Trials@uspto.

gov Paper 10
571-272-7822 Entered: October 1, 2013



UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________


RACKSPACE HOSTING, INC.
Petitioner,

v.

ROTATABLE TECHNOLOGIES LLC
Patent Owner



Case IPR2013-00248
Patent 6,326,978



Before MICHAEL P. TIERNEY, MICHAEL W. KIM, and MIRIAM L. QUINN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

KIM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION
Institution of Inter Partes Review
37 C.F.R. 42.108

IPR2013-00248
Rackspace v. Rotatable Tech.
Rotatable Technologies Ex. 2002
Case IPR2013-00248
Patent 6,326,978

2
I. INTRODUCTION
Rackspace Hosting, Inc. (Petitioner) filed a petition requesting inter partes
review of claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 6,326,978 (Ex. 1001, the 978 patent).
Paper 2, Pet. Rotatable Technologies LLC (Patent Owner) filed a preliminary
response. Paper 9, Prelim. Resp. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. 314.
The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C.
314(a) which provides as follows:
THRESHOLD -- The Director may not authorize an inter partes
review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the
information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any
response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable
likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of
the claims challenged in the petition.
Upon consideration of the petition and Patent Owners preliminary response,
we determine that the information presented by Petitioner has established that there
is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in showing the unpatentability
of claims 1-18 of the 978 patent. Accordingly, we grant the petition and institute
an inter partes review of these claims.
A. Related Proceedings
Both Petitioner and Patent Owner indicate that the 978 patent was asserted
against Petitioner in a co-pending litigation captioned Rotatable Tech., LLC v.
Petroleum Geo-Services, Inc., Case No. 2:13-cv-00177 (E.D. Tex.). Pet. 1; Paper
8, Related Matters, at 2. Both Petitioner and Patent Owner further indicate that the
following litigations also involve the 978 patent:
Rotatable Tech., LLC v. Acer Am. Corp., 2:12-cv-00263 (E.D. Tex.)
Case IPR2013-00248
Patent 6,326,978

3
Rotatable Tech., LLC v. Nokia Inc., 2:12-cv-00265 (E.D. Tex.)
Rotatable Tech., LLC v. Apple Inc., 2:12-cv-00292 (E.D. Tex.)
Rotatable Tech., LLC v. HTC Am., Inc., 2:12-cv-00718 (E.D. Tex.)
Rotatable Tech., LLC v. Citgo Petroleum Corp., 2:13-cv-00108 (E.D. Tex.)
Rotatable Tech., LLC v. Fossil Inc., 2:13-cv-00109 (E.D. Tex.)
Rotatable Tech., LLC v. Lennox Indus., LLC, 2:13-cv-00110 (E.D. Tex.)
Rotatable Tech., LLC v. The Variable Annuity Life Insur. Co., 2:13-cv-
00111 (E.D. Tex.)
Rotatable Tech., LLC v. Burns & McDonnell, Inc., 2:13-cv-00215 (E.D.
Tex.)
Rotatable Tech., LLC v. Blastro, Inc., 2:13-cv-00262 (E.D. Tex.)
(Pet. 1; Prelim. Resp. 2.)
B. The 978 Patent
The subject matter of the 978 patent relates to graphical user interfaces
(GUIs) and display methods for selectively rotating windows on a computer
display. Ex. 1001, 1:7-10. According to the 978 patent, a typical computer
system contains a computer, a keyboard, an input device such as a mouse, and a
display monitor. Ex. 1001, 1:21-23. An operating system and application
programs running on the computer generate GUIs that are displayed on the display
monitor or screen. Ex. 1001, 1:28-31. These GUIs are referred to commonly as
windows. Ex. 1001, 1:31. The screen may contain one window or multiple
windows, depending on the circumstances and user preferences. Ex. 1001, 1:31-
33. A window typically includes a frame and a display portion surrounded by the
Case IPR2013-00248
Patent 6,326,978

4
frame. Ex. 1001, 1:34-35.
With advancements of computer processing speeds, an average computer
now has the ability to perform multiple tasks simultaneously, or to multi-task.
Ex. 1001, 1:66-2:1. At least one window is associated with each task being
performed, and sometimes multiple windows are associated. Ex. 1001, 2:2-3.
These windows are often displayed one on top of the other. Ex. 1001, 2:4.
Unfortunately, management of the various windows can become cumbersome.
Ex. 1001, 2:5-6. This is especially true if a user needs or desires to see a portion of
one window or all of the multiple windows at the same time. Ex. 1001, 2:6-8.
The user may receive information in a window that is not oriented as the
user needs or desires, for example, so as to arrange more efficiently the multiple
windows. Ex. 1001, 2:13-15. Depending on the program, the user may not be able
to reorient the information for proper or desired viewing. Ex. 1001, 2:15-17.
According to the 978 patent, therefore, a need exists for a display method for
selectively rotating windows on a computer display, such that the user may
experience greater interface flexibility. Ex. 1001, 2:18-22. A system employing
such a display method would operate by providing a mechanism for the user
selectively to rotate the windows as needed or desired, thus providing the user with
a more manageable computer interface. Ex. 1001, 2:22-26.
To that end, Figure 1 of the 978 patent, shown below, depicts a window 10
for the computer display that provides selective rotation in a manner that facilitates
human interfacing. Ex. 1001, 2:57-59.
Case IPR2013-00248
Patent 6,326,978

5

Figure 1 illustrates a schematic of a window for a computer display
that provides selective rotation in a manner which facilitates human
interfacing.
Window 10, depicted above in Figure 1, is generated by a program running on the
computer, such as the operating system or the application program. Ex. 1001,
2:59-61. In the lower left hand corner of window 10 is rotation button 28.
Ex. 1001, 3:39-40. To rotate window 10, the user clicks and holds rotation button
28 with the input device (e.g., a mouse) while dragging window 10 to a selected
orientation, which is depicted in the example shown below in Figure 2. Ex. 1001,
1:21-23, 3:42-44.
Case IPR2013-00248
Patent 6,326,978

6

Figure 2 illustrates a schematic of a window for a computer display
that has been rotated approximately 310 degrees and that shows
potential preselected rotation points.
During the rotation, window 10 rotates about a rotation point, an example of which
is shown above in Figure 2 as rotation point 30. Ex. 1001, 3:44-46, 4:22-24. By
clicking and holding rotation button 28, the user may choose any orientation within
the 360 degree circle or the choices may be limited to certain preselected
orientations such as 0, 90, 180, and 270 degrees. Ex. 1001, 3:46-50.
C. Exemplary Claims
Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 9, and 14 are independent claims, and
provide as follows:
1. A computer display window comprising:
a display portion;
a frame surrounding the display portion; and
Case IPR2013-00248
Patent 6,326,978

7
means for selectively rotating the window about a rotation point
at the discretion of the user;
wherein the plane of the window, the plane of rotation, and the
rotation point are coplanar.

