Google Inc.v.Micrografx, LLC

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 17, 2015

09491065 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 17, 2015)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 37
Tel: 571.272.7822 Entered: June 17, 2015
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

GOOGLE INC.,
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
Petitioner,

v.

MICROGRAFX, LLC,
Patent Owner.

Case IPR2014-00533 (Patent 6,057,854) and
Case IPR2014-00534 (Patent 6,552,732 B1)

Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, RICHARD E. RICE, and
BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.

PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73

I. INTRODUCTION
A. Background
Google Inc., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung
Electronics Co., Ltd. (collectively “Petitioner”) filed related petitions for
IPR2014-00533 (Patent 6,057,854)
IPR2014-00534 (Patent 6,552,732 B1)
2
inter partes review of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,959,633;1 6,057,854 (“the ’854
Patent”); and 6,552,732 B1 (“the ’732 Patent”). See IPR2014-00533, Paper
5 (“Pet.”), 3; Amended Mandatory Notices of the Patent Owner pursuant to
37 C.F.R. § 42.8, 1 (Paper 9, “Am’d Man. Not.”). The ’854 Patent and the
’732 Patent have similar Specifications and Claims.2
The proceedings are summarized below.
Proceeding Patent Challenged Claims
IPR2014-00533 The ’854 Patent 1–3, 5, 7, 10–12, 14, 16, 19, 44, 54–
57, 59, 61–66, 68, 69, and 71
IPR2014-00534 The ’732 Patent 1–5, 8, 9, 12, 36, and 42

We instituted trial for all the challenged claims of the ’854 Patent and
the ’732 Patent based on the same single ground: that each of the challenged
claims is unpatentable, under 35 U.S.C. § 102, as anticipated by Pesce.3
Paper 11 (“Decision to Institute” or “Inst. Dec.”) 4 Given the similarities and
overlap in the ground of unpatentability, we, therefore, issue one Final
Written Decision for both IPR2014-00533 and IPR2014-00534.
After institution of trial, Micrografx, LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a
Patent Owner Response. Paper 22 (“PO Resp.”). Petitioner filed a Reply to
the Patent Owner Response. Paper 25 (“Pet. Reply”). A consolidated
hearing for IPR2014-00532, IPR2014-00533, and IPR2014-00534 was held

1 U.S. Patent No. 5,959,633 is challenged in IPR2014-00532, which involves
the same parties.
2 The ’732 Patent issued from a continuation of the application that issued as
the ’854 Patent. Compare IPR2014-00534 Ex. 1001 with IPR2014-00533
Ex. 1001.
3 MARK PESCE, VRML BROWSING AND BUILDING CYBERSPACE (New Riders
Publishing, 1995) (“Pesce,” Ex. 1004).
4 Unless otherwise noted, citations herein will be to IPR2014-00533.
IPR2014-00533 (Patent 6,057,854)
IPR2014-00534 (Patent 6,552,732 B1)
3
on May 18, 2015. The transcript of the consolidated hearing has been
entered into the record. Paper 37 (“Tr.”).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This Final Written
Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 328(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
For the reasons given, we conclude that Petitioner has shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims of the ’854 Patent
and the ’732 Patent are unpatentable.
B. Related Lawsuits
The parties represent that the ’854 Patent and the ’732 Patent are the
subject of Micrografx, LLC v. Google, Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-03595-N
(N.D. Tex.), and Micrografx, LLC v. Samsung Telecommunications
America, LLC, Case No. 3:13-cv-03599-N (N.D. Tex.). Pet. 3; Am’d Man.
Not. 1.
C. The ’854 Patent
The ’854 Patent is directed to interactive vector graphics. Ex.1001,
3:8–9. According to one embodiment of the invention, interactive vector
graphics are provided over a network. Id. at 3:6–10. Figure 2 is reproduced
below.
IPR2014-00533 (Patent 6,057,854)
IPR2014-00534 (Patent 6,552,732 B1)
4

