PTAB

IPR2016-01083

Microsoft Corp v. Corel Software LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: REAL TIME PREVIEW
  • Brief Description: The ’483 patent describes a method in document editing software for providing a real-time preview of user-selected commands, such as font changes. The purported invention involves executing known software routines in a different order to apply a command to the active document for preview before the user provides final confirmation.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness of Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 10-12, and 14 over WordPerfect, QuarkXPress, IBM, and Baker

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: WordPerfect (a 1997 user manual titled Mastering WordPerfect 8), QuarkXPress (a 1993 reference manual), IBM (a 1991 technical disclosure bulletin), and Baker (Patent 6,185,591).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the challenged claims were an obvious combination of functionalities well-known in the art before the patent’s priority date. The patent itself concedes it uses “the same routines as known in the art” but executes them in a “slightly different order.”

      • WordPerfect was presented as the base system, a widely used word processor that included functionality the ’483 patent described as “known in the art.” This included displaying text with associated font command codes, tracking a cursor, and providing font selection menus. While WordPerfect had a preview function, it was typically shown in a separate preview window within a dialog box, not on the active document itself. It also contained a standard undo/redo history feature.
      • QuarkXPress was argued to teach the core "real-time preview" limitation. It disclosed a preview mode that applied changes directly to the underlying document—while a dialog box remained open—so the user could see the effect of changes before saving them. This was achieved through an “Apply” button that could be kept active to “continually apply” modifications as a user made selections, all without final confirmation.
      • IBM was cited for teaching the concept of initiating a preview based on a timed pause, or hover. Its "Pause Preview" technique allowed a user to preview the effect of a direct manipulation (like a font change) by pausing the cursor over an option for a pre-specified time (e.g., one second). This preview was temporary and would revert if the user moved the mouse away without confirming, thereby providing visual feedback without requiring a click and reducing computational cost.
      • Baker was used to show the conventional implementation of an "undo stack." Baker disclosed recording changes to a document in an "Undo Stack" as a linked list of records. Petitioner argued this represented a predictable, well-known method for implementing the undo functionality already present in WordPerfect.

    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to combine the references for several reasons, each representing a predictable design choice to improve a known product.

      • A POSITA would combine WordPerfect with QuarkXPress’s real-time preview to enhance user experience. This would allow users to see formatting changes on the full, active document rather than a small, isolated preview window, which was a known trend and a clear improvement.
      • A POSITA would further incorporate IBM's "Pause Preview" concept to make the feature more interactive and efficient. Triggering a preview by hovering avoids the need for constant clicking and prevents the system from having to render a new preview for every minor cursor movement, addressing potential performance issues.
      • Finally, a POSITA would implement the undo feature using a standard undo stack as taught by Baker. Because WordPerfect already provided undo functionality, applying Baker’s detailed implementation was merely the use of a known technique to achieve a predictable result.

    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued that a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making this combination. Each element was a known software feature being applied in its expected context—a document editor—to yield the predictable result of an improved, more user-friendly preview and undo system.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "confirmation" (claims 1, 6, 14): Petitioner proposed this term be construed as an “indication of final acceptance by a user.” This construction was central to the obviousness argument, as it distinguished the temporary, unconfirmed "real-time preview" taught by the prior art (e.g., in QuarkXPress and IBM) from a permanent change accepted by the user (e.g., by clicking "OK"), which would then be pushed to the undo stack.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-4, 6, 7, 10-12, and 14 of the ’483 patent as unpatentable.