOGLE INC.
`
`In the IPR final written decision, the Board held the
`challenged claims were obvious on three grounds.
`IPR
`Final Decision, 2015 WL 1478653, at *18.
`In the first
`ground, claims 1-3, 5, and 6 were held obvious over
`Brohoff in View of Galitz.
`In the second ground, claim 4
`was held obvious in further view of Rich.
`In the third
`ground, claims 1-6 were also held obvious over Remy in
`View of Hopkins.
`
`In the CBM final written decision,’ the Board held
`that claims 1-6 were invalid for lack of written descrip-
`tion under 35 U.S.C. § 112 {I 1.2 CBM Final Decision,
`2015 WL 1519056, at *17. Specifically, the Board deter-
`mined that the specification lacked written description
`support for the claim term “prioritization information
`establishing a basis independent of proximity and inde-
`pendent of any subscriber preferences for prioritizing said
`first and second service provider information” and for
`farther-over-nearer ordering. Id. at *14, *16.
`
`Unwired appeals from both final written decisions.
`We consolidated the appeals for briefing and argument.
`Order Consolidating Appeals, No. 2015-1810, ECF No. 2
`(Fed. Cir. July 15, 2015). We have jurisdiction under 28
`U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A) and 35 U.S.C. §§ 319, 329.
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 103 and 112 were replaced with new
`2
`versions in the America Invents Act (“AIA”). See Leahy
`Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, §§ 3(c),
`4(c), 125 Stat. 284, 287, 296 (2011) (“AIA”). However, the
`AIA versions of §§ 103 and 112 do not apply to the pa-
`tents-in-suit in view of the AIA’s effective date provi-
`sions. See AIA, §§ 3(n)(1), 4(e), 125 Stat. 293, 297. Thus,
`we refer to the pre-AIA version of Title 35.
`
`

`

`Case: 15-1810
`
`Document: 55-2
`
`Page: 7
`
`Filed: 11/15/2016
`
`(8 of 17)
`
`UNWIRED PLANET, LLC V. GOOGLE INC.
`
`7
`
`STANDARD OF REVIEW
`
`We review the Board’s factual determinations for sub-
`stantial evidence and its legal conclusion of obviousness
`de novo. In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268,
`1280 (Fed. Cir. 2015), aff’d, Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC
`v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016); Inphi Corp. v. Netlist, Inc.,
`805 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “Substantial evi-
`dence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind
`might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Ken-
`nametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376,
`1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quotation marks omitted).
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`A claim would have been obvious “if the differences
`between the subject matter sought to be patented and the
`prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole
`would have been obvious at the time the invention was
`made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which
`said subject matter pertains.” 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (2006).
`In order to determine if a claim would have been obvious,
`“the scope and content of the prior art are to be deter-
`mined; differences between the prior art and the claims at
`issue are to be ascertained; and the level of ordinary skill
`in the pertinent art resolved.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex
`Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007) (quoting Graham 1). John
`Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966)). Given the differences
`between the prior art and the claimed invention,
`the
`claimed combination would have been obvious only if
`there was an apparent reason for a skilled artisan “to
`combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by
`the patent at issue.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.
`
`Unwired makes three challenges to the Board’s basis
`for the first ground of obviousness in the IPR. Unwired
`argues (1) that Galitz is not analogous prior art, (2) that
`the prior art does not teach farther-over-nearer ordering,
`and (3) that a person of skill in the art would not have
`been motivated to combine Brohoff with Galitz. Unwired
`
`

