PTAB

IPR2015-00046

ASUSTeK Computer Inc v. ExoTablet Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Wireless communication device that displays a menu based on device orientation
  • Brief Description: The ’840 patent discloses a wireless communication device, such as a mobile phone, that uses an orientation sensor to detect its physical orientation and displays different menus or user interfaces based on whether the device is in a portrait or landscape position.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Kondoh and Sinkjaer - Claims 1-6, 10-15, and 19-21 are obvious over Kondoh in view of Sinkjaer.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kondoh (Patent 7,724,244) and Sinkjaer (Application # 2004/0023696).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Kondoh taught all limitations of independent claim 1 except for displaying a "first menu" in a first orientation and a "second menu" in a second orientation. Kondoh disclosed a portable electronic device with an orientation sensor that changes the displayed image (e.g., from portrait to landscape) based on the detected orientation. Petitioner asserted that Sinkjaer remedied this deficiency by explicitly teaching a mobile device that uses an orientation sensor to automatically select and display different user interfaces or "modes" (e.g., a "phone mode" menu vs. a "camera mode" menu) depending on the device's orientation. The combination, therefore, taught displaying distinct menus based on orientation.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Kondoh’s orientation-based display switching with Sinkjaer’s orientation-based menu selection to enhance user experience. The combination would provide users with menus and functionalities optimized for the specific orientation in which the device is being held, which was a known design goal for improving usability in portable electronics.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings. The integration involved applying a known software-based menu selection logic (from Sinkjaer) to a device with standard orientation-sensing hardware (from Kondoh), which was a straightforward implementation for a skilled artisan at the time.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Kondoh, Sinkjaer, and Jobs - Claims 1-4, 6, 10-13, 15, and 19-21 are obvious over Kondoh in view of Sinkjaer and Jobs.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kondoh (Patent 7,724,244), Sinkjaer (Application # 2004/0023696), and Jobs (Patent 8,046,721).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the primary Kondoh/Sinkjaer combination to address limitations in dependent claims related to user interface animations and transitions. Petitioner argued that Jobs disclosed displaying a graphical user interface object and animating its rotation to correspond with a change in device orientation. This teaching was mapped to dependent claims requiring animations during the transition between the first and second menus (e.g., claims 11 and 12).
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to add the animation taught by Jobs to the Kondoh/Sinkjaer system to provide visual feedback to the user, creating a more intuitive and aesthetically pleasing interface. Such animations were a well-known technique for improving the user experience during screen orientation changes.
    • Expectation of Success: Implementing rotational animations using known software techniques on a device with an orientation sensor was a predictable and conventional design choice, ensuring a high expectation of success.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Kondoh, Sinkjaer, and Chaudhri - Claim 5 is obvious over Kondoh in view of Sinkjaer and Chaudhri.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kondoh (Patent 7,724,244), Sinkjaer (Application # 2004/0023696), and Chaudhri (Patent 8,473,868).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground specifically addressed dependent claim 5, which required the orientation sensor to determine orientation within a "predetermined angle range." While Kondoh and Sinkjaer taught detecting orientation generally, Petitioner argued that Chaudhri explicitly disclosed this limitation. Chaudhri taught a device that detects orientation and determines whether it falls within predefined angular ranges (e.g., 45-135 degrees for landscape) to trigger a change in the user interface.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would incorporate Chaudhri's use of predetermined angle ranges into the Kondoh/Sinkjaer system as a simple and effective way to implement the orientation-based menu switching. Using angular ranges rather than exact degree points prevents undesired, rapid screen flickering if the user holds the device near the boundary between portrait and landscape, representing a common and logical design improvement.
    • Expectation of Success: Programming software to respond to sensor data falling within defined numerical ranges was a routine task for a POSITA, presenting no technical hurdles.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge for claim 14 over Kondoh, Sinkjaer, Chaudhri, and Jobs, combining the rationales from the grounds above to meet the specific combination of limitations in that claim.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "menu": Petitioner argued this term should be construed broadly under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) standard to mean "a list of options available to a user, from which the user may select an option to be performed," consistent with its plain and ordinary meaning and dictionary definitions. This broad construction allowed prior art disclosing different "modes" or "user interfaces" with selectable options (like in Sinkjaer) to meet the "menu" limitation.
  • "orientation sensor": Petitioner contended this term should be interpreted to include any sensor capable of determining the orientation of the device, such as an accelerometer, which was a common and well-understood component in the art. This interpretation was necessary to map references like Kondoh, which described using an acceleration sensor for this purpose.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-6, 10-15, and 19-21 of the ’840 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.