9. A method of selectively rotating a computer display
window having a display portion and a frame surrounding the display
portion, the method comprising the steps of:
determining a rotation point; and
rotating the window about the rotation point at the discretion of
the user;
wherein the plane of the window, the plane of rotation, and the
rotation point are coplanar.

14. A system for selectively rotating a computer display
window having a display portion and a frame surrounding the display
portion, the system comprising:
means for determining a rotation point; and
means for rotating the window about the rotation point at the
discretion of the user;
wherein the plane of the window, the plane of rotation, and the
rotation point are coplanar.
D. Prior Art Relied Upon
Petitioner relies upon the following prior art references:
Bruder U.S. Patent 6,327,393 Dec. 4, 2001 (Ex. 1003)
Kreegar U.S. Patent 5,396,590 Mar. 7, 1995 (Ex. 1004)
Takano U.S. Patent 5,045,844 Sep. 3, 1991 (Ex. 1005)
Martinez U.S. Patent 6,137,468 Oct. 24, 2000 (Ex. 1006)
Capps U.S. Patent 5,345,543 Sep. 6, 1994 (Ex. 1007)
Adobe Photoshop 5.0 User Guide (Adobe) (Ex. 1008)
Petitioner also relies on the Declaration of Don Turnbull (Ex. 1009).
Case IPR2013-00248
Patent 6,326,978

8
E. The Asserted Grounds
Petitioner contends that the challenged claims are unpatentable based on the
following grounds:
Reference(s) Basis
Claims
Challenged
Martinez and Capps 103(a) 1-4, 6-9, 11-14, 16, and 18
Martinez, Capps, and Adobe 103(a) 5, 10, 15, and 17
Bruder 102(e)
1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13-15,
and 18
Bruder and Takano 103(a) 3, 11, and 16
Bruder and Kreegar 103(a) 8, 12, and 17
Bruder and Adobe 103(a) 5
II. ANALYSIS
A. Claim Construction
In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are interpreted
according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of
the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. 42.100(b); Office Patent Trial
Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48766 (Aug. 14, 2012). Also, claim terms are
given their ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic
Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
1. Computer Display Window
Independent claims 1, 9, and 14 each recite computer display window.
The term computer display window is cited only in the preamble of these claims,
Case IPR2013-00248
Patent 6,326,978

9
but it is given patentable weight as it provides an antecedent basis for the
window recited in the body of each of these claims. C.W. Zumbiel Co., Inc. v,
Kappos, 702 F.3d 1371, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Catalina Mktg. Intl, Inc. v.
Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed.Cir.2002)) (the preamble
constitutes a limitation when the claim(s) depend on it for antecedent basis).
The specification does not provide a definition of computer display
window. Both Petitioner and Patent Owner present proposed constructions, and
disagree as to whether a computer display window includes a bounding box,
(Pet. 9-10; Prelim. Resp. 6-8). However, neither proposed construction actually
defines window. The dictionary defines window as follows: A division of a
display screen in which a set of information is displayed. window 1992, in
ACADEMIC PRESS DICTIONARY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, ELSEVIER SCIENCE
& TECHNOLOGY, Oxford, United Kingdom,
http://www.credoreference.com/entry/apdst/window (last viewed September 10,
2013). This definition of window is consistent with the specification, and also
accounts for the recited modifier computer display, as the window is rendered
on a display screen. Accordingly, we adopt the above definition of window as
the proper construction of computer display window.
2. Display Portion
Independent claim 1, 9, and 14 each recite a display portion of the
computer display window. [D]isplay portion is recited only in the preamble of
independent claims 9 and 14. However, it is a structural element of the computer
Case IPR2013-00248
Patent 6,326,978

10
display window, which is given patentable weight for the reasons set forth above.
Accordingly, we also give patentable weight to display portion in those claims.
The specification does not provide a definition of display portion.
Petitioner contends that display portion should be construed as an interior
portion of a computer display window. Pet. 10. Patent Owner contends that
display portion is identified in column 1 of the 978 patent as the portion of the
window that allows the user to view, update and manipulate information displayed
in the window. Prelim. Resp. 8-9.
Beginning with the word portion, it is clear that display portion must be
a portion of the computer display window. Moving on to display, the 978
patent discloses the following:
If the window displays only a portion of the total information, then the
user is provided with one or more scroll bars that allow the user to
move the display portion to view other portions of the total
information.
978 patent, col. 1, ll. 46-49 (emphasis added). Accordingly, we construe display
portion as the portion of computer display window that provides viewable
information.
3. Toggling the window between two preselected orientations
Dependent claims 12 and 17 each recite toggling the window between two
preselected orientations. Petitioner contends that toggling . . . should be
construed as switching the window from one preselected orientation to another
preselected orientation. Pet. 10. Patent Owner does not provide a proposed
construction of toggling . . . The specification does not provide a definition of
Case IPR2013-00248
Patent 6,326,978

11
toggling. The dictionary defines toggle as follows: A switching action
performed on an object with two states. toggle 2000, in THE AUTHORITATIVE
DICTIONARY OF IEEE STANDARD TERMS, Standards Information Network, IEEE
Press, New York, NY,
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=4116808 (last viewed
September 17, 2013). This definition is consistent with the specification and claim
language, which recites two states: one preselected orientation and another
preselected orientation. Accordingly, we construe toggle as a switching action
performed on an object with two states, and construe toggling the window
between two preselected orientations as a switching action performed on a
window with two preselected orientations.
4. Means for [selectively] rotating the window about the rotation point
at the discretion of the user
Independent claim 1 recites means for selectively rotating the window
about a rotation point at the discretion of the user. Independent claim 14 recites
means for rotating the window about the rotation point at the discretion of the
user. We note that independent claim 1 recites selectively rotating as opposed
to just rotating in independent claim 14. However, we cannot discern a
difference between selectively rotating and rotating in the context of the rest of
the claim limitation, as rotating . . . at the discretion of the user would be
commensurate with being selective. Accordingly, we construe both means for
rotating . . . phrases together.
Case IPR2013-00248
Patent 6,326,978

