PTAB

IPR2024-01089

Apple Inc v. Smith Interface Technologies LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: GESTURE-EQUIPPED TOUCH SCREEN SYSTEM, METHOD, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT
  • Brief Description: The ’212 patent relates to a gesture-equipped touch screen system that alters the user experience based on touch signals. The claimed technology describes scenarios where different touch durations on an icon trigger distinct actions, such as a short tap launching an application and a continuous long press displaying a menu that can then be manipulated by subsequent slide or swipe gestures.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Hotelling, Martyn, and Cho - Claims 1-2, 9-11, 13-16, 58-64, 84

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Hotelling (Application # 2006/0197753), Martyn (Application # 2004/0051726), and Cho (Application # 2011/0252362).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the combination of these references teaches every limitation of the independent claims. Hotelling disclosed the foundational concept of a mobile device with a "touch vocabulary" that distinguishes between a "short" touch gesture (e.g., a tap) to execute an action like launching an application, and a "LONG" touch gesture on the same icon to display a "context sensitive menu." Martyn supplemented this by teaching a specific type of contextual menu, an "App Snapshot," which appears after a "press and hold" on an application icon to provide a shortcut list of common functions for that application. Finally, Cho taught using slide and swipe gestures to manipulate such "information windows" (menus) by scrolling, resizing, or dismissing them.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine these references because they all address the known problem of improving user interface usability on small-screen mobile devices. A POSITA would combine Hotelling's duration-based input system with Martyn's more detailed shortcut menu to enhance user efficiency, a well-known design goal. Subsequently, a POSITA would integrate Cho's teachings to allow manipulation of the resulting menu using slide/swipe gestures, which was a conventional and predictable method for interacting with windowed UI elements.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted that a POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success, as the combination involved applying known UI solutions to known usability problems to achieve predictable results.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Hotelling, Martyn, Cho, and Chaudhri - Claims 56-57

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Hotelling (Application # 2006/0197753), Martyn (Application # 2004/0051726), Cho (Application # 2011/0252362), and Chaudhri (Application # 2011/0252380).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination in Ground 1, adding Chaudhri to address the limitations of claims 56 and 57. These claims require that an aspect of the menu display is conditionally changed based on a slide or swipe gesture starting "at" or "adjacent an edge of touch screen." Petitioner argued that Chaudhri directly taught this element by disclosing a notifications interface and an application-switching interface, both of which are invoked by a swipe gesture starting at a top edge of the display. When invoked, Chaudhri’s interface supersedes and replaces the existing on-screen display (such as the menu from the primary combination), thus conditionally changing its display based on an edge swipe.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued a POSITA would be motivated to integrate Chaudhri's features into the base device of Hotelling, Martyn, and Cho to add desirable and well-known functionality. By the patent's priority date, pull-down notification centers and application switchers activated by edge swipes were common features in commercial products (e.g., Apple's iOS) used to enhance multitasking and user convenience. Adding such a feature was a predictable design choice driven by market forces and the known benefits of such interfaces.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have reasonably expected success in adding Chaudhri's software-based UI tools to the base mobile device, as it was a routine integration of a known feature to improve a device's functionality.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under either §325(d) or §314(a) would be inappropriate.
  • Regarding §325(d) (Advanced Bionics), Petitioner contended that the Examiner did not substantively consider the primary reference, Hotelling, during prosecution, despite its citation in an IDS. Petitioner asserted that the allowance of the claims resulted from a material error by the Examiner.
  • Regarding §314(a) (Fintiv), Petitioner argued that five of the six factors weigh against denial. Key arguments included the Petitioner's intent to file a motion to stay the parallel district court litigation, the fact that the median time to trial in that district (40.2 months) is significantly longer than the deadline for a Final Written Decision, and that the parallel litigation is in its earliest stages with minimal resources expended.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-2, 9-11, 13-16, 56-64, and 84 of the ’212 patent as unpatentable.