Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`Paper 53
`Entered: November 20, 2015
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GOOGLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00787
`Patent 6,121,960
`
`
`
`Before MICHAEL W. KIM, PATRICK R. SCANLON, and
`KRISTINA M. KALAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`SCANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`Paper 53
`Entered: November 20, 2015
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GOOGLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00787
`Patent 6,121,960
`
`
`
`Before MICHAEL W. KIM, PATRICK R. SCANLON, and
`KRISTINA M. KALAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`SCANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00787
`Patent 6,121,960
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`A.
`
`Background
`Petitioner, Google Inc., filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) requesting an
`inter partes review of claims 1–3, 5, 7–10, 12–14, 19–22, and 24–30 of U.S.
`Patent No. 6,121,960 (Ex. 1001, “the ’960 patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`§§ 311–319. Patent Owner, Intellectual Ventures II LLC, subsequently filed
`a Preliminary Response (Paper 7, “Prelim. Resp.”). On November 24, 2014,
`we instituted an inter partes review as to all challenged claims (Paper 9,
`“Dec. on Inst.”).
`After institution, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response (Paper
`20, “PO Resp.”), and Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 25, “Pet. Reply”).
`Petitioner relies on the Declaration of Jean Renard Ward (Ex. 1015) and the
`Second Declaration of Jean Renard Ward (Ex. 1020) in support of its
`contentions, and Patent Owner relies on the Declaration of Craig S.
`Rosenberg, Ph.D. (Ex. 2008) in support of its contentions.
`Patent Owner filed a Motion for Observations (Paper 32) on the cross-
`examination testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Mr. Ward. Petitioner filed a
`response (Paper 42).
`Patent Owner filed a Motion to Exclude (Paper 31) certain Exhibits
`submitted by Petitioner in the proceeding. Petitioner filed an Opposition to
`this Motion to Exclude (Paper 40), and Patent Owner filed a Reply (Paper
`43).
`
`Petitioner filed a Motion to Exclude (Paper 34) certain Exhibits
`submitted by Patent Owner in the proceeding. Patent Owner filed an
`Opposition to this Motion to Exclude (Paper 39).
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00787
`Patent 6,121,960
`
`
`An oral hearing was held on June 29, 2015. A transcript of the
`hearing is included in the record. Paper 52 (“Tr.”).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). This Final Written
`Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
`For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 19–22 and 24–30 of the ’960
`patent are unpatentable. We determine also that Petitioner has not shown by
`a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–3, 5, 7–10, and 12–14 of the
`’960 patent are unpatentable. Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude and Patent
`Owner’s Motion to Exclude both are dismissed.
`B.
`Related Matters
`The parties indicate that the ’960 patent is asserted against Motorola
`Mobility LLC1 in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC, No.
`0:13-cv-61358-RSR (S.D. Fla.) and is also at issue in Intellectual Ventures I
`LLC v. Canon Inc., No. 1:11-cv-00793-SLR (D. Del.). Pet. 1–2; Paper 5, 2.
`Patent Owner also indicates that the ’960 patent is involved in the following
`district court proceeding: Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Nikon Corp.,
`No. 1:11-cv-01025-SLR (D. Del.). Paper 5, 2.
`C.
`The ’960 Patent
`The ’960 patent, titled “Touch Screen Systems and Methods,” issued
`on September 19, 2000. The ’960 patent describes a screen peripheral
`system including a computing device that produces a main image and a
`touch-activated input device for generating and displaying a composite
`image. Ex. 1001, Abstract; 1:65–2:2. “The composite image
`
`
`1 Petitioner indicates that Motorola Mobility LLC is Petitioner’s wholly-
`owned subsidiary. Pet. 1.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00787
`Patent 6,121,960
`
`simultaneously includes a representation of at least one key, for example a
`QWERTY keyboard, for activating an input function, and the main image
`provided by the computing device. The keyboard representation preferably
`is laid over the main image.” Id. at 2:2–7. The invention includes variable-
`pixel controls that “determine and control which pixels of the touch screen
`will be used for displaying the keyboard representation and which pixels
`[will be used] for displaying the main image.” Id. at 4:34–37. The “touch
`screen pixels may be dedicated to both the keyboard and the main image,
`producing a ‘blended’ effect.” Id. at 4:39–41.
`D.
`Illustrative Claim
`Claim 1 of the ’960 patent is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
`1.