12
Petitioner proposes that both means for rotating . . . be construed as
covering a rotation button, ([978 patent], 3:57-59); menu commands, (id. at 3:65-
66); key strokes, (id. at 3:66-67); or a rotation cursor that appears over a designated
portion of the frame (id. at 4:1-4). Pet. 11. Patent Owner proposes that both
means for rotating . . . be construed as follows:
A computer program that (i) shows a phantom frame identifying a
new location of the window and then replaces the phantom frame with
the new window after receiving a user input, or (ii) simultaneously
rotates the window with receipt of a user input (and, as applicable,
wherein the computer program limits rotation of the window to
predetermined increments, or toggles the window between preselected
orientations, or returns the window to a zero degree orientation, upon
receipt of each user input), and equivalents thereof.
Prelim. Resp. 10.
We agree with the Patent Owner that both means for rotating . . . are
means-plus-function limitations under 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Prelim.
Resp. 10-12. Accordingly, we look to the specification of the 978 patent to
identify the structure, material, or acts which are described as performing the
recited functions.
The claimed function is rotating the window about the rotation point at the
discretion of the user. The specification of the 978 patent discloses the claimed
function as follows:
In the lower left hand corner of the frame of the window 10 is
the rotation button 28. This represents the preferred location for the
rotation button 28, but other locations are possible. The user clicks
and holds the rotation button 28 with the input device while dragging
the window to the selected orientation. The window 10 rotates about
a rotation point (not shown) which will be discussed in greater detail
Case IPR2013-00248
Patent 6,326,978

13
with respect to FIG. 2 below. Through clicking and holding the
rotation button 28, the user may be able to choose any orientation
within the 360 degree circle or the choices may be limited to certain
preselected orientations such as 0, 90, 180, and 270 degrees. By
single clicking on the rotation button 28, the user can rotate the
window 10 by a preselected amount or to a preselected orientation.
For example, single clicking could rotate the window 10 by small
angles such as 1 or 5 degrees for minor reorientations or by large
angles such as 90 or 180 degrees for major reorientations.
Alteratively, [sic] single clicking could toggle between two
preselected orientations. By double clicking on the rotation button 28,
the user can return the window 10 to the home orientation. Rotation
could of course be in either the counter-clockwise direction or the
clockwise direction as desired. One of ordinary skill in the art will
realize that the above described functions of the rotation button 28
could also be the result of other input device combinations of
clicking, holding, or both. Such skilled persons will further realize
that the above described functions could be accomplished through
menu driven commands or special key strokes in addition to or in
place of the use of the rotation button 28. Under Microsoft
Windows the rotation button 28 could be replaced with a rotation
cursor (not shown) that appears when the user moves the cursor over a
designated portion of the frame
978 patent, 3:39-4:4 (emphasis added). See also, 978 patent, 2:56-66, 4:5-11;
4:57-59. All of the above disclosures in the specification show rotation being
accomplished via a computer on a computer display. Based on these disclosures in
the specification, the structure corresponding to the recited means for
rotating . . . covers a computer. However, because the claimed function is not
implemented just by a computer, but also by software running on a general purpose
computer, the corresponding structure under 112, sixth paragraph, is not the
Case IPR2013-00248
Patent 6,326,978

14
general purpose computer, but the disclosed algorithm for performing the claimed
function.
We discern the following algorithm from the aforementioned portions of the
specification: (1) generating a window on a computer display including a rotation
option; (2) receiving user input into the computer; and (3) based on the user input,
using a phantom frame to show the new location of the rotated window or rotating
the window simultaneously with the user input. Accordingly, we construe both
means for rotating . . . as corresponding to a computer that implements the
aforementioned algorithm.
5. Means for determining a rotation point
Independent claim 14 recites means for determining a rotation point.
Petitioner proposes that means for determining a rotation point be construed as
a mouse or similar input device. Pet. 11. Patent Owner proposes that means
for determining a rotation point be construed as follows: A computer program
that selects (i) a default rotation point, or (ii) a user-selected rotation point for a
window, and equivalents thereof. Prelim. Resp. 13. We agree with Patent
Owners construction.
Using the analysis set forth above in our construction of means for
rotating . . . under 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 6, we construe means for
determining a rotation point as corresponding to a computer that implements an
algorithm. The specification discloses the following concerning the function of
determining a rotation point:
Turning now to FIG. 2, a schematic of a window 10 for a
computer display that has been rotated approximately 310 degrees and
Case IPR2013-00248
Patent 6,326,978

15
that shows potential preselected rotation points according to one
embodiment of the present invention is shown. The window 10
shown has the same elements as 20 described with respect to FIG. 1
above but the reference numerals have been omitted for clarity. The
home orientation is shown in phantom for reference purposes. In this
case, the rotation point has been selected as point 30 which is located
at the midpoint of the left frame. Eight other potential rotation points
are shown as points 32, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42, 44, and 46. Together, these
nine points represent the corners, the midpoints of the sides, and the
center of the window 10. Preferably, these points would not be
shown to the user except as part of a preselection routine. Any of
the nine points could be initially selected as the default rotation
point. One of ordinary skill in the art will realize that any number of
points within or on the window 10 are potential rotation points. Such
skilled persons will further realize that any number of points outside
of the window, such as the upper left corner of the display, may be
selected as rotation points. Selection of a rotation point outside of
the window 10 will result in both rotation and translation of the
window from the starting orientation to the final orientation.
978 patent, 4:15-40 (emphasis added). Using the analysis set forth above in our
construction of means for rotating . . ., we discern the following algorithm for
means for determining a rotation point from the aforementioned portions of the
specification: determining a default rotation point or receiving a user selection
into a computer of any rotation point within, on, or outside of a window on a
display of the computer. Accordingly, we construe means for determining a
rotation point as corresponding to a computer that implements the aforementioned
algorithm.
Case IPR2013-00248
Patent 6,326,978

