PTAB

IPR2014-00532

Google Inc v. Micrografx LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method and System for Producing Graphical Images
  • Brief Description: The ’633 patent discloses a computer graphics system designed to allow for the easy addition of new shapes without rewriting the underlying program. The system utilizes a shape library stored externally to the main computer program, where each external shape contains its own "external capabilities" for producing a graphical image.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation over Walton - Claims 1-4, 6, 8-11, 13, and 15 are anticipated by Walton under 35 U.S.C. §102.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Walton (Patent 5,883,639).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Walton discloses every element of the challenged claims. Walton describes a visual software engineering system that uses external graphical object libraries, where graphical objects are stored outside the main application "user code." Each object comprises a "graphic element" (the shape) and a "behavior element" (the capabilities), which directly corresponds to the ’633 patent’s "external shape" with "external capabilities." Petitioner asserted that Walton’s teaching that a "graphical object in accordance with the invention must be able to draw itself" discloses the claimed feature of delegating the production of the graphical image to the external capabilities of the shape.
    • Key Aspects: The core of this argument was that the fundamental architecture praised in the ’633 patent—separating shape definitions and their functionalities from the main program—was explicitly taught and enabled by Walton for the benefit of non-programmers creating user interfaces.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Eick and Kruglinski - Claims 1-4, 6, 8-11, 13, and 15 are obvious over Eick in view of Kruglinski under 35 U.S.C. §103.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Eick (Patent 5,564,048) and Kruglinski (a 1994 book titled Inside Visual C++, Second Edition: Version 1.5).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Eick discloses a computer graphics system for an object-oriented programming environment (C++) that uses class libraries for drawing shapes. Eick's classes, such as "VzDrawer," provide the functionality to create various shapes and respond to user input, thereby teaching shapes with inherent capabilities. While Eick suggests its libraries are components used by a programmer's application, it does not explicitly state they are stored externally. Kruglinski, a C++ programming text, was cited to supply this teaching, as it describes the common and beneficial practice of compiling C++ classes into external Dynamic Link Libraries (DLLs).
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted that a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Eick with the teachings of Kruglinski for several reasons. First, since Eick's libraries are written in C++, a POSITA would look to a C++ programming guide like Kruglinski, which teaches that applications "can benefit by being split into a series of main programs and DLLs." Second, the combination is a predictable application of a known technique (using DLLs for external libraries) to improve a similar device (Eick's graphics system) to achieve predictable results like modularity, code reuse, and faster program loading. Both references are in the same technical field of object-oriented programming.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued there was a high expectation of success. Implementing Eick’s C++ class libraries as external DLLs, as taught by Kruglinski, was a routine and well-understood practice for C++ programmers at the time. This modification would predictably yield a system with externally stored graphics libraries without altering the underlying functionality of Eick’s shape-drawing classes.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "external shape stored outside the computer program": Petitioner proposed this term means an object, library component, or other data structure that contains source code, is stored externally to a computer program, and includes data for use in producing a graphical image. This construction was central to mapping prior art libraries and objects to the claim language.
  • "external capabilities": Petitioner proposed this term means capabilities, such as the patent’s "action methods" and "symbol methods," that are external to the main computer program and allow for the generation of information required to produce the graphical image.
  • "delegate": Petitioner argued for the plain meaning of "to commit or entrust to another," asserting that when an external shape is responsible for its own drawing functions, the main program has delegated that task.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1-4, 6, 8-11, 13, and 15 of the ’633 patent as unpatentable.