AnyLogic North America v. TheBRAIn Technologies LP

1. Case Identification

• Patent #: 6,166,736
• Filed: January 30, 2018
• Petitioner(s): AnyLogic North America, LLC
• Patent Owner(s): TheBrain Technologies, LP
• Challenged Claims: 1-8

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Method and Apparatus for Simultaneously Resizing and Relocating Windows Within a Graphical Display
• Brief Description: The ’736 patent discloses methods and systems for managing multiple windows in a graphical user interface (GUI). The invention centers on using a first user interaction (e.g., clicking a tab) to select a window for viewing and a second user interaction (e.g., dragging and dropping a tab) to split the main window frame into multiple subframes, allowing for simultaneous display of different window contents.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-8 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102 by Duncan.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Duncan (Patent 5,917,483).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Duncan, which teaches an "Advanced Windows Management" system, discloses every limitation of the challenged claims. Duncan shows a "first user interaction" where a user clicks on a tab (e.g., "Editor A") in a tab bar to display its contents in a viewable area. Duncan also discloses a "second user interaction" where a user can perform a drag-and-drop operation on a window's title bar or tab to dock it within another window, thereby splitting the target window frame into multiple subframes, each with its own viewable area for content and indicia, as required by independent claims 1 and 5. Petitioner contended that Duncan's description of customizing windows, panes, and views via drag-and-drop operations directly maps to the claimed "window frame split mechanism." The dependent claims, which add limitations related to the relative size, orientation, and location of the subframes, were also allegedly disclosed in Duncan, as these properties are determined by the "drop" location of the user's drag-and-drop action.

Ground 2: Claims 1-8 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102 by Liaw.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Liaw (Patent 5,572,644).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Liaw, which describes a spreadsheet program with tabbed pages, anticipates the claims. The "first user interaction" was met by Liaw's disclosure of clicking on page tabs (e.g., "Dinners") to display the corresponding spreadsheet page. Petitioner argued that the "second user interaction" and resulting "split frame" were taught by Liaw's two-part process: first, a user employs a "splitter tool" to divide a window into multiple panes (subframes), and second, the user selects a different tab within one of the newly created panes to display its content. Petitioner contended that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the term "in response to" does not require direct causation, and therefore Liaw's sequence of actions collectively constitutes the claimed second interaction that results in a split frame displaying content from different windows.

Ground 3: Claims 1-8 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Liaw in view of Duncan.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Liaw (Patent 5,572,644) and Duncan (Patent 5,917,483).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that, if Liaw is found not to teach the "second user interaction" limitation on its own, it would have been obvious to combine Liaw's tabbed spreadsheet interface with Duncan's drag-and-drop frame-splitting functionality. Liaw provided the basic structure of a tabbed multi-window application, and Duncan supplied the specific drag-and-drop interaction to split a window frame, which is an improvement over Liaw's more cumbersome splitter tool.
  • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine the references to improve the user experience of Liaw's spreadsheet program. Both references are in the same field of endeavor (customizing GUI displays for application programs). Duncan expressly teaches that its drag-and-drop system provides "complete flexibility to customize the arrangement of views" and "ease in floating and docking views," which provided an express motivation to apply its superior interaction method to the spreadsheet application disclosed in Liaw.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as the combination involved applying a known GUI technique (drag-and-drop docking from Duncan) to another known GUI application (a tabbed spreadsheet from Liaw), which would have yielded the predictable result of a more efficient and user-friendly interface.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional challenges, including that claims 1-8 are obvious over Duncan alone (arguing that even if not anticipatory, combining Duncan's own disclosed features of undocking and docking would be an obvious modification). Petitioner also argued that claims 1-8 are obvious over Liaw in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA), with Duncan used as further evidence of what was known in the art.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "in response to" (claims 1 and 5): Petitioner proposed this term should be construed as "directly or indirectly in response to." This construction was argued to be critical, particularly for the grounds relying on Liaw. Petitioner contended this interpretation is necessary because Liaw's frame-splitting action involves two user contacts (using a splitter tool, then selecting a tab), and the final split-frame display is an indirect result of both. Requiring a direct, single-step causation would improperly narrow the claims beyond the specification.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that the Board should not exercise its discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. §325(d), even though the examiner considered Duncan during prosecution. The argument was based on several points:
  • The examiner's consideration of Duncan was superficial, occurring only in a brief statement in the Notice of Allowance rather than in a formal rejection.
  • The allowance followed an applicant-initiated interview for which no summary was entered into the record, rendering the prosecution history "incomplete."
  • The examiner never performed a detailed, limitation-by-limitation comparison of Duncan's teachings to the claims. Petitioner asserted that because its arguments and the specific portions of Duncan relied upon in the petition were never properly considered by the examiner, a review was necessary to correct a clear error by the Patent Office.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-8 of the ’736 patent as unpatentable.