PTAB

IPR2023-00343

Apple Inc v. SpaceTime3D Inc

Log In

1. Case Identification

  • Case #: IPR2022-00343
  • Patent #: 9,304,654
  • Filed: December 13, 2022
  • Petitioner(s): Apple Inc.
  • Patent Owner(s): Ezra Eddie Bakhash
  • Challenged Claims: 1-19

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DISPLAYING A TIMELINE ASSOCIATED WITH A PLURALITY OF APPLICATIONS
  • Brief Description: The ’654 patent describes a three-dimensional (3D) computing interface that allows a user to navigate a virtual space containing multiple application windows. The interface organizes and displays images of these windows as a timeline, allowing the user to interact with the timeline to modify application output.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Anthony and Hanggie - Claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-13, 15-17, and 19 are obvious over Anthony in view of Hanggie (or Hanggie in view of Anthony).

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Anthony (Application # 2005/0091596) and Hanggie (Application # 2005/0088447). Petitioner collectively refers to this combination as “HAC.”
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Anthony taught a 3D timeline view for organizing and displaying a collection of data objects (e.g., files, folders) chronologically. Hanggie taught a compositing desktop window manager (CDWM) system that renders application windows with advanced 3D effects (e.g., transformations, textures) and supports legacy 2D applications. Petitioner asserted that Anthony provided the basic timeline structure, while Hanggie provided the specific implementation of displaying interactive application windows within such a structure. For example, the independent claims' requirement for displaying a timeline of application windows was met by organizing Hanggie’s interactive application windows according to Anthony’s chronological timeline method. Dependent claims were met by further features from Hanggie, such as displaying icons and descriptions with the windows.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Petitioner asserted a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Anthony’s organizational timeline with Hanggie’s advanced window rendering to create a more intuitive and powerful user interface for managing multiple applications. The references were directed to similar subject matter, used similar underlying graphics technology (e.g., Direct3D®, OpenGL®), and shared a common inventor and assignee, making the combination logical and predictable.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because the combination involved applying known user interface principles (timeline organization) to known windowing systems to yield the predictable result of an organized, 3D view of applications.

Ground 2: Obviousness over HAC and Matthews - Claims 6, 9, 14, and 18 are obvious over the combination of Anthony, Hanggie, and Matthews.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Anthony (Application # 2005/0091596), Hanggie (Application # 2005/0088447), and Matthews (Application # 2006/0107229).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the HAC combination by adding Matthews to teach the limitations of claims 6, 9, 14, and 18. Petitioner argued Matthews taught a method for transforming a work area, including an image of a desktop with open windows ("at least one other application"), using a 3D transformation to reveal additional information. This directly mapped to the limitation in claims 6 and 14 requiring the display of a fourth image being an image of a desktop. Further, Matthews' disclosure of Internet Explorer as an example of an open window was used to support the obviousness of claims 9 and 18, which require the applications to be web browsers.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Petitioner highlighted that Matthews explicitly taught its invention was intended for use with Hanggie’s CDWM system and even cited Hanggie’s patent application number. This provided an explicit and compelling reason to combine Matthews’s desktop-tilting feature with the HAC system to enhance user navigation and reveal information hidden behind the main work area.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): The expectation of success was argued to be particularly high, as Matthews expressly contemplated its integration with Hanggie's system, removing any doubt that the two were designed to be compatible.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "3D space" (claims 1, 10, 19): Petitioner noted an agreement with the Patent Owner in co-pending litigation to construe this term as "a virtual space defined by a three-dimensional coordinate system."
  • "2D space" (claims 1, 10, 19): Petitioner noted an agreement with the Patent Owner to construe this term as "a finite graphical area defined by a two-dimensional coordinate system."
  • Preamble of Independent Claims: Petitioner noted the parties were contesting whether the preambles of the independent claims were limiting and asserted that its prior art grounds addressed the preambles to the extent they are found to be limiting.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Arguments against §325(d) Denial (Advanced Bionics): Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §325(d) was improper because the examiner never issued a single rejection during prosecution and the file history provided no indication that the examiner substantively considered the prior art asserted in the petition (Anthony, Hanggie, and Matthews). Petitioner contended this failure to consider the most relevant art constituted a material error that warranted review.
  • Arguments against §314(a) Denial (Fintiv): Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under the Fintiv factors. Key arguments included: (1) Petitioner requested a stay in the parallel district court litigation; (2) the trial date in the parallel case was uncertain and likely to occur after the Board’s Final Written Decision (FWD); (3) Petitioner stipulated that it would not pursue the same invalidity grounds in district court if an inter partes review (IPR) is instituted; and (4) the petition presented compelling evidence of unpatentability, which alone should outweigh any concerns about parallel proceedings.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 1-19 of the ’654 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.