PTAB

IPR2014-00787

Google Inc v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Touch Screen Systems and Methods
  • Brief Description: The ’960 patent discloses a touch screen system that generates a composite image by superimposing a functional image, such as a virtual keyboard, over a main background image. The system uses "variable-pixel control" to blend the images, which allows individual display pixels to be "dedicated simultaneously" to both the foreground and background images.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation - Claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12-14, 19-22, and 24-30 are anticipated by Gough under 35 U.S.C. §102.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Gough (Patent 5,638,501).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Gough, which was not considered during prosecution, discloses every limitation of the challenged claims. Gough describes a pen computer system with a touchscreen that superimposes a translucent keyboard over a main image from an application program. It explicitly discloses a "Blending Engine" that implements "variable-pixel control" by combining data for the main and overlay images to produce the final displayed pixel. This process, Petitioner asserted, results in each pixel being "dedicated simultaneously" to both images, as the final pixel value is a combination of data from both. Gough also discloses adjusting the translucency of the keyboard, which meets limitations related to contrast adjustment and blended shadows.

Ground 2: Anticipation and Obviousness - Claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12-14, 19-22, and 24-30 are anticipated by Martin under 35 U.S.C. §102; alternatively, claims 2, 3, and 12 are obvious over Martin in view of Harrison.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Martin (Patent 5,148,155) and Harrison (Patent 6,317,128).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Martin discloses a digitizing tablet that logically overlays a simulated device, like a keyboard, from an "ink plane" onto a main image from a "display buffer." Martin describes using a "mask plane" to control how the two image planes are combined for display. In one embodiment, the mask plane is extended to permit various logical combining operations (e.g., AND, OR, XOR), which results in pixels being dedicated simultaneously to both images with different blending effects, thus teaching the claimed "variable-pixel control."
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): To the extent Martin was found not to explicitly disclose the "contrast adjustment" or "clear space" limitations of claims 2, 3, and 12, Petitioner argued Harrison provides these teachings. Harrison discloses varying the contrast and brightness of an overlaid image and using contrasting outlines to enhance visibility. A POSITA would combine Harrison’s known techniques for improving user interface visibility with Martin’s touchscreen system to improve the ease and accuracy of use, a well-understood design goal.
    • Expectation of Success: Combining known visibility enhancements with a touchscreen device was a predictable and straightforward integration with a high expectation of success.

Ground 3: Obviousness - Claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12-14, 19-22, and 24-30 are obvious over Buxton in view of Bier and Harrison under 35 U.S.C. §103.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Buxton (Patent 6,118,427), Bier (Patent 5,617,114), and Harrison (Patent 6,317,128).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that this combination teaches all challenged limitations. Buxton discloses the core concept of using continuous algorithms like "alpha blending" to merge layered images with variable transparency, which meets the "variable-pixel control" and "dedicated simultaneously" limitations. While Buxton suggests a pointer device like a mouse or "puck," Bier explicitly teaches the use of a touchscreen and on-screen virtual keypads, which are interchangeable with Buxton's input device. Harrison provides the remaining elements related to enhancing the visibility of layered images, such as adjusting contrast and brightness and using "anti-interference outlines" (a "clear space").
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references to improve the user experience of Buxton’s system. It was well-known in the art that touchscreens (Bier) provided a more intuitive user interface than the mouse or puck disclosed in Buxton. Bier itself teaches the interchangeability of these input devices. Furthermore, a POSITA would be motivated to incorporate the visibility-enhancing features of Harrison (e.g., contrast adjustment, outlines) to solve the known problem of distinguishing overlapping images in a graphical user interface.
    • Expectation of Success: Integrating a standard touchscreen input and known visibility techniques into an existing graphical layering system would have been a predictable implementation for a POSITA with a clear expectation of success.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "Pixel": Petitioner argued for a construction of "either a physical or logical pixel, as required by the context of its use." This construction was asserted to be critical because the prior art often describes blending operations on pixel data (logical pixels) before it is rendered on the physical display hardware.
  • "Touch screen": Proposed as "any display device in which an input is determined by a reference to the position on the display at which a pointing device approaches or contacts the display." This broad construction was used to map prior art systems like digitizing tablets to the claimed invention.
  • "Blended shadow": Petitioner proposed construing this term as "a portion of a composite image in which the main image is visible through the overlaid image as a result of combining the data from corresponding pixels from the main and overlaid images." This aligns the term with the technical concept of translucency or alpha blending disclosed in the prior art.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12-14, 19-22, and 24-30 of the ’960 patent as unpatentable.