`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`SONY CORPORATION
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ARRIS ENTERPRISES LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Patent No. 7,107,532
`Filing Date: May 3, 2002
`Issue Date: September 12, 2006
`
`Title: SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR FOCUSED NAVIGATION WITHIN A
`USER INTERFACE
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01803
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,107,532
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. THE ’532 PATENT ........................................................................................ 2
`A. Overview of the ’532 Patent .................................................................. 2
`B.
`Claim 1 .................................................................................................. 4
`C.
`Claim 26 ................................................................................................ 5
`D.
`Claim 50 ................................................................................................ 6
`E.
`Claim 52 ................................................................................................ 7
`III. PROSECUTION HISTORY ........................................................................ 8
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL ................................................................. 9
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 9
`A.
`“visual card” (Claims 1, 26, 50, and 52) .............................................10
`B.
`“means for scrolling only visual cards from a first sequence of
`visual cards …” (Claim 52) .................................................................11
`“means for scrolling only visual cards from a second sequence
`of visual cards …” (Claim 52) ............................................................12
`VI. CLAIMS 1-53 OF THE ’532 PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE
`OVER THE PRIOR ART ...........................................................................13
`A. Overview of the Prior Art ....................................................................13
`1.
`Törnqvist ...................................................................................13
`2.
`Bergsten ....................................................................................17
`3.
`Kazamaki ..................................................................................18
`4.
`LaJoie ........................................................................................20
`5.
`Sciammarella .............................................................................21
`
`C.
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,107,532
`
`B. Ground 1: The combination of Törnqvist and Bergsten renders
`obvious claims 1-11, 16-20, 24, 26-36, 41-45, and 50-53. .................22
`1.
`Claim 1 ......................................................................................22
`2.
`Claim 2 ......................................................................................32
`3.
`Claim 3 ......................................................................................33
`4.
`Claim 4 ......................................................................................34
`5.
`Claim 5 ......................................................................................35
`6.
`Claim 6 ......................................................................................36
`7.
`Claim 7 ......................................................................................36
`8.
`Claim 8 ......................................................................................36
`9.
`Claim 9 ......................................................................................38
`10. Claim 10 ....................................................................................38
`11. Claim 11 ....................................................................................38
`12. Claim 16 ....................................................................................38
`13. Claim 17 ....................................................................................39
`14. Claim 18 ....................................................................................39
`15. Claim 19 ....................................................................................40
`16. Claim 20 ....................................................................................42
`17. Claim 24 ....................................................................................43
`18. Claim 26 ....................................................................................44
`19. Claims 27-36, and 41-45 ...........................................................46
`20. Claim 50 ....................................................................................47
`21. Claim 51 ....................................................................................51
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,107,532
`
`22. Claim 52 ....................................................................................52
`23. Claim 53 ....................................................................................54
`C. Ground 2: The combination of Törnqvist, Bergsten, and
`Kazamaki renders obvious claims 3, 4, 25, 28, 29, and 49. ................55
`1.
`Claim 3 ......................................................................................56
`2.
`Claim 4 ......................................................................................56
`3.
`Claim 25 ....................................................................................57
`4.
`Claims 28, 29, and 49 ...............................................................59
`D. Ground 3: The combination of Törnqvist, Bergsten, and LaJoie
`renders obvious claims 12-15, 23, 37-40, and 48. ..............................59
`1.
`Claim 12 ....................................................................................59
`2.
`Claim 13 ....................................................................................61
`3.
`Claims 14 and 15.......................................................................63
`4.
`Claim 23 ....................................................................................64
`5.
`Claims 37-40 and 48 .................................................................65
`Ground 4: The combination of Törnqvist, Bergsten, and
`Sciammarella renders obvious claims 21, 22, 46, and 47. ..................65
`1.
`Claims 21 and 22.......................................................................66
`2.
`Claims 46 and 47.......................................................................67
`VII. MANDATORY NOTICES .........................................................................67
`A.
`Real Party-in-Interest ..........................................................................67
`B.