16
6. Means for rotating the window by predetermined increments
Dependent claim 16 recites means for rotating the window by
predetermined increments. Petitioner proposes that this means for rotating . . .
be construed as a rotation button, ([978 patent], 3:57-59); menu commands, (id.
at 3:65-66); key strokes, (id. at 3:66-67); or a rotation cursor that appears over a
designated portion of the frame, (id. at 4:1-4). Pet. 11-12. Patent Owner proposes
the same construction for this means for rotating . . . as the means for
rotating . . . recited above in independent claim 14. Prelim. Resp. 10.Using the
analysis set forth above, we construe this means for rotating . . . as
corresponding to a computer that implements an algorithm. The specification
discloses the following examples of the function of rotating the window by
predetermined increments:
Through clicking and holding the rotation button 28, the user may be
able to choose any orientation within the 360 degree circle or the
choices may be limited to certain preselected orientations such as 0,
90, 180, and 270 degrees. By single clicking on the rotation button
28, the user can rotate the window 10 by a preselected amount or to a
preselected orientation. For example, single clicking could rotate the
window 10 by small angles such as 1 or 5 degrees for minor
reorientations or by large angles such as 90 or 180 degrees for
major reorientations. Alteratively, [sic] single clicking could toggle
between two preselected orientations.
978 patent, 3:46-57 (emphasis added). Using the analysis set forth above, we
discern the following algorithm for means for rotating the window by
predetermined increments from the aforementioned portions of the specification:
(1) generating a window on a computer display including a rotation option having
predetermined increments; (2) receiving user input into the computer; and (3)
Case IPR2013-00248
Patent 6,326,978

17
based on the user input, using a phantom frame to show the new location of the
rotated window at the predetermined increments or rotating the window through
the predetermined increments simultaneously with the user input. Accordingly, we
construe means for rotating the window by predetermined increments as
corresponding to a computer that implements the aforementioned algorithm.
7. Means for toggling the window between two preselected orientations
Dependent claim 17 recites means for toggling the window between two
preselected orientations. Petitioner proposes that means for toggling . . . be
construed as a rotation button, ([978 patent], 3:57-59); menu commands, (id. at
3:65-66); key strokes, (id. at 3:66-67); or a rotation cursor that appears over a
designated portion of the frame, (id. at 4:1-4). Pet. 12. Patent Owner proposes
the same construction for means for toggling . . . as the means for rotating . . .
recited above in independent claim 14. Prelim. Resp. 10. We construe means for
toggling . . . as corresponding to a computer that implements an algorithm. The
specification discloses the following concerning the function of toggling the
window between two preselected orientations: single clicking could toggle
between two preselected orientations. 978 patent, 3:46-57 (emphasis added).
Taking into account our previous construction of toggling the window between
two preselected orientations, we discern the following algorithm for means for
toggling . . . from the aforementioned portions of the specification: (1) generating
a window on a computer display including only two preselected orientations; (2)
receiving user input into the computer; and (3) based on the user input, switching
from one to the other of two possible preselected window orientations.
Case IPR2013-00248
Patent 6,326,978

18
Accordingly, we construe means for toggling . . . as corresponding to a computer
that implements the aforementioned algorithm.
8. Means for returning the window to a zero degree orientation
Dependent claim 18 recites means for returning the window to a zero
degree orientation. Petitioner proposes that this means for returning . . . be
construed as a rotation button, ([978 patent], 3:57-59); menu commands, (id. at
3:65-66); key strokes, (id. at 3:66-67); or a rotation cursor that appears over a
designated portion of the frame, (id. at 4:1-4). Pet. 12. Patent Owner proposes
the same construction for means for returning . . . as the means for rotating . . .
recited above in independent claim 14. Prelim. Resp. 10. We construe means for
returning . . . as corresponding to a computer that implements an algorithm. The
specification discloses that the home orientation is the equivalent of a zero degree
orientation. 978 patent, 3:5-8; 3:46-59. We discern the following algorithm for
means for returning . . . from the aforementioned portions of the specification:
(1) generating a window on a computer display including a home or zero degree
orientation; (2) receiving user input into the computer; and (3) based on the user
input, returning the window to a home or zero degree orientation. Accordingly, we
construe means for returning . . . as corresponding to a computer that implements
the aforementioned algorithm.
B. Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-14, 16, and 18 Obvious over Martinez and Capps
Petitioner contends that claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-14, 16, and 18 are unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Martinez and Capps. Pet. 13-31.
Case IPR2013-00248
Patent 6,326,978

19
Martinez (Exhibit 1006)
Martinez discloses a method and apparatus for altering a display within a
data processing system in response to a change in orientation and hardware
associated with the data processing system. Ex. 1006, 2:8-12. Specifically,
Martinez discloses rotating a laptop around one axis that results in a change in
orientation in another axis, and maintaining windows level with respect to a
preselected reference plane during such a rotation. Ex. 1006, 4:21-22, 5:42-44. In
particular, Martinez discloses that one can change the display from a landscape
mode to a portrait mode by simply rotating the display 90 degrees either way
around one axis. Ex. 1006, 4:43-46. For example, as shown below, Figures 6A-
6C of Martinez depict window 600 containing object 602 on display 301 of laptop
300. Ex. 1006, 4:61-65.
Case IPR2013-00248
Patent 6,326,978

20

Figures 6A-6C illustrate a process for maintaining window objects
level through changes in attitude.
Case IPR2013-00248
Patent 6,326,978

21
As shown in Figures 6B and 6C above, object 602 in window 600 remains
level even though laptop 300 has been rotated 45 degrees and 75 degrees,
respectively. Ex. 1006, 4:65-5:4. Furthermore, as shown below, Figures 5A-5C of
Martinez disclose windows 500, 502 on display 301 of laptop 300. Ex. 1006, 4:52-
55.

Figures 5A-5C illustrate diagrams of different displays.
When laptop 300 has been rotated 90 degrees from Figure 5A to Figure 5C,
windows 500, 502 also have been rotated 90 degrees.
A process for implementing the above rotation operations are as follows: if
a rotate feature of laptop 300 is ON, the process waits until a selected amount of
predefined movement of laptop 300 is detected. Ex. 1006, 5:48-50. Next, a query
is made to determine an amount of tilt or rotation. Ex. 1006, 5:50-52. A
determination then is made as to whether the windows are to be rotated. Ex. 1006,
5:52-54. If the windows are to be rotated, a system coordinate table is updated
Case IPR2013-00248
Patent 6,326,978

