PTAB

IPR2023-00577

LG ElecTronics Inc v. SpaceTime3D Inc

Log In

1. Case Identification

  • Case #: IPR2023-00242
  • Patent #: 8,881,048
  • Filed: February 10, 2023
  • Petitioner(s): LG Electronics Inc, LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., and Google LLC
  • Patent Owner(s): E. EDDIE BAKHASH
  • Challenged Claims: 1-18

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System and Method for Providing Three-Dimensional Graphical User Interface
  • Brief Description: The ’048 patent describes a three-dimensional (3D) graphical user interface (GUI) for web browsing. The system displays webpages by rendering them as images and texturing them onto 3D objects within a simulated 3D space, which can be arranged in a perspective view. To overcome the difficulty of interacting with skewed objects, a user can select an object, causing the system to replace the 3D view with a conventional two-dimensional (2D) window displaying the full, interactive webpage.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-18 are obvious over Robertson, Gralla, and Gettman.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Robertson (Patent 6,414,677), Gralla (HOW THE INTERNET WORKS (6th Ed. 2002)), and Gettman (Application # 2005/0086612).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the combination of these references taught all limitations of the challenged claims. Robertson disclosed a 3D GUI that managed webpage bookmarks by representing them as thumbnail images on objects arranged in a 3D landscape, leveraging users' spatial memory. Gralla provided the necessary context of a conventional web browser (Microsoft Internet Explorer) that Robertson’s system was designed to improve. Gettman supplemented these teachings by disclosing the specific, well-known technical steps for implementing such a system: rendering webpages, capturing them as bitmap images, and applying those images as textures to objects in a 3D space. The combination further taught switching from the 3D view to a full-screen 2D browser window to interact with a selected webpage, and then toggling back to the 3D view. The system claims (8-13) were met by Robertson's disclosure of the necessary hardware components.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to integrate Robertson’s 3D interface into a standard browser like Gralla’s because Robertson explicitly presented its system as an improvement over the 2D "Favorites" lists in such browsers. A POSITA implementing Robertson would have naturally turned to a reference like Gettman for known techniques like rendering and texturing. Prevailing market forces and design trends at the time also encouraged enhancing web browsers with more intuitive 3D interfaces.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because all the constituent technologies—3D GUIs, web browsers, and texture mapping—were mature, well-understood, and had been successfully demonstrated.

Ground 2: Claims 1-18 are obvious over Sauve and Tsuda.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Sauve (Application # 2006/0230356) and Tsuda (Patent 6,577,330).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted this combination also rendered the claims obvious. Sauve taught a tabbed browser featuring a "quick pick" user interface that displayed 2D thumbnails of all open tabs to facilitate easier navigation. Tsuda taught a device for displaying application windows in a virtual 3D space, such as in a perspective stack, to improve screen-space efficiency. The proposed combination replaces Sauve's 2D thumbnails with Tsuda's more space-efficient 3D stacked windows. This combination taught displaying multiple webpage images on objects in a 3D space (arranged in foreground/background) and, upon user interaction with a 3D object, replacing the 3D view with a 2D view of the selected webpage for conventional browsing.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Tsuda expressly suggested its 3D interface was effective for users browsing webpages, providing a direct motivation to apply its teachings to a web browser like Sauve's. A POSITA would have been motivated to combine the references to predictably improve Sauve's "quick pick" interface by solving the known problem of fitting numerous 2D thumbnails onto a single screen, a recognized benefit of 3D interfaces.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Combining a known 3D display method (Tsuda) with a common browser feature (Sauve's tabbed UI) was a straightforward design choice to achieve the predictable benefit of improved usability and space efficiency, carrying a high expectation of success.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner addressed the construction for the term "texturing," which was disputed in parallel district court litigation.
  • Patent Owner's Position: Plain and ordinary meaning, or alternatively "drawing or mapping."
  • Petitioner's (LG's) Position: "drawing or mapping an image onto a 3D object."
  • Petitioner argued that its obviousness grounds are valid under either construction. It contended that the Robertson-Gralla-Gettman and Sauve-Tsuda combinations both teach "drawing or mapping" an image (the webpage) onto an object, and that the prior art (specifically Robertson and Tsuda) further discloses that these objects can be, and are, 3D objects.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • §325(d) (Same or Substantially Same Art/Arguments): Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §325(d) would be improper. It asserted that the Examiner never rejected the challenged claims over the prior art combinations presented in the petition. Petitioner contended the claims were allowed based on the Examiner's mistaken view that the prior art failed to teach interacting with a 2D webpage displayed within a 3D space—a feature Petitioner argued is plainly disclosed in both asserted combinations.
  • §314(a) (Fintiv Factors): Petitioner argued that the Fintiv factors strongly favor institution. As this petition was filed with a motion to join an existing inter partes review (IPR), Petitioner highlighted that joinder conserves resources. Key arguments included: (1) petitioners will request a stay of the parallel district court litigation if the IPR is instituted; (2) the district court trial date is early and historically unreliable; (3) investment in the parallel litigation is minimal, with no Markman order issued and expert discovery not yet begun; and (4) the petition presents compelling evidence of unpatentability, which, under PTAB guidance, weighs heavily against discretionary denial.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-18 of Patent 8,881,048 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.