`Related Matters ....................................................................................67
`C.
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel and Service Information ........................68
`VIII. CERTIFICATION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(d) ....................................68
`
`E.
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,107,532
`
`IX. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ....................................................................69
`X.
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED FOR
`EACH CLAIM CHALLENGED ...............................................................69
`XI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................69
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit 1001:
`Exhibit 1002:
`Exhibit 1003:
`Exhibit 1004:
`Exhibit 1005:
`
`Exhibit 1006:
`Exhibit 1007:
`Exhibit 1008:
`Exhibit 1009:
`Exhibit 1010:
`Exhibit 1011:
`Exhibit 1012:
`Exhibit 1013:
`Exhibit 1014:
`Exhibit 1015:
`Exhibit 1016:
`
`Exhibit 1017:
`Exhibit 1018:
`Exhibit 1019:
`Exhibit 1020:
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,107,532
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,107,532
`Declaration of Dan R. Olsen Jr., Ph.D.
`Prosecution File History of U.S. Patent No. 7,107,532
`PCT International Publication No. WO 00/65429 (“Törnqvist”)
`Japanese Patent Kokai No. 2001-188644 (“Kazamaki”) with
`Corresponding English Translation
`U.S. Patent No. 5,850,218 (“LaJoie”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,039,879 (“Bergsten”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,281,940 (“Sciammarella”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,690,391 (“Proehl”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,677,708 (“Matthews”)
`Inside Macintosh Volume I
`U.S. Patent No. 6,151,059 (“Schein”)
`U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2003/0001898 (“Bernhardson”)
`The Star User Interface: An Overview
`Computer Graphics Principles and Practice
`An Introduction to Object-Oriented Programming and
`Smalltalk
`The Art of Computer Programming, Book 1
`Microsoft Windows Guide to Programming
`Principles of Interactive Computer Graphics
`Developing User Interfaces
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit 1021:
`Exhibit 1022:
`Exhibit 1023:
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,107,532
`
`The X Window System
`Declaration of Aya Suzuki
`Prosecution File History of U.S. Patent No. 7,039,879
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,107,532
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`Petitioner Sony Corporation (“Sony”) requests inter partes review of claims
`
`1-53 of the ’532 patent (Ex-1001), currently assigned to Arris Enterprises LLC.
`
`Petitioner filed a first petition requesting inter partes review of the ’532
`
`patent on July 7, 2017. See IPR2017-01695. The volume of claims in the ’532
`
`patent necessitates the filing of this second petition to fully address the art and
`
`grounds against the claims. In the first petition, the prior art patent Törnqvist
`
`formed the basis for challenging the claims under the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation. In this second petition, the combination of Törnqvist and Bergsten
`
`forms the basis for challenging the claims. To the extent the patent owner attempts
`
`to read elements from the preferred embodiment into the claims, the combination
`
`of Törnqvist and Bergsten renders obvious even the narrower preferred
`
`embodiment.
`
`During prosecution, the stated reasons for allowing claim 1 were that the
`
`prior art did not disclose “creat[ing] an independence of lists where[,] when one
`
`list is selected to be changed, the selected list’s corresponding elements are
`
`displayed in [a] focal region, overlapping the other list’s elements.” Ex-1003 at 21.
`
`But that concept, was well known in graphical user interfaces (GUIs), see Section
`
`VI.B (citing Törnqvist and Bergsten), infra, as was everything else in claim 1 and
`
`the other independent claims of the ’532 patent. Accordingly, for the reasons
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,107,532
`
`discussed below, independent claims 1, 26, 50, and 52 are obvious over Törnqvist
`
`in view of Bergsten.
`
`The additional features in the remaining claims were also not new or
`
`inventive. Törnqvist in combination with Bergsten implemented many of these
`
`features. And, to the extent Törnqvist or Bergsten did not expressly teach a feature
`
`described in the dependent claims, other art in the field, like Kazamaki, LaJoie, and
`
`Sciammarella, shows it would have been obvious to include that feature. See
`
`Sections VI.C to VI.E (citing Kazamaki, LaJoie and Sciammarella), infra.