22
with the amount of tilt or rotation. Ex. 1006, 5:54-55. Thereafter, the windows are
redrawn in response to the update of the system coordinates table. Ex. 1006, 5:58-
60.
Sensors for detecting changes in position may be located within the data
processing system, or externalized with a peripheral device associated with the
data processing system, such as a mouse or some other pointing device. Ex. 1006,
3:18-22. The sensors provide numeric values to a register that represent a tilt of
hardware relative to a reference plane. Ex. 1006, 5:24-28. The values are in
degree increments ranging from -179 degrees to +179 degrees. Ex. 1006, 5:36-37.
Capps (Exhibit 1007)
Capps discloses that a user may wish to rotate an image on a screen of a
computer system. Ex. 1007, 1:20-23. According to Capps, these functions are
accomplished by selecting items to be manipulated and then entering a suitable
keyboard command that indicates an angle by which the items should be rotated.
Ex. 1007, 1:23-27. Some applications require that the user choose the desired
rotation function from a menu, and then rotate the selected items through use of
a screen pointer which grabs a gravity point or handle on the selected item.
Ex. 1007, 1:27-32. The selected item then is rotated as a function of the pointers
movement. Ex. 1007, 1:32-33.
For example, as shown below, Figure 4 of Capps depicts crank 62, crank
axle 65, and crank handle 67.
Case IPR2013-00248
Patent 6,326,978

23

Figure 4 illustrates a screen of a computer display assembly including
a crank icon.
To rotate a selected object using crank 62, a rotate mode is selected, and crank 62
is moved to a position such that axle 65 is located at a desired center of rotation.
Ex. 1007, 6:58-62. Then, stylus 38 is placed on or near crank handle 67 and is
moved roughly in a circular direction about axle 65. Ex. 1007, 6:61-63. The
Case IPR2013-00248
Patent 6,326,978

24
computer system routinely updates the screen so that the selected object rotates as
crank 62 is being rotated. Ex. 1007, 7:1-3. Capps discloses that, while the method
of its present invention is described in the context of a pen-based system, other
pointing devices such as a computer mouse, a track ball, or a tablet can be used to
manipulate a pointer on a screen of a general purpose computer. Ex. 1007, 3:43-
48.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 13, 14, and 18
Petitioner contends that claims 1-4, 6-9, 13, 14, and 18 are unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) obvious over Martinez and Capps. Pet. 13-31. In
support of this asserted ground of unpatentability, Petitioner provides detailed
explanations as to how each claim limitation is met by a combination of Martinez
and Capps, and relies, as support, on a declaration of Dr. Don Turnbull (Dr.
Turnbull). Pet. 13-31, citing to Ex. 1009, 95, 96, 98, 99. Patent Owner does
not challenge Petitioners application of Martinez and Capps to claims 1-4, 6-9, 13,
14, and 18.
Upon review of Petitioners analysis and supporting evidence, we determine
that Petitioner has demonstrated that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would
prevail with respect to claims 1-4, 6-9, 13, 14, and 18 on the ground that these
claims are obvious over Martinez and Capps.
As an example, independent claim 1 recites [a] computer display window
comprising: a display portion; a frame surrounding a display portion. Martinez
discloses windows 500, 502, and window 600 including a frame containing object
602. Ex. 1006, Figs. 5A-5C, 6A-6C; 4:52-53, 61-65. Independent claim 1 further
recites means for selectively rotating the window about a rotation point at the
Case IPR2013-00248
Patent 6,326,978

25
discretion of the user. As set forth above, we construed this means as a
computer implementing the following algorithm: (1) generating a window on a
computer display including a rotation option; (2) receiving user input into the
computer; and (3) based on the user input, using a phantom frame to show the new
location of the rotated window or rotating the window simultaneously with the
user input. We note that for step (3) of the algorithm, by using the word or
between two sub-steps, only one of the two sub-steps needs to be disclosed by the
prior art in order meet step (3).
Figures 5A through 5C of Martinez disclose that windows 500, 502 retain
the same orientation with respect to a reference plane, even though a user has
placed laptop 300 into three different orientations. Figures 6B and 6C of Martinez
disclose that object 602 in window 600 remains level even though a user has
rotated laptop 300 45 degrees and 75 degrees, respectively. Ex. 1006, 4:65-5:4.
We note that Martinez discloses a rotation process (Ex. 1006, 5:48-60), but does
not disclose explicitly that the rotation is simultaneous with the user input, as set
forth in the second sub-step of step (3) of the algorithm. Martinez discloses,
however, rotating a laptop around one axis that results in a change in orientation in
another axis, and maintaining windows level with respect to a preselected
reference plane during such a rotation. Ex. 1006, 4:21-22, 5:42-44.
Moreover, similar to Martinez, Capps is directed to rotating an image on a
screen of a computer system. Ex. 1007, 1:20-23. Capps discloses a computer
system that routinely updates the screen so that the selected object rotates as crank
62 is being rotated by the user. Ex. 1007, 7:1-3. Accordingly, Capps sufficiently
shows that it was known to display updated rotation of an object simultaneous with
Case IPR2013-00248
Patent 6,326,978

26
the user input. Based on the record before us, there is sufficient evidence that
implementing this known element of Capps within the system of Martinez, for its
known purpose of updating rotation of an object simultaneous with user input,
yields a predictable result. Specifically, one of ordinary skill would have modified
Martinez to include updating rotation of the object simultaneous with user input of
Capps, so that user would be able to immediately ascertain whether the amount of
rotation input was adequate and desirable.
Independent claim 1 also recites wherein the plane of the window, the plane
of rotation, and the rotation point are coplanar. Figures 5A-5C and 6A-6C of
Martinez and Figure 4 of Capps disclose such planar window rotation.
Independent claim 9 essentially recites the same limitations as independent
claim 1, except in a method format, and additionally recites determining a rotation
point. Independent claim 14 essentially recites the same limitations as
independent claim 1, and additionally recites means for determining a rotation
point. We have construed these means as a computer implementing the
following algorithm: (1) determining a default rotation point or receiving a user
selection into a computer of any point within, on, or outside of a window on a
display of the computer. Capps discloses that in order to rotate an object using
crank 62, a rotate mode is selected, and crank 62 is moved to position such that
axle 65 is located at the desired center of rotation. Ex. 1007, 6:58-62.
We similarly are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable
likelihood that dependent claims 2-4, 6-8, 13, and 18 are unpatentable over
Martinez and Capps. Pet. 13-15, 19-23, 26-27, 30-31.
Case IPR2013-00248
Patent 6,326,978

