PTAB

IPR2023-00578

LG Electronics Inc v. SpaceTime3D Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

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

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Anthony/Hanggie Combination - Claims 1-5, 9-14, and 18-20 are obvious over [Anthony](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2023-00578/doc/1007) in view of [Hanggie](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2023-00578/doc/1006) (or Hanggie in view of Anthony).

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Anthony (Application # 2005/0091596) and Hanggie (Application # 2005/0088447). The combined system is referred to as HAC.
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Anthony taught a 3D timeline view for organizing and displaying data objects chronologically, while Hanggie taught a composited desktop system that renders application windows in either 2D or 3D modes. The HAC combination allegedly met the limitations of independent claims 1, 10, and 19 by disclosing a method where interactive application windows (from Hanggie) are organized and displayed within a navigable 3D timeline (from Anthony). Petitioner contended that this combined system would allow a user to switch between a 3D view of multiple application windows and a 2D view of a single selected application.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the references to improve user interface efficiency. Implementing Hanggie’s 3D application windows within Anthony’s chronological timeline would provide an intuitive and user-friendly method for navigating multiple open applications. This motivation was allegedly strengthened because both references were assigned to Microsoft, shared a common inventor, and were directed to similar subject matter, making their teachings compatible.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because both Anthony and Hanggie disclosed systems with similar computer architectures and relied on the same or similar graphics technologies (e.g., Direct3D, OpenGL) for rendering 3D environments. This technological overlap would have made the integration of their respective features predictable.

Ground 2: Obviousness over HAC in view of Matthews - Claims 6-8 and 15-17 are obvious over HAC in view of [Matthews](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2023-00578/doc/1008).

  • 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 added the teachings of Matthews to the HAC combination. Petitioner argued that Matthews disclosed a method for transforming a 3D work area, such as a desktop with open windows (a "fourth image"), by tilting it to reveal additional information or applications. This teaching directly mapped to the limitations of claims 6 and 15, which recite displaying a fourth image of a desktop and allowing a user to interact with it. For claim 7, Matthews’s disclosure of an Internet Explorer window was cited to meet the "web browser" limitation.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation to combine was exceptionally strong, as Matthews explicitly stated its invention was designed for use with Hanggie’s compositing desktop window manager (CDWM) system and even cited Hanggie’s patent application number. Matthews’s system architecture figures were also described as being identical or nearly identical to those in Hanggie and Anthony.
    • Expectation of Success: Success was predictable because Matthews expressly taught its compatibility with Hanggie’s system. Combining Matthews’s desktop transformation feature with the HAC system would predictably yield a 3D display with a transformable desktop, a known method for improving user interaction.

Ground 3: Obviousness over HAC/Matthews in view of Robertson - Claim 7 is obvious over HAC and Matthews in view of [Robertson](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2023-00578/doc/1009).

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Anthony (Application # 2005/0091596), Hanggie (Application # 2005/0088447), Matthews (Application # 2006/0107229), and Robertson (Patent 6,414,677).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground added Robertson to specifically address the "web browser" limitations of claim 7. Robertson disclosed a 3D interface that represents webpages as object thumbnails in a 3D landscape and uses an Internet Explorer browser to render the selected webpage. This directly taught displaying multiple web browser windows, as recited in claim 7.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Robertson’s teachings into the HAC/Matthews system to apply the general window management framework to the common and specific task of web browsing. This would avoid navigating complex menu hierarchies and improve efficiency when managing multiple webpages.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was foreseeable and predictable, as it involved applying a known user interface concept (3D window management) to a conventional application (web browsing). All references were assigned to Microsoft and focused on 3D graphical user interfaces, indicating a high degree of compatibility.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "3D space": Petitioner noted agreement with the Patent Owner in a co-pending proceeding on the construction "a virtual space defined by a three-dimensional coordinate system."
  • "2D space": Petitioner noted agreement with the Patent Owner in a co-pending proceeding on the construction "a finite graphical area defined by a two-dimensional coordinate system."

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • §325(d) (Advanced Bionics): Petitioner argued against discretionary denial because the prior art references asserted in the petition (Anthony, Hanggie, Matthews, Robertson) were never substantively considered by the examiner during prosecution of the ’868 patent. Therefore, the petition raised new, non-cumulative art and arguments.
  • §314(a) (Fintiv): Petitioner argued that the Fintiv factors strongly favored institution. It was asserted that the parallel district court litigation was in its early stages, a stay would be requested upon institution, and the petition's merits presented compelling evidence of unpatentability. The petition was also filed with a motion for joinder to a previously filed IPR by another party, which Petitioner argued would conserve Board resources.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-20 of Patent 9,696,868 as unpatentable.