`
`Accordingly, Sony respectfully requests that the Board institute inter partes
`
`review of claims 1-53 of the ’532 patent and cancel them because they are all
`
`unpatentable.
`
`II. THE ’532 PATENT
`A. Overview of the ’532 Patent
`The face of the ’532 patent states it was filed on May 3, 2002, issued on
`
`September 12, 2006, and claims priority to three U.S. Provisional Applications.
`
`The earliest potential priority date for the ’532 patent claim is thus August 29,
`
`2001—the filing date of the earliest provisional application.
`
`The ’532 patent discloses a method for navigating a GUI, where a sequence
`
`of cards is stored that represents options in an interactive television system (ITV).
`
`Ex-1001, Abstract, 2:36-40. The GUI visually displays cards from a horizontal
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,107,532
`
`sequence or a vertical sequence, allowing a user to select one of the cards by
`
`horizontally or vertically scrolling cards from either of the sequences into a “focus
`
`area.” Id., 4:31-39. For example, as shown in Figure 9 of the ’532 patent, a user
`
`may press a “Left” or “Right” button to move a card in a horizontal sequence into
`
`the focus area for selection. Id., 11:51-54. Or, a user may press an “Up” or “Down”
`
`button to move a card in a vertical sequence into the focus area for selection. Id.,
`
`11:47-51.
`
`
`
`Sony challenges all claims, i.e., claims 1-53, of the ’532 patent here.
`
`Claims 1, 26, 50, and 52 are independent and reproduced below with an index key
`
`(e.g., 1.0, 1.1, 1.1.1) for each claim element.
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,107,532
`
`B. Claim 1
`[1.0] A method for navigation of a plurality of
`options within a user interface, the method comprising:
`[1.1] scrolling only visual cards from a first
`sequence of visual cards representing a first type of
`option through a spatially-fixed focus area of the user
`interface,
`[1.1.1] wherein the visual cards of the first
`sequence are both aligned with and scrolled along a first
`axis;
`
`[1.2] enabling scrolling of a particular visual card
`of the first sequence of visual cards into the focus area;
`and
`
`[1.3] scrolling only visual cards from a second
`sequence of visual cards representing a second type of
`option through the focus area,
`[1.3.1] wherein the visual cards of the second
`sequence are both aligned with and scrolled along a
`second axis,
`[1.3.2] wherein the first axis is perpendicular to the
`second axis such that the respective visual cards from the
`first and second sequences are scrolled into the focus area
`from perpendicular directions,
`[1.3.3] and wherein no visual card of the first
`sequence is also included in the second sequence.
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,107,532
`
`C. Claim 26
`[26.0] A system for focused navigation of a
`plurality of options within a user interface, the system
`comprising:
`[26.1] a user input detector configured to detect
`actions of a user; and
`[26.2] a processor configured to scroll only visual
`cards from a first sequence of visual cards through a
`spatially-fixed focus area of the user interface in response
`to a first user command,
`[26.3] wherein the visual cards of the first
`sequence correspond to a first type of option and are both
`aligned with and scrolled along a first axis,
`[26.4] wherein the processor is further configured
`to enable scrolling by a user of a particular visual card of
`the first sequence of visual cards into the focus area,
`[26.5] wherein the processor is further configured
`to only scroll visual cards from a second sequence of
`visual cards through the focus area in response to a
`second user command,
`[26.6] wherein the visual cards of the second
`sequence of visual cards correspond to a second type of
`option and are both aligned with and scrolled along a
`second axis,
`[26.7] wherein the first axis is perpendicular to the
`second axis such that the respective visual cards from the
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,107,532
`
`first and second sequences are scrolled in perpendicular
`directions,
`[26.8] and wherein the first and second sequences
`do not have any visual cards in common.