27
Dependent Claims 11 and 16
Claim 11 recites rotating the window by predetermined increments. Claim
16 recites means for rotating the window by predetermined increments. For both
claim limitations, Patent Owner first contends Martinez refers to rotation of display
301, and not windows. Prelim. Resp. 20. We disagree. Figures 5A-5C of
Martinez disclose the rotation of windows 500, 502 on display 301.
Next, Patent Owner contends that just because a user can rotate laptop 300
90 degrees about an axis does not mean that (1) the 90 degree rotation was
predetermined or (2) the rotation was limited to 90 degrees, as opposed to 89
degrees or 91 degrees. Prelim. Resp. 21. Patent Owners assertions are misplaced.
Martinez discloses that sensor 702 outputs values in degree increments ranging
from -179 to +179 on both the X and Y axes. Ex. 1006, 5:34-37. Martinez
discloses adjusting visual components on a display device so that the components
are level regardless of a position of the display device. Ex. 1006, 4:41-43.
Accordingly, Martinez discloses rotating visual components on the display device
by predetermined increments of one degree, which meets the aforementioned
limitation.
Furthermore, Martinez discloses detecting selected amounts of predefined
movement, and, based on that determination, deciding whether to rotate the
windows. Ex. 1006, 5:48-55. Specifically, Martinez discloses determining
whether a detected tilt is greater than or equal to a default amount of tilt. Ex. 1006,
6:16-19. This default amount of tilt may be changed by the user or preset at some
other amount. Ex. 1006, 6:19-20. Any of these amounts of predefined movements
Case IPR2013-00248
Patent 6,326,978

28
or default tilts of Martinez could correspond to the recited predetermined
increments.
Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing
that dependent claim 11 is obvious over Martinez and Capps.
Dependent Claim 12
Claim 12 recites toggling the window between two preselected
orientations. We have construed toggling the window between two preselected
orientations as a switching action performed on a window with two preselected
orientations. Petitioner cites the landscape and portrait modes depicted in
Figures 5A and 5B Martinez as corresponding to the aforementioned limitation.
Pet. 26.

Figures 5A-5C illustrate diagrams of different displays.
Case IPR2013-00248
Patent 6,326,978

29
Patent Owner first contends Martinez refers to rotation of display 301, and not
windows. Prelim. Resp. 22. We disagree. Figures 5A-5C disclose rotation of
windows 500, 502.
Next, Patent Owner contends that just because a user can rotate laptop 300
90 degrees about an axis does not mean that (1) the 90 degree rotation was
preselected or (2) the rotation was limited to 90 degrees, as opposed to 89 degrees
or 91 degrees. Prelim. Resp. 22-23. We disagree. Martinez discloses detecting
selected amounts of predefined movement, and based on that determination,
deciding whether to rotate the windows. Ex. 1006, 5:48-55. Specifically, Martinez
discloses determining whether a detected tilt is greater than or equal to a default
amount of tilt. Ex. 1006, 6:16-19. This default amount of tilt may be changed by
the user or preset at some other amount. Ex. 1006, 6:19-20. In other words,
Martinez discloses that it was known to restrict window rotations to a certain
number of predefined movements or amounts.
Given this disclosure, there is sufficient evidence that it would have been
within the abilities of one of ordinary skill to limit that number of predefined
movements or amounts to just two, as limiting to any number of predefined
movements or amounts would have been within the abilities of one of ordinary
skill, for example, to simplify the user experience by limiting the number of
movements or amounts to those that are the most common. Indeed, modification
of Martinez is essentially an omission of other predefined movements or amounts
until only two exist, and omission of elements is presumed to be within the abilities
of ordinary skill, especially where such omission would be desirable, for the
reasons stated above. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 969 (CCPA 1965) (omission of
Case IPR2013-00248
Patent 6,326,978

30
additional framework and axle which served to increase the cargo carrying
capacity of prior art mobile fluid carrying unit would have been obvious if this
feature was not desired.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975) (deleting a
prior art switch member and thereby eliminating its function was an obvious
expedient).
Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing
that dependent claim 12 is obvious over Martinez and Capps.
Conclusion
Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing
that claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-14, 16, and 18 of the 978 patent are unpatentable over
Martinez and Capps.
C. Claims 5, 10, 15, and 17 Obvious over Martinez, Capps, and Adobe
Petitioner contends that 5, 10, 15, and 17 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
103(a) as obvious over Martinez, Capps, and Adobe. Pet. 31-35.
Adobe (Exhibit 1008)
Adobe is a user guide for Adobe Photoshop. Ex. 1008, p. 1. Adobe
discloses that holding down a mouse button on a tool is the equivalent of
performing a dragging function on the tool. Ex. 1008, p. 14. Adobe discloses that
in order to rotate an image, a pointer is moved outside a bounding border (it turns
into a curved, two-sided arrow), and then dragged. Ex. 1008, p. 185. An example
of such a rotation is shown in the excerpt below.
Case IPR2013-00248
Patent 6,326,978

31

The above excerpt illustrates an image with a curved, two-sided
arrow.
Ex. 1008, p. 185. For example, as shown in the excerpt below, a pointer may be
moved outside selection handles, where the pointer then changes into the curved,
two-sided arrow, and then the arrow is dragged clockwise to rotate a CD about 30
degrees. Ex. 1008, p. 14.

The above excerpt illustrates a CD being rotated.
Ex. 1008, p. 14.
Case IPR2013-00248
Patent 6,326,978

32
Dependent Claim 5
Claim 5 recites wherein the means for selectively rotating comprises a
rotation cursor. Adobe discloses that in order to rotate an image, a pointer is
moved outside a bounding border (it turns into a curved, two-sided arrow).
Ex. 1008, p. 14, 185. The curved, two-sided arrow of Adobe corresponds to the
recited rotation cursor. Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioners application
of Martinez, Capps, and Adobe to claim 5.
Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing
that dependent claim 5 is obvious over Martinez, Capps, and Adobe.
Dependent Claims 10 and 15
Claim 10 recites wherein the step of rotating comprises the step of clicking
and holding the window while dragging the window to the selected orientation.
Claim 15 recites means for clicking and holding the window while dragging the
window to the selected orientation. Adobe discloses dragging a curved, two-sided
arrow to rotate an image. Ex. 1008, pp. 14, 185. Patent Owner does not challenge
Petitioners application of Martinez, Capps, and Adobe to claims 10 and 15.
Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing
that dependent claims 10 and 15 are obvious over Martinez, Capps, and Adobe.
Dependent Claim 17
Claim 17 recites means for toggling the window between two preselected
orientations. We have construed this means as corresponding to a computer
implementing the following algorithm: (1) generating a window on a computer
display including only two preselected orientations; (2) receiving user input into
the computer; and (3) based on the user input, switching from one to the other of
Case IPR2013-00248
Patent 6,326,978