`A screen peripheral system, comprising:
`a computing device for providing a main image; and
`a
`touch-activated
`input device
`for generating and
`displaying a composite image visible to a user of the screen
`peripheral system, the touch-activated input device comprising a
`plurality of pixels,
`the composite
`image simultaneously
`including:
`a representation of at least one key, the representation of at
`least one key activating an input function; and
`the main image provided by the computing device, the
`representation of at least one key being laid over the main image;
`wherein the screen peripheral system implements variable-
`pixel control to form the representation of at least one key and to
`form the main image, the variable-pixel control causing pixels
`selected to form the representation of at least one key in the
`composite image to depend on and be activated simultaneously
`with pixels selected to form the main image, such that the main
`image and the representation of at least one key are displayed
`simultaneously to form the composite image;
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00787
`Patent 6,121,960
`
`
`further wherein the variable-pixel control includes logical
`operators to provide different blending/merging effects such that
`individual pixels of the touch-activated input device can be
`dedicated simultaneously to both the main image and the
`representation of at least one key.
`Ex. 1001, 12:2–29.
`E.
`Prior Art
`The instituted grounds of unpatentability in this inter partes review
`are based on the following prior art:
`1. U.S. Patent No. 5,638,501, issued June 10, 1997
`(“Gough”) (Ex. 1007);
`2. U.S. Patent No. 6,118,427, issued Sept. 12, 2000
`(“Buxton”) (Ex. 1009);
`3. U.S. Patent No. 5,617,114, issued Apr. 1, 1997 (“Bier”)
`(Ex. 3001);2 and
`4. U.S. Patent No. 6,317,128 B1, issued Nov. 13, 2001
`(“Harrison”) (Ex. 1011).
`Instituted Grounds of Unpatentability
`We instituted the instant inter partes review on the following grounds
`of unpatentability:
`
`F.
`
`
`2 Petitioner identifies U.S. Patent No. 5,617,114 as Exhibit 1010. See, e.g.,
`Pet. 3. The actual document submitted as Exhibit 1010, however, is U.S.
`Patent No. 5,581,670, which was issued to Bier et al. on Dec. 3, 1996. We
`note that the two patents were issued to the same inventors and have
`substantially identical written descriptions. Petitioner’s citations of Bier
`appear to refer to U.S. Patent No. 5,617,114 rather than U.S. Patent No.
`5,581,670. See, e.g., id. at 45 (citing column 7, lines 41–45 as explaining
`standard input devices). Therefore, we presume the submission of U.S. Patent
`No. 5,581,670 to be an error and Petitioner intended to rely on U.S. Patent No.
`5,617,114 in its Petition. Accordingly, we refer herein to U.S. Patent No.
`5,617,114, a copy of which has been added to the record as Exhibit 3001.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00787
`Patent 6,121,960
`
`
`Reference(s)
`Gough
`
`Basis
`§ 102(e)
`
`Buxton, Bier, and Harrison
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Dec. on Inst. 21–22.
`
`Claims Challenged
`1–3, 5, 7–10, 12–14,
`19–22, and 24–30
`1–3, 5, 7–10, 12–14,
`19–22, and 24–30
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A.
`
`Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, the Board interprets claims using the
`“broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in
`which [they] appear[].” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); In re Cuozzo Speed Techs.,
`LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1277–79 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Under the broadest
`reasonable interpretation standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and
`customary meaning in view of the specification, as would be understood by
`one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In re Translogic
`Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “In determining the
`meaning of the disputed claim limitation, we look principally to the intrinsic
`evidence of record, examining the claim language itself, the written
`description, and the prosecution history, if in evidence.” DePuy Spine, Inc.
`v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
`(citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–17 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en
`banc)).
`In this Final Written Decision, we construe only those claim terms in
`controversy, and we do so only to the extent necessary to resolve the
`controversy. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795,
`803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Furthermore, we expressly interpret below only those
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00787
`Patent 6,121,960
`
`claim terms that require analysis to resolve arguments related to the
`patentability of the challenged claims.
