PTAB

IPR2014-00271

Microsoft Corp v. SurfCast Inc

Key Events

Petition

petition

Title: System and Method for Simultaneous Display of Information Sources
Brief Description: The ’403 patent discloses a system for displaying information from multiple sources simultaneously on a single screen. The system partitions the display into a grid or "array of tiles," where each tile is associated with an information source and can be updated or refreshed at its own distinct rate.

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 watching multiple television channels simultaneously by displaying each channel in a separate rectangular area within a grid on a screen. Petitioner contended these rectangular areas are the claimed "array of tiles." The system in Duhault I assigns different refresh rates to different tiles; for instance, a user-selected tile is updated at a "live" video rate (a high refresh rate), while unselected tiles are updated at a slower, periodic rate dependent on the tuner speed and number of channels. Petitioner asserted this directly teaches the core limitations of assigning a first refresh rate to a first tile and a second, different refresh rate to a second tile, and simultaneously updating the information in them. The petition provided a detailed, claim-by-claim mapping showing how Duhault I’s disclosure of its multi-channel viewing system anticipates the method (claim 1), memory (claim 22), and system (claim 46) claims and their dependents.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Farber (Patent 5,819,284).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Farber discloses a system for an "at-a-glance" screen that displays updated information from a variety of "feeds" such as weather, traffic, and news. This information is presented in an array of rectangular display "areas" that correspond to the claimed "tiles." Petitioner asserted that Farber teaches periodically updating the information in these tiles to keep it "current" and explicitly discloses that users can specify the time intervals for these updates. This user-specified update interval was argued to be the claimed "refresh rate." Because Farber allows for different update intervals for different feeds, Petitioner contended it discloses assigning different refresh rates to different tiles and updating them simultaneously to provide a comprehensive, up-to-date display, thereby anticipating the independent claims. Dependent claims related to implementation on a "screen phone" (claim 17) or personal digital assistant (claim 20) were allegedly disclosed by Farber’s teaching that the scheme could be used on such devices.

Petitioner relied on claim constructions adopted by the Board in related IPR proceedings for the ’403 patent. These constructions were central to its anticipation arguments.
"tile": Construed as "a graphical user interface element whose content may be refreshed and that, when selected, provides access to an information source." This construction allowed Petitioner to map the video viewing areas of Duhault I and the information display areas of Farber to the claimed "tiles."
"array of tiles": Construed as "an ordered set of two or more tiles." This supported mapping the grid-like displays in both Duhault I and Farber.
"refresh rate" / "retrieval rate": Construed as "a recurring time interval at which information displayed in a tile is refreshed or retrieved." This construction was critical for arguing that both Duhault I's different update speeds for selected vs. unselected channels and Farber’s user-specified update intervals met the claim limitations.
"simultaneously updating...": Construed as "performing the repetitive process of updating information presented to the second tile... at the same time or nearly the same time as said updating information from said first information source." This supported the argument that both prior art systems, which continuously update multiple on-screen elements, met the simultaneity requirement.

Petitioner argued that the grounds asserted in this petition, based on Duhault I and Farber, were not redundant and that discretionary denial would be inappropriate. This petition was filed after the Board had instituted review in other IPRs on the ’403 patent based on a different reference ("Duhault II").
The core argument was that Patent Owner had stated its intent to antedate Duhault II in the other proceedings. If Patent Owner were successful in removing Duhault II as prior art, the Board would be left without a reference to resolve the patentability of numerous claims. Petitioner argued that since Patent Owner had not suggested it could antedate Duhault I or Farber, instituting review on these grounds was necessary to ensure a just outcome and prevent the potential survival of unpatentable claims.

Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1, 3-5, 7-13, 17-28, 30-33, 35-37, 40-43, and 46-50 of the ’403 patent as unpatentable.