PTAB

IPR2014-00534

Google Inc v. Micrografx LLC

Key Events

Petition

petition

Title: System and Method of Providing Interactive Vector Graphics Over a Network
Brief Description: The ’732 patent describes systems and methods for delivering interactive vector graphics over a network. The core technology involves a server providing a downloadable vector graphics file to a client, where the file contains one or more vector objects with a predefined "active area" that, upon user interaction (e.g., a mouse click), triggers a specified command.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Pesce (VRML – Browsing and Building Cyberspace by Mark Pesce, 1995).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Pesce discloses every element of the challenged claims. Pesce describes the Virtual Reality Modeling Language (VRML) for creating interactive, networked 3D worlds. Petitioner asserted that Pesce’s system uses downloadable, interactive vector objects (called "nodes") stored on a web server. For example, Pesce describes creating a "sun" object using a "Sphere" node, which is defined by vector data. This object is made interactive by nesting it within a "WWWAnchor" node, which associates the object's graphical area with a command—specifically, linking to a URL. When a user clicks on the sun object (the "active area"), the browser is instructed to navigate to the predefined web page, thus performing a command in response to an event. This system of downloadable, interactive vector objects with active areas triggering commands was alleged to anticipate the claims.
- Key Aspects: Petitioner emphasized that the very feature the patent examiner identified as the basis for allowance—"an active area predefined by the vector object" associated with a command—is explicitly taught by Pesce's VRML anchor node functionality.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Roy (Patent 5,966,135).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Roy independently anticipates all challenged claims. Roy discloses a system for generating, transmitting, and viewing interactive map pictures created from vector-based data. The system features downloadable "map window files" containing "map objects" (e.g., states, cities) which are interactive. Petitioner argued that these vector-based map objects have an "active area"—their displayed image—that can be clicked by a user to trigger predetermined commands, such as jumping to a URL or zooming in for greater detail. The system uses a client-side map viewer, embodied as a browser plug-in, to download and render the vector map data from a server. This client-server architecture for providing interactive vector objects with clickable, command-linked areas was asserted to teach all limitations of the claims.
- Key Aspects: Roy provides a direct parallel to the ’732 patent's system in a 2D mapping context, as opposed to Pesce's 3D virtual world context, demonstrating that the claimed concept was known in different, relevant technical fields prior to the invention.

"interactive vector object" (claims 1 and 8): Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "a computer software object that includes vector data, properties, and an 'active area' of the graphical image." This construction was argued to be consistent with the specification's description of objects that can be rendered and respond to user interactions.
"active area" (claims 1, 8, 36, and 42): Petitioner proposed this term means "an area that is associated with a command that is performed when an event, such as a mouse click, is recognized within the area." This construction was central to the argument that both Pesce and Roy disclose this key limitation by describing clickable graphical objects linked to commands like URL navigation.
"vector graphics network file" (claims 1 and 8): Petitioner proposed construing this as "computer software capable of connecting to a server over a network and retrieving vector graphics files over the network." This supported mapping the term to VRML browsers in Pesce and the Netscape browser plug-in in Roy.

Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1-5, 8, 9, 12, 36, and 42 of the ’732 patent as unpatentable.