PTAB

IPR2013-00294

Microsoft Corp v. SurfCast Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System and Method for Simultaneous Display of Information Sources
  • Brief Description: The ’403 patent discloses a system for organizing and managing multiple data sources on a graphical user interface. The system arranges the display into an "array of tiles," where each tile is associated with an information source and is updated with information retrieved from that source at a specific "retrieval rate."

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation by Duhault I - Claims 46-50 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, which describes a system for displaying multiple television channels simultaneously on a single screen, discloses every element of claims 46-50. The system partitions the display into a grid of rectangular viewing areas, each showing a different channel. Petitioner asserted this grid is the claimed "array of tiles," and the television channels are the "plurality of information sources." Duhault I’s system retrieves information for a selected tile at a "live" video rate while retrieving information for unselected tiles at a slower, periodic rate, thus teaching the "first retrieval rate" and "second retrieval rate" limitations of independent claim 46. Petitioner further mapped the elements of dependent claims 47-50, arguing Duhault I's grid has multiple rows and columns (claim 47) and assigns retrieval rates uniformly for unselected tiles (claims 48-49) and automatically upon selection (claim 50).

Ground 2: Anticipation by Chen - Claims 46-50 are anticipated by Chen

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Chen (Patent 5,432,932).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Chen anticipates claims 46-50. Chen describes a system for monitoring remote computers by displaying performance data from each in a grid of rectangular areas called "instruments." Petitioner argued that Chen’s "instruments" are equivalent to the ’403 patent’s "tiles," the remote computers are the "information sources," and the console displaying the grid is the "array of tiles." In Chen, each instrument is associated with a specific computer and retrieves data at a user-configurable sampling rate, which Petitioner equated to the claimed "retrieval rate." The system simultaneously communicates with multiple data sources (the remote computers) and presents the retrieved information in the corresponding tiles, thereby meeting all limitations of independent claim 46. Petitioner also argued that Chen’s console can have multiple rows/columns (claim 47) and assigns retrieval rates via API calls, which can be uniform or default (claims 48-50).

Ground 3: Obviousness over Chen and MSIE Kit - Claims 51 and 52 are obvious over Chen in view of MSIE Kit

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Chen (Patent 5,432,932) and MSIE Kit (Microsoft Internet Explorer Resource Kit, a 1998 printed publication).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued claims 51 and 52, which add limitations for "storing said array of tiles on a second device" and "retriev[ing]" that array, respectively, would have been obvious. Chen was argued to teach a system of tiles (its "instruments") and storing the configuration of the instrument layout. MSIE Kit was cited for its disclosure of Microsoft's Active Desktop, which could store a user's array of desktop items on a network server (a "second device").
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Chen with MSIE Kit because they address related problems in user interface management. A POSITA would have been motivated to apply the known network storage technique from MSIE Kit to Chen’s tile-based system to provide the well-understood benefits of user roaming (allowing a user to access their personalized layout from multiple computers) and centralized administrative control.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in this combination, as it involved applying a conventional network storage solution for user profiles to a specific type of user configuration file (a tile layout), which was a straightforward application of known technologies.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional anticipation challenge against claims 46-50 based on Duhault II (Patent 6,456,334), which is similar to Duhault I. Petitioner also asserted obviousness challenges against claims 51 and 52 based on Chen in view of Crawford (Patent 5,901,228), which, similar to MSIE Kit, taught using networked storage.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "tile": Petitioner argued that in its broadest reasonable construction, a "tile" is simply a visual element, such as a window or an icon, that occupies less than the entire display. Petitioner contended the specification does not impose structural limitations (like the absence of a title bar or scroll bars) that meaningfully distinguish a "tile" from a conventional "window" known in the prior art.
  • "array of tiles": Petitioner asserted this term should be construed broadly to mean any arrangement of one or more tiles on a display. The petition argued that limitations such as a grid configuration or non-overlapping placement are recited in dependent claims, and therefore should not be read into the independent claims. This broad construction was central to mapping the prior art, which showed various arrangements of windows or graphical elements.
  • "retrieval rate": Petitioner proposed that this term encompasses any recurring time interval at which information is retrieved, including user-configurable criteria for updating. This construction allowed Petitioner to map the term to prior art systems that updated content based on periodic sampling, user-defined refresh intervals, or system-determined update schemes.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 46-52 of the ’403 patent as unpatentable.