Figure 2 of the ’854 patent illustrates server system 12
and client system 14 connected by network 16.
As shown in Figure 2, memory 24 of server system 12 stores web
page 28. Ex. 1001, 4:23–40. Web page 28 comprises vector graphics file
52. Id. at 4:47–48. Vector graphics file 52 comprises one or more vector
objects 56. Id. at 5:5–6. Vector object 56 comprises data 58, one or more
properties 60, and active area 62. Id. at 5:6–8.
Property 60 defines command 70 to be performed in response to event
72 within active area 62 of vector object 56. Ex. 1001, 5:14–16. Command
70 may be Jump, In Place Jump, Status Line, Cursor Shape, Object Color,
Object Text, Move Over, Hide Object, or Show Object. Id. at 5:17–20. The
Jump command instructs a browser to load and display a newly specified
URL. Id. at 5:20–21.
Active area 62 may conform to the image of vector object 56 or may
be defined by an upper, lower, central, exterior or other portion of vector
object 56. Ex. 1001, 5:50–57. An image may be made to respond to user-
initiated events and to perform specified actions. Id. at 2:24–25.
IPR2014-00533 (Patent 6,057,854)
IPR2014-00534 (Patent 6,552,732 B1)
5
Memory 84 of client system 14 stores vector graphics file 52 after it is
retrieved from server system 12 via network 16. Ex. 1001, 6:60–7:6. Vector
graphics file 92 is copied from vector graphics file 52. Id. at 7:19–21.
Vector graphics extension 100 includes rendering engine 101 that is
operable to read vector graphics file 92 and render images of vector objects
102. Id. at 7:30–34.
D. Illustrative Claim
Claims 1, 10, 44, 55, and 64 of the ’854 Patent are the independent
claims challenged by Petitioner. Each of claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 12, 14, 16, 19,
54, 56, 57, 59, 61–63, 65, 66, 68, 69, and 71 of the ’854 Patent depends,
directly or indirectly, from one of claims 1, 10, 44, 55, and 64.
Claims 1, 8, 36, and 42 are the independent claims of the ’732 Patent
challenged by Petitioner. Each of claims 2–5, 9, and 12 of the ’732 Patent
depends, directly or indirectly, from one of claims 1, 8, 36, and 42.
Claim 1 of the ’854 Patent and Claim 1 of the ’732 Patent are
illustrative. Claim 1 of the ’854 Patent is reproduced below (emphases
added):
1. An interactive vector object stored on a computer
readable medium and operable to be downloaded over a
network comprising:
data operable to be downloaded to a client system
connectable to the network and in connection with a vector
graphics network file to render an image of the vector object on
the client system;
an active area defined by the vector object; and
a property defining a command to be performed in
response to an event within the active area of the vector object.
IPR2014-00533 (Patent 6,057,854)
IPR2014-00534 (Patent 6,552,732 B1)
6
Claim 1 of the ’732 Patent is reproduced below (emphasis added):
1. An interactive vector object stored on a computer
readable medium and operable to be downloaded over a
network, the vector object comprising:
data operable to be downloaded to a client system
connectable to the network and, in connection with a vector
graphics network file, to render an image of the vector object on
the client system; and
an active area defined by the vector object; the active
area associated with a command to be performed in response to
an event therein.
II. ANALYSIS
A. Claim Construction
1. Legal Standard
As a step in our analysis, we determine the meaning of the claims for
purposes of this decision. 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); see also In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC., 778 F.3d
1271, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Congress implicitly adopted the broadest
reasonable interpretation standard in enacting the [America Invents Act
(Pub. L. No. 11229, 125 Stat. 284 (2011)) (‘AIA’)],” and “the standard was
properly adopted by [United States Patent and Trademark Office
(‘USPTO’)] regulation.”). Under the broadest reasonable construction
standard, 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) (quoting Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir.
2005) (en banc)).
IPR2014-00533 (Patent 6,057,854)
IPR2014-00534 (Patent 6,552,732 B1)
7
2. Decision to Institute
In the Decision to Institute, we determined the broadest reasonable
interpretation of terms construed by one of the parties. Inst. Dec. 7–13. Our
constructions are summarized below.
Claim Term Construction
“interactive vector object” “[A] computer software object that
includes at least a mathematic
description of a graphical image and
one definition so that the graphical
image responds to events.” Id. at 8.
“active area” “[A]n area in which an event is
recognized that initiates a
command.” Id. at 9.
“vector graphics network file” “[C]omputer software that connects
to a server over a network and
retrieves vector graphics files over
the network.” Id. at 10.
“vector graphics extension” “[C]omputer software that processes
vector graphics files.” Id.
“network application file” “[C]omputer software that connects
to and retrieves files over a
network.” Id. at 11.
“vector graphics file” “[A] file that comprises one or more
vector objects.” Id.
“property defining a command to be
performed in response to an event”
“[P]roperty defining an instruction to
be carried out by computer software
in response to a user.” Id. at 13.