33
two possible preselected window orientations. Patent Owner contends that Adobe
does not disclose the recited means. Prelim. Resp. 24-25. Patent Owners
assertions are misplaced. Martinez discloses the recited means, as set forth in
our analysis of dependent claim 12, supra.
Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in showing
that dependent claim 17 is obvious over Martinez, Capps, and Adobe.
Conclusion
Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in showing
that claims 5, 10, 15, and 17 of the 978 patent are unpatentable over Martinez,
Capps, and Adobe.
D. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, and 18 Anticipated by Bruder
Petitioner contends that 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, and 18 are
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as anticipated by Bruder. Pet. 35-47.
Bruder (Exhibit 1003)
Bruder discloses a user interface for visually partitioning and optionally
transforming a region of interest within an image for further processing by a
machine-vision system. Ex. 1003, 1:7-10. For example, Figure 3A of Bruder,
shown below, depicts GUI 300 displaying bottle cap 304 with lettering 306 that
reads BOTTLE CAP, which is the region of interest. Ex. 1003, 4:30-36.
Case IPR2013-00248
Patent 6,326,978

34

Figure 3A illustrates an image displaying on a graphical user interface
having a deformable window and a top view of a bottle cap, where the
bottle cap contains a character string.
As shown in Figure 3B below, a user identifies the region of interest by deforming
window 302, 312 to enclose lettering 306 that reads BOTTLE CAP. Ex. 1003,
4:41-47.

Figure 3B illustrates a deformable window enclosing a character
string of a bottle cap.
As shown in Figure 5 below, accented window 500 includes circle symbol 504,
Case IPR2013-00248
Patent 6,326,978

35
which indicates the area of deformable window 500. Ex. 1003, 6:15-19. The user
should point to circle symbol 504 in order to change the rotation of deformable
window 500. Id.

Figure 5 illustrates an accented deformable window.
If the user selects and drags the corner having circle symbol 504, window 500 will
turn around a point of window 500, such as center point 510 or origin 502.
Ex. 1003, 6:56-59. As shown in Figure 6B below, by using circle symbol 504 to
rotate window 500 about origin 502, an initial window 612 translates clockwise
such that deformed window 614 is at an angle relative to initial window 612.
Ex. 1003, 6:59-64.
Case IPR2013-00248
Patent 6,326,978

36

Figure 6B illustrates a deformable window before and after rotation.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, and 18
Patent Owner contends that Bruder does not disclose a display portion, as
recited in independent claims 1, 9, and 14. Prelim. Resp. 26-27. We have
construed display portion as the portion of computer display window that
provides viewable information. Petitioner identifies deformable windows 302,
312, 500, 612, 614 of Bruder as corresponding to the recited computer display
window, which makes the region of interest (e.g., lettering 306) within window
312 the display portion. Pet. 35-38. Patent Owner contends that this is
incorrect, because the region of interest within window 312 is a transparent
selection tool superimposed on a digital image and thus never displays anything.
Prelim. Resp. 27. However, the region of interest within window 312 does provide
viewable information. While Patent Owner is correct that the information on
display in the region of interest within window 312 is in fact a portion of the digital
image (e.g., bottle cap 304) on which window 312 is superimposed, nevertheless,
the region of interest within window 312 provides viewable information,
meeting our construction of display portion. Accordingly, we are persuaded that
Case IPR2013-00248
Patent 6,326,978

37
Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that independent claims 1, 9,
and 14 are anticipated by Bruder. Pet. 35-38, 41-46.
We are similarly persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable
likelihood that dependent claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 10, 13, 15, and 18 are anticipated by
Bruder. Pet. 38-41, 44, 46-47.
Conclusion
Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in showing
that claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, and 18 of the 978 patent are anticipated
by Bruder.
E. Claims 3, 11, and 16 Obvious over Bruder and Takano
Petitioner contends that claims 3, 11, and 16 are unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Bruder and Takano. Pet. 48-51.
Takano (Exhibit 1005)
Takano discloses a system for rotating a rectangular area using a stylus.
Ex. 1005, 1:13-14. When a position specifying switch attached to the stylus is
turned on, a rectangular area including an image to be moved on a screen can be
specified. Ex. 1005, 1:27-29. When a menu switch attached to the stylus is
turned on, a menu for various modes for moving the rectangular area is shown.
Ex. 1005, 1:31-38. Some of the various modes include a designed angle rotation
and move mode, a rightward 90 degree rotation and move mode, and a leftward 90
degree rotation and move mode. Id. As shown below in a progression from step
#3 to steps #4 and #6 in Figure 3 of Takano, rectangular area 23 containing image
22 is paralleled at position 24 and then rotated. Ex. 1005, 1:55-61.
Case IPR2013-00248
Patent 6,326,978

38

Figure 3 illustrates a portion of a flowchart for a system of rotating images.
Dependent Claim 3
Claim 3 recites wherein the means for selectively rotating comprises a
menu command. Takano discloses a stylus including a menu of options for
rotating a rectangular area. Ex. 1005, 1:13-14, 27-38. Patent Owner does not
challenge Petitioners application of Bruder and Takano to claim 3.
Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in showing
that dependent claim 3 is obvious over Bruder and Takano.
Dependent Claims 11 and 16
Claim 11 recites wherein the step of rotating comprises the step of rotating
the window by predetermined increments. Claim 16 recites means for rotating
the window by predetermined increments. We have construed this means as
corresponding to a computer implementing the following algorithm: (1)
generating a window on a computer display including a rotation option having
predetermined increments; (2) receiving user input into the computer; and (3)
based on the user input, using a phantom frame to show the new location of the
rotated window at the predetermined increments or rotating the window through
Case IPR2013-00248
Patent 6,326,978

