I'll search for this specific patent number in the USPTO database and CAFC dockets.

The initial searches returned no results. Let me try alternative query phrasings.

I've reached the search step limit, so I'll now synthesize the available information. Here is my analyst summary, based primarily on the authoritative full patent text provided (Google Patents record for US10943058B2), cross-checked against the live search results I obtained.

US Patent 10943058 — Analyst Summary

Important caveat on sources: My live web searches did not return a direct USPTO PatentCenter record or any CAFC 2026 docket entry for this patent number. One search returned an unrelated document for a different patent (USPN 8,658,430 B2, a microfluidics patent — not this patent; I am excluding it). Google Patents search results did confirm the family records for application US14/480,701 → US10943058B2. I could not verify any CAFC 2026 appeal proceeding for this patent; the searches returned no such docket. Treat the litigation/post-grant information below as derived from the patent's legal-events/status metadata, not from a CAFC docket.

Bibliographic Data

Post-grant activity (from patent metadata):

• Inter partes review IPR2025-00857 filed by [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.) (petitioner) — status "Pending (Instituted)."
• A request for reexamination was filed (recorded 2026-04-14, effective 2026-02-10).
• District court litigation in the Texas Western District Court: cases 6:24-cv-00304 and 6:24-cv-00305.

Abstract

"A communication device and method for selectively accessing remote sources of information and services on the Web through a communication network."

Plain-Language Overview of the Independent Claims

There are four independent claims: 1, 21, 24, and 27. All four were amended during prosecution to require that the device be a mobile phone.

Claim 1 (Apparatus — mobile phone): An apparatus (implemented in a mobile phone) that stores, locally on the device, multiple "selection pages" arranged in a tree-menu structure. Each page contains icons, which are either "direct access" icons (jump straight to a remote Web site) or "selection" icons (open another locally stored page). The pages are arranged in a chain: a first page links to a second page, the second links to a third, and the third contains direct-access icons for Web sites. At least one page includes a direct-access icon for a Web search engine. The device lets the user do a preliminary, purely local search through themes/sub-themes, and only when a direct-access icon is selected does it emit the Web site's address over the network — an address that was locally generated during the local browsing.

Claim 21 (Communication device — mobile phone): A device with locally stored pages where: the first page has a selection icon that displays a second page; the second page has both (a) a direct-access icon connecting to a predetermined remote source and (b) a second selection icon that displays a third page. At least one of the pages has an icon for directly accessing a search engine, and at least one page has both an icon for directly accessing a Web-site portal and an icon for directly accessing a specific document provided by that Web site. The device is a mobile phone.

Claim 24 (Mobile communication device — mobile phone): A three-level structure in which: the first page mixes a direct-access icon (to a first remote source) and a selection icon (to a second page); the second page mixes a second direct-access icon (to a second remote source) and a second selection icon (to a third page); and the third page has either a third direct-access icon (to a third remote source) or a third selection icon (to a fourth page). The device is a mobile phone.

Claim 27 (Method — mobile phone): A method performed on a mobile phone in which the user conducts a preliminary, fully local search through a tree of locally stored selection pages (first page → second page → third page, with the third page carrying direct-access icons). In response to selecting a direct-access icon, the device emits over the network the address of the corresponding Web site — an address locally generated during the display/selection process. At least one selection page includes an icon for directly accessing a search engine.

Key Technical Themes

• Local tree navigation before any network request: The selection pages are stored locally (e.g., hard disk, CD-ROM), so the user browses themes/sub-themes ("SPORT" → "COLLECTIVE SPORTS" → basket-ball page) with no network delay; only a single, final request is emitted to the Web (the specification emphasizes reducing "request-answer" delays).
• Two distinct icon types with distinguishing graphics: direct-access icons (may reproduce merchant/institutional logos; lead to emitting an address) vs. selection icons (thematic titles; lead to another local page).
• Extras: icons for search engines, language selection via flags, updating of stored pages by downloading from a management server, and integration into terminals, office equipment, PDAs, and mobile phones.

Uncertainty Notes

1. CAFC 2026 docket: No CAFC 2026 docket for this patent was found in my searches; I cannot confirm or deny an appeal. The patent's own metadata shows an IPR (IPR2025-00857) and a reexamination request, but nothing from the CAFC.
2. Assignee: Google Patents lists "Individual" as both original and current assignee; I did not independently verify assignment records at USPTO.
3. Exact claim text: The independent-claim summaries above are paraphrases of the granted claims as provided in the full patent text; if you need the verbatim claim language, it is reproduced in full in the source text.
4. The USPTO's authoritative record (PatentCenter/PAIR) was not directly retrievable in my searches; the Google Patents record provided in the prompt was treated as authoritative per the operating rules.

I'll research litigation involving US Patent 10,943,058. Let me search multiple sources.

Let me dig deeper into the specific district court cases and the PTAB proceeding.

Based on my searches, I can confirm the following litigation involving U.S. Patent 10,943,058 (the "'058 patent"). Note: I reached the search-step limit before I could fully verify every docket detail, so I flag confidence levels below.

Confirmed litigation

1. Ferid Allani v. [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.) — W.D. Tex. (Waco Division)

• Case No.: 6:24-cv-00304-ADA (WDTX)
• Plaintiff(s): Ferid Allani (filings also reference Allani.com, Inc.)
• Defendant(s): Apple Inc.
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco Division
• Filed: June 3, 2024
• Judge: Alan D. Albright
• Status: Active as of the most recent docket data I could retrieve (mid-2025). The case had progressed through service (Apple served June 28, 2024), discovery (interrogatories, requests for production exchanged in mid-2025), a scheduling order (Dkt. 18), and claim-construction briefing (opening/responsive/reply/surreply Markman briefs, Dkts. 21, 23–25), plus service of Plaintiff's Preliminary Infringement Contentions. No final judgment, settlement, or dismissal was visible in the retrieved records.
• Sources: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txwdce/6:2024cv00304/1172790187 ; IPR petition exhibits at https://ptacts.uspto.gov (petitions 1557729/1557730) confirming the case number and pleadings.

2. Second W.D. Tex. case — Case No. 6:24-cv-00305

• Google Patents' litigation metadata (Darts-IP / Unified Patents data) lists a second U.S. case in the Texas Western District Court for this patent: 6:24-cv-00305 (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Western%20District%20Court/case/6%3A24-cv-00305).
• Caveat: I could not independently verify the parties, filing date, or current status of this docket from my available search results. Given the identical district and adjacent case number filed the same day as Allani v. Apple (6:24-cv-00304), it is plausibly a related Allani action (possibly involving the related parent patent, U.S. 8,271,877), but I cannot confirm this with confidence — treat the specifics as unverified.

