PTAB

IPR2015-01898

Apple Inc v. Core Wireless Licensing SARL

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Computing Device with Improved User Interface for Applications
  • Brief Description: The ’020 patent discloses a graphical user interface for computing devices, such as mobile telephones. The interface features a main menu listing applications and an "application summary window" that displays a limited list of functions and data from an application, which can be reached directly from the main menu while the underlying application is in an unlaunched state.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 10-11, 13, and 16 are obvious over Schnarel in view of Aberg.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Schnarel (Patent 7,225,409) and Aberg (Patent 6,993,362).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Schnarel taught a graphical user interface for a telephony device with all core features of the challenged claims. This included a main menu ("application button bar") and a summary window ("message summary pane") displaying a limited list of functions (e.g., "Caller log," "Fax") and data for an application while that application is unlaunched. Petitioner contended that Schnarel's "message summary pane" is part of the main start screen, but that Aberg expressly taught a user-customized "short menu" that can be reached directly from the main menu, satisfying the "reached directly" limitation. For claim 6, Petitioner asserted that Schnarel taught varying functionality based on available "message transports" (e.g., fax, caller log), and Aberg taught varying a short menu's contents based on the environment, such as a connected accessory or inserted SIM card.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued a POSITA would combine Schnarel and Aberg because both references were in the same field of mobile GUIs and addressed the common goal of providing quick and easy access to functions. A POSITA would combine Aberg’s teaching of a summary window reachable directly from the main menu with Schnarel’s interface to avoid cluttering the small displays of mobile phones while improving user access. For claim 6, the motivation was to use Aberg's environment-aware menu to advantageously customize the functions available in Schnarel's summary pane based on accessories or SIM card settings.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted that combining these known GUI techniques was a predictable implementation choice for a POSITA. The result would have been the simple application of Aberg's known menu navigation to improve a similar device (Schnarel's phone), yielding the expected benefits of improved usability and efficiency.

Ground 2: Claim 6 is obvious over Schnarel in view of Yurkovic.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Schnarel (Patent 7,225,409) and Yurkovic (Patent 6,668,353).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground focused on claim 6, which requires that the functionality or data types in the summary window vary with the device's environment. Petitioner alleged Schnarel taught a summary pane with functions and data (e.g., date and time pane). Yurkovic taught a GUI for a PDA with a "space/time portal" that automatically updated displayed information (e.g., news, weather) based on the user's geographic location.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended that a POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Yurkovic's location-based data updating into Schnarel's summary pane. This combination would advantageously save the user from manually updating location-specific information, such as the date and time, by providing the most relevant information automatically. Both references addressed GUIs on portable devices, making the combination logical for improving user experience.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved applying the known technique of location-aware data updates from Yurkovic to the known summary display of Schnarel. Petitioner argued this was a routine and straightforward design choice that would predictably result in a more user-friendly and context-aware interface.

Ground 3: Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 10, 13, and 16 are obvious over Nason.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Nason (Patent 6,593,945).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Nason, by itself, rendered the claims obvious. Nason disclosed a customizable GUI for an electronic device with a main menu of "cartridges" for different applications (e.g., Lycos, Amazon). These cartridges served as summary windows, displaying a limited list of functions (buttons) and data (tickers) that were directly accessible from the main menu via rotators. Petitioner asserted Nason also taught that these cartridges were displayed while the underlying application was in an unlaunched state, as selecting a button could "launch an application." For claim 6, Petitioner argued Nason's tickers could display data that varies with the environment, such as time, date, and location-dependent weather updates.
    • Motivation to Combine: As a single-reference ground, the motivation was simply to apply the teachings within Nason.
    • Expectation of Success: Not applicable for a single-reference ground.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including grounds based on Schnarel in view of general POSITA knowledge; Schnarel in view of Aberg and Yurkovic; Nason in view of POSITA knowledge or Yurkovic; and Wagner in view of Nason for claim 11. These grounds relied on similar arguments regarding the combination of known GUI elements to improve user access and functionality on mobile devices.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 10-11, 13, and 16 of the ’020 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.