`
`1. “Pixel”
`In the Decision on Institution, we construed “pixel” to mean “[a]n
`abbreviation for a picture element; the smallest unit into which an image can
`be divided, and to which can be assigned such characteristics as gray scale,
`color, and intensity.” Dec. on Inst. 6. Patent Owner does not dispute this
`interpretation. PO Resp. 6. Petitioner, however, argues that, to the extent
`Patent Owner disputes that the challenged claims are invalid under the
`Board’s construction, the term “pixel” should be construed “broadly enough
`to cover hardware pixels as well as pixel data, or pixels stored in memory.”
`Pet. Reply 1–2. For the reasons discussed in the Decision on Institution (see
`Dec. on Inst. 5–7), we disagree that “pixel” should include “pixel data,” and
`we see no reason to modify our prior interpretation in light of the record
`developed at trial. Accordingly, we adopt this interpretation for this Final
`Written Decision.
`
`2. “Bit-block-type transfer operation”
`In the Decision on Institution, we construed “bit-block-type transfer
`operation” to mean “a programming technique that transfers or moves
`blocks of bits from one area of memory to another.” Dec. on Inst. 8. Patent
`Owner does not dispute this interpretation (PO Resp. 6), and Petitioner does
`not address this construction in its Reply. Accordingly, after reviewing the
`complete record anew, we reaffirm our prior interpretation for this Final
`Written Decision.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00787
`Patent 6,121,960
`
`
`3. “Variable-pixel control”
`In the Decision on Institution, we construed “variable-pixel control”
`to mean “a control for varying the assigned characteristics of a pixel.” Dec.
`on Inst. 9. Patent Owner argues that this construction should be
`supplemented by “taking into account the recitations in both ‘wherein’
`clauses of each of claims 1 and 19.” PO Resp. 12. Petitioner replies that
`“Patent Owner’s attempt to import claim language found in the wherein
`clauses . . . into the construction of ‘variable-pixel control’ should be
`rejected” and the “Board’s construction of ‘variable-pixel control’ is
`sufficient.” Pet. Reply 2–3.
`We agree with Petitioner. Patent Owner does not specify how the
`wherein clauses are to be “taken into account.” Moreover, Patent Owner
`fails to adequately support why the wherein clauses should be read into the
`“variable-pixel control” term, when they themselves are independent claim
`limitations which will be accorded due weight on their own. Thus, based on
`the full record, we maintain our prior construction of “variable-pixel
`control” for this Final Written Decision.
`
`4. “Logical operators”
`In the Petition, Petitioner proposed that the term “logical operator” in
`claim 1 be construed as an operator used for a logical operation used to
`combine sets (or blocks) of pixels. Pet. 11. Patent Owner argues that the
`broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “logical operators” is
`“Boolean logic operators.” Id. (citing Ex. 2008 ¶ 65). In support of this
`interpretation, Patent Owner argues that “Microsoft Computer Dictionary
`defines a logical operator as a Boolean logic operator” and “Academic Press
`Dictionary of Science and Technology provides that ‘Boolean operator’ is
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00787
`Patent 6,121,960
`
`‘[a] logic operator whose operands and result are variables that can assume
`one of only two states.’” Id. (citing Ex. 2006, 69; Ex. 2010 (emphasis
`added)).
`We are not persuaded that the evidence supports either Petitioner’s or
`Patent Owner’s proposed constructions. Petitioner does not provide any
`evidence or analysis in support their proposed construction. Concerning
`Patent Owner’s assertion, the Microsoft Computer Dictionary does not
`define a logical operator as a Boolean logic operator—it merely indicates
`that a “Boolean operator” can also be called a “logical operator.” Ex. 2006,
`69. Instead, the Microsoft Computer Dictionary defines a logical operator as
`“[a]n operator that manipulates binary values at the bit level” and indicates
`that “[i]n some programming languages, logical operators are identical to
`Boolean operators.” Id. at 317 (emphasis added). We agree with Petitioner
`that this definition suggests that, in other programming languages, logical
`operators are not identical to Boolean operators and not all logical operators
`are Boolean operators. See Tr. 19. Furthermore, the Academic Press
`Dictionary of Science and Technology definition cited by Patent Owner
`suggests that a Boolean operator is a type of logic operator and does not
`support the assertion that all logical operators are Boolean operators.
`Ex. 2010, 1.
`Based on the above, we determine that the broadest reasonable
`interpretation of “logical operators” for the purpose of this Final Written
`Decision is “operators that manipulate binary values at the bit level.” We
`determine also that this construction is consistent with the Specification,
`which presents, in column 5, a table summarizing typical operations that can
`be used to provide blending/merging effects. Ex. 1001, 4:65–67. This table
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00787
`Patent 6,121,960
`
`depicts how various operations manipulate binary values of the “Source,”
`“Destination,” and “Mask.” Id. at 5:1–20.