`
`D. Claim 50
`[50.0] A method for navigation of a plurality of
`options within a user interface of an interactive television
`system, the method comprising:
`[50.1] horizontally scrolling a first sequence of
`visual cards through a spatially-fixed focus area of the
`user interface,
`[50.1.1] the visual cards of the first sequence of
`visual cards representing applications within the
`interactive television system,
`[50.1.2] wherein the visual cards of the first
`sequence are both aligned with and scrolled along a
`horizontal axis intersecting the focus area; and
`[50.2] in response to a user horizontally scrolling a
`particular visual card of the first sequence of visual cards
`corresponding to a television application into the focus
`area, enabling vertically scrolling of a second sequence
`of visual cards through the focus area,
`[50.2.1] the visual cards of the second sequence of
`visual cards representing a television programs,
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,107,532
`
`[50.2.2] wherein the visual cards of the second
`sequence are both aligned with and scrolled along
`vertical axis intersecting the focus area, and
`[50.2.3] wherein vertical scrolling of the second
`sequence does not affect visual cards of the first sequence
`outside of the focus area,
`[50.2.4] wherein no visual card of the first
`sequence is also included in the second sequence.
`
`E. Claim 52
`[52.0] A system for focused navigation of a
`plurality of options within a user interface, the system
`comprising:
`[52.1] means for scrolling only visual cards from a
`first sequence of visual cards through a horizontally and
`vertically fixed focus area along a first axis of the user
`interface to which the first sequence of visual cards is
`aligned,
`[52.1.1] each visual card of the first sequence
`corresponding to a first type of option; and
`[52.2] means for scrolling only visual cards from a
`second sequence of visual cards through the focus area
`along a second axis of the user interface to which the
`second sequence of visual cards is aligned,
`[52.2.1] each visual card of the second sequence
`corresponding to a second type of option,
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,107,532
`
`[52.3] wherein the first axis is perpendicular to the
`second axis such that the respective visual cards from the
`first and second sequences are scrolled in perpendicular
`directions,
`[52.4] wherein no visual card of the first sequence
`is also included in the second sequence.
`
`
`III. PROSECUTION HISTORY
`The application originally claimed a method of navigating a user interface
`
`by successively displaying a series of visual cards representing television
`
`programming listings. Ex-1003, 364. The Examiner rejected those claims based on
`
`Proehl (Ex-1009) and LaJoie (Ex-1006). See Ex-1003, 267-282. In response, the
`
`applicants amended the claims and argued that the prior art did not teach navigable
`
`sequences of visual cards scrolled along perpendicular axes through the same
`
`spatially-fixed focus area. See id., 215, 230-231. The Examiner again rejected the
`
`amended claims based on Proehl and a new reference, Matthews (Ex-1010). See
`
`Ex-1003, 147-166. In response, applicants again amended the claims. Ex-1003,
`
`100-137.
`
`The Examiner found that all limitations of the amended claims were taught
`
`in the prior art and obvious, except for the limitation: “no visual card in the first
`
`sequence is also included in the second sequence” and “the first and second
`
`sequences do not have any visual cards in common.” Id., 66-68. The Examiner
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,107,532
`
`stated some of the claims were allowable because “[t]his limitation, as supported
`
`by the specification, creates an independence of lists where[,] when one list is
`
`selected to be changed, that list[’s] corresponding element is displayed in the focal
`
`region.” Id., 68. In response, applicants canceled the rejected claims that did not
`
`include the limitation, or amended them to add the limitation, which lead to the
`
`issuance of the ’532 patent. Id., 38-57. The features recited in the limitation,
`
`however, were well known in the art and described in publicly available
`
`references, like Törnqvist and Bergsten, before the earliest priority date of the ’532
`
`patent. The Examiner simply failed to apply such references.
`
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) as of August 29, 2001 (the
`
`earliest possible effective filing date of the ’532 patent), would have had at least a
`
`bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or electrical
`
`engineering with at least three years of experience in development and
`
`programming of GUIs and interactive systems (or equivalent degree or
`
`experience). Ex-1002, ¶ 42.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`The broadest reasonable construction should be applied to all claim terms in
`
`the ’532 patent. Petitioner submits that, for the purposes of this Petition, no explicit
`
`construction is needed for any claim term not addressed below.
