PTAB

IPR2019-00265

Apple Inc v. ToShiyasu Abe

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Keyboard
  • Brief Description: The ’699 patent discloses a user interface device, such as a virtual keyboard on a touchscreen, where each on-screen button is associated with multiple characters or functions. A specific character is selected based on a combination of the force applied to the button and the direction of a subsequent sliding motion on the touch-sensitive screen.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Lee and Pagallo - Claims 52-57 and 59 are obvious over Lee in view of Pagallo.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Lee (UK Application # GB 2,337,349A) and Pagallo (Patent 5,592,566).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Lee discloses a software keyboard on a touch-sensitive screen where each key is assigned multiple characters ("key codes"). A user selects a specific character based on the direction of a stylus "trace" within the key's area. This teaching allegedly met the independent claim limitations for a plurality of buttons, each with multiple characters, and a "lateral movement sensor" for sensing direction. However, Petitioner contended Lee did not explicitly disclose a "force detector." Pagallo, which relates to similar pen-based computer systems, taught a display assembly that can sense the "pressure of the stylus on the screen" and provide this pressure data to a CPU.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine Pagallo's pressure-sensing capability with Lee's directional-input system. The motivation was to improve the user interface by using pressure data to distinguish intentional user inputs from inadvertent or accidental touches, a well-known problem in portable touchscreen devices. Pagallo’s display assembly was described as a readily available commercial product, making it a predictable option for integration.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because combining a known, commercially available pressure-sensing component (Pagallo) with a software-based directional input system (Lee) was a predictable application of known technologies to improve device usability.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Lee, Pagallo, and Beale - Claim 58 is obvious over Lee and Pagallo in view of Beale.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Lee (UK Application # GB 2,337,349A), Pagallo (Patent 5,592,566), and Beale (WO 00/75765).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that claim 58 adds a limitation for selecting from a second set of characters if a detected motion does not occur within a "threshold period of time" from an initial touch (i.e., a long press or "dwell" input). While the Lee/Pagallo combination provided the base system, Beale taught this specific time-based functionality. Beale disclosed that a user could select from a first character set (e.g., lower-case letters) with a "simple swiping movement," but could select from a second set (e.g., upper-case letters) by performing a "dwell" input—holding a finger in place for a "predetermined time."
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would be motivated to add Beale’s simple and intuitive "dwell" feature to the user interface of the Lee/Pagallo combination. This would allow users to easily access multiple character sets (such as upper/lower case or special symbols) from the same on-screen buttons, which is a known technique for creating a more efficient and less cluttered user interface. The Lee/Pagallo combination already captured the necessary time-stamped input data to implement Beale's logic.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Success would be predictable, as it involved applying known software logic from Beale to the time-stamped input data already captured by the base Lee/Pagallo device.

Ground 3: Anticipation or Obviousness by Kato - Claims 52-59 are anticipated or rendered obvious by Kato.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kato (Patent 6,295,052).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the Kato reference alone discloses all limitations of the challenged claims. Kato taught a "screen display key input unit" where keys on a touch screen are assigned multiple "graphic character codes." It disclosed that character selection is based on multiple decision criteria that could be used in the same embodiment, including the sensed direction of a touch (e.g., a "downward diagonal direction") and the force of the touch (using a "criterion means" to determine if a touch is under a "predetermined pressure"). This combination allegedly anticipates claim 52. Further, Kato taught using the duration of a touch ("predetermined time") to select between different character sets, mapping to claim 58, and disclosed the optional inclusion of a movable "control pad for a game machine," mapping to claim 59.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): As an alternative to anticipation, Petitioner argued that if the Board considered Kato's use of force, direction, and time criteria to be separate embodiments, a POSITA would find it obvious to combine them. The motivation would be to enhance functionality by allowing a single key to support a larger number of characters and character sets, a predictable and desirable improvement for such devices.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including combinations of Lee/Pagallo with Yamamoto (for circular buttons in claim 62) and Bertram (for hexagon-shaped buttons in claim 63). Further grounds combined Kato with Lee, Yamamoto, or Bertram to challenge various dependent claims.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of IPR and cancellation of claims 52-59, 62, and 63 of the ’699 patent as unpatentable.