Based on the record adduced during trial we see no reason to modify or
further address the above constructions with the exception of “interactive
vector object/vector object” and “property defining a command to be
performed in response to an event,” which are discussed below.
IPR2014-00533 (Patent 6,057,854)
IPR2014-00534 (Patent 6,552,732 B1)
8
3. “interactive vector object/vector object”
Patent Owner contends that the broadest reasonable interpretation of
“interactive vector object” is slightly different than the construction adopted
in the Decision to Institute. PO Resp. 11. In particular, Patent Owner
contends that the broadest reasonable interpretation is “a computer software
object that includes as fields or methods at least a mathematical description
of a graphical image and one definition so that the graphical image responds
to events.” Id. (emphasis added). Patent Owner also provides a construction
for the similar term “vector object.” Id. at 17. In particular, Patent Owner
contends that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “vector object” is “a
computer software object that includes as a field or method at least a
mathematical description of a graphical image.” Id. (emphasis added).
Patent Owner contends that its proposed interpretations are consistent with
the understanding of “those of skill in the art” and supports its contentions
with the Declaration of Mr. Garry Kitchen. PO Resp. 11 (citing
Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 47–48, 52–54).
Regarding “interactive vector object,” Petitioner contends “PO’s
attempt to redefine the Board’s construction should be rejected because it is
overly narrow and necessarily inconsistent with the claim language.” Pet.
Reply 2 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 5–6). Petitioner asserts that Mr. Kitchen’s
testimony is inconsistent with the claim language because “the ‘computer
software object,’ on which he based his claim construction analysis, must be
‘the compiled code’ and ‘an instantiation of a class.’” Id. at 2–3 (citing
Ex. 1011, 38:20–39:24). Petitioner points to the following claim recitation:
“[a]n interactive vector object . . . operable to be downloaded over a network
comprising: data operable to be downloaded to a client system.” Id. at 2.
IPR2014-00533 (Patent 6,057,854)
IPR2014-00534 (Patent 6,552,732 B1)
9
Regarding “vector object,” Petitioner similarly contends that Patent Owner
proposes too narrow an interpretation. Id. at 6. In particular, Petitioner
contends “[h]ere again, PO is relying upon an overly narrow construction-of-
a-construction to import a new requirement for a ‘field or method’ as the
mathematical description of the graphical image.” Id. (citing
Ex. 1012 ¶ 22).5
The parties’ dispute pertains to the proper interpretation of “a
computer software object” within our construction of “interactive vector
object.” The ’854 Patent and ’732 Patent Specifications do not define
“computer software object.” We, therefore, look to the dictionary
definitions provided by Patent Owner. The dictionary definitions of “object”
are useful in ascertaining the way in which one of ordinary skill in the art
would use these claim terms. Starhome GMBH v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 743
F.3d 849, 856–57 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
We note that at least two dictionary definitions do not include either
“fields” or “methods,” which are the terms that Patent Owner proposes to
add for clarification. PO Resp. 11. In particular, Patent Owner submits
dictionary definitions for “object” including the following: (1) “[a]n
encapsulation of data and services that manipulate that data” (PO Resp. 12
(citing THE IEEE STANDARD DICTIONARY OF ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS
TERMS 784–85 (Jane Radatz et al. eds., 6th ed. 1996) (Ex. 2003))) and
(2) “[i]n object oriented programming, a variable comprising both routines
and data that is treated as a discrete entity” (id. (citing MICROSOFT PRESS
COMPUTER DICTIONARY 337 (3d ed. 1997) (Ex. 2017))). We further note

5 During the hearing, Petitioner stated that an object has “data . . . [a]nd . . .
functionality associated with it.” Tr. 65:11–16.
IPR2014-00533 (Patent 6,057,854)
IPR2014-00534 (Patent 6,552,732 B1)
10
that Patent Owner provides a list of synonyms for “fields” and “methods,”
which includes the terms used in the dictionary definitions. Id. at 13; see
also Ex. 2002 ¶ 48 (Mr. Kitchen testifies “I note that synonyms such as
‘behaviors,’ ‘services,’ ‘procedures,’ ‘routines,’ and ‘functions’ are
sometimes used for my preferred term, ‘methods’ and synonyms such as
‘variables[,]’ attributes[,]’ and ‘state’ are sometimes used for my preferred
term ‘fields.’”). Although Mr. Kitchen describes “fields” and “methods,” as
his “preferred” terms, he does not explain persuasively the basis for his
preference, and he further states “[t]here is no substantive difference
between the concepts.” Ex. 2002 ¶ 48.6
In accordance with the ’854 Patent, the invention may operate in a
Windows operating system environment. Ex. 1001, 4:43–46. We, therefore,
look to the definition provided by the Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary
i.e., “[i]n object oriented programming, a variable comprising both routines
and data that is treated as a discrete entity.” Ex. 2017, 337. This dictionary
definition is consistent with the use of the term in the ’854 Patent and ’732
Patent Specifications. In particular, the ’854 Patent Specification states “an
interactive vector object operable to be downloaded over a network may
comprise data to render an image.” Ex. 1001, 1:44–46 (emphasis added).
The ’854 Patent Specification also states, “[t]he vector object may include a
property defining a command to be performed in response to an event.” Id.
at 1:56–57 (emphasis added).

6 Additionally, Patent Owner indicated agreement with substituting
synonyms it identified for “fields or methods” in its proposed construction.
Tr. 50:22–51:6.
IPR2014-00533 (Patent 6,057,854)
IPR2014-00534 (Patent 6,552,732 B1)
11
Although we look to the Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary, we
note that the ’854 Patent Specification indicates that the vector object should
not be limited to a particular implementation or operating system. For
example, the ’854 Patent Specification states, “another technical advantage
of the present invention includes providing device independent network
graphics.” Ex. 1001, 2:29–30; see also id. at 12:16–19 (“It is intended that
the present invention encompass such changes and modifications [to
embodiments described] as fall within the scope of the appended claims.”)
In the Decision to Institute, we determined that “interactive vector
object” means “a computer software object that includes at least a
mathematic description of a graphical image and one definition so that the
graphical image responds to events.” Inst. Dec. 8. We clarify our decision
by determining that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a computer
software object” is “a variable comprising both routines and data that is
treated as a discrete entity.” We further determine that “a computer software
object” may be implemented in various programming languages, and
routines are simply procedures or functions in that programming language
(see Ex. 2002 ¶ 48). Additionally, we determine that the broadest
reasonable interpretation of “vector object” is “a computer software object
that includes at least a mathematical description of a graphical image.”
Patent Owner, additionally, contends that it “proposes including the
reference to ‘fields or methods’ to preclude unreasonably broad applications
of the term ‘computer software object’ that would encompass multiple
separate and distinct computer software objects.” PO Resp. 11.7 Mr.