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,107,532
`
` “visual card” (Claims 1, 26, 50, and 52)
`A.
`A “visual card” should be construed to mean “a visually presented object or
`
`other suitable data structure.” This construction is consistent with the ’532 patent,
`
`which explains a “card” is “an object or other suitable data structure that provides
`
`information about and/or access to an available option within” an ITV system. Ex-
`
`1001, 3:29-32. Further, the ’532 patent teaches presenting such “cards” in a GUI
`
`on a “display screen.” Id., 2:57-59. For example, Figures 7 (annotated below) and
`
`Figures 6, 7A, 7B, and 8 show cards 200 being visually presented onto a display
`
`screen. Id., 8:54-58, 9:3-17. Step 1108 of the flowchart in Figure 14 also describes
`
`“display[ing] the cards in a focus area of [the] user interface.” Id., Fig. 14; 14:56-
`
`60. Accordingly, the broadest reasonable construction of “visual card” in this
`
`proceeding should be “a visually presented object or other suitable data structure.”
`
`Ex-1002, ¶ 45.
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,107,532
`
`“cards 200o, 200n & 200r”
`
`“card” visually presented
`on display for scrolling
`
`
`
`B.
`
`“means for scrolling only visual cards from a first sequence of
`visual cards …” (Claim 52)
`This is a means-plus-function limitation subject to construction under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. The recited function is “scrolling only visual cards from a
`
`first sequence of visual cards through a horizontally and vertically fixed focus area
`
`along a first axis of the user interface to which the first sequence of visual cards is
`
`aligned, each visual card of the first sequence corresponding to a first type of
`
`option.” The corresponding structure disclosed in the ’532 patent for performing
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,107,532
`
`the recited function is “CPU 1014,” “Display Interface 1010,” and “Input Interface
`
`1008.” Ex-1001, 14:3-20, 28-34. The ’532 patent alternatively discloses that the
`
`corresponding structure for performing the recited function may be “hardware and
`
`software for presenting a … [GUI].” Ex-1001, 2:58-61; Ex-1002, ¶ 46.
`
`C.
`
`“means for scrolling only visual cards from a second sequence of
`visual cards …” (Claim 52)
`This is a means-plus-function limitation subject to construction under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. The recited function is “scrolling only visual cards from a
`
`second sequence of visual cards through the focus area along a second axis of the
`
`user interface to which the second sequence of visual cards is aligned, each visual
`
`card of the second sequence corresponding to a second type of option, wherein the
`
`first axis is perpendicular to the second axis such that the respective visual cards
`
`from the first and second sequences are scrolled in perpendicular directions,
`
`wherein no visual card of the first sequence is also included in the second
`
`sequence.” The corresponding structure disclosed in the ’532 patent for performing
`
`the recited function is “CPU 1014,” “Display Interface 1010,” and “Input Interface
`
`1008.” Ex-1001, 14:3-20, 28-34. The ’532 patent alternatively discloses that the
`
`corresponding structure for performing the recited function may be “hardware and
`
`software for presenting a … [GUI]).” Ex-1001, 2:58-61; Ex-1002, ¶ 47.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,107,532
`
`VI. CLAIMS 1-53 OF THE ’532 PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE OVER
`THE PRIOR ART
`Claims 1-53 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The combinations of
`
`(1) Törnqvist and Bergsten renders obvious claims 1-11, 16-20, 24, 26-36, 41-45,
`
`and 50-53; (2) Törnqvist, Bergsten, and Kazamaki renders obvious claims 3, 4, 25,
`
`28, 29, and 49; (3) Törnqvist, Bergsten, and LaJoie renders obvious claims 12-15,
`
`23, 37-40, and 48; and (4) Törnqvist, Bergsten, and Sciammarella renders obvious
`
`claims 21, 22, 46, and 47.
`
`A. Overview of the Prior Art
`Törnqvist
`1.