`

`Case: 15-1810
`
`Document: 55-2
`
`Page: 8
`
`Filed: 11/15/2016
`
`(9 of 17)
`
`8
`
`UNWIRED PLANET, LLC V. GOOGLE INC.
`
`does not separately dispute the further combination with
`Rich in the second ground of obviousness. We find sub-
`stantial evidence supports the Board’s factual findings
`with respect to the first two grounds of the IPR, and these
`facts lead to the conclusion that claims 1-6 of the ’205
`patent were obvious. This resolves the patentability of all
`challenged claims, so we do not reach the third ground in
`the IPR or the issues presented in the CBM review.
`
`1. The relevant prior art includes Galitz.
`
`Unwired challenges the Board’s factfinding with re-
`spect to the scope of the prior art. Unwired argues that
`Galitz “has nothing to do with mobile telephony or loca-
`tion-based services, but instead is a manual for designers
`of graphic user interfaces—a thoroughly different con-
`cept.” Unwired Br. 16. We disagree.
`
`Prior art is analogous and can be applied in an obvi-
`ousness combination if it either (1) “is from the same field
`of endeavor,
`regardless of the problem addressed” or
`(2) “is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with
`which the inventor is involved.” In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656,
`658-59 (Fed. Cir. 1992). To determine if art is analogous,
`we look to “the purposes of both the invention and the
`prior art.” Id. at 659.
`If a reference disclosure and the
`claimed invention have a same purpose,
`the reference
`relates to the same problem, which supports an obvious-
`ness rejection. Id.
`
`The field of endeavor of the ’205 patent is not limited
`to technical issues related to the wireless network system;
`it also teaches methods for ordering and displaying infor-
`mation from the network on users’ mobile devices. The
`’205 patent discusses various ways that “the service
`information can be provided to the user,” including “on a
`visual display of the [mobile device], as an audible, rec-
`orded message, or through any other appropriate means.”
`’205 patent col. 3 11. 15-18.
`“In cases where the service
`information is provided as a menu of selections,
`the
`
`

`

`Case: 15-1810
`
`Document: 55-2
`
`Page: 9
`
`Filed: 11/15/2016
`
`(10 of 17)
`
`UNWIRED PLANET, LLC V. GOOGLE INC.
`
`9
`
`method may further involve receiving a menu selection
`entered by the user and outputting further service infor-
`mation in response to the menu selection. Id. at col. 3 11.
`18-22. One particular problem the ’205 patent addresses
`is how to display and order information on a mobile
`device. When a menu is displayed on a mobile device, it
`“may be ordered based on any of various criteria such as
`the preferences expressed in the subscriber profile, near-
`est to farthest, preferred service providers defined by the
`network administrator, etc.” Id. at col. 811. 32-36.
`
`The Galitz reference deals generally with graphical
`user interface design and includes a chapter devoted to
`menu design with specific suggestions for how to order
`menu items. J.A. 1182-94. This discussion substantially
`focuses on displaying and ordering text in lists and men-
`us. One example that Galitz uses is address text, which it
`urges should be ordered “in the customary way” and
`sequenced to accord with user expectations, i.e., “street,
`city, state, and zip code.” J .A. 1053. Additionally, Galitz
`discusses future operating systems for internet-connected
`devices that “will aim at niches,” including “the purse or
`wallet.” J .A. 966.
`It suggests that the “narrower focus”
`on such devices “will result in much less complexity.” Id.
`
`The Board also relied on the testimony of Dr. Donald
`Cox.
`IPR Final Decision, 2015 WL 1478653, at *10. He
`discussed the Yellow Pages as a “customary and conven-
`tional use of sequential or alphabetical ordering for loca-
`tion-based services.” Id. The Yellow Pages list businesses
`in a “specific geographic area,” sort “the businesses into
`similar types,” and then alphabetically order the listings
`in each category.
`Id. (quoting Decl. of Dr. Donald Cox,
`1] 27, J.A. 494).
`
`Taken together, this evidence establishes that Galitz
`is analogous prior art to the ’205 patent. The field of
`endeavor of a patent is not limited to the specific point of
`novelty, the narrowest possible conception of the field, or
`
`

`

`Case: 15-1810
`
`Document: 55-2
`
`Page: 10
`
`Filed: 11/15/2016
`
`(11 of 17)
`
`10
`
`UNWIRED PLANET, LLC V. GOOGLE INC.
`
`the particular focus within a given field. Here, both
`Galitz and the ’205 patent are in the field of interface
`design, with Galitz focusing on graphical user interfaces
`and the ’205 patent focusing on interfaces for location-
`based services. These two areas of focus overlap within
`the broader field of interface design because the teachings
`in graphical user interface design, including design prin-
`ciples for displaying text and ordering menus, have rele-
`vance
`in interfaces
`for
`location-based applications.
`Likewise, a skilled artisan seeking to apply interface
`design principles to display addresses—one of the particu-
`lar problems dealt with by the inventor of the ’205 pa-
`tent—wou1d reasonably look to Galitz, which teaches
`solutions to this same problem. As the Board found, Dr.
`Cox’s
`testimony shows a skilled artisan would have
`understood the applicability of Galitz’s teachings to this
`problem by providing an example of conventional address
`text and ordering in the location-based context. The
`Board correctly applied Galitz as analogous art based on
`substantial evidence that Galitz is both from the same
`field of endeavor as the ’205 patent and is reasonably
`pertinent
`to the problem of displaying address infor-
`mation.
`
`2. The prior art teaches prioritization that results in
`farther-over-nearer ordering.
`
`Unwired argues that none of the prior art references
`cited teach farther-over-nearer ordering as claimed. It
`faults the Board for equating prioritization schemes that
`“sometimes return a farther result” with “farther-over-
`nearer ordering.” Unwired Br. 18-19 (emphasis in origi-
`nal). We reject this argument because combinations of
`prior art that sometimes meet the claim elements are
`sufficient to show obviousness. See Hewlett-Packard Co.
`v. Mustek Sys., Inc., 340 F.3d 1314, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
`
`Unwired acknowledges that the claims do not require
`prioritizing locations that are farther away because they
`
`