`
`5. “Blended shadow of the representation of at least one key and
`the main image”
`Patent Owner argues that, “[u]nder the broadest reasonable
`interpretation, the term ‘blended shadow of the representation of at least one
`key and the main image’ means ‘shadow or shading at least partially
`surrounding at least one key.’” PO Resp. 18 (citing Ex. 2008 ¶ 64). Patent
`Owner bases this interpretation on the fact that Figures 4 and 5 of the ’960
`patent show keys that are partially surrounded by shadowing or shading. Id.
`at 17–18.
`Petitioner proposes that “blended shadow” should be construed to
`mean “a portion of a composite image in which the main image is visible
`through the overlaid image as a result of combining the data from
`corresponding pixels from the main and overlaid images” and contends that
`this construction is consistent with the Specification of the ’960 patent.
`Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1015, 31); Pet. Reply 9. Petitioner argues that Patent
`Owner’s proposed construction “is contrary to the claims and the
`specification of the ’960 Patent and is therefore incorrect.” Pet. Reply 9.
`Petitioner also argues that:
`Patent Owner’s proposed construction that “blended
`shadow” relates to a shadow that “partially surround[s] at
`least one key” has no support in the intrinsic evidence.
`(Response at 39.) The word “surround” (or any variation)
`does not appear in the patent; the ’960 specification
`suggests no more than that the entire key image is
`transparent, allowing the main image to “bleed through.”
`Figures 4 and 5 of the ‘960 Patent show the entire keys,
`including the letters on the keys, as “dotted” or solid lines.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00787
`Patent 6,121,960
`
`
`(Second Ward Decl., Ex. 1020, ¶ 28.) They are not, as
`Patent Owner would have it, just the outlines surrounding
`the keys. (Id.)
`Id. at 10–11.
`We agree with Petitioner. Although Figures 4 and 5 of the ’960 patent
`show keys that are partially surrounded by shadowing or shading, there is no
`suggestion in the Specification that the “blended shadow” recited in the
`claims should be limited to only this shadowing. The claim language itself,
`referring to a blended shadow of the representation of at least one key and
`the main image (see claim 24), indicates explicitly that the blended shadow
`incorporates both the key image and the main image and, thus, should not be
`limited to the shadowing surrounding the keys.
`Accordingly, based on the full record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed
`construction of “blended shadow” as “a portion of a composite image in
`which the main image is visible through the overlaid image as a result of
`combining the data from corresponding pixels from the main and overlaid
`images” for the purpose of this Final Written Decision.
`B.
`Asserted Anticipation by Gough
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–3, 5, 7–10, 12–14, 19–22, and 24–30 as
`anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) by Gough. Pet. 3, 15–28.
`1.
`Overview of Gough
`Gough discloses providing “a transparent overlay image over a base
`image provided on a screen of a pen computer system.” Ex. 1007, 2:12–14.
`In one embodiment, pen computer system 10 includes, inter alia, central
`processing unit (CPU) 12 and display assembly 20. Id. at 4:32–36. Display
`assembly 20 is an input and output device. Id. at 4:59–60. When operating
`as an output device, display assembly 20 displays data on a suitable screen.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00787
`Patent 6,121,960
`
`Id. at 4:62–64. The input device, or “tablet,” of display assembly 20 can be
`a thin, clear membrane that is sensitive to the position of a stylus on its
`surface. Id. at 4:67–5:2.
`CPU 12 “produces data which is output to the display assembly 20 to
`produce appropriate images on its screen.” Id. at 5:39–41. For instance,
`screen 40 can display desktop image 42, including window 44 and various
`icons. Id. at 5:48–63, Fig. 2. Screen 40 also can display keyboard image 64
`over window 44 and some of the icons. Id. at 6:16–28, Fig. 3. Keyboard
`image 64 can be converted into translucent keyboard image 64' by tapping
`on icon 68. Id. at 6:50–57, Fig. 4.