3. IPR2025-00857 — Apple Inc. v. Ferid Allani (PTAB)

• Tribunal: Patent Trial and Appeal Board
• Petitioner: Apple Inc.
• Patent Owner: Ferid Allani
• Filed: April 24, 2025 (USPTO effective date per the patent's legal-events record; IPR entry recorded June 17, 2025)
• Status: Instituted/pending per the patent's metadata ("PTAB case IPR2025-00857 filed (Pending - Instituted)"). The petition challenges claims 1, 2, 4–6, 10–23, 25, and 27 as obvious over combinations of Rossmann (U.S. 6,119,155), Himmel (U.S. 6,037,934), King (U.S. 6,353,839), and Adar (U.S. 6,493,702) — e.g., Ground 1 (claims 24–26: Rossmann + Himmel), Ground 2 (claims 1, 2, 4–6, 10–23, 27: Rossmann + Himmel + King), Ground 3 (claims 1, 2, 4–6, 10–23, 25, 27: Rossmann + Himmel + King + Adar).
• Sources: https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00857/apple-inc-v-allani-ferid ; https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00857/doc/1005 ; patent legal-events record.

Related patent-status events (context, not litigation)

• The '058 patent expired for failure to pay maintenance fees effective March 9, 2025 (lapse recorded April 14, 2025; "Expired - Fee Related").
• A request for reexamination was filed (recorded April 14, 2026, effective February 10, 2026) per the patent's legal-events history.
• The Google Patents record also flags "First worldwide family litigation filed" with Darts-IP family ID 9554013, which covers the broader Allani patent family.

Bottom line

Known litigation involving U.S. Patent 10,943,058: (1) Allani v. Apple Inc., 6:24-cv-00304-ADA (W.D. Tex., filed June 3, 2024, active); (2) a second WDTX case, 6:24-cv-00305, whose parties/status I could not verify; and (3) IPR2025-00857 (Apple Inc. v. Allani), instituted and pending at the PTAB. I found no other district-court or ITC cases naming the '058 patent in my searches, though I could not exhaustively search PACER, so additional matters may exist.

Proceedings overview

There is one AIA trial proceeding on US 10,943,058: IPR2025-00857 ([Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.) v. Ferid Allani), which per the canonical USPTO Open Data Portal list has reached Final Written Decision status (docket last modified 2026-08-25). There are no active proceedings, no settled proceedings, and no institution-denied petitions. Bottom line for a defendant: the patent is already dead or severely wounded independent of the IPR — it lapsed for non-payment of maintenance fees (effective 2025-03-09), its French counterpart (FR 2 803 929) was invalidated by the Paris Judicial Court in January 2023, and Apple's IPR has now run through trial to a Final Written Decision. The single most important unknown is the FWD's claim-level verdict, which was issued only days ago and whose text I could not retrieve in this analysis — pull it from PTAB E2E before making any representation to a court.

IPR2025-00857 — Apple Inc. v. Allani, Ferid

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-04-24
• Status: Final Written Decision (verbatim from the structured data) — plain-English gloss: the Board has entered its merits decision on patentability; the appeal window (63 days) is now running.
• Judge panel: Brian P. Murphy, Jameson Lee, and Jeffrey S. Smith are listed as the Administrative Patent Judges on the case (per the ai-lab.exparte.com case record — confirm against the institution decision/FWD, which I could not retrieve).
• Petition grounds (all § 103 obviousness; all 27 claims challenged across the four grounds):
  • Ground 1: claims 24–26 obvious over Rossmann (US 6,119,155) + Himmel (US 6,037,934);
  • Ground 2: claims 1, 2, 4–6, 10–23, 27 obvious over Rossmann + Himmel + King (US 6,353,839) (King for "locally generated" addresses);
  • Ground 3: claims 1, 2, 4–6, 10–23, 25, 27 obvious over Rossmann + Himmel + King + Adar (US 6,493,702) (Adar for the "search engine" icon limitation);
  • Ground 4 (per the Patent Owner Response): claims 3, 7–9 obvious over Rossmann + Himmel + King + Boyle, or alternatively + Adar + Boyle (Boyle for the updating/management-server limitation).
  • Apple's theory throughout: Rossmann's HDML "decks/cards" cached on a mobile device are the claimed locally stored tree-menu "selection pages," Himmel's bookmark sets supply "direct access icons," and King/Adar/Boyle fill the residual limitations.
• Institution decision: Not retrieved in this analysis. The case necessarily was instituted (at least in part) because it proceeded to a Final Written Decision; the institution decision would have issued roughly August–October 2025, with the FWD due within the statutory 12-month trial period (35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11)) — consistent with the 2026-08-25 docket date. Apple opposed the Patent Owner's request for discretionary (Fintiv) denial, pointing to its "broadened Sotera+ stipulation" in the parallel WDTX case. Verify the institution paper's scope (which grounds/claims were instituted) on PTAB E2E.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Issued — the docket status confirms a FWD as of 2026-08-25 — but I could not retrieve the FWD's text or its claim-level outcome from the sources available to me, and I will not guess. The available record shows the Patent Owner's Response vigorously defending patentability on all grounds (arguing Rossmann teaches only on-demand caching, not pages "beforehand locally stored"; Himmel's bookmarks are access-control gatekeepers, not "direct access icons"; King does not teach device-side generation; and no motivation to combine), and Apple's Reply pressing the examiner-error/French-invalidity narrative. Until you read the FWD, do not represent to anyone that claims were canceled or sustained.
• Settlement / termination: None indicated; the case ran to a merits decision.
• Appeal: None identified as of 2026-08-26. The FWD just issued, so Apple (if it lost) or Allani (if Apple won) has until roughly 2026-10-27 (63 days) to appeal to the Federal Circuit. Check CourtListener / the CAFC docket before that deadline passes.
• Defensive value: This proceeding is the centerpiece of Apple's validity attack and reached a merits decision, but its value to you depends entirely on the FWD's verdict — check it first. Independently of the FWD, the IPR record is a goldmine of admitted invalidity themes (HDML standards + bookmarking prior art; the French court's invalidation of the counterpart claims; the patent's never-commercialized, quickly-expired life).