`PCT International Publication No. WO 00/65429 to Törnqvist et al.
`
`(“Törnqvist”) was filed on April 20, 2000, and published on November 2, 2000.
`
`Ex-1004. Törnqvist is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).
`
`Törnqvist discloses arrangements for “scrollable cross point navigation in a
`
`user interface” used to select an option. Id., p. 1, ll. 4-6. The “cross point
`
`navigation” system allows a user of appliances such as “digital TV set-top boxes”
`
`to navigate and select different types of services in “an easy way without
`
`disturbing the actual viewing experience of the user.” Id., p. 3, ll. 26-30.
`
`The interface organizes user-selectable options into “one or more levels,” in
`
`a “tree-like manner with any branch of the tree constituting a further level.” Id.,
`
`p. 7, ll. 5-6, 22-23. The user-selectable options at “a first level are very general”
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,107,532
`
`categories. Id., p. 7, l. 8. The user-selectable options at a second level “are more
`
`detailed than in the first level, but are still … kind of general.” Id., p. 7, ll. 8-9. The
`
`user-selectable options at a third level “are even more detailed than in the second
`
`level. And so on.” Id., p. 7, ll. 9-10.
`
`The interface provides at least two “bars”—i.e., a vertical bar and a
`
`horizontal bar—for scrollable cross point navigation. Id., p. 5, ll. 25-29. One bar
`
`displays user-selectable options at one level and the other bar displays user-
`
`selectable options at a higher or lower level. Id., p. 10, ll. 7-9, Figs. 2a and 2b. A
`
`user may scroll through the options of all the levels (i.e., the first level, second
`
`level, third level, etc.) by navigating back and forth between the vertical and
`
`horizontal bars. Id., p. 7, l. 27 to p. 8, l. 5.
`
`“Scrolling is accomplished by feeding or ‘zapping’ up and down or left or
`
`right” to move objects—representing user-selectable options at each level—to a
`
`fixed “focus” area. Id., p. 2, ll. 14-15; Figs. 2a, 2b. Objects on each bar are
`
`“displayed in sequence” through “scroll action” by actuating function commands
`
`such as “left, right, up, down, and OK or the like.” Id., p. 2, ll. 22-26.
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,107,532
`
`
`
`When a user scrolls the vertical bar up and down to place one of the objects
`
`from the vertical bar (e.g., one of objects A-G) into the fixed “focus area” then the
`
`horizontal bar displays objects corresponding to the object from the vertical bar in
`
`the fixed focus area. Id., p. 5, ll. 23-27, 32-36. When the user scrolls the horizontal
`
`bar left and right to place one of the objects from the horizontal bar (e.g., one of
`
`objects F0-F5) into the fixed “focus area,” then the vertical bar displays objects
`
`corresponding to the object from the horizontal bar. Id. For example, if the user
`
`vertically feeds the object F (at the first level) from the vertical bar into the fixed
`
`focus area, then the horizontal bar displays F0-F5 (at the second level) for
`
`horizontal scrolling. Id. If the user then horizontally feeds the F2 object from the
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,107,532
`
`horizontal bar into the fixed focus area, then the vertical bar displays F2:0-F2:5 (at
`
`the third level) for vertical scrolling. Id., p. 5, ll. 27-31, 32-36; Fig. 2b.
`
`
`
`Törnqvist discloses implementing its “scrollable cross point navigation” user
`
`interface in an exemplary arrangement comprising “an UI objects database,” “a
`
`Graphic library,” “a Graphic generator,” “an Externally supplied data means,” “a
`
`Content database,” “an Interaction interpreter,” “an Input device,” and “a User
`
`Interface,” as shown in Fig. 1 of Törnqvist. Id., p. 4, ll. 20-24, Fig. 1. The “Content
`
`database” contains information that can be presented in the user interface. Id., p. 4,
`
`ll. 34-35. The “Graphic generator” performs actions “signaled by the Interaction
`
`interpreter” through collecting content from the “Content database” and by
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,107,532
`
`merging the content with the “Graphic library” and “delivering presentation of a
`
`desired action” on the user interface. Id., p. 5, ll. 13-17.