39
the predetermined increments simultaneously with the user input. Takano
discloses rotating rightward or leftward in 90 degree increments. Ex. 1005, 1:31-
38. The progression from step #3 to step #6 in Figure 3 of Takano shows
rectangular area 23 containing image 22 being paralleled at position 24 and then
rotated. Ex. 1005, 1:55-61. The dashed rectangular area 23 at position 24
corresponds to the phantom frame of the first sub-step of step (3) of the algorithm.
Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioners application of Bruder and Takano to
claims 11 and 16.
Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in showing
that dependent claims 11 and 16 are obvious over Bruder and Takano.
Conclusion
Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing
that claims 3, 11, and 16 of the 978 patent are unpatentable over Bruder and
Takano.
F. Claims 8, 12, and 17 Obvious Over Bruder and Kreegar
Petitioner contends that claims 8, 12, and 17 are unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Bruder and Kreegar. Pet. 52-56.
Kreegar (Exhibit 1004)
Kreegar discloses a user interface for handling and manipulating graphical
objects in a graphical display computer environment. Ex. 1004, 1:10-12. Rotate
shape control, shown in Figure 5(a), is used to rotate selected shape 203. Ex. 1004,
6:45-47. To rotate selected shape 203 in Kreegar, rotate shape control 303 is
selected, as shown in Figures 5(b) and 5(c), with a dot in the center of rotate shape
Case IPR2013-00248
Patent 6,326,978

40
control 303 indicating selection. Ex. 1004, 6:45-46, 51-53. To rotate selected
shape 203 around rotation shape control 303, a mouse then is moved around rotate
shape control 303 to end up with the orientations shown in Figures 5(d)
1
and 5(e).
Ex. 1004, 6:46-48, 53-55, 58-59.

Figures 5(a) to 5(e) illustrate rotating a selected shape, first about the
default center point, then about an arbitrarily chosen pivot point.

1
In order for the figures and specification of Kreegar to be consistent, the
reference to Figure 5(c) at column 6, line 58 of Kreegar should instead refer to
Figure 5(d), and the reference to Figure 5(d) at column 7, line 4 of Kreegar should
instead refer to Figure 5(c).
Case IPR2013-00248
Patent 6,326,978

41
Figures 5(a), 5(b), and 5(d) show rotation shape control 303 at a default center
rotation point. Ex. 1004, 6:58-61. However, rotation shape control 303 can be
moved anywhere in a visible display area of a display device. Ex. 1004, 6:61-63.
Figure 5(d) shows rotation shape control 303 of selected shape 201 dislocated from
a center location. Ex. 1004, 7:4-6. Figure 5(e) shows selected shape 201 having
been rotated around rotation shape control 303 dislocated from the center location.
Ex. 1004, 7:6-8.
Kreegar further discloses that undo commands are provided by most
graphics and computer systems which maintain a memory as to previously
executed operations, and are capable of restoring the system to a position just prior
to that operation. Ex. 1004, 6:27-31. To move back to an original position, an
undo command may be executed. Ex. 1004, 7:14-16.
Dependent Claim 8
Claim 8 recites wherein the rotation point is outside the window. Kreegar
discloses moving rotation shape control 303 anywhere in a visible display area of a
display device (Ex. 1004, 6:61-63), which would include outside of selected shape
201, 203. Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioners application Bruder and
Kreegar to claim 8.
Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in showing
that dependent claim 8 is obvious over Bruder and Kreegar.
Dependent Claims 12 and 17
Claim 12 recites toggling the window between two preselected
orientations. Claim 17 recites means for toggling the window between two
preselected orientations. Petitioner contends that the undo command of
Case IPR2013-00248
Patent 6,326,978

42
Kreegar corresponds to the recited toggling. Pet. 55-56. Patent Owner contends
that this is incorrect, because neither current nor previous shape rotation positions
can be preselected. Prelim. Resp. 28-30. We agree with Patent Owner that
Petitioner has not shown how a current shape rotation position is preselected.
Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in
showing that dependent claims 12 and 17 are obvious over Bruder and Kreegar.
Conclusion
Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing
that claim 8 of the 978 patent is unpatentable over Bruder and Kreegar.
Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in
showing that claims 12 and 17 of the 978 patent are unpatentable over Bruder and
Kreegar.
G. Claim 5 Obvious Over Bruder and Adobe
Petitioner contends that claim 5 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
obvious over Bruder and Adobe. Pet. 56-58. Claim 5 recites wherein the means
for selectively rotating comprises a rotation cursor. Adobe discloses that in order
to rotate an image, a pointer is moved outside of a bounding border (it turns into a
curved, two-sided arrow). Ex. 1008, p. 14, 185. Patent Owner does not challenge
Petitioners application of Bruder and Adobe to claim 5. On this record, we are
persuaded that the curved, two-sided arrow of Adobe corresponds to the recited
rotation cursor.
Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in showing
that dependent claim 5 is obvious over Bruder and Adobe.
Case IPR2013-00248
Patent 6,326,978

43
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the information presented in
the petition establishes that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will
prevail in establishing unpatentability of claims 1-18 of the 978 patent.
The Board has not made a final determination on the patentability of any
challenged claims.
IV. ORDER
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 314, an inter partes review is
hereby instituted as to the following claims and grounds:
1. Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-14, 16, and 18 are unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Martinez and Capps;
2. Claims 5, 10, 15, and 17 are unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Martinez, Capps, and
Adobe;
3. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13-15 and 18 are unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. 102(e) as anticipated by Bruder;
4. Claims 3, 11, and 16 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
obvious over Bruder and Takano;
5. Claim 8 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over
Bruder and Kreegar; and
6. Claim 5 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over
Bruder and Adobe.
Case IPR2013-00248
Patent 6,326,978

44
FURTHER ORDERED that all other grounds raised in the petition are
denied because they are deficient for reasons discussed above.
FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 314(d) and 37 C.F.R.
42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial; the trial commences on
the entry date of this decision; and
FURTHER ORDERED that an initial conference call with the Board is
scheduled for 2:00 PM, Eastern Time on October 22, 2013; the parties are directed
to the Office Trial Practice Guide
2
for guidance in preparing for the initial
conference call, and should come prepared to discuss any proposed changes to the
Scheduling Order entered herewith and any motions the parties anticipate filing
during the trial.

2
Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48765-66 (Aug. 14,
2012).
Case IPR2013-00248
Patent 6,326,978

45
For PETITIONER:

David McCombs
Andrew S. Ehmke
Michael S. Parsons
Haynes and Boone, LLP
David.mccombs@haynesboone.com
andy.ehmke@haynesboone.com
michael.parsons@haynesboone.com

For PATENT OWNER:

Tarek Fahmi
Michael Davitz
Fahmi, Sellers, Embert & Davitz
tarek.fahmi@fseip.com
michael.davitz@fseip.com