Strategic summary

Claims: CANCELED vs. SUSTAINED vs. UNTESTED. All 27 claims of the '058 patent were challenged in IPR2025-00857 (Grounds 1–4 collectively cover claims 1–27), so no claim is "untested." Whether any claims are now canceled or were sustained is the one fact I could not confirm: the FWD has issued (docket status), but its text was not retrievable in this analysis. Separately, the patent is expired — USPTO legal events show a lapse for failure to pay maintenance fees effective 2025-03-09 (recorded 2025-04-14), while Google Patents lists an "adjusted expiration" of 2021-07-27 and Apple's IPR papers assert the patent expired 2021-07-27, four months after grant. Those dates are facially inconsistent; resolve them, because they define the outer boundary of any damages window. Either way, there is no prospective relief available against any defendant.

Estoppel landscape (35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2)). Now that the FWD has issued, Apple — and parties in privity with Apple — are estopped in the WDTX litigation (and before the ITC) from asserting any ground that Apple raised or reasonably could have raised in the IPR. That means Apple cannot re-litigate the Rossmann/Himmel/King/Adar/Boyle obviousness combinations. If you are not Apple or a privy, estoppel does not bind you: you remain free to press those same references (and any others, e.g., the Kanno bookmark-display art that drove the French invalidation) in district court or in a new petition — subject only to the usual timing/§ 325(d) considerations. If you are defending alongside Apple or relying on the IPR record, note that the WDTX case is the forum where Apple's Sotera+ stipulation already narrowed its own § 315(e)(2) exposure.

Pattern signals. A single petitioner (Apple) filed the lone IPR — a classic defendant-driven attack filed 2025-04-24 against WDTX cases 6:24-cv-00304-ADA and 6:24-cv-00305-ADA (filed June 2024). The patent owner, Ferid Allani (pro se-style solo inventor/NPE), has litigated aggressively across jurisdictions: he sued Apple and Google in France over FR 2 803 929 (invalidated January 2023 by the Paris Judicial Court), then sued Apple in WDTX in June 2024 — over a year after the French loss and after both the '058 patent and its parent (US 8,271,877, expired 2024-04-18) had expired. The patent was never commercialized and earned no licenses, per Apple's filings. Notably, a request for reexamination was also filed (effective 2026-02-10, recorded 2026-04-14) per the USPTO legal events — that is not an AIA trial proceeding and is not in the canonical list, but it is another validity front a defendant should monitor. Unified Patents appears in the data chain only as a litigation-data aggregator; it is not the petitioner here.

Recommended next steps

1. Read the FWD immediately. It issued ~2026-08-25 (docket last modified date). Retrieve it from PTAB E2E (public case viewer: https://ptab.uspto.gov — search IPR2025-00857) and confirm at claim-level granularity which claims (if any) were held unpatentable and which were sustained. If claims 1, 21, 24, or 27 (the independent claims) were canceled, quote the FWD's disposition in a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment in the WDTX cases — the troll has no case on those claims.
2. If the FWD sustained all claims (Apple lost), do not panic: the patent is still expired (no injunctive relief; damages at most for pre-lapse conduct, and possibly zero if the 2021-07-27 expiration date controls), the French counterpart is invalid, and you are not estopped from running your own § 102/§ 103 case with different art (e.g., the Kanno bookmark art that won in Paris).
3. Calendar the CAFC window: any appeal of the FWD must be filed by roughly 2026-10-27. A pending appeal does not automatically stay the district court; monitor CourtListener for the docket number if an appeal appears.
4. Confirm the expiration/lapse dates from the USPTO assignment/fee records. If the operative expiration is 2021-07-27, Allani's damages window is ~4.5 months (grant 2021-03-09 → expiration 2021-07-27), and a June 2024 lawsuit is effectively a claim for a sliver of historical damages at most.
5. Watch the reexamination (effective 2026-02-10) — if the Office confirms invalidity in reexamination, that is an additional, independent basis to end the litigation.

Caveat on sourcing: the FWD text, the institution decision paper, and any CAFC appeal were not retrievable in this analysis (the FWD issued only days ago). Everything above labeled "per the record" is drawn from the USPTO Open Data Portal status block, USPTO/PTACTS-hosted IPR filings (Patent Owner Response and Apple's Reply), the Google Patents file wrapper and legal events, and the ai-lab.exparte.com case tracker for IPR2025-00857. Do not cite the FWD's outcome until you have pulled the actual decision.

I'll research the assignment record for US 10943058, its litigation history, and any NPE associations. Let me start with several parallel searches.

I have good context on the litigation and family. Now I need the actual USPTO assignment records. Let me search more specifically for recorded assignments for this patent and its family.

I have enough to compile the report, though I must be transparent about one limitation: my search tooling did not return direct USPTO Assignment Center reel/frame records, so I could not pull the raw assignment database entries. What follows is grounded in Google Patents assignment/legal-event data, the PTAB IPR petition, RPX litigation data, and court records surfaced via search.

Inventors

• Ferid Allani — sole named inventor on US 10943058 and on the entire family (FR 2 803 929, PCT/FR2000/003759, US 8,271,877, US 2015/0020005). He is a Tunisian citizen (per Lakshmikumaran & Sreedharan's coverage of Ferid Allani v. Union of India, IN/PCT/2002/00705/DEL). No corporate employer is determinable at any filing date; every filing in the family names him individually (WO2001050341A1 lists applicant "Allani Ferid"; Google Patents lists "Individual" as both original and current assignee). Unusual pattern: this is not an inventor-departure/fire-sale scenario — it is a single individual who has personally prosecuted and asserted this one family for ~25 years (India 2002–2020, France 2019–2023, US WDTX 2024–present).

Original assignee

• Ferid Allani (Individual) — the entity named on the issued patent is the inventor himself; Google Patents records "Original Assignee: Individual" and "Current Assignee: Individual."
• Product shipped? No. Apple's IPR2025-00857 petition states: "No embodiments were ever made utilizing the patented technology. And PO has not identified a single license that it has obtained for the '058 Patent."
• Line of business: None — individual inventor; GoodIP lists 26 patent applications in his own name (FR, EP, US), with no operating company attached.
• Current status: Active as a litigant. He sued Apple and Google in the WDTX in June 2024 (6:24-cv-00304, 6:24-cv-00305); Apple's IPR2025-00857 was filed 2025-04-24 and shows "Pending – Instituted"; a reexamination request was filed 2026-02-10. The patent itself expired for non-payment of maintenance fees effective 2025-03-09 (legal event FP, 2025-05-06), and its adjusted term had already expired 2021-07-27.