`

`Case: 15-1810
`
`Document: 55-2
`
`Page: 11
`
`Filed: 11/15/2016
`
`(12 of 17)
`
`UNWIRED PLANET, LLC V. GOOGLE INC.
`
`1 1
`
`are farther away. The claims only require using prioriti-
`zation information that results in a farther-over-nearer
`order.
`’205 patent, cl. 1, col. 10 11. 53-55 (“wherein said
`first location information is assigned a higher priority
`than said second location information”). The claimed
`result, where a farther first location is given priority over
`a 1-nearer second location, could result from many prioriti-
`zation schemes that do not depend on location.
`
`The prioritization information used in the proposed
`combination of the prior art
`is alphabetical ordering.
`Galitz recommends “alphabetical ordering” for lists with
`“a large number of options” and “small lists where no
`frequency or sequence pattern is obvious.”
`J.A. 1189.
`Alphabetical prioritization will often result in locations
`that are farther away being given a higher priority than
`locations that are nearer. For example, prioritizing a list
`of countries in English by alphabetical order will place
`Afghanistan before Niger, even when the prioritization is
`done in nearby Nigeria. Alphabetical order, thus, will
`result in instances of farther-over-nearer ordering.
`
`It does not matter that the use of alphabetical order
`for locations would not always result
`in farther-over-
`nearer ordering. It is enough that the combination would
`sometimes perform all the method steps,
`including far-
`ther-over-nearer ordering. See Hewlett-Packard, 340 F.3d
`at 1326. Because the use of alphabetical order as prioriti-
`zation information would sometimes meet the farther-
`over-nearer claims elements,
`the Board was correct to
`conclude that the proposed combination taught all of the
`elements of claim 1.
`
`3. A skilled artisan would be motivated to combine.
`
`Unwired argues that in the context of location-based
`services, a skilled artisan would have no motivation to
`combine the prior art references to achieve farther-over-
`nearer ordering. Unwired argues that “Google has never
`shown a motivation to modify Brohoff, because Google has
`
`

`

`Case: 15-1810
`
`Document: 55-2
`
`Page: 12
`
`Filed: 11/15/2016
`
`(13 of 17)
`
`12
`
`UNWIRED PLANET, LLC V. GOOGLE INC.
`
`never shown that those working in the art perceived a
`problem with nearer-first ordering.” Unwired Br. 30.
`
`Google argues that the proposed combination does not
`require abandoning nearer-first ordering.
`It notes that
`Galitz teaches the advantages of using ordering tech-
`niques in combination. Google characterizes the proposed
`combination as using the ordering techniques of Galitz in
`combination with Brohoffs disclosure of grouping search
`results based on proximity zones. Google also argues that
`it does not need to show that there was a known problem
`with the prior art system in order to articulate the re-
`quired rational underpinning for the proposed combina-
`tion. We agree.
`
`The Court in KSR described many potential ration-
`ales that could make a modification or combination of
`prior art references obvious to a skilled artisan. 550 U.S.
`at 417-22; see also MPEP § 2143. KSR overturned the
`approach previously used by this court requiring that
`some teaching, suggestion, or motivation be found in the
`prior art. 550 U.S. at 415.
`Instead, the Court explained
`that a rationale to combine could arise from “interrelated
`teachings of multiple patents;
`the effects of demands
`known to the design community or present in the market-
`place; and the background knowledge possessed by a
`person having ordinary skill in the art.” Id. at 418. For
`example, the Court stated that “if a technique has been
`used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill
`in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
`devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious
`unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.”
`Id. at 417. For the technique’s use to be obvious, the
`skilled artisan need only be able to recognize, based on
`her background knowledge, its potential to improve the
`device and be able to apply the technique.
`
`The device to be improved is Brohoff. The Board ex-
`plained that Brohoff teaches a system that allows users to
`
`

