PTAB

IPR2015-01983

LG Electronics Inc v. Core Wireless Licensing SARL

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Mobile telephone device with user-selectable content displayed and updated during idle time
  • Brief Description: The ’671 patent describes a mobile communication device featuring a user-customized "idle screen." This screen displays updated information obtained from a remote source, where the specific type of information is selected by the end-user according to their preferences, rather than by a network operator or advertiser.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Farber and Admitted Prior Art - Claims 1-5, 7-12, 15, and 16 are obvious over Farber in view of the Admitted Prior Art.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Farber (Patent 5,819,284) and the ’671 patent’s Admitted Prior Art (APA).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Farber teaches a personalized, real-time information system that displays content on a screen saver when a device is idle. This content is customized based on a user profile that specifies desired information categories (e.g., traffic, weather, sports). The APA, as acknowledged in the ’671 patent, discloses the known practice of using a mobile phone's idle screen to display information selected by a network provider. Petitioner asserted that Farber provides the key inventive concept—user customization according to specified preferences—while the APA provides the known environment of a mobile device idle screen.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Farber’s user-customization techniques with the mobile telephone idle screen of the APA to improve the device's functionality. Petitioner contended this was a straightforward application of Farber’s method to a similar device to make it more appealing to users. Farber itself suggests its system is applicable to a wide range of devices, including "screen telephones" and personal digital assistants, making its application to the mobile phones of the APA a predictable step.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as the combination involved applying a known user-interface improvement (user-selected content) to a known platform (a mobile phone idle screen) to achieve a predictable result.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Martin and Farber - Claims 1-5, 7-12, 15, and 16 are obvious over Martin in view of Farber.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Martin (Patent 6,363,419) and Farber (Patent 5,819,284).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the ’671 patent was only allowed over Martin after amendments were made to require that the end-user can "customize" the idle screen "according to the end-user's specified preferences." Martin was asserted to teach a wireless device with an idle screen that displays updated and personalized information (e.g., news, advertisements, email notifications) from a remote source. Petitioner contended that Farber explicitly teaches the very element that Martin purportedly lacks: enabling a user to customize an idle screen by creating a detailed user profile that dictates the specific information to be displayed.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Martin and Farber to enhance the user experience of the device in Martin. Martin already taught the value of displaying personalized information on an idle screen. Farber provided a superior and more granular method for achieving this personalization through user-created profiles. The combination would have been a predictable step to provide users with greater control over the content they receive, a known market demand.
    • Expectation of Success: Success in combining the references was predictable. Applying Farber's profile-based content selection method to Martin's system for delivering content to a mobile idle screen would involve implementing well-understood software and networking principles.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge based on Farber in view of Martin, which relied on the same core combination and arguments presented in Ground 2.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "Select a Remote Information Resource": Petitioner argued this term should be construed to mean "select a remote information resource either directly or indirectly." This construction was asserted to be critical because it encompasses both direct selection (e.g., choosing a specific website) and indirect, profile-based selection. Petitioner noted that the ’671 patent’s specification explicitly describes indirect selection via setting up a profile with preferences (e.g., a 'shopping' profile). This broader construction allows the profile-based customization taught in Farber to meet the claim limitation.
  • "Idle Screen": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "a screen that appears automatically when the user is not actively navigating to a particular application, nor using a particular application." This construction aligns with the patent's own definition and is broad enough to encompass the "screen saver" functionality described in Farber, which activates when a device is idle.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-5, 7-12, 15, and 16 of the ’671 patent as unpatentable.