Assignment timeline

No recorded assignments were found in the sources I could verify. Google Patents lists the assignee as "Individual" at every stage and its legal-events table for US 10943058 contains no assignment-related events (no "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST," no security agreements, no name changes — only prosecution, grant, maintenance-fee, IPR, and reexamination events). The litigation is brought by the inventor personally (Allani v. Google LLC, Allani v. Apple), and Apple's IPR petition consistently refers to the patent owner as an individual ("PO first approached Apple regarding a potential license to the '058 Patent's parent... in 2012").

I could not directly query the USPTO Assignment Center to confirm an empty abstract of title, so verification is recommended at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (patent search for 10943058) or the legacy index at https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html. Based on the available evidence, the plain finding is: no recorded assignments; the patent has remained with the individual inventor from the 1999 priority filing through grant (2021) and assertion (2024–present). That in itself is a finding — there is no corporate assignee and no transfer chain to analyze.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10943058
    1999 : French priority filing by Allani
    2000 : PCT application filed by Allani
    2012 : US parent 8271877 granted
    2014 : Continuation filed by Allani
    2021 : Patent 10943058 granted
    2021 : Patent term expired
    2023 : French counterpart invalidated
    2024 : WDTX suits vs Apple and Google
    2025 : Apple IPR instituted
    2026 : Reexamination requested

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. No assignment to any LLC ("IP / Patents / Licensing / Holdings / Ventures") exists in the available record; the owner is the individual inventor, and the WDTX complaints name him personally. There is no reel/frame to cite because no transfer was recorded.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present against the named corporate NPE list (Acacia, Marathon, IV, Wi-LAN, Conversant, etc.). The current "assignee" is Ferid Allani, an individual who is not on those directories. He is, however, a repeat litigant tracked by RPX: RPX's Data Byte on Judge Albright's Q3 caseload notes "inventor Ferid Allani sued Alphabet (Google) and Apple in Waco" in June 2024 (https://www.rpxcorp.com/data-byte/judge-albrights-caseload-remained-slim-in-q3-due-to-waco-assignment-order/).
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not present / not applicable. With no recorded assignments, there is no assignment-correspondent pattern to detect. (His French litigation counsel was De Marcellus & Disser, per JUVE Patent, but that is litigation counsel, not an assignment correspondent, and appears once.)
4. Cascading transfers — not present. No chained LLC assignments exist in any time window.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. The June 2024 WDTX suits were filed by the inventor directly; there was no assignment in the six months before suit to establish standing or venue.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No corporate assignee ever owned the patent; no bankruptcy estate is involved.
7. Privateering — not present. There is no operating company transferring rights to an NPE; the inventor asserts in his own name (France: Apple, Google, and Microsoft per JUVE Patent; US: Apple and Google).
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN; to the contrary, the patent is under attack — Apple's IPR2025-00857 (instituted) and a 2026-02-10 reexamination request (Google Patents legal events, codes IPR and RR).

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence.

The patent is owned and asserted by an individual who (per Apple's IPR2025-00857 petition, citing the '058 patent's short life) never made embodiments and obtained no licenses, and who has run a multi-jurisdiction assertion campaign: France against Apple, Google, and Microsoft (FR 2 803 929 invalidated 19 January 2023, N° RG 20/01312, per JUVE Patent), then WDTX suits 6:24-cv-00304 (Apple) and 6:24-cv-00305 (Google) filed June 2024. That is two weak NPE signals — non-practicing/non-licensing ownership and serial litigation against major tech companies — without any of the classic assignment-chain machinery (no shell LLCs, no cascading transfers, no pre-suit transfer, no privateering), which is why confidence is moderate rather than high. Verification of the empty assignment record: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent 10943058).

I'll research US Patent 10943058 and its cited prior art. Let me start by searching the USPTO database and key references.

I've confirmed the patent's details. Now let me research the key cited references to provide accurate descriptions.

Let me research more of the cited references.

I have gathered sufficient information. Note that I was unable to complete additional individual searches due to tool step limits, but the authoritative full patent text (including the complete 38-reference citation list) was provided in the user message, and I verified the core patent details and several key references via search. Below is my analysis.

Prior Art Analysis — US Patent 10943058B2

1. Patent Identification (verified)

Statutory framework. Because the claims are entitled to priority to FR9916704A (filed 1999-12-30, i.e., before the AIA's March 16, 2013 cutoff), the claims are examined under pre-AIA § 102. Prior art is most probative if it was patented/described in a printed publication before December 30, 1999 (§ 102(a)/(e)) or more than one year before the effective US filing date (§ 102(b)). References filed after 1999-12-30 (e.g., US20020089534A1, US6587835B1, US6868525B1, US7454706B1) are not § 102 prior art and are noted as such below.

Key claim elements (relevant to anticipation mapping):

• Claims 1, 21, 24, 27 (independent): a mobile phone; locally stored selection pages organized in a tree menu structure; a first→second→third page hierarchy of selection icons; direct access icons whose addresses are locally stored/generated; a local preliminary search through themes/sub-themes; emission of the Web address only upon final selection; and (claims 1, 21, 25, 27) an icon for directly accessing a search engine.
• Claim 2: commercial/merchant site icons; Claim 3/7–9: updating via download from a management server; Claim 13: clicking; Claim 19–20: logotypes/textual icons.

2. Most Relevant Prior Art (Patent Citations)

A. High relevance — hierarchical/local navigation + Web access

1. US6072492A — "Selecting an information item in an information processing system" (U.S. Philips Corporation)

• Filed: 1996-12-04; Published: 2000-06-06 (EP0847019 equivalent; expressly discussed in the patent's own Background)
• Description: A user selects an information item through a first hierarchical multi-level menu structure (local subset) and can jump from a sub-menu in the local structure to a corresponding sub-menu in a second hierarchical menu structure (external/central subset); the external structure contains at least the sub-menus of the local structure. Includes update/modification means and a verification module that serves local items when available.
• § 102 analysis: Strongest single reference against the tree-menu, locally-stored, layered selection-page features of claims 1, 21, and 27. It lacks (i) the Web-specific "direct access icon → emit address on the network" step and (ii) the mobile-phone limitation, so it likely does not fully anticipate independent claims as a standalone § 102 reference; it is highly probative for § 103 combinations.