7 During the hearing, Patent Owner indicated “we don’t dispute that it’s
possible for one object to contain another object.” Tr. 52:15–16. Patent
IPR2014-00533 (Patent 6,057,854)
IPR2014-00534 (Patent 6,552,732 B1)
12
Kitchen testifies “[t]he meaning of ‘computer software object’ . . . is
captured in a broad range of technical dictionary definitions and papers” and
notes portions of various definitions and papers. Ex. 2002 ¶ 47 (citing Exs.
2003, Ex. 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023); see also
id. ¶ 53 (citing Ex. 2026). Petitioner disagrees and contends that Patent
Owner “and its expert conveniently fail to address the many instances where
those same exhibits describe ‘objects’ as including members that are defined
outside of the object itself, members that are other objects or pointers to
other objects, and members that are inherited from other objects.” Pet.
Reply 5 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 13–21; Ex. 1011, 43:21–45:13).
Consistent with Petitioner’s contentions, exhibits submitted by Patent
Owner describe that objects can include other objects. See e.g., Ex. 2021, 8
(“We can construct objects of other objects.”); see also Ex. 2026 (“some
objects, in turn, will also contain other objects.”) We, therefore, determine
that in accordance with the broadest reasonable interpretations above, a
computer software object can include or comprise another computer
software object.
4. “property defining a command to be performed in response
to an event” and “active area associated with a command to
be performed in response to an event”
Each of claims 1, 10, 44, and 64 of the ’854 Patent recites “a property
defining a command to be performed in response to an event.” Claim 1 of
the ’732 Patent recites “the active area associated with a command to be
performed in response to an event.” Patent Owner contends that the
construction of “a property defining a command to be performed in response

Owner, however, includes a condition in its statement. For the avoidance of
doubt, we address Patent Owner’s contention.
IPR2014-00533 (Patent 6,057,854)
IPR2014-00534 (Patent 6,552,732 B1)
13
to an event” in the Decision to Institute requires clarification. PO Resp. 16–
17. Patent Owner further contends that Pesce does not disclose an
“interactive vector object” or “vector object” containing the above-
referenced recitations, as further limited by certain dependent claims. See,
e.g., id. at 56. We consider Patent Owner’s request for slight clarification
and also determine the broadest reasonable interpretation of “property
defining” as recited in claims 1, 10, 44, and 64 of the ’854 Patent and
“associated” as recited in claim 1 of the ’732 Patent to evaluate Patent
Owner’s further contentions.
The ’854 Patent Specification does not provide a definition of
“property defining.” The IEEE Dictionary sets forth plain and ordinary
meanings of “property” as follows: “(1) [a] kind of responsibility that is an
inherent or distinctive characteristic or trait . . . (2) [a] documenting
characteristic.” INSTITUTE OF ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS,
THE AUTHORITATIVE DICTIONARY OF IEEE STANDARD TERMS 879 (7th ed.,
IEEE Press 2000) (emphasis added) (Ex. 3003). The IEEE Dictionary sets
forth a plain and ordinary meaning of “data definition” as follows: “[a]
description of the format, structure and properties of a data item, data
element, or data structure.” Id. at 270. These definitions are consistent with
the Specification, which provides an exemplary dialog box for defining a
property (Ex. 1001, 2:54–55) including a “Value” to be entered by a user for
describing a characteristic of the instructions to be performed, e.g.,
“StatusLine I am a star” and two names of events including
“OnMouseLeave,” and “OnMouseEnter” (id. at Fig. 4). The ’854 Patent
indicates that the value “StatusLine” causes processing of instructions to
display text in the browser status bar. Id. at 5:23–24. As illustrated in
IPR2014-00533 (Patent 6,057,854)
IPR2014-00534 (Patent 6,552,732 B1)
14
Figure 4 of the ’854 Patent, simply specifying the value, i.e., “StatusLine,” is
sufficient, without providing all instructions needed to display the text.
The ’732 Patent Specification does not provide a definition of
“associated.” The IEEE Dictionary sets forth a plain and ordinary meaning
of “association” as follows: “[i]n data management, a relationship
established in a data model to represent a connection between entities that is
not reflected solely by the attributes inherent in the entities.” THE
AUTHORITATIVE DICTIONARY OF IEEE STANDARD TERMS 56 (emphasis
added). This definition is consistent with the Specification, which includes
the above-referenced example of a dialog box used to establish a relationship
between an image and a command. IPR2014-00534, Ex. 1001, Fig. 4.
Regarding Patent Owner’s proposed clarification, Patent Owner
contends that “user” should be replaced with “user action” for clarity. PO
Resp. 17. The Specification of the ’854 patent provides examples of events
that initiate a command including, “On Mouse Enter, On Mouse Leave,”
“On Mouse Down,” “On Mouse Up,” and “On Load.” Ex. 1001, 5:36–37.
The first four of these exemplary events is initiated in response to a user’s
interaction with a mouse. Id. at 5:37–46. The “On-Load” event “may be
initiated when the vector graphics file 52 containing the vector object 56 is
open.” Id. at 5:46–48.
Accordingly, we determine that the broadest reasonable interpretation
of “property defining a command to be performed in response to an event” is
“characteristic describing an instruction to be carried out by computer
software in response to a user action.” We further determine that the
property may be specified by a simple value that describes the command,
e.g., “StatusLine” (Ex. 1001, Fig. 4), and need not provide all instructions to
IPR2014-00533 (Patent 6,057,854)
IPR2014-00534 (Patent 6,552,732 B1)
15
execute the command, e.g., to display the text. Additionally, we determine
that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “the active area associated with
a command to be performed in response to an event” is “the active area is
related to an instruction to be carried out by computer software in response
to a user action.”
B. Anticipation by Pesce
For the reasons given below, after consideration of the Petition, the
arguments in the Patent Owner Response, and the evidence cited therein, we
conclude that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
each of the challenged claims of the ’854 Patent and the ’732 Patent is
unpatentable as anticipated by Pesce.
1. Pesce
Pesce describes Virtual Reality Modeling Language (VRML).
Ex. 1004, xxv. VRML is a language for specifying aspects of virtual world
display, interaction, and internetworking. Id. at 331. The virtual worlds are
networked via the Internet and hyperlinked with the World Wide Web. Id.
The first step in viewing a VRML document is retrieving the
document. Ex. 1004, 46. Pesce describes a VRML browser that sends a
request for the document to a Web Server. Id. Figure 11.1 of Pesce is
reproduced below.
IPR2014-00533 (Patent 6,057,854)
IPR2014-00534 (Patent 6,552,732 B1)
16