`Referring to Figure 7, Gough discloses a process of blending a main
`image (first screen image 116) with a keyboard image (second image 118) to
`form blended image 120. Id. at 8:67–9:5. Gough’s Figures 10a–10f,
`reproduced below, illustrate this blending process:
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00787
`Patent 6,121,960
`
`
`
`Figures 10a–10f illustrate a computer-implemented
`blending process.
`
`Gough states that:
`FIG. 10A represents the RAM shield buffer within the
`rectangle,3 and has been divided
`into 16
`shield
`individually-blendable units.4 These units are arranged in
`
`3 The “shield rectangle” refers to “the rectangle of the window to be
`developed by the application program” (e.g., window 44). Ex. 1007, 9:27–30.
`The “RAM shield buffer” presumably is intended to be the “RAM screen
`buffer,” which refers to a random access memory (RAM) buffer storing a
`copy of first screen image 116. Id. at 9:37–40.
`4 The “blendable units” refer to divisions of a shield rectangle, where each
`unit “can be anywhere in the range of 1 to 32 pixels.” Ex. 1007, 10:1–3.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00787
`Patent 6,121,960
`
`
`a four-by-four matrix, where the rows have been numbered
`1, 2, 3, and 4. FIG. 10B illustrates the RAM screen
`overlay buffer5 in the shield rectangle, and again has 16
`individually-blendable units formed in a four-by-four
`array, with the rows numbered 1, 2, 3, and 4.
`Id. at 10:24–31 (footnotes added). RAM screen buffer data and RAM
`overlay image buffer data are retrieved for each blendable unit, and the
`retrieved data are blended to form blended data for each blendable unit. Id.
`at 10:5–10. Figures 10c–10f show the resulting blended rows once each set
`of corresponding rows of the screen buffer and the screen overlay buffer are
`blended together. Id. at 10:31–38. Gough’s blending process “allows a base
`image [(e.g., desktop image 42)] on the screen 40 to be seen through a
`translucent overlay image [(e.g., keyboard image 64')].” Id. at 10:38–40.
`2.
`Claims 1–3, 5, 7–10, and 12–14
`Petitioner presents a claim chart identifying where the individual
`features of the challenged claims are alleged to be found in Gough. Pet. 17–
`28. Regarding claim 1, Petitioner argues that “Gough uses ‘variable-pixel
`control’ in its disclosed blending engine, such that (for example) a
`translucent keyboard can be superimposed on the main image.” Id. at 16
`(citing Ex. 1007, 6:51–58; 8:67–9:6; 10:23–41). Petitioner also asserts that,
`as a result of Gough’s blending process, “each display pixel is ‘dedicated
`simultaneously’ to both images, and both images are displayed
`simultaneously.” Id.
`Regarding the claim 1 recitation of “logical operators,” Patent Owner
`argues that, “[w]hile Figures 10A–10F of Gough illustrate blending two
`images, Gough does not explain how the images are blended together,” and,
`
`5 The “RAM screen overlay buffer” refers to a buffer storing a copy of an
`overlay image. Ex. 1007, 9:33–37.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00787
`Patent 6,121,960
`
`as such, Gough fails to disclose performing blending using logical operators.
`PO Resp. 34 (citing Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 88–89).
`The only mention of “logical operators” in the Petition occurs in
`Petitioner’s claim chart. Pet. 20. This section of the claim chart lists several
`portions of Gough with respect to the claim 1 language “further wherein the
`variable-pixel control includes logical operators to provide different
`blending/merging effects such that,” but does not identify specifically which
`portion or portions allegedly disclose the “logical operators.” Id. at 19–20
`(citing Ex. 1007, 6:51–58, 9:66–10:19, 10:23–41; 14:5–19, Figs. 10, 10a–
`10f; Ex. 1015, 43–46).
`In its Reply, Petitioner argues that a “first Gough blending
`engine . . . discloses bitwise OR operations to one of ordinary skill in the art,
`as well as other logical operations such as Source Copy operations.” Pet.
`Reply 15 (citing Ex. 1007, 10:23–41; Ex. 1001, 5:1–19; Ex. 1020 ¶¶ 50, 54).
`Petitioner adds that “[a] person of skill in the art, when presented with Figs.
`10a-f [of Gough] would understand the blending to be performed with
`multiple logical operators.” Id. at 15–16 (citing Ex. 1007, 14:10–16; Pet.
