PTAB

IPR2017-00755

BlackBerry Corp v. Optis Cellular Technology LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method of Displaying Graphical Object
  • Brief Description: The ’506 patent discloses a method for interacting with graphical objects on a mobile terminal's touchscreen. The method involves displaying an object fixed at a first position, releasing the object's fixation via a first user touch action, moving the object to a second position via a second touch action (e.g., dragging), and then fixing the object at the second position.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1 and 10 are obvious over Van Os and Cox

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Van Os (Patent 7,509,588) and Cox (Patent 6,462,760).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Van Os taught a portable electronic device with a touchscreen where icons could be placed into a reconfigurable mode, released from a fixed position, moved by dragging, and re-fixed in a new position. Van Os disclosed indicating the "released" state by "animating" the icons or varying their positions to simulate floating. Petitioner contended that Cox taught changing an icon's appearance—including its geometry, color, or text—to indicate a change in its operational state (e.g., changing a "Find" button to a "Replace" button). The combination of Van Os's interface mechanics with Cox's method of visual feedback rendered the claims obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references as a matter of simple design choice. Both animating an icon (Van Os) and changing its shape (Cox) were known, alternative ways to intuitively inform a user that an icon's state had changed (i.e., that it was no longer fixed and could be moved). A POSITA would substitute Cox's explicit shape-change feedback for Van Os's animation feedback to achieve the same predictable result.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as modifying the user interface of Van Os to incorporate the visual feedback of Cox was a straightforward integration of known elements that would predictably result in a functional interface.

Ground 2: Claim 8 is anticipated by Van Os

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Van Os (Patent 7,509,588).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that claim 8 is identical to claim 1 except that it omits the limitation requiring the control unit to "display differently a shape of the object" when its fixation is released. Petitioner argued that Van Os disclosed every remaining element of claim 8. Specifically, Van Os taught a mobile terminal with a touchscreen and a control unit that displayed icons as fixed, released the icons upon a first user action (e.g., a long press), allowed the user to move an icon via a drag-and-drop action, and fixed the icon in a new position based on a separate user action, thereby anticipating all limitations of claim 8.

Ground 3: Claims 2 and 11 are obvious over Van Os, Cox, and Woolley

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Van Os (Patent 7,509,588), Cox (Patent 6,462,760), and Woolley (Application # 2003/0016211).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination of Van Os and Cox asserted for claims 1 and 10. Dependent claims 2 and 11 add the further limitation of an output unit configured to provide sound and/or vibration to indicate that a moved object has been fixed in its new position. While Van Os briefly mentioned audio/tactile feedback, Petitioner argued Woolley provided a more direct teaching. Woolley disclosed a kiosk touchpad with a speaker for providing auditory feedback when a screen zone was selected and explicitly suggested employing multiple forms of sensory feedback (auditory, tactile, visual) simultaneously to confirm user actions.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would add the auditory or tactile feedback from Woolley to the user interface of Van Os/Cox to provide redundant and enhanced confirmation to the user. Providing such non-visual feedback was a well-known technique to improve user experience by confirming that an action, such as fixing an icon's position, was successfully completed.
    • Expectation of Success: Success would be expected, as adding audio or haptic feedback to a touchscreen interface was a common and well-understood practice at the time of the invention.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including that claims 1, 8, and 10 are obvious over the MessagePad Handbook, and that claims 2, 9, and 11 are obvious over the MessagePad Handbook in view of Woolley, based on similar design choice and combination rationales.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued that the term "shape" in claims 1 and 10 should be construed to mean "appearance." This construction was asserted to be consistent with the specification of the ’506 patent, which described changing the object's appearance to visually inform the user about its state (fixed or released). This broader interpretation was central to Petitioner's argument that substituting one form of appearance change (Van Os's animation) with another (Cox's geometric shape change) would have been an obvious design choice.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 2, and 8-11 of Patent 8,174,506 as unpatentable.