Figure 11.1 illustrates the architecture
of a prototypical VRML browser.

As illustrated in Figure 11.1, the VRML browser provides interactive
graphics. Ex. 1004, 277. The Web server that receives the request for the
VRML document attempts to fulfill the request with a reply. Id. at 46. The
reply is sent back to the VRML browser. Id. After the document has been
received by the VRML browser, it is parsed. Id. Then a renderer uses the
parsed description to create visible representations of the objects described
in the VRML document and displays them. Id. at 46–47.
The objects in a VRML document are known as nodes. Ex. 1004,
105. A node has a type and one or more fields. Id. at 106. Exemplary node
types include Sphere, Cube, WWWInline, and Separator. Id. Fields are
places for a node to store information specific to itself. Id. For example, a
sphere node has a radius field, which supplies a value for the radius of the
Sphere. Id. The entire list of nodes in the VRML document is a scene
graph. Id.
2. Petitioner’s Contentions
We have reviewed Petitioner’s anticipation contentions, supporting
evidence, including the Declaration of Dr. Anselmo Lastra (Ex. 1003), and
IPR2014-00533 (Patent 6,057,854)
IPR2014-00534 (Patent 6,552,732 B1)
17
the detailed claim charts, which read all elements of the challenged claims of
the ’854 Patent onto Pesce. For instance, Petitioner asserts that Pesce
discloses “data operable to be downloaded to a client system . . . to render
an image,” as recited in some of the challenged claims, by describing the
operation of the VRML browser. See e.g., Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1004, 46–47;
Ex. 1003 ¶ 33). Pesce describes a Web server fulfilling a request with a
VRML document. Ex. 1004, 46. According to Pesce, the received VRML
document is parsed and then a renderer creates visible representations of the
objects described in the document and displays them. Ex. 1004, 46–47.
Petitioner additionally asserts that Pesce discloses the “active area
defined by the vector object,” as recited in the challenged claims, by
describing linking the Sun object to a WWWAnchor node. See e.g., Pet. 23
(citing Ex. 1004, 117–18, 120; Ex.1003 ¶ 35). Pesce describes linking the
Sun object to www.w3.org using the WWWAnchor group node. Ex. 1004,
117–18. Pesce also describes that a VRML browser indicates to a user that
the Sun object is linked by displaying the Sun object in bright orange when
the cursor is over it. Id. at 120.
Petitioner further asserts that Pesce discloses the vector object
comprising a “property,” as recited in some of the challenged claims, by
describing linking objects to the World Wide Web, for example, by
specifying a URL to be linked to the WWWAnchor node in a name field.
Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1004, 117; Ex. 1003 ¶ 36). For the reasons given in the
Decision to Institute, we determine that a “command” is an “instruction to be
carried out by computer software.” Inst. Dec. 12–13. As we noted in the
Decision to Institute, our determination is based in part on exemplary
commands provided in the ’854 Patent Specification including, “Jump.” Id.
IPR2014-00533 (Patent 6,057,854)
IPR2014-00534 (Patent 6,552,732 B1)
18
The “Jump” command “may instruct a browser to load and display a newly
specified URL.” Ex. 1001, 5:19–21. Pesce explains that if a user clicks on
the Sun, a message will be sent to go to the page http://www.w3.org/. Ex.
1004, 120.
Petitioner additionally specifies where other recited features of the
independent claims and the recited features of each of the challenged
dependent claims can be found in Pesce. Pet. 13–15, 21–37; IPR2014-
00534 Pet. 11–13, 15–26. For example, Petitioner asserts that Pesce
discloses a command operable to alter the image of the vector object, as
recited in claims 5, 14, and 69 of the ’854 Patent, by describing linked
objects turning orange when a mouse is put over them and using a right
mouse button for object manipulation. Pet. 25, 29, 37 (citing Ex. 1004, 68,
78; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 41, 47, 61). Petitioner further asserts that Pesce discloses a
command operable to recolor the image of the vector object, as recited in
claims 7, 16, and 71 of the ’854 Patent, by describing linked objects turning
orange when a mouse is put over them. Pet. 25, 29–30, 37 (citing Ex. 1004,
68, 120; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 42, 47, 61).
3. Patent Owner’s contentions regarding “interactive vector
object”
Patent Owner contends that Pesce cannot anticipate any of the
challenged claims because “it does not disclose an ‘interactive vector
object’ or ‘vector object’ that contains all of the claim elements.” PO
Resp. 26. Patent Owner specifically refers to a requirement that the
computer software object “include[s] at least vector graphics data (i.e., ‘a
mathematical description of a graphical image’) and one definition so that
the graphical image responds to events.” Id. at 26. Patent Owner states
IPR2014-00533 (Patent 6,057,854)
IPR2014-00534 (Patent 6,552,732 B1)
19
“[w]hile not all claims use exactly the same language, this requirement is
part of each claim.” Id. at 26–27; see also IPR2014-00534 PO Resp. 26–27
(Patent Owner makes the same assertion regarding the challenged claims of
the ’732 Patent).
For the reasons given above, we determine that each of “interactive
vector object” and “vector object” is “a computer software object that
includes” particular data. We also determine that the broadest reasonable
interpretation of “a computer software object” is “a variable comprising both
routines and data that is treated as a discrete entity.”
Patent Owner’s contention (PO Resp. 29) relates to Petitioner’s
identification of a group node, referred to as “WWWAnchor” (Pet. 21–24).
We first consider whether WWWAnchor is a variable comprising both
routines and data. Pesce states that “WWWAnchor has . . . the name field[,
which] specifies the URL of the anchor.” Ex. 1004, 117. Additionally,
Pesce indicates that WWWAnchor comprises additional data i.e., “all nodes
within WWWAnchor node are anchored to the same Uniform Resource
Locator (URL) within the Web.” Id. (emphasis added). Furthermore, Pesce