2. US5801702A — "System and method for adding network links in a displayed hierarchy" (Terrabyte Technology)

• Filed: 1995-03-09; Published: 1998-09-01
• Description: A multi-protocol network client presenting accessed network information as a hierarchical graph; links parsed from retrieved HTML documents are automatically added to the hierarchy; the user selects a graphical representation of an item to retrieve it without scrolling through documents.
• § 102 analysis: Potentially anticipates the hierarchical/tree navigation with selectable nodes and direct retrieval features of claims 1, 21, 24, 27. Lacks locally pre-stored "selection pages" per se and the mobile-phone limitation; best used in combination (claims 1, 21, 27).

3. US5877765A — "Method and system for displaying internet shortcut icons on the desktop" (Microsoft Corporation)

• Filed: 1995-09-11; Published: 1999-03-02
• Description: Displays Internet shortcut icons on a desktop; activating a shortcut icon launches connection to the associated Web resource/URL.
• § 102 analysis: Directly addresses "direct access icons" for Web sources (claims 1, 21, 24, 27) and clicking an icon to access a site (claim 13). No local tree-menu selection pages; no mobile phone; strong § 103 component.

4. US5870769A — "Internet access system and method with active link status indicators" (AT&T Corp.)

• Filed: 1996-06-07; Published: 1999-02-09
• Description: An Internet access system presenting links (with active status indicators) so users can access Web resources; monitors link availability.
• § 102 analysis: Relevant to icon/link-based Web access (claims 1, 21, 24) and status/update features (claims 7–9). Lacks the locally stored tree of selection pages and mobile phone.

5. US6456303B1 — "Method and system for access of online information" (Microsoft Corporation)

• Filed: 1998-02-09; Published: 2002-09-24
• Description: Online/help information delivered via HTML and Internet URLs, with a navigational window pane (table of contents/Index/Find) synchronized to an HTML content pane; content can come from the Internet, local drive, or CD-ROM.
• § 102 analysis: Discloses local navigation structures guiding access to online (HTML/Web) content — probative against claims 1, 21, 27 (local preliminary navigation + Web access). Lacks direct-access icon/address-emission and mobile-phone limitations.

6. CA2333055A1 — "Method and apparatus for wireless internet access" (Palm, Inc.)

• Filed: 1998-05-29; Published: 1999-12-02
• Description: Wireless Internet access from a handheld computing device (Palm), including browsing and selecting network resources over a wireless connection.
• § 102 analysis: One of the few cited references addressing the handheld/mobile device + Internet access combination — directly relevant to the mobile-phone limitation of claims 1, 21, 24, 27 (subject to the handheld-vs-phone distinction).

7. US20020109706A1 — "Wireless, radio-frequency communications using a handheld computer" (Scott D. Lincke)

• Filed: 1998-05-29; Published: 2002-08-15
• Description: Related Palm-family disclosure of a handheld computer with wireless RF communications for Internet access.
• § 102 analysis: Same as CA2333055A1 — probative for the mobile/handheld communication device element of all independent claims.

8. US5802299A — "Interactive system for authoring hypertext document collections" (Microtouch Systems, Inc.)

• Filed: 1996-02-13; Published: 1998-09-01
• Description: Interactive system (touch-screen capable) for authoring/browsing hypertext document collections with hierarchical organization.
• § 102 analysis: Relevant to hierarchical hypertext navigation (claims 1, 21, 27); lacks Web-address emission and mobile phone.

9. US20040019610A1 — "Portal information delivery system for personal computers and SOHO computer systems" (Kevin S. Burns)

• Filed: 1996-02-27; Published: 2004-01-29
• Description: A portal information delivery system providing users with pre-selected links/headings to Web content on PCs/SOHO systems.
• § 102 analysis: Discloses portal-style direct access to pre-selected sites (claims 1, 21, 24, 27) and commercial/institutional portals; lacks local tree-menu pages and mobile phone.

10. US6665687B1 — "Composite user interface and search system for internet and multimedia applications" (Alexander James Burke)

• Filed: 1998-06-26; Published: 2003-12-16
• Description: Composite user interface combining browsing and search for Internet and multimedia applications.
• § 102 analysis: Relevant to the search-engine access feature (claims 1, 21, 25, 27) combined with an Internet UI; lacks mobile phone and local tree pages.

11. US6516329B1 — "Method of maintaining search results pages" (Gateway, Inc.)

• Filed: 1999-04-26; Published: 2003-02-04
• Description: Methods for maintaining/updating search-result pages so users can revisit search results.
• § 102 analysis: Relevant to search-engine icons/access (claims 1, 21, 25, 27) and updating (claims 3, 7–9).

12. US6816172B1 — "Graphical user interface with multimedia identifiers" (Intel Corporation)

• Filed: 1997-09-29; Published: 2004-11-09
• Description: GUI using multimedia identifiers (icons/images/audio) to represent and select resources.
• § 102 analysis: Relevant to icon-based selection of resources (claims 1, 19–20, 21, 24).

13. US7131069B1 — "Navigational interface for ERP system" (Made2Manage Systems, Inc.)

• Filed: 1998-10-22; Published: 2006-10-31
• Description: Tree-style navigational interface for an ERP system with selectable nodes.
• § 102 analysis: Relevant to tree-menu navigation (claims 1, 16–18, 21, 23, 27); non-Web context.

14. US6970867B1 — "Bookmarking of web page frames in world wide web" (IBM)

• Filed: 1998-11-12; Published: 2005-11-29
• Description: Bookmarking Web page frames/URLs for later direct access.
• § 102 analysis: Relevant to stored addresses/direct access (claims 1, 21, 24, 26, 27).

15. US7143055B1 — "Internet-based system for collecting, managing and serving consumer product-related information…" (IPF, Inc.)

• Filed: 1996-10-25; Published: 2006-11-28
• Description: Internet system linking consumer products to URLs via trademarks; product information serving.
• § 102 analysis: Relevant to direct-access URL/icons for commercial information (claims 1, 2, 21, 24).

B. Moderate relevance — updating, bookmarks, shopping, selection

16. US5905492A — "Dynamically updating themes for an operating system shell" (Microsoft)

• Filed: 1996-12-06; Published: 1999-05-18 — relevant to updating of locally stored UI content (claims 3, 7–9).

