PTAB

IPR2013-00191

Google Inc v. JonGerius PanoRamic Technologies LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Display System for Synchronized Detailed and Map Views
  • Brief Description: The ’529 patent discloses a system and method for concurrently displaying a detailed view of an area within a territory (e.g., a photograph or 3D rendering) and a map of that territory. The map includes an indicator showing the location, direction, and field of view corresponding to the detailed view, and the two views are synchronized.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation by Chan - Claims 1, 4-6, 13, 14, 17, 23, and 28 are anticipated by Chan under §102.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Chan (Patent 6,346,938).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Chan discloses every element of the challenged independent claims. Chan’s image processing system renders and displays a 3D model using two synchronized viewports: an "in-scene view" (the claimed detailed view) and an "overview view" (the claimed map). Chan's overview map includes a "user icon" that indicates the user's position, heading (direction), and field of view, which changes in synchronism with user navigation in the in-scene view.
    • Key Aspects: Petitioner contended that Chan's system, which allows a user to navigate a virtual world while seeing their position updated on a corresponding map, performs the exact method and constitutes the exact system claimed in the ’529 patent.

Ground 2: Anticipation by Wei - Claims 1, 4, 5, 17, 21, 23, and 27 are anticipated by Wei under §102.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Wei (a February 1998 article titled “Color Anaglyphs for Panorama Visualizations”).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Wei discloses a "real-time interactive player" for navigating a "stereo panoramic virtual world." This system provides a detailed "360 degree panoramic view" and a separate "helper" window that displays a top-down map of the environment. The map in Wei shows the user's current position with a "red node" and a "projection emitted from the red node" to indicate the current viewing direction and field of view. The map indicator rotates synchronously as the user pans the panoramic view.
    • Key Aspects: Wei's system was presented as another complete disclosure of the claimed invention, providing a synchronized detailed view (panorama) and map view (helper) for user navigation.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Chan and Naughton - Claims 10 and 13-15 are obvious over Chan in view of Naughton under §103.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Chan (Patent 6,346,938) and Naughton (a 1998 Java programming guide).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Chan discloses almost all elements of claim 10, including the "detail display means" and "map display means." For the "synchronization means" recited in claim 10, Petitioner contended that while Chan describes that its two views are "mutually synchronized," Naughton supplies the explicit technical implementation. Naughton teaches standard multithreading and the use of the synchronization keyword in Java to manage shared resources between different software processes, such as a map view and a detail view. The ’529 patent's own source code appendix uses this same Java synchronization modifier.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA, seeking to implement the synchronized views described in Chan, would naturally turn to a standard and widely known programming language like Java. Naughton provided the well-known and routine methods for achieving synchronization in Java.
    • Expectation of Success: Combining the system of Chan with the standard programming techniques from Naughton was merely the application of a known technique (Java synchronization) to a known system (Chan's synchronized views) to yield a predictable result.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted numerous additional challenges, including:

    • Anticipation by Dykes (a 1999 journal article) and Murphy (a 1996 manual).
    • Obviousness combinations including Chan or Wei in view of Galitz (a user interface design guide teaching highlighting) and Prouty (a patent on navigating 3D building interiors).
    • Obviousness combinations using Dykes and Murphy as the primary references.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "detail display means," "map display means," and "synchronization means" (claims 10, 17): Petitioner argued these are means-plus-function terms governed by §112, ¶6. The corresponding structure, as disclosed in the ’529 patent's specification and source code appendix, was identified as a microprocessor programmed to perform the claimed functions (e.g., displaying views, synchronizing data). Petitioner asserted that the prior art disclosed corresponding structures, such as processors running software modules that performed the identical functions.
  • "synchronizer" (claims 17, 23): As the term was not expressly defined, Petitioner proposed it should be construed as software code that performs the recited synchronization functions.
  • "input means" (claim 1): Petitioner argued this term is not a means-plus-function term despite using the word "means." It proposed the structure should be construed as a conventional input device like a mouse, keyboard, or touch screen.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-6, 10-15, 17-19, 21, 23-25, and 27-28 of Patent 6,563,529 as unpatentable.