`19–20; Ex. 2015, 44–46; Ex. 1020 ¶ 50). Petitioner further argues that
`“Gough’s alternate blending engine embodiment” discloses a color look-up
`table, and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that using this
`look-up table includes logical operations. Id. at 16–17 (citing Ex. 1007,
`14:9–19; Pet. 19–20; Ex. 2015, 46; Ex. 1020 ¶¶ 47–49).
`We agree with Patent Owner. Petitioner does not explain adequately
`where the detailed analysis set forth in the Reply is made in the Petition,
`and, in any event, we do not find the arguments persuasive. “A patent claim
`is anticipated if a single prior art reference expressly or inherently discloses
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00787
`Patent 6,121,960
`
`every limitation of the claim.” DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773
`F.3d 1245, 1252 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Here, Petitioner does not describe
`sufficiently how Gough expressly discloses using logical operators to
`accomplish the blending process.6 We do not agree that either Gough’s
`description of the blending process depicted in Figures 10a–10f (Ex. 1007,
`10:23–41) or Gough’s description of using the color look-up table (id. at
`14:9–19) expressly discloses using logical operators, and such express
`disclosure is required for anticipation. At best, Petitioner’s arguments
`suggest how Gough could be envisioned as using logical operators, but do
`not explain adequately where or how Gough expressly discloses using
`logical operators to carry out the blending process.
`For these reasons, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown, by
`a preponderance of the evidence, that independent claim 1, and claims 2, 3,
`5, 7–10, and 12–14 depending therefrom, are anticipated by Gough.
`3.
`Claims 19–22, 24, and 26–30
`Petitioner argues that Gough anticipates independent claims 19 and 26
`for reasons similar to those asserted in connection with independent claim 1.
`Pet. 23–27. Petitioner argues that Gough discloses the subject matter of
`dependent claims 20–22, 24, and 27–30. Id. at 25–28.
`Patent Owner argues that Gough does not disclose the claim 19
`limitation of “causing pixels selected to form the representation of at least
`one key to be activated simultaneously with pixels selected to form the main
`image” and the claim 26 limitation that “pixels selected to form the
`representation of at least one input zone are activated simultaneously with
`
`
`6 Petitioner does not assert that Gough inherently discloses logical operators.
`Tr. 33.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00787
`Patent 6,121,960
`
`pixels selected to form the main image.” PO Resp. 25. To support this
`contention, Patent Owner argues that “the ’960 patent describes an example
`in which a composite image is generated by using 25% of the pixels to
`represent a key and 75% of the pixels to represent the main image.” Id. at
`25–26 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:41–44, 5:56–6:26). Patent Owner asserts that this
`example would result in the following composite image in which each “K”
`represents a pixel selected for forming the representation of the key and each
`“M” represents a pixel selected for forming the main image:
`
`
`Id. at 27. Patent Owner further argues that “[t]he ’960 patent also discloses
`an example combines the main image and the key such that each pixel of the
`composite image receives a contribution from both the main image and the
`key.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 5:47–49, 6:26–38). Patent Owner asserts that
`this example would result in the following composite image in which each
`“km” represents a pixel having contributions from the key image and the
`main image:
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00787
`Patent 6,121,960
`
`Id. at 28.
`Patent Owner then argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would
`understand that the ’960 patent contemplates generating the following
`image:
`
`
`
`Id. at 28–29 (citing Ex. 2008 ¶ 75). Relying on this analysis, Patent Owner
`argues that Gough doesn’t disclose the “selected” limitations of claims 19
`and 26 because Gough describes “forming a resulting blended image in
`which pixels have contributions from both pixels of the base image and
`pixels of the overlay image.” Id. at 30 (citing Ex. 2008 ¶ 77). In other
`words, Patent Owner argues, Gough does not disclose both (i) unblended
`pixels that are just “K” or “M” and (ii) blended pixels that are “km.”
`Tr. 46:3–25.
`Petitioner argues that “Patent Owner’s proposed interpretation – that
`the independent claims require both pixels dedicated solely to each of the
`images and blended pixels – is unsupported in the specification.” Pet.
`Reply 5. Petitioner also argues that Patent Owner’s proposed interpretation
`of independent claims 1, 19 and 26 cannot be reconciled with some of the
`dependent claims, such as claim 10, which recites that “each pixel of the
`touch-activated input device is contributed 100% by either the pixels of the
`main image or the pixels of the representation of the at least one key to form
`the composite image.” Id. at 5–6; Tr. 25:17–26:2. In addition, Petitioner
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00787
`Patent 6,121,960
`
`argues that “[n]othing in the claims or the specification requires, as Patent
`Owner appears to argue, that ‘activated simultaneously’ requires pixels that
`are dedicated 100% to either the main or overlay image.” Pet. Reply 6
`(citing Ex. 1020 ¶¶ 35–36).