`

`Case: 15-1810
`
`Document: 55-2
`
`Page: 13
`
`Filed: 11/15/2016
`
`(14 of 17)
`
`UNWIRED PLANET, LLC V. GOOGLE INC.
`
`13
`
`search for information and be provided results based on
`their location. In the provided search results, “the identi-
`fied service providers are grouped by their respective
`locations within a zone.”
`IPR Final Decision, 2015 WL
`1478653, at *8 (citing Brohoff, col. 6 ll. 45-49). While the
`zones in Brohoff are ordered nearer-first, Brohoff does not
`explain how the service providers are prioritized within
`their zone groups. See Brohoff, col. 8 11. 47-55.
`
`The improvement is provided by using the technique
`of combining ordering methods found in Galitz. As the
`Board recognized, Galitz teaches benefits of various
`ordering techniques and suggests using them in combina-
`tion.
`IPR Final Decision, 2015 WL 1478653, at *8. To
`take advantage of the benefits of multiple techniques,
`“[s]creen layout normally reflects a combination of [differ-
`ent] techniques.” Id. (quoting Galitz at 121, J.A. 1054)
`(second modification in original). Using ordering tech-
`niques in combination is, thus, a technique that a person
`of ordinary skill in the art would recognize could be used
`to improve information display.
`
`The Board’s determination that a person of skill in the
`art would have been motivated to apply the techniques of
`Galitz to Brohoff is supported by substantial evidence.
`The Board found that testimony of Dr. Cox was entitled to
`“substantial weight because [it]
`is consistent with the
`teachings of Brohoff and Galitz.” Id. at *11. He explained
`that “Galitz recognized that information may be ordered
`by category——such as Brohoffs geographic zones—and,
`within each category,
`information may be ordered by
`other prioritization information.” Id. at *8 (quoting Decl.
`of Dr. Donald Cox, 1l 42, J.A. 502).
`
`Unwired does not dispute that a person of ordinary
`skill in the art would have been able to apply the teach-
`ings of Galitz to make the improvement
`it suggests.
`Unwired claims that the specific problem of farther-over-
`nearer ordering itself is not discussed in the combined
`
`

`

`Case: 15-1810
`
`Document: 55-2
`
`Page: 14
`
`Filed: 11/15/2016
`
`(15 of 17)
`
`14
`
`UNWIRED PLANET, LLC V. GOOGLE INC.
`
`references. Ga1itz’s teaching of the advantages of combin-
`ing ordering techniques shows “there was an apparent
`reason to combine the known elements in the fashion
`claimed by the patent at issue.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.
`Irrespective of whether a person of skill in the art would
`have recognized specific use of Brohoff, substantial evi-
`dence exists if she could have seen the advantages of
`applying the teachings of Galitz to improve Brohoff. This
`is sufficient to render the combination obvious. Id. at 417.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`We affirm the Board’s determination that claims 1-6
`of the ’205 patent were obvious in No. 2015-1810. We
`dismiss as moot the appeal in No. 2015-1811.
`
`AFFIRMED-IN-PART AND DISMISSED-IN—PART
`
`COSTS
`
`No costs.
`
`