uses the terms “node” and “object” interchangeably stating, “[a] VRML
document consists of a list of objects, known as nodes.” Id. at 105
(emphasis added). Pesce also indicates that WWWAnchor is a variable by
stating “[y]ou can create an anchor to anything in the Web.” Id.
Patent Owner contends that “WWWAnchor cannot by itself
anticipate, and . . . the combination of it and a shape node does not
anticipate either.” PO Resp. 33. Patent Owner contends that WWWAnchor
“does not by itself include vector graphics data.” Id. at 34–35 (citing Ex.
1004, 117, 120–22; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 101–115). Patent Owner’s contention
IPR2014-00533 (Patent 6,057,854)
IPR2014-00534 (Patent 6,552,732 B1)
20
pertains to whether the mathematical description of a graphical image is
included in the computer software object.
We, therefore, turn to the question of whether WWWAnchor includes
a mathematical description of a graphical image. As noted above,
WWWAnchor is “a group” node or object. Ex. 1004, 117. Pesce states that
“all of the nodes within the WWWAnchor node are anchored to the same
Uniform Resource Locator (URL) within the Web.” Id. (emphasis added).
Pesce also states, “we’ll create a WWWAnchor node that contains only the
Sphere node used to define the Sun.” Id. at 118 (emphasis added). In the
exemplary code in Pesce, following the definition of the URL for
WWWAnchor, the comments indicate “Inside the anchor, because
WWWAnchor is a group node.” Id. (emphasis added). Immediately
following this comment is “Sphere {radius 10 #Big Sun}.” Id. at 119.
Patent Owner acknowledges that shape nodes, such as the Sphere node
“clear the first hurdle contained in the constructions of ‘interactive vector
object’ and ‘vector object’ . . . [i.e.,] at least a mathematical description of a
graphical image.” PO Resp. 30.
Patent Owner contends, however, that the example above “does not
anticipate the challenged claims because writing a Sphere node within the
braces of the WWWAnchor group node in VRML does not yield a single
computer software object containing all of the elements as recited in the
claims.” PO Resp. 41–42. Contrary to Patent Owner’s contention, in the
portions of Pesce cited by Petitioner, Pesce describes the relationship
between WWWAnchor and the Sphere node used to define the sun using the
following terms: “within” (Ex. 1004, 117), “contains” (id. at 118), and
“[i]nside” (id. at 118–19). Patent Owner refers to a sentence of Pesce
IPR2014-00533 (Patent 6,057,854)
IPR2014-00534 (Patent 6,552,732 B1)
21
describing that a radius is specific to a Sphere node (PO Resp. 42), but as
described in Pesce the Sphere node, i.e., the Sun, is included within
WWWAnchor.
Patent Owner additionally contends, “[t]hose of skill in the art
understand that the contents of a computer software object include its fields
and its methods, and limiting the boundaries of an object to only what falls
within one of those categories is essential to recognizing the discrete and
self-contained nature of computer software objects.” PO Resp. 47 (citing
Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 47–48, 51–56, 111–112; supra at 11–15). We, therefore, turn to
the requirement that a computer software object be treated as a discrete
entity. In the example above, because the Sun is written “[i]nside the
anchor” (Ex. 1004, 118–19), “[i]f you click on the Sun in WebSpace, it will
send a message to the HTML browser to go to the page http://www.w3.org/”
(id. at 120). As a result, “WWWAnchor node that contains . . . the Sphere
node used to define the Sun” (id. at 118) is treated as a discrete entity.
Patent Owner additionally points to a default file format for
WWWAnchor. PO Resp. 35. Patent Owner contends “as Mr. Kitchen
explains in his declaration, one can write a VRML document that includes a
WWWAnchor group node without any shape nodes inside its braces.” PO
Resp. 36 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶ 131). Regardless of whether a default format
requires inclusion of a Sphere node, Petitioner has pointed to the description
in Pesce of a WWWAnchor node that contains a Sphere node. Pet. 23
(citing Ex. 1004, 118). That Mr. Kitchen can write alternate code does not
negate the exemplary code in Pesce in which a WWWAnchor node
“contains” the Sphere node (Ex. 1004, 118).
IPR2014-00533 (Patent 6,057,854)
IPR2014-00534 (Patent 6,552,732 B1)
22
For the reasons given, we determine that Petitioner has shown, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that Pesce discloses “interactive vector
object,” “vector object,” and similar recitations identified by Patent Owner
(PO Resp. 28–29) in the challenged claims.
4. Patent Owner’s contentions regarding “a property”
Patent Owner additionally contends “the Petition never identifies a
‘computer software object’ for which WWWAnchor is a ‘property.’” PO
Resp. 34. As Patent Owner acknowledges, the Petition states “[t]he
‘WWWAnchor node that anchors another node to a URL’ corresponds to
the claimed ‘property.’” Id. (citing Pet. 24). Patent Owner, however,
contends that the mapping in the Decision to Institute is “substantially
different” from that in the Petition. Id.
Each of claims 1, 10, 44, and 64 of the ’854 Patent recites “a property
defining a command to be performed in response to an event within the
active area of the vector object.” The challenged claims of the ’732 Patent
do not recite “a property.” The excerpt of the claim chart in the Petition
corresponding to the disputed element is reproduced below.
IPR2014-00533 (Patent 6,057,854)
IPR2014-00534 (Patent 6,552,732 B1)
23
Pesce discloses that the interactive vector object includes a
property defining the command to be performed in response to
the event within the active area of the vector object.
(GOOGLE1003 at ¶ 36). For example, Pesce discloses that
“nodes within the WWWAnchor node are anchored to the
same Uniform Resource Locator (URL) within the Web.”
(GOOGLE1004 at p. 117). “WWWAnchor has a number of
fields, the most important of which is the name field. It
specifies the URL of the anchor.” (Id.). Pesce provides an
example of a portion of a VRML document for linking the Sun
to www.w3.org, as shown below:

