PTAB

IPR2014-00437

SkyHawke Technologies LLC v. L&H Concepts LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method and Apparatus for Recording and Reporting Golf Information
  • Brief Description: The ’566 patent discloses a handheld electronic device designed to function as a golf scorecard. The claimed invention centers on a simplified user interface that replaces traditional alphanumeric keys with a limited set of tab and scroll keys for screen-dependent data entry, and a method of presenting information through a defined temporal sequence of pre-game, game-interactive, and post-game screens.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Palmer, Osamu, and Vanden Heuvel - Claims 8-11, 14, and 18 are obvious over Palmer in view of Osamu and further in view of Vanden Heuvel.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Palmer (WO 92/04080), Osamu (UK Application # 2,249,202), and Vanden Heuvel (Patent 5,426,422).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the primary reference, Palmer, teaches a handheld golf computer that stores and displays pre-game, game-interactive, and post-game screens. Palmer’s pre-game mode allows a user to create databases for customized club selections and course information. Osamu was asserted to teach a similar handheld golf computer that provides multiple game-interactive screens with different levels of data recording detail: a basic scorecard screen and a more detailed "shot tracker" screen for inputting the location and club used for each shot. Finally, Petitioner contended that Vanden Heuvel explicitly discloses the key-based, screen-dependent input mechanism using bi-directional tab and scroll keys, which was a key feature for allowance of the ’566 patent.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Osamu's shot tracker screen with Palmer's device to correlate a player's actual performance (shot location, club used) with club selection, thereby improving the accuracy of Palmer’s club recommendation database and enhancing the user’s ability to learn from experience. A POSITA would have also been motivated to replace Palmer's keypad with Vanden Heuvel's tab-and-scroll interface, as this was a known method to simplify device design, increase display size, and improve usability for a handheld device on a golf course.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted that these modifications represented a predictable combination of known prior art elements to yield the expected, improved result.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Palmer, Osamu, Vanden Heuvel, and TurboTax - Claim 18 is obvious over Palmer, Osamu, and Vanden Heuvel, further in view of TurboTax.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Palmer (WO 92/04080), Osamu (UK Application # 2,249,202), Vanden Heuvel (Patent 5,426,422), and TurboTax (User Manual, Oct. 1992).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground was presented as an alternative to address a potentially narrower construction of claim 18's limitation "providing a choice of... a plurality of game-interactive mode[s]." Should this phrase be construed to require a pre-defined choice between discrete operational modes, Petitioner argued that TurboTax teaches this exact functionality. The TurboTax software presents a pre-procedure screen asking the user to select between an "EasyStep" mode (guided questions) and a "Classic" mode (direct form entry). This selection dictates the subsequent interactive screens and defines different levels of data recording and user guidance, directly mapping to the claim limitation.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate a mode-selection mechanism like that taught by TurboTax into the combined Palmer/Osamu device. Petitioner argued this was a common and well-known user interface design pattern used to simplify system dialogue, define the user experience, and make complex software more intuitive and easier for users to grasp.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Game Boy, Ultra Golf, and PGA Tour Golf - Claims 8-11, 14, and 18 are obvious over Game Boy in view of Ultra Golf and further in view of PGA Tour Golf.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Game Boy (Owner's Manual, 1989), Ultra Golf (Instruction Booklet, 1992), and PGA Tour Golf (Instruction Booklet, 1991).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that the claimed invention was obvious in light of the state of the art in the handheld video game industry. The Game Boy manual discloses the base handheld computing unit with a display and key-based input. The golf simulation games, Ultra Golf and PGA Tour Golf, were argued to collectively teach all the claimed method steps. Specifically, they disclose pre-game setup screens for selecting game mode, course, players, and clubs; a sequence of game-interactive screens including scorecards and player statistics screens; and post-game performance summaries. The games utilize a screen-dependent input methodology for entering data like player names. PGA Tour Golf was highlighted as teaching the choice between different interactive screens (scorecard and statistics).
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA developing a golf game for the Game Boy would have been motivated to incorporate the established screen structures and features from a popular game like PGA Tour Golf into another game like Ultra Golf. Petitioner described this as a simple matter of routine programming and a predictable design choice to create a more feature-rich and commercially competitive product, leveraging known methods in the gaming industry.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner dedicated argument to the claim 18 phrase "providing a pre-game mode of data entry ..., and providing a choice of at least one of a plurality of game-interactive information screens ...".
  • The proposed broadest reasonable construction requires that a user can select, in a pre-game mode, the amount of detail to be recorded later during the game-interactive mode. This construction was central to Petitioner's primary obviousness arguments and provided a basis for the alternative ground including TurboTax.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 8-11, 14, and 18 of the ’566 patent as unpatentable.