PTAB

IPR2025-01426

Apple Inc. v. MessageLoud, Inc.

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Systems for allowing users to listen to messages while engaged in an activity.
  • Brief Description: The ’117 patent discloses systems and methods for managing electronic messages (e.g., text messages, emails, messenger application messages) for a user engaged in an activity like driving. The system places different message types into a single queue to be read aloud to the user without requiring user input.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1A: Claims 1-25 are obvious over Boelter in view of Gruber.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Boelter (Application # 2014/0303842) and Gruber (Application # 2013/0275138).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Boelter discloses a system for managing in-vehicle notifications that collects different message types (e.g., emails, text messages) into a single chronological queue. This queue is displayed on a touchscreen to the driver at an appropriate time to minimize distraction. Boelter also teaches using predefined, memorized finger gestures (e.g., taps, swipes) for user interaction without needing to look at the screen. Petitioner asserted Gruber discloses a virtual assistant that reads lists of messages aloud, including announcing the sender's identity and pausing to allow user interruption before reading the message body. Gruber’s system can limit visual output when a hands-free context like driving is detected. Petitioner contended that combining Boelter's multi-type message queue with Gruber's read-aloud functionality renders the core limitations of independent claims 1, 24, and 25 obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Boelter's message queuing system with Gruber's read-aloud capabilities to further the shared goal of reducing driver distraction. Reading Boelter's queue aloud, as taught by Gruber, would simplify message review for the user and reduce the need to interact visually or physically with a touchscreen, which was a known method for improving safety.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in this combination. Implementing text-to-speech technology was well-known, and integrating Gruber's audio-based notification features into Boelter's software-based system would have been a routine programming task, not requiring physical changes to the underlying hardware.

Ground 1B: Claims 1-25 are obvious over Boelter in view of Gruber and Polak.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Boelter (Application # 2014/0303842), Gruber (Application # 2013/0275138), and Polak (Application # 2015/0350400).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination of Boelter and Gruber. Petitioner argued that to the extent the primary combination was insufficient, Polak provides additional teachings that render the claims obvious. Polak discloses a mobile application that automatically announces the arrival of a message and reads the sender's details aloud without any user input. This functionality is intended to allow drivers to hear messages without touching their phone or taking their eyes off the road. Polak also discloses a simple interface that does not display the message content, further minimizing visual distraction.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Polak's automatic, input-free audio notifications into the Boelter/Gruber system. Doing so would further enhance safety and reduce driver distraction by removing the decision point of whether to select a message for playback, making the notification process entirely hands-free and eyes-free.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would expect success in adding Polak's features, as it involved applying known text-to-speech techniques to announce sender details automatically—a straightforward software modification that aligns with the established goal of minimizing driver interaction.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-25 of Patent 9,591,117 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.