PTAB

IPR2023-00344

Apple Inc v. SpaceTime3D Inc

Log In

1. Case Identification

  • Case #: IPR2022-00344
  • Patent #: 9,696,868
  • Filed: December 13, 2022
  • Petitioner(s): Apple Inc.
  • Patent Owner(s): Ezra Eddie Bakhash
  • Challenged Claims: 1-20

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System and Method for Providing Three-Dimensional Graphical User Interface
  • Brief Description: The ’868 patent describes a computing interface for navigating a virtual space where groups of windows can be organized and retrieved. The system simulates a three-dimensional (3D) space within a two-dimensional (2D) window and allows a user to switch between 2D and 3D views to interact with applications, webpages, and other documents.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Hanggie and Anthony - Claims 1-5, 9-14, and 18-20 are obvious over the combination of Hanggie and Anthony.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Hanggie (Application # 2005/0088447) and Anthony (Application # 2005/0091596). The petition often refers to this combination as "HAC."
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Anthony taught a 3D timeline view for navigating a collection of data objects (files, folders) ordered chronologically, while Hanggie taught a compositing window manager that could render application windows in either a 2D "legacy" mode or a 3D mode using advanced graphics. The combination allegedly taught all limitations of the independent claims, including using a 2D space to interact with applications and a 3D immersive space (Anthony's timeline) to switch between them. The ordered display of application windows in the 3D space was allegedly taught by Anthony's chronological ordering, and the ability to switch to a 2D view of a single application was taught by Hanggie's legacy mode.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine the references to improve user interface navigation. A POSITA would have found it obvious to apply Hanggie's advanced 2D/3D window rendering to the data objects in Anthony's 3D timeline to create a more functional and intuitive user experience. The references also shared a common inventor and assignee (Microsoft), were directed to similar subject matter, and described highly similar system architectures and graphics technologies (Direct3D®, OpenGL®), providing a strong motivation to combine them.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because combining the known elements of Anthony's organizational structure with Hanggie's rendering techniques involved using known methods with predictable results on similar computing platforms.

Ground 2: Obviousness over HAC and Matthews - Claims 6-8 and 15-17 are obvious over HAC in view of Matthews.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Hanggie (Application # 2005/0088447), Anthony (Application # 2005/0091596), and Matthews (Application # 2006/0107229).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the HAC combination by adding the teachings of Matthews. Petitioner asserted that Matthews disclosed a method for transforming a work area (e.g., a desktop with open windows) using a 3D tilting effect to reveal additional information or applications "behind" the primary display. This teaching allegedly rendered obvious the limitations of claim 6, which required displaying an image of a desktop, and claim 15, which described executable code for displaying such an image.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Matthews's desktop transformation into the HAC system to provide an additional, efficient way to manage visual clutter and access other applications. Matthews explicitly stated its invention was intended for use with Hanggie's compositing window manager system (CWDM), providing an express motivation for the combination.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): The combination was predictable and expected to succeed because Matthews was designed to integrate directly with the system described in Hanggie, one of the primary references in the HAC combination.

Ground 3: Obviousness over HAC, Matthews, and Robertson - Claim 7 is obvious over HAC and Matthews in view of Robertson.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Hanggie (Application # 2005/0088447), Anthony (Application # 2005/0091596), Matthews (Application # 2006/0107229), and Robertson (Patent 6,414,677).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground added the teachings of Robertson to the previous combination to address claim 7, which specifically required that the applications comprise web browser applications and the objects comprise web browser windows. Petitioner argued that Robertson taught a 3D interface for representing and navigating webpages as object thumbnails, including opening a selected thumbnail into a "live" Internet Explorer browser window.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have found it obvious to apply the HAC-Matthews interface to web browsing, a common computing task, to gain the same organizational and navigational benefits. Robertson demonstrated the known utility of displaying multiple browser windows in a 3D environment to improve user efficiency, providing a clear motivation to implement the HAC-Matthews system with web browser applications as taught by Robertson.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Success was expected because all references were directed to 3D graphical user interfaces, shared the same assignee (Microsoft), and described using common technologies on similar system architectures, making the integration of web browsing features foreseeable.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner noted that the parties in a co-pending litigation had agreed on the following constructions:
    • "3D space": a virtual space defined by a three-dimensional coordinate system.
    • "2D space": a finite graphical area defined by a two-dimensional coordinate system.
  • Petitioner also noted that 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

  • §325(d) (Advanced Bionics): Petitioner argued against discretionary denial because the examiner never issued a rejection during prosecution and did not substantively consider any of the prior art references asserted in the petition. Therefore, the petition raised new, non-cumulative art and arguments that were not previously before the Office.
  • §314(a) (Fintiv): Petitioner contended that a holistic analysis of the Fintiv factors strongly favored institution. It argued the merits of the petition were compelling, a stay had been requested in the parallel district court litigation, and the district court's trial schedule was uncertain and likely to occur after a Final Written Decision (FWD). Petitioner further stipulated that it would not pursue the same invalidity grounds in district court if the IPR was instituted, eliminating concerns of duplicative efforts.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-20 of the ’868 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.