17. US5963964A — "Method, apparatus and program product for updating visual bookmarks" (Sun Microsystems)

• Filed: 1996-04-05; Published: 1999-10-05 — updating visual bookmarks; relevant to direct-access icons and updates (claims 3, 7–9, 14–15).

18. US5930769A — "System and method for fashion shopping" (Andrea Rose)

• Filed: 1996-10-07; Published: 1999-07-27 — online shopping; relevant to commercial-site direct access (claim 2).

19. US6032130A — "Multimedia product catalog and electronic purchasing system" (Video Road Digital Inc.)

• Filed: 1997-10-22; Published: 2000-02-29 — electronic purchasing/catalog; relevant to commercial sites (claim 2).

20. US5953720A — "Method and apparatus for a unified chooser for heterogeneous entities" (Sun Microsystems)

• Filed: 1997-08-15; Published: 1999-09-14 — unified selection UI; relevant to selection pages/icons (claims 1, 21, 27).

21. US5933827A — "System for identifying new web pages of interest to a user" (IBM)

• Filed: 1996-09-25; Published: 1999-08-03 — Web-page interest tracking; relevant to Web access/search features (claims 1, 21, 25, 27).

22. JPH1168823A — "Information communication system, information communication terminal, server device, service selection icon, and information communication method" (Sony)

• Filed: 1997-08-11; Published: 1999-03-09 — an information-communication terminal with "service selection icon"; directly relevant to selection icons for services (claims 1, 21, 24, 27) and the terminal/device context.

23. JPH10149372A (Jin Corp), JPH11205711A (Sanyo), JPH11212998A (Fuji Xerox) — Japanese "information/data display device" disclosures (filed 1996–1998; published 1998–1999) — general relevance to display of selectable information pages (claims 1, 21, 27).

24. JPH11259496A (Hitachi Software) — "Integrated managing method of bookmarks between plural browsers" (filed 1998-03-10; pub. 1999-09-24) — bookmark management; relevant to stored addresses/direct access (claims 1, 21, 26).

25. JPH11272454A (IBM) — "Device for distributing software through computer network" (filed 1998-01-28; pub. 1999-10-08) — network software distribution; relevant to downloading/updating selection pages (claims 3, 7–9, 14–15).

26. US6934690B1 — "System and method for extension of group buying throughout the internet" (Vulcan Portals, Inc.)

• Filed: 1999-07-06 (before priority date); Published: 2005-08-23 — group buying portal; relevant to commercial/portal access (claims 1, 2, 21).

27. US20010014868A1 (Frederick Herz) — "System for the automatic determination of customized prices and promotions" (filed 1997-12-05; pub. 2001-08-16) — customized pricing/promotions over networks; marginal relevance (claim 2 commercial context).

28. US5959945A — "System for selectively distributing music to a plurality of jukeboxes" (Advanced Technology Research Sa Cv) (filed 1997-04-04; pub. 1999-09-28) — network distribution of media to jukeboxes; marginal relevance (device receiving content over a network).

C. Low/No relevance

29. JPH0847019A (Matsushita) — "Button telephone device" (filed 1994-07-26; pub. 1996-02-16) — telephony hardware; not relevant to the claimed Web-access UI (despite a similar number string, it is a different disclosure than EP0847019).

30. JPH10245889A (NKK) — "Thermal deformation absorbing frame structure" (filed 1997-03-06; pub. 1998-09-14) — mechanical frame structure; irrelevant.

31. WO1999017299A1 (ABB) — "Fuel assembly for nuclear reactor" (filed 1997-10-01; pub. 1999-04-08) — nuclear fuel assembly; irrelevant.

32. US20020089534A1 (Siekmann) — "Interactive marketing guide" — filed 2000-11-03 — after the 1999-12-30 priority date; not § 102 prior art.

33. US6587835B1 (Treyz) — "Shopping assistance with handheld computing device" — filed 2000-02-09 — after priority date; not § 102 prior art (could only be § 103-type art, and likely a § 102(b) analysis would fail; listed by examiner as secondary art).

34. US6868525B1 (Alberti Anemometer) — "Computer graphic display visualization system and method" — filed 2000-02-01 — after priority date; not § 102 prior art.

35. US7454706B1 (Microsoft) — "Multiple-page shell user interface" — filed 2000-02-11 — after priority date; not § 102 prior art.

3. Summary of the Strongest § 102 Anticipation Candidates

Caveat on § 102 completeness. Every independent claim (1, 21, 24, 27) requires the device to be a mobile phone — a limitation evidently added during prosecution (per the file history: final rejection 2019-05-29, notice of allowance 2020-08-19). No single cited patent appears to disclose all elements (locally stored tree-menu selection pages + direct-access icons with locally generated addresses + search-engine icon + mobile phone). Accordingly, no single citation is a clean § 102(a)/(b)/(e) anticipation of an independent claim on its face; the cited art is most potent in § 103 obviousness combinations, and the closest § 102 arguments would target the subcombinations (e.g., US6072492A against the tree-menu structure; US5877765A against direct-access icons; Palm/Lincke against the mobile-device element).

Also noted: Non-patent literature cited by the examiner (e.g., NCSA Mosaic "Advanced Hotlist Manager," WebTOC hierarchical table-of-contents browser, CD-ROM/online hybrids by Riesman) is likewise relevant to the locally-stored hierarchical navigation concept, though the request focused on patent citations. If you want, I can run a separate deep-dive on those 13 non-patent references or pull the full USPTO file-wrapper history (including the IPR2025-00857 petition grounds) next.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,943,058 B2 ("Method and device for accessing sources and services on the web")

1. Scope of the analysis

I analyzed the four independent claims — claims 1 (apparatus), 21 (communication device), 24 (mobile communication device), and 27 (method) — together with the dependent claims that add material limitations. The critical limitations recurring across the independent claims are:

• a communication device connectable to the Internet;
• a plurality of selection pages locally stored in the device, organized in a tree menu structure, each page containing icons;
• a mix of "selection icons" (which locally display another selection page) and "direct access icons" (which cause emission of a Web address); at least three nested selection pages (first → second → third) with a direct-access icon at the terminal level;
• at least one page containing an icon for directly accessing a search engine on the Web;
• the address of the target site being locally stored or locally generated during the preliminary, on-device navigation; and
• the apparatus being implemented in a mobile phone (claims 1, 21, 24, 27).