(Id. at p. 118-119). The “WWWAnchor node that anchors
another node to a URL” corresponds to the claimed “property.”
(GOOGLE1003 at ¶ 36).
Pet. 23–24.
Petitioner identifies the field within WWWAnchor that specifies the
URL of the anchor and includes an excerpt of code from Pesce that links
WWWAnchor to the root URL of the Web. Id. (citing Ex. 1004, 117–119).
Pesce describes that if a user clicks on the Sun, a message will be sent to go
to the page http://www.w3.org. Ex. 1004, 120. We, therefore, determine
that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence in the
Petition, that Pesce discloses the property recited in claims 1, 10, 44, and 64.
IPR2014-00533 (Patent 6,057,854)
IPR2014-00534 (Patent 6,552,732 B1)
24
5. Patent Owner’s contentions regarding “location of the
vector object”
Patent Owner provides further contentions regarding “the data further
comprising . . . a location of the vector object,” as recited in claims 3, 12,
and 57 of the ’854 Patent, and commensurately recited in claim 66 of the
’854 Patent and claims 3 and 4 of the ’732 Patent. Petitioner points to
portions of Pesce describing the “Transform node.” Pet. 25 (citing
Ex. 1004, 111). In the example referred to by Petitioner, Pesce states “[t]he
Transform node changes the position, orientation, size, and center of any
nodes that follow it in a group.” Ex. 1004, 11.
Patent Owner’s contentions are similar to those discussed above with
respect to “interactive vector object.” Specifically, Patent Owner contends
“Petitioners call on a separate object (Transform),” without persuasively
discussing disclosure in Pesce identified by Petitioner. PO Resp. 53–56.
For the reasons discussed above with respect to “interactive vector object”
and similar limitations, we are not persuaded.
Patent Owner also relies on testimony by Petitioner’s Declarant, Dr.
Lastra, regarding a snippet of code (Ex. 2012) that Patent Owner showed Dr.
Lastra during his deposition. PO Resp. 55–56. Patent Owner’s snippet of
code, however, is not the same as the disclosure pointed to by Petitioner. As
disclosed by Pesce, instructions executed by code depend on other code:
“[a]ny nodes within a group node all adopt the group node’s frame of
reference. The Separator node, at its essence, tells us when and where a
frame of reference exists.” Ex. 1004, 111. The snippet of code relied on by
Patent Owner (Ex. 2012) is not the same as the code Petitioner points to in
Pesce because it does not include, for example, the Sphere node used to
define the Sun, with a radius of 10 (Ex. 1004, 119). Transform is used to
IPR2014-00533 (Patent 6,057,854)
IPR2014-00534 (Patent 6,552,732 B1)
25
position the node defining the Earth with respect to the node defining the
Sun, in the example described in Pesce. Id. at 111. As a result, we are not
persuaded by Patent Owner’s contentions pertaining to Dr. Lastra’s
testimony.
For the reasons given, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that Pesce discloses “the data further
comprising . . . a location of the vector object,” as recited in claims 3, 12,
and 57 of the ’854 Patent, and commensurately recited in claim 66 of the
’854 Patent and claims 3 and 4 of the ’732 Patent.
6. Patent Owner’s contentions regarding “operable to alter an
image” and “operable to recolor the image”
Patent Owner also provides further contentions regarding “the
command operable to alter the image of the vector object on the client
system,” as recited in claims 5 and 14 of the ’854 Patent and claim 5 of the
’732 Patent, and as commensurately recited in claim 69 of the ’854 Patent
and “operable to recolor the image,” as recited in claims 7 and 16, and as