`We agree with Petitioner’s arguments. Patent Owner does not
`establish adequately that claims 19 and 26 require both unblended and
`blended pixels simultaneously.
`Furthermore, we are persuaded and, thus, find that Gough does
`disclose displaying a composite image using both unblended and blended
`pixels. As discussed above, Gough’s blending process involves blending
`data from blendable units representing a base or main image with data from
`blendable units representing an overlay keyboard image, so that the base
`image can be seen through the translucent keyboard image. Ex. 1007, 10:5–
`10, 24–41. Each blendable unit comprises 1–32 pixels. Id. at 10:1–3.
`Referring to Figure 10c, for example, it is seen that the left-most blendable
`unit of the composite image contributes to the overlay keyboard image only,
`the two middle blendable units are empty, and the right-most blendable unit
`contributes to both the overlay keyboard image and the main image. Thus,
`considering that each blendable unit can be a single pixel, the left-most
`blendable unit is an unblended or “K” pixel, while the right-most blendable
`unit is a blended or “km” pixel.
`In addition, Patent Owner argues that Gough does not disclose the
`“variable-pixel control” recited in claim 19. PO Resp. 31. Patent Owner
`supports this argument by stating:
`[a]s explained above, the blending process disclosed in
`Gough in connection with the two embodiments relied on
`by the Petitioner, produces a resulting blended image in
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00787
`Patent 6,121,960
`
`
`which pixels have contributions from pixels of both the
`base image and the overlay image. This does not meet the
`‘selected’ limitations of claims 1 and 19.
`Id. at 32 (citing Ex. 2008 ¶ 84). Patent Owner’s argument is not persuasive
`because it relies on the same argument based on the “selected” limitations
`that we found unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above. Instead, we are
`persuaded by Petitioner’s assertion that Gough discloses variable-pixel
`control. See Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1007, 6:51–58; 8:67–9:6; 10:23–41).
`After considering Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s positions, as well as
`the supporting evidence, we determine that Petitioner has shown, by a
`preponderance of the evidence, that claims 19–22, 24, and 26–30 are
`anticipated by Gough.
`4.
`Claim 25
`Claim 25, which depends indirectly from independent claim 19,
`recites “controlling the lightness/darkness of the blended shadow by
`controlling the blending of pixels of the at least one key representation and
`the main image.” Ex. 1001, 14:26–29. Petitioner argues that
`“Gough . . . discloses that the brightness of the overlaid image relative to the
`underlying image, and thus the contrast, can be varied within the ‘[ ]variable
`pixel control’ blending engine, by tapping on the disclosed ‘translucency
`button.’” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1007, 6:51–58.).
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s assertion is erroneous because
`“the Petition relies on an incorrect claim construction of the term ‘blended
`shadow.’” PO Resp. 38–39. We disagree. For the reasons discussed above
`(see supra Section II.A.5), we determine that Patent Owner’s proposed
`construction of “blended shadow” is incorrect, and we adopt Petitioner’s
`proposed construction. Accordingly, on the full record before us, we
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00787
`Patent 6,121,960
`
`determine that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence,
`that claim 25 is anticipated by Gough.
`C.
`Asserted Obviousness over Buxton, Bier, and Harrison
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–3, 5, 7–10, 12–14, 19–22, and 24–30 as
`unpatentable over Buxton, Bier, and Harrison under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`Pet. 3, 42–59.
`1.
`Overview of Buxton
`Buxton “relates to graphical user interfaces [(GUIs)] providing
`variably-transparent (transparent/semitransparent) layered objects and
`optimizing the degree of transparency for maximum user and system
`performance.” Ex. 1009, 1:18–21. Buxton’s variably-transparent GUI
`merges images on a graphical display so that “‘see through’ objects (such as
`menus, tool palettes, windows, dialogue boxes, or screens) are superimposed
`over similar objects or different background content (such as text, wireframe
`or line art images, or solid images).” Id. at 3:40–46. User derived values are
`used to determine required transp
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