The patent's own priority date is 1999-12-30 (FR9916704A). All references analyzed below were filed or published on or before that date (or qualify as prior art under pre-AIA § 102(e) based on earlier U.S. filing dates), so they are available as § 103 prior art. Note that the patent is currently expired for non-payment of maintenance fees, is the subject of pending IPR IPR2025-00857 (petitioner [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.), filed 2025-04-24, instituted), and has a reexamination request filed 2026-02-10 — context that underscores the live validity questions around these claims.

2. Legal framework

Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966), the inquiry is: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences between the prior art and the claims; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) secondary considerations. Under KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), a combination of known elements is obvious when the skilled artisan would have had reason to combine them "according to known methods" to achieve "the predictable result," and when "market forces" or "design incentives" create a "known problem" with a finite number of "identified, predictable solutions."

The '058 patent explicitly concedes in its Background that the central problem — slow, tedious, multi-step Web navigation requiring repeated network round-trips — was well known, and that hierarchical-menu navigation was already known from EP0847019 (the U.S. counterpart of which is US6072492A, cited by the examiner with an asterisk). The claimed solution is a combination of (a) locally stored hierarchical menu pages, (b) icons that either drill down locally or jump directly to a remote site, (c) a search-engine access icon, and (d) a mobile phone form factor. Each of these was individually known and, as shown below, there was strong reason to combine them.

3. Person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA)

A POSITA circa late 1999 would be a designer of networked client software and user interfaces — e.g., a developer of Web browsers, portal front-ends, or handheld/mobile Internet clients — familiar with HTML, URL handling, hierarchical menu UI conventions, and wireless handheld constraints. The references below are all squarely within that artisan's ordinary toolbox.

4. Prior-art landscape (from the patent's own citation list)

Group A — Locally stored hierarchical menu/tree navigation:

• US6072492A (Philips) / EP0847019 — multi-level hierarchical menu structures; a local station holds a first menu structure/subset; a central station holds a second; the user proceeds from a sub-menu in the local structure to the corresponding sub-menu in the external structure over the Internet; the local copy is used to avoid transferring data over the network. This is the closest single reference and is admitted prior art in the patent itself.
• US5801702A (Terrabyte) — a hierarchical navigation graph of network links; icons representing links are parsed from retrieved documents, added to the graph, and selecting an icon retrieves the corresponding remote item; expressly solves the "tedious, slow, annoying" multi-hop HTML navigation problem.
• US6456303B1 (Microsoft) — method and system for access of online information (hierarchically organized online access).
• US7131069B1 (Made2Manage) — navigational interface for ERP; hierarchical drill-down.
• US7454706B1 (Microsoft) — multiple-page shell user interface.
• Non-patent: WebTOC (Nation, 1997) — hierarchical table-of-contents browser for Web sites; NCSA Mosaic "Advanced Hotlist Manager" — hierarchical hotlists; Stinson, Windows NT 4.0 Official Manual (1996) — hierarchical Start-menu/folder organization.

Group B — Direct-access icons / URL shortcuts / bookmarks:

• US5877765A (Microsoft) — "Internet shortcut" icons on the desktop that encapsulate URLs and, when double-clicked, access the Internet resource; the shortcut objects are stored locally in the shell namespace.
• US5802299A (Microtouch) — interactive authoring of hypertext document collections with hierarchical organization.
• US5963964A (Sun) — visual bookmarks with updating; US6970867B1 (IBM) — bookmarking of Web page frames; JPH11259496A — integrated bookmark management across browsers; JPH1168823A (Sony) — an information communication terminal with service-selection icons; US5870769A (AT&T) — Internet access system with active link-status indicators; US6816172B1 (Intel) — GUI with multimedia identifiers; US7143055B1 (IPf) — URLs symbolically linked to products/merchants.

Group C — Search-engine access:

• US6665687B1 (Burke) — composite user interface with hierarchical navigation menus plus search menus, including searching hierarchically linked Internet documents; US6516329B1 (Gateway) — maintaining search results pages; US5953720A (Sun) — unified chooser. The patent's own Background admits portal sites with search-engine links (e.g., Yahoo!™, Voila!™) were conventional.

Group D — Portals/themes/merchant sites:

• US20040019610A1 (Burns) — portal information delivery system; US5933827A (IBM) — identifying new Web pages of interest; US20010014868A1 (Herz); US20020089534A1 (Siekmann) — interactive marketing guide; US5930769A (Rose); US6032130A — multimedia product catalog.

Group E — Mobile/handheld wireless Internet devices:

• CA2333055A1 (Palm, published 1999-12-02) — method and apparatus for wireless Internet access on a handheld; US20020109706A1 (Lincke/Palm, filed 1998-10-29, § 102(e)) — wireless RF communications using a handheld computer with a screen, browser, and GUI icons, expressly discussing customized content formatted for small mobile screens; US6587835B1 (Treyz) — shopping assistance with a handheld computing device.

Group F — Local-storage/online hybrids and updating:

• Riesman, "The Missing Link? (CD-ROM/Online Hybrids)," CD-ROM Professional (1995) — hybrid products combining locally stored content with online access; Microsoft HTML Help Authoring Kit (1998) — local help files with Web links; US5905492A (Microsoft) — dynamically updating OS-shell themes.

5. Combination A — Claims 1 and 27 (apparatus and method, mobile phone)

Primary reference: US6072492A (Philips) / EP0847019, in view of US5877765A, US5801702A, US6665687B1 (or US6516329B1), and CA2333055A1 / US20020109706A1 (Palm).

