PTAB

IPR2013-00292

Microsoft Corp v. SurfCast Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System And Method For Simultaneous Display Of Information Sources
  • Brief Description: The ’403 patent discloses a graphical user interface where a visual display is partitioned into an "array of tiles." Each tile is associated with a distinct information source (e.g., a data stream, application, or file) and is updated independently according to an assigned refresh rate.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation over Duhault I - Claims 1, 3-5, 7-13, 18, 19, and 21 are anticipated by Duhault I

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Duhault I (Patent 6,118,493).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Duhault I discloses every element of the challenged claims. Duhault I describes a system for simultaneously watching multiple television channels on a single display. The system partitions the display into a grid of rectangular "video viewing areas," which Petitioner contended are equivalent to the claimed "tiles." Duhault I discloses selecting a plurality of information sources (the TV channels), associating each viewing area with a channel, and simultaneously updating the content in the areas. The system assigns different refresh rates: a selected tile is updated at a "live video rate," while unselected tiles are updated at a slower periodic rate, thereby teaching the assignment and use of at least two different refresh rates as required by independent claim 1.
    • Key Aspects: Petitioner asserted that Duhault I also discloses limitations of various dependent claims, including a non-overlapping configuration of tiles of uniform size and shape (claim 3), assigning priority values by selecting a tile (claim 4), and displaying the scheme on a computer or television (claims 18-19).

Ground 2: Anticipation over Chen - Claims 1-3, 6-13, and 19 are anticipated by Chen

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Chen (Patent 5,432,932).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Chen describes a scheme for monitoring remote computers and displaying performance data in a grid of rectangular areas called "instruments" on a "console." Petitioner equated Chen’s "instruments" with the claimed "tiles." Chen’s system selects multiple information sources (the remote computers), partitions a display into an array of these instruments, and associates each instrument with a specific computer. Crucially, Chen discloses that the refresh rate for each instrument is user-configurable via a "start data feed" request that specifies the sampling rate. This meets the claim 1 limitations of assigning and updating information in a first tile at a first refresh rate and a second tile at a second refresh rate.
    • Key Aspects: Petitioner argued Chen further teaches dependent claim limitations, such as a user’s ability to configure the number of rows and columns (claim 2), the use of non-overlapping instruments of uniform size (claim 3), and that the client device can be a computer (claim 19).

Ground 3: Obviousness over Chen in view of Haddock - Claim 4 is obvious over Chen in view of Haddock

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Chen (Patent 5,432,932) and Haddock (Patent 6,104,700).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Claim 4 adds the limitation of assigning refresh rates in accordance with a "priority value" associated with the information source. While Chen discloses assigning different refresh rates, Petitioner argued it does not explicitly link them to a "priority value." Haddock discloses a policy-based mechanism for managing and prioritizing network traffic, where communications are assigned relative priority values to determine which data is sent first.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended that Chen and Haddock are in related fields, as both concern retrieving information from multiple sources over a network. A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) implementing Chen’s system would have been motivated to incorporate Haddock’s teachings to more efficiently manage the network resources required to update the multiple instrument tiles.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have reasonably expected to succeed in applying Haddock’s network prioritization scheme to Chen’s data feeds. This combination would result in assigning priority values to the data feeds for each instrument and modifying their refresh rates based on that priority, rendering claim 4 obvious.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted numerous additional grounds for unpatentability, including anticipation of claims 1-13 and 17-21 by Duhault II (Patent 6,456,334); unpatentability of claims 1, 17, and 20 over Farber (Patent 5,819,284); and various other obviousness combinations building on Chen and Farber with references like MSIE Kit, Crawford, and DorEl to teach limitations related to storing tiles on a second device (claims 15-16) and implementing the system on a television (claim 18).

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

Petitioner dedicated a substantial portion of the petition to claim construction, arguing that the terms should be given their broadest reasonable interpretation and that the patentee’s attempts to narrow them are improper.

  • "tile": Petitioner proposed that a "tile" should be construed as "a visual element (including a window or an icon) that occupies less than the entire display." Petitioner argued that the patent’s specification fails to create a clear and unambiguous distinction between "tiles" and conventional "windows." This broad construction was critical to Petitioner’s arguments, as prior art references like Duhault I and Chen disclose systems using rectangular "viewing areas" or "instruments" that function as windows, which Petitioner contended fall within the proper construction of "tile."
  • "array of tiles": Petitioner argued this phrase encompasses any arrangement on a display of one or more tiles and is not limited to a specific grid configuration unless further narrowed by a dependent claim. This construction allows prior art that shows flexible arrangements of visual elements to qualify as an "array of tiles."

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-21 of the ’403 patent as unpatentable.