`
`Bergsten
`2.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,039,879 to Bergsten et al. (“Bergsten”) was filed on
`
`June 28, 2001, and issued on May 2, 2006. Ex-1007. Bergsten is prior art under at
`
`least 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).
`
`Bergsten describes itself as providing improvements and enhancements to
`
`the Törnqvist system. Ex-1007, 1:42-46, 2:15-37. Specifically, Bergsten discloses a
`
`“scrollable cross-point navigation” user interface with “two bars” (id., Abstract)
`
`that allows selection of services or adjustment of settings on electronic devices,
`
`such as “a TV, set-top box, DVD player, VCR, domestic appliance, and other
`
`similar devices” (id., 1:13-16). The two bars include a “horizontal bar” and a
`
`“vertical bar.” Id., 7:42-43, 57-58; Fig. 2 (shown below). The “horizontal bar” may
`
`depict different entertainment categories for selection, such as “Film,” “network
`
`television programming,” “music video,” “internet,” etc. Id., 7:46-53. The “vertical
`
`bar” may depict different available sub-groups or bookmarks for selection in the
`
`“Film” entertainment category, such as “Action,” “Drama,” “History,” “Comedy,”
`
`“Documentary,” and “Musical.” Id., 8:15-22.
`
`The “horizontal” and “vertical” bars may be “positioned proximate [to] the
`
`left and bottom edges of the user interface,” “along adjacent edges of the use
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,107,532
`
`interface,” or “at any other location, such as free floating at any location.” Id.,
`
`5:38-42. Regardless of the bars’ positioning, they feed into a fixed “focus area” for
`
`selecting an option from either of the two bars. Id., 7:4-30.
`
`
`
`3. Kazamaki
`Japanese Patent Kokai (Laid-Open) No. 2001-188644 to Kazamaki et al.
`
`(“Kazamaki”) published on July 10, 2001. Ex-1005. “Patent Kokai” are
`
`unexamined Japanese patent applications that have been “laid-open” by the
`
`Japanese Patent Office (JPO)—i.e., made available for public inspection through
`
`the JPO. Ex-1022, ¶¶ 8-11. They constitute printed publications under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102 and are accorded publication dates corresponding to the dates they were laid
`
`open. See In re Wyer, 655 F.2d 221, 226-27 (C.C.P.A. 1981) (holding that an
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,107,532
`
`Australian patent application which was classified and laid open to public
`
`inspection at the Australian Patent Office was publicly available, and noting that
`
`applications that are “properly classified, indexed, or abstracted” are “sufficiently
`
`accessible to the public and to persons skilled in the pertinent art to qualify as a
`
`‘printed publication’” (citation omitted)); see also Fortel Corp. v. Phone-Mate
`
`Inc., No. 85-6656-LEW(JRx), 1987 WL 125077, at *6 (C.D. Cal. July 29, 1987)
`
`(“Japanese laid open patent application (Kokais) are publications under 102(b).”),
`
`rev’d on other grounds, 846 F.2d 78 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
`
`The front page of Kazamaki indicates that Kazamaki was laid open (i.e.,
`
`published) by the JPO on July 10, 2001. Ex-1005 (cover); see Ex-1022, ¶¶ 8-11.
`
`Accordingly, Kazamaki is prior art under at least under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).
`
`Kazamaki discloses a character input method for scrolling vertical and
`
`horizontal “character candidate string[s]” into a “cursor” area (Ex-1005, ¶¶ [0010],
`
`[0034]; Fig. 3) displayed at a “fixed” position at “the center” of the “character
`
`array” (id., ¶ [0045]).
`
`19
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,107,532
`
`
`
`The scrolling speed depends on user input. Id., ¶ [0052]. Fig. 19 of
`
`Kazamaki shows exemplary scrolling speeds in characters per second—i.e., the
`
`“movement amount”—when a user “continuously” presses a key