PTAB

IPR2014-01485

SkyHawke Technologies LLC v. L&H Concepts LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Electronic Scorecard for a Game
  • Brief Description: The ’566 patent discloses a handheld electronic device for recording and reporting golf information. The device features a user interface that replaces a traditional alphanumeric keypad with a specific set of keys—including entry, tab, and scroll keys—to navigate through a temporal sequence of pre-game, game-interactive, and post-game information screens.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Palmer, Vanden Heuvel, and Osamu - Claims 6, 15, and 16 are obvious over Palmer in view of Vanden Heuvel and further in view of Osamu.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Palmer (International Publication No. WO 92/04080), Vanden Heuvel (Patent 5,426,422), and Osamu (UK Patent Application No. 2,249,202).
  • Core Argument for this Ground: Petitioner asserted this combination rendered the challenged claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 because it involved substituting a known user interface into a known device and adding a known feature to improve its primary function, all with predictable results.
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner mapped the claim limitations to the references in a layered approach. Palmer was identified as the primary reference, teaching a self-contained, handheld electronic golf computer with memory, a power source, and a display. It disclosed storing and displaying a plurality of information screens for recording golf data, including pre-game screens for entering parameters (e.g., player data, course details), game-interactive screens for scorekeeping, and post-game screens for performance analysis. The core deficiency of Palmer, per the Petitioner, was its reliance on a conventional keypad. Vanden Heuvel was argued to supply the missing user interface limitations. It disclosed a handheld selective call receiver with a screen-dependent data input mechanism using the specific three keying means recited in independent claim 1: (1) a first key means for selecting information screens, (2) a second key means with bi-directional tab keys for selecting a data field on a screen, and (3) a third key means with bi-directional scroll keys for altering data values in the selected field. Petitioner asserted this mapped directly onto the claimed key structure. Finally, Osamu was introduced to teach limitations in dependent claims related to multiple types of game-interactive screens. Osamu disclosed a handheld electronic golf computer that presented two distinct game-interactive screens: a standard scorecard screen and a "shot tracker screen" for inputting the location and club used for each shot. This was argued to teach the concept of having different levels of game play detail available to the user.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation to combine Palmer and Vanden Heuvel was presented as a clear design choice for improving usability. A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would recognize that replacing Palmer’s cumbersome keypad with Vanden Heuvel's more intuitive, screen-dependent key system would simplify the device's physical design, allow for a larger display, and make data entry more efficient for a user on a golf course. This was characterized as a simple substitution of one known input method for another to yield the predictable result of a better user experience. The motivation to further combine Osamu was driven by the goal of enhancing the device's functionality. Palmer's device aimed to help golfers improve by learning from experience. A POSITA would combine Osamu’s shot tracker screen into the Palmer/Vanden Heuvel base because it would allow the user to collect more granular data (shot location, club used) and correlate it with performance. This would directly improve Palmer's club selection database and provide more detailed post-game analysis, thus better achieving the stated purpose of the primary reference. Petitioner argued this addition would be a simple and logical extension of the temporal screen sequence (pre-game, game-interactive, post-game) already taught by Palmer.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued that a POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in making this combination. The integration of a well-understood key-based user interface (Vanden Heuvel) with a standard golf computer application (Palmer) and the addition of a known software feature (Osamu's shot tracking) were all within the realm of routine design and programming tasks at the time.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "means for selecting non-sequential option screens": This limitation is recited in method claims 15 (for pre-game screens) and 16 (for game-interactive screens). Petitioner asserted this language invokes means-plus-function treatment under §112(f), where the stated function is "selecting non-sequential option screens." For the purposes of the petition, Petitioner adopted a construction previously set forth by the PTAB in its decision to institute the related IPR2014-00438. In that decision, the Board analyzed corresponding limitations and determined the structure disclosed in the ’566 patent's specification was a "choice key accessing choices menu 18," which permits the menu to vary depending on the screen. Petitioner applied this construction to argue that the function key in Vanden Heuvel, which brings up a function menu allowing a user to non-sequentially select different options or screens, constituted the recited structure.
  • Preambles: Petitioner contended that the preambles of the challenged claims (e.g., "A method for recording and reporting golf information to increase a player's ability to improve from experience...") are not limiting. This argument was critical because if the preamble were limiting, the prior art would need to be more specifically directed to golf. Petitioner noted that in the related IPRs, the Patent Owner had argued the preambles were limiting. However, Petitioner cited the Board’s institution decisions in those cases, which agreed with the Petitioner that the preambles only state a purpose or intended use and do not add any structural limitations that would distinguish the claims from the prior art.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review, cancellation of claims 6, 15, and 16 of the ’566 patent as unpatentable, and joinder of the petition with the instituted inter partes review in Case IPR2014-00438.