PTAB

IPR2015-01899

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 ’476 patent describes a graphical user interface (GUI) for computing devices, particularly mobile telephones. The technology centers on an "application summary window" (termed an "App Snapshot") that displays a limited list of functions and data from an application while that application is in an unlaunched state, allowing a user to access key information without fully opening the application.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Schnarel and Aberg - Claims 1, 4, 7-9, 20, 28, and 29 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 most limitations of the challenged claims. Schnarel disclosed a GUI for a telephony device featuring a main menu ("application button bar") and a "message summary pane." This pane served as an application summary window for a messaging application, displaying a limited list of data (e.g., new message icons) and functions (e.g., "Caller log") while the corresponding application was unlaunched. Selecting an icon in the summary pane would launch the application to view the message. However, Petitioner contended Schnarel did not explicitly teach that the summary pane could be "reached directly from the menu." To supply this limitation, Petitioner turned to Aberg, which taught a mobile telephone GUI with a user-customized "short menu" of functions that could be reached directly from the main menu for quick access.
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Aberg's direct-access menu concept with Schnarel's summary pane GUI to improve usability on devices with small screens. The combination would reduce display clutter while providing the well-understood benefit of quick, direct access to application functions, a known design goal for mobile device interfaces. Both references are in the same field of art (mobile GUIs) and address similar problems of user interaction.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as combining these known and compatible GUI elements was a predictable variation of existing interface designs that would yield the expected result of a more efficient user experience.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Nason - Claims 1, 4, 7-8, 20, 28, and 29 are obvious over Nason.

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

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Nason, standing alone, disclosed all key limitations of the independent claims. Nason taught a customizable, parallel GUI for an electronic device that included a main menu of "cartridges," with each cartridge corresponding to an application (e.g., "Lycos," "America Online"). These cartridges functioned as application summary windows, displaying a limited list of functions (via buttons) and data (via tickers, such as "5 new E-Mails"). A user could navigate to these cartridges directly from the main menu using "rotators." Critically, Nason taught that the cartridges were displayed while the underlying application was in an unlaunched state, and that selecting a button or ticker could "launch an application." Nason also taught user-customization of cartridges, which Petitioner argued rendered dependent claim 4 obvious.
    • Key Aspects: The core of this argument was that Nason's "cartridge" system was a direct analogue to the ’476 patent's "summary window," anticipating the key inventive concepts of providing pre-launch access to application data and functions directly from a main menu.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including that claim 4 is obvious over Schnarel in view of Smith (Patent 6,333,973), which taught user-definable data types for a message summary. Further grounds asserted that claim 9 (reciting a mobile telephone) is obvious over Wagner (Patent 6,256,516) in view of Nason, as Wagner taught a GUI for a portable telephone and a POSITA would have been motivated to implement Nason's efficient GUI on such a device.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner noted a potential dispute over the term "display on the screen an application summary window that can be reached directly from the menu." In related litigation, Petitioner proposed a construction requiring user selection from the menu "without any further user action." However, for the purposes of the IPR, Petitioner argued that its invalidity contentions were persuasive under either its proposed construction or the patent owner's asserted "plain and ordinary meaning," as the prior art disclosed this limitation under both interpretations.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 4, 7-9, 20, 28, and 29 of the ’476 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.