`

`Case: 15-1810
`
`Document: 55-3
`
`Page: 1
`
`Filed: 11/15/2016
`
`(16 of 17)
`
`um I ED §TA| E§ QQQBT QF APPEAL§
`F R THE FEDERAL IR UIT
`
`Questions and Answers
`
`Petitions for Rehearing (Fed. Cir. R. 40)
`and
`Petitions for Hearing or Rehearing En Banc (Fed. Cir. Fl. 35)
`
`
`Q. When is a petition for rehearing appropriate?
`
`A. Petitions for panel rehearing are rarely successful
`because they most often fail to articulate sufficient grounds
`upon which to grant them. For example, a petition for panel
`rehearing should not be used to reargue issues already
`briefed and orally argued; if a party failed to persuade the
`court on an issue in the first instance, a petition for panel
`rehearing should not be used as an attempt to get a second
`“bite at the apple.” This is especially so when the court has
`entered a judgment of affirmance without opinion under
`Fed. Cir. R. 36. Such dispositions are entered it the court
`determines the judgment of the trial court is based on
`findings that are not clearly erroneous, the evidence
`supporting the jury verdict is sufficient, the record supports
`the trial court's ruling, the decision of the administrative
`agency warrants affirmance under the appropriate standard
`of review, or the judgment or decision is without an error of
`law.
`
`0. When is a petition for hearing or rehearing en banc
`appropriate?
`
`A. En banc decisions are extraordinary occurrences. To
`properly answer the question, one must first understand the
`responsibility of a three-judge merits panel of the court. The
`panel is charged with deciding individual appeals according
`to the law of the circuit as established in the court's
`
`precedential opinions. While each merits panel is
`empowered to enter precedential opinions, the ultimate
`duty of the court en banc is to set forth the law of the
`Federal Circuit, which merit panels are obliged to follow.
`
`Thus, as a usual prerequisite, a merits panel of the court
`must have entered a precedential opinion in support of its
`judgment for a suggestion for rehearing en banc to be
`appropriate. In addition, the party seeking rehearing en
`banc must show that either the merits panel has failed to
`follow identifiable decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court or
`
`Federal Circuit precedential opinions or that the merits
`panel has followed circuit precedent, which the party seeks
`to have overruled by the court en banc.
`
`0. How frequently are petitions for rehearing granted by
`merits panels or petitions for rehearing en banc accepted
`by the court?
`
`A. The data regarding petitions for rehearing since 1982
`shows that merits panels granted some relief in only three
`percent of the more than 1900 petitions filed. The relief
`granted usually involved only minor corrections of factual
`misstatements, rarely resulting in a change of outcome in
`the decision.
`
`En banc petitions were accepted less frequently, in only 16
`of more than 1100 requests. Historically, the court itself
`initiated en banc review in more than half (21 of 37) of the
`very few appeals decided en banc since 1982. This sua
`sponte, en banc review is a by—product of the court's
`practice of circulating every precedential panel decision to
`all the judges of the Federal Circuit before it is published.
`No count is kept of sua sponte, en banc polls that fail to
`carry enough judges. but one of the reasons that virtually
`all of the more than 1100 petitions made by the parties
`since 1982 have been declined is that the court itself has
`already implicitly approved the precedential opinions before
`they are filed by the merits panel.
`
`O. is it necessary to have filed either of these petitions
`before filing a petition for certiorari in the U. S. Supreme
`Court?
`
`A. No. All that is needed is a final judgment of the Court of
`Appeals. As a matter of interest, very few petitions for
`certiorari from Federal Circuit decisions are granted. Since
`1982, the U.S. Supreme Court has granted certiorari in only
`31 appeals heard in the Federal Circuit. Almost 1000
`petitions for certiorari have been filed in that period.
`
`October 20, 2016
`
`

`

`Case: 15-1810
`
`Document: 55-4
`
`Pagezl
`
`Filed: 11/15/2016
`
`(17 of 17)
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`INFORMATION SHEET
`
`FILING A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`
`There is no automatic right of appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States from judgments
`of the Federal Circuit. You must file a petition for a writ of certiorari which the Supreme Court
`will grant only when there are compelling reasons. (See Rule 10 of the Rules of the Supreme
`Court of the United States, hereinafter called Rules.)
`
`Time. The petition must be filed in the Supreme Court of the United States within 90 days of the
`entry of judgment in this Court or within 90 days of the denial of a timely petition for rehearing.
`The judgment is entered on the day the Federal Circuit issues a final decision in your case. [The
`time does not run from the issuance of the mandate, which has no effect on the right to petition.]
`
`(See Rule 13 of the Rules.)
`
`Fees. Either the $300 docketing fee or a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis with an
`affidavit in support thereof must accompany the petition. (See Rules 38 and 39.)
`
`Authorized Filer. The petition must be filed by a member of the bar of the Supreme Court of the
`United States or by the petitioner representing himself or herself.
`
`Format of a Petition. The Rules are very specific about the order of the required information
`and should be consulted before you start drafting your petition. (See Rule 14.) Rules 33 and 34
`should be consulted regarding type size and font, paper size, paper weight, margins, page limits,
`cover, etc.
`
`Number of Copies. Forty copies of a petition must be filed unless the petitioner is proceeding in
`forma pauperis, in which case an original and ten copies of the petition for writ of certiorari and
`of the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (See Rule 12.)
`
`Where to File. You must file your documents at the Supreme Court.
`
`Clerk
`
`Supreme Court of the United States
`1 First Street, NE
`Washington, DC 20543
`(202) 479-3000
`
`No documents are filed at the Federal Circuit and the Federal Circuit provides no information to
`the Supreme Court unl

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket