PTAB

IPR2017-00912

Google Inc v. BlackBerry Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Dynamic Timestamps for Messages
  • Brief Description: The ’149 patent is directed to methods and systems for providing dynamic time information for messages displayed on an electronic device. The invention purports to improve on prior art static timestamps by automatically changing the displayed time information as time progresses to intelligently convey elapsed time.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over a Single Messaging System - Claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 13, 15, and 17 are obvious over Graham.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Graham (Patent 7,167,703).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Graham, which discloses a mobile device for non-verbal communications, teaches all elements of the independent claims. Graham describes displaying conversations of messages (e.g., SMS or mixed media messages) in a thread. Separately, Graham teaches displaying time information for sent or received messages in two ways that constitute "first time information": as an elapsed time that updates as time passes, or as a color that changes to reflect the message's age (e.g., from green to yellow to red). Petitioner contended it was obvious to combine Graham's conversation view with its dynamic time display feature. The automatic updating of the elapsed time or the change in color meets the limitation of "automatically changing the first time information... to a second time information."
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine Graham's own features—its conversation view and its dynamic time display—to improve the usefulness and convenience of the device. Displaying the age of messages directly within a conversation thread provides immediate context for the currency of the communication, a recognized benefit in Graham.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved applying a known technique (displaying time information) to a known system (a messaging conversation display) to yield predictable results, making success highly likely.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Graham and Milton - Claims 1, 5-7, 9, 13-15, and 17 are obvious over Graham in view of Milton.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Graham (Patent 7,167,703), Milton (Patent 5,631,949).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds on Ground 1, offering an alternative way to meet the "second time information" limitation. Graham provides the base system for displaying a message conversation with a "first time information" as a relative elapsed time. Milton was introduced for its teaching of automatically changing time information from a relative format (elapsed hours/minutes) to an absolute format (month/day) after a predetermined period, such as 24 hours. The combination thus discloses changing from a relative "first time information" (from Graham) to an absolute "second time information" (from Milton).
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Graham and Milton to enhance user experience. Milton explains that relative time is useful for recent messages where immediacy matters, while absolute time is better for older messages that may need to be archived or recalled precisely. This combination provides the benefits of both display formats in a single, automated system, improving on Graham's display options.
    • Expectation of Success: Since Graham already taught displaying either elapsed or absolute time, modifying it to automatically switch between the two based on a simple time interval, as taught by Milton, was a straightforward and predictable design choice.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Graham and Toshio - Claims 1-5, 9-13, and 17 are obvious over Graham in view of Toshio.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Graham (Patent 7,167,703), Toshio (JP Application # H03-89639).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground presents another alternative combination. Here, Graham’s teaching of displaying an absolute time (e.g., "4:00 PM") serves as the "first time information." Toshio was introduced to address the problem of an absolute timestamp losing context on subsequent days. Toshio teaches automatically changing the time display to a combination of absolute and relative time (e.g., "4:00 PM; 1 day ago") when the date changes. This combination provides the "second time information."
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Graham with Toshio to solve the ambiguity that Toshio explicitly identifies. An absolute time like "4:00 PM" is clear on the day of receipt but confusing the next day. Adding a relative day counter, as taught by Toshio, enhances clarity and provides better temporal context for older messages in Graham's conversation view.
    • Expectation of Success: Implementing Toshio's logic into Graham's system was argued to be a simple modification. It involved adding a date-check condition to alter the timestamp format, a task well within the skill of a POSITA, to achieve the predictable benefit of improved clarity.
  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted further obviousness challenges, including combinations with MacPhail (Patent 6,661,434) to teach displaying time information in response to a pointer device, and combinations with Deshpande (Application # 2003/0039340) to address any argument that Graham's SMS messages are not "instant messages" by explicitly teaching non-SMS instant messaging systems.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "first input": Petitioner argued this term should be construed broadly as "any event detected by the electronic device." This construction was critical, as Petitioner asserted that events like the simple receipt of a message, the passage of time, or a user entering a specific messaging mode would all qualify as a "first input" that triggers the display of time information, as disclosed in the prior art. The specification's examples (e.g., "time progress[ing]," "upon receiving a message") were cited to support this broad interpretation.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-17 of the ’149 patent as unpatentable based on all grounds asserted in the petition.