Axure Software Solutions Inc v. iRISE

1. Case Identification

• Case #: CBM2015-00083
• Patent #: 7,349,837
• Filed: February 20, 2015
• Petitioner(s): Axure Software Solutions, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): iRise, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-4, 7-14, 17-24, 27-29, 40-44, and 47-49

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Programming Environment for Simulating a Computer Application
• Brief Description: The ’837 patent describes methods, systems, and computer programs for a software development environment. The invention centers on a user interface that simultaneously displays a "programming area" containing graphical "primitives" and a "requirements area" containing text-based requirements, allowing a user to visually associate the primitives with the requirements to program a simulation of a computer application.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Okita and Barskiy - Claims 1, 4, 7-11, 14, 17-21, 24, 27-29, 40-41, 44, and 47-49 are obvious over Okita in view of Barskiy.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Okita (Patent 6,225,998) and Barskiy (Patent 6,205,412).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Okita taught a visual programming environment for creating transaction workflows, such as for a call center. Its graphical workflow editor, which displayed icons (primitives) that could be arranged by a user, constituted the claimed "programming area." Okita also disclosed displaying text descriptions directly below these icons to describe their function; Petitioner asserted this met the "requirements area" limitation, with both areas displayed at the same time. While Okita focused on programming an application, Barskiy was introduced to supply the "simulation" aspect, as it explicitly taught a system for simulating telephony call center applications to test them. The combination thus taught a programming environment for a simulation.
  • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Okita and Barskiy because both references operate in the same technical field of computer telephony integration. Petitioner contended that Barskiy’s explicit suggestion to use simulation for testing and debugging applications provided a clear reason to apply its simulation methods to the applications designed using Okita’s visual programming tool.
  • Expectation of Success: Combining Okita’s application design tool with Barskiy’s simulation and testing framework was presented as a predictable integration that would successfully result in a system for both designing and simulating an application.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Okita, Barskiy, and Robbins - Claims 2-3, 12-13, 22-23, and 42-43 are obvious over Okita in view of Barskiy, further in view of Robbins.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Okita (Patent 6,225,998), Barskiy (Patent 6,205,412), and Robbins (a 1999 doctoral dissertation titled "Cognitive Support Features for Software Development Tools").
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the Okita/Barskiy combination to address dependent claims requiring specific user interface features. Petitioner argued Robbins taught these features in its description of the Argo/UML software design tool. Specifically, Robbins disclosed a "to do list" feature where selecting an item (a "requirement") would highlight the associated, "offending" design elements ("primitives") in a diagram, directly teaching the "highlighting" limitation of claim 2. Robbins also taught a "context-sensitive checklist" that displayed only requirements relevant to a currently selected primitive, thereby teaching the claim 3 limitation of "removing one or more requirements from display that are not associated with the selected primitive."
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would add Robbins's UI features to the Okita/Barskiy system to improve its usability. Robbins explicitly addressed the "cognitive needs" of software developers, and incorporating its well-understood UI enhancements, like error highlighting and context-sensitive help, into the base development environment would have been a known method for improving developer efficiency.

Ground 3: Patent Ineligible Subject Matter - Claims 1-4, 7-14, 17-24, 27-29, 40-44, and 47-49 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §101.

• Core Argument for this Ground: Petitioner argued the challenged claims were directed to the abstract idea of "associating text with a graphical depiction of a design." This was characterized as a fundamental, long-standing human practice, equivalent to annotating a blueprint or creating a storyboard on paper. Under the two-step Alice framework, the claims failed because they did not add an "inventive concept." The petition asserted that implementing this abstract idea on a generic computer—by merely using conventional computer functions like displaying information, receiving mouse clicks, and storing data—was not enough to confer patent eligibility. The dependent claims were argued to add only other abstract concepts (e.g., "highlighting") or conventional UI features (a "consistent user interface").

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "simulation": Petitioner argued this term should be construed simply as a "representation." It contested a prior district court construction of "an interactive representation," asserting that such a construction would render the term "interactive" redundant in a related patent that claims an "interactive simulation."
• "requirement": Petitioner asserted this term should be given its explicit definition from the specification: "a statement or portion of a statement regarding the desired or necessary behavior of a prospective or subject computer implemented software application or a set of proposed applications."

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

• Priority Date Challenge: A central contention was that the ’837 patent was not entitled to the filing date of its 2001 provisional application. Petitioner argued the provisional failed to provide adequate written description for the key limitation of "receiving control indications from the user to arrange the one or more primitives to program the simulation." This challenge, if successful, would establish an earlier effective date for the prior art references, making the obviousness challenges stronger.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested institution of a Covered Business Method Review and cancellation of claims 1-4, 7-14, 17-24, 27-29, 40-44, and 47-49 of the ’837 patent as unpatentable.