commensurately recited in claim 71 of the ’854 Patent. For these
limitations, Petitioner points to Pesce’s description that “linked objects turn
orange when the mouse is put over them.” Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1004, 68). For
example, “Try this [place cursor over it] with example eight—you’ll see the
Sun turn orange!” Ex. 1004, 120.
Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s analysis is flawed because
“any response to a user placing the cursor over the image is defined by the
VRML browser and not by the vector object, as the claims require.” PO
Resp. 57. For the reasons discussed above with respect to claim
construction, we determine that the property may be specified by a simple
IPR2014-00533 (Patent 6,057,854)
IPR2014-00534 (Patent 6,552,732 B1)
26
value that describes the command, e.g., “StatusLine,” in the ’854 Patent
Specification (Ex. 1001, Fig. 4), and need not provide all instructions to
execute the command, e.g., to display the text. Accordingly, that the
browser software includes certain instructions that effect the display does
not negate the disclosure in Pesce of “an interactive vector object” or “vector
object” comprising “a property” discussed above.
Additionally, because Pesce describes “to link our Sun—and just our
Sun—into the Web, we’ll create a WWWAnchor node that contains only
the Sphere node used to define the Sun” (Ex. 1004, 118), we determine that
Pesce discloses the association recited in claim 1, i.e., the link. Accordingly,
we determine that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence,
that Pesce discloses “the command operable to alter the image of the vector
object on the client system,” as recited in claims 5 and 14 of the ’854 Patent
and claim 5 of the ’732 Patent, and as commensurately recited in claim 69 of
the ’854 Patent and “operable to recolor the image,” as recited in claims 7
and 16, and as commensurately recited in claim 71 of the ’854 Patent.
7. Conclusion
For the reasons given, we conclude that Petitioner has shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims of the ’854 Patent
and the ’732 Patent are anticipated by Pesce.
III. CONCLUSION
We conclude that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of
the evidence that claims 1–3, 5, 7, 10–12, 14, 16, 19, 44, 54–57, 59, 61–66,
68, 69, and 71 of the ’854 Patent and claims 1–5, 8, 9, 12, 36, and 42 of the
’732 Patent are unpatentable, under 35 U.S.C. § 102, as anticipated by
IPR2014-00533 (Patent 6,057,854)
IPR2014-00534 (Patent 6,552,732 B1)
27
Pesce. This is a Final Written Decision of the Board under
35 U.S.C. § 318(a).
IV. ORDER
For the reasons given, it is:
ORDERED that claims 1–3, 5, 7, 10–12, 14, 16, 19, 44, 54–57, 59,
61–66, 68, 69, and 71 of U.S. Patent No. 6,057,854 are determined by a
preponderance of the evidence to be unpatentable;
FURTHER ORDERED that claims 1–5, 8, 9, 12, 36, and 42 of U.S.
Patent No. 6,552,732 are determined by a preponderance of the evidence to
be unpatentable; and
FURTHER ORDERED, because this is a Final Written Decision,
parties to the proceedings seeking judicial review of the decision must
comply with the notice and service requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.

IPR2014-00533 (Patent 6,057,854)
IPR2014-00534 (Patent 6,552,732 B1)
28
PETITIONER:
Michael T. Hawkins
John C. Phillips
Kim H. Leung
Patrick J. Bisenius
FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C.
IPR19473-0310IP1@fr.com
hawkins@fr.com
phillips@fr.com
leung@fr.com
bisenius@fr.com

PATENT OWNER:

Douglas Wilson
Michael Heim
Nathan Davis
HEIM, PAYNE & CHORUSH, L.L.P
dwilson@hpcllp.com
mheim@hpcllp.com
ndavis@hpcllp.com