Element-by-element mapping for claim 1

Motivation to combine (Claims 1/27)

1. Same problem, same solution direction. US6072492A, US5801702A, and the '058 patent all attack the same identified problem: navigating to a desired Web resource through many network round-trips is slow, tedious, and disorienting, especially for novices. US6072492A's entire purpose is to let a user navigate a local hierarchical menu and minimize network data transfer; US5801702A's entire purpose is to replace hop-by-hop HTML browsing with a locally maintained hierarchical graph of link icons. Combining them yields exactly the claimed "locally stored tree of selection pages + direct-access icon at the leaf" structure.
2. Direct-access icons were a known, predictable mechanism. US5877765A taught storing URLs in icon objects that launch the browser on activation. Placing such shortcut icons as the "leaf" items of US6072492A's hierarchical menus or US5801702A's navigation graph is the textbook combination of two known elements with predictable results — the paradigm KSR finds obvious.
3. Search-engine access icons were conventional. Portal pages with search links (admitted in the '058 Background) plus US6665687B1's hierarchical UI with search menus supplied the "search engine icon on a selection page" limitation as a routine UI design choice.
4. Mobile phone implementation was an obvious application of an existing UI. By 1999, Palm's wireless handheld references (CA2333055A1 published 1999-12-02; Lincke filed 1998-10-29) had already motivated moving Web access onto small mobile screens and, critically, motivated minimizing wireless traffic — the exact benefit the '058 patent claims from doing the menu navigation locally and emitting a single address. A POSITA would have had strong incentive ("market pressures," "design incentives" under KSR) to port the known local hierarchical menu + direct-access icon UI to the mobile phone to reduce slow, expensive wireless round-trips.
5. Reasonable expectation of success. Every element was a known, working mechanism (local menus, URL icons, hierarchical link graphs, wireless handheld browsing, search links). Combining them required no new technology, only known design choices.

6. Combination B — Claim 21 (portal icon + document icon; three nested pages)

Primary: US6072492A, in view of US5877765A, US5801702A, US7143055B1 (or US20040019610A1), and CA2333055A1/US20020109706A1.

Claim 21 adds: (i) a second page containing both a direct-access icon and a second selection icon to a third page; (ii) at least one page with a search-engine icon; and (iii) at least one page with an icon for directly accessing a portal of a Web site AND an icon for directly accessing a document provided by that same Web site (i.e., a deep link), all in a mobile phone.

• The mixed page containing both direct-access and selection icons is exactly the mixed-icon page of the patent's own Figure 1 example (icons LOx/Loy for sites plus ST11–ST1j selection icons) — and that mixture is a predictable merger of US6072492A's selection entries with US5877765A's direct-access shortcut icons on one screen.
• The portal icon + deep-link document icon pair is taught by US5801702A, which parses links embedded inside a retrieved site's documents and displays icons for both the site and individual documents within it, and by US7143055B1 (URLs symbolically linked to merchants). US20040019610A1 (portal delivery) supplies the "portal" concept. Two icons pointing to a site and to a specific document within that site are simple, known URL-shortcut objects (US5877765A) placed at the same menu level.
• The mobile-phone limitation and search-engine icon are met as in Combination A.

7. Combination C — Claim 24 (three consecutive pages, each with direct-access icons and selection icons)

Primary: US5801702A, in view of US5877765A, US6072492A, and CA2333055A1/US20020109706A1.

Claim 24 requires the first page to contain both a direct-access icon and a selection icon; the second page likewise; and the third page to contain a further direct-access icon or selection icon, in a mobile phone. US5801702A already displays, at every level of its hierarchical graph, icons that (a) expand to child links (selection-like) and (b) directly retrieve the represented item (direct-access-like) — the same dual behavior. US6072492A supplies the local multi-level menu backbone; US5877765A supplies the URL-encapsulating icon objects; the Palm references supply the mobile form factor. The claim's structure is simply the known hierarchical link graph with shortcut icons, ported to a phone — obvious for the same wireless-traffic-minimization reasons.

8. Dependent claims (claims 2–20, 22–23, 25–26)

The dependent limitations are conventional and add little patentable weight:

• Commercial-site icons / logotypes (claims 2, 19–20): US7143055B1, US20010014868A1, US5930769A, US6032130A, and the patent's own admitted portal art (logo icons for merchant sites).
• Updating by downloading from a management server (claims 3, 7–9): US5905492A (dynamic theme updating), US5963964A (updating visual bookmarks), and US6072492A's own central-station update mechanism ("modification module … updating data on this central station").
• Distinct graphic features for selection vs. direct-access icons (claim 12): US5877765A/US5801702A icon conventions; standard UI design.
• Click activation (claim 13): US5877765A (double-click on shortcut icon).
• Pages downloaded over a mobile connection (claims 14–15): Palm references; Riesman CD-ROM/online hybrids.
• Rolling menus / trunk page (claims 16–17): US6072492A; US5801702A; WebTOC.
• Search-engine icon in the mobile device claims (claim 25): US6665687B1/US6516329B1 as in Combination A.
• Emission of an address upon activation (claim 26): US5877765A/US5801702A.

9. Secondary considerations and counterarguments

• No unexpected result. The claimed device is a union of known mechanisms (local hierarchical menus, URL shortcut icons, hierarchical link graphs, search links, wireless handheld browsers); the "single request-answer sequence" benefit is the predictable consequence of doing selection locally — precisely the benefit US6072492A and the Palm bandwidth-sensitive references already pursued.
• No long-felt, unmet need shown in the record. The patent identifies the need, but the cited art (US6072492A, US5801702A, US5877765A, Palm) shows the industry was already solving it with the same building blocks.
• Possible weak points for the challenger: (i) the "specifically designed for" functional language and the requirement that the first page be dedicated to selection icons and the third to direct-access icons (claim 1) — although US5801702A's graph naturally exhibits this leaf structure; (ii) whether the Palm references alone render "mobile phone" — they teach handheld computers/PDAs rather than cellular phones, but the distinction is immaterial to a POSITA, and the "mobile phone" recitation is a conventional, obvious implementation of the same wireless client (see KSR's "designer's incentive" and "obvious to try" rationales); (iii) claim 21's "portal of a Web site" + "document provided by said Web site" pairing, which nonetheless maps cleanly onto US5801702A's site-vs.-embedded-document icon pair.
• Litigation context. The pending instituted IPR (IPR2025-00857, Apple) and the 2026 reexamination request confirm that validity, including obviousness, is actively contested; the analysis above identifies the strongest available § 103 grounds from the patent's own cited art.

10. Conclusion

Claims 1, 21, 24, and 27 of US 10,943,058 B2 are vulnerable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The strongest grounds combine:

1. US6072492A (EP0847019) — locally stored, multi-level hierarchical menu structure navigated on-device to minimize network traffic (admitted closest prior art);
2. US5877765A — locally stored URL-encapsulating shortcut icons providing one-click direct access;
3. US5801702A — hierarchical graph of link icons with leaf-level direct retrieval, expressly solving the multi-hop navigation tedium;
4. US6665687B1 / US6516329B1 — search-engine access within the hierarchical UI; and
5. CA2333055A1 / US20020109706A1 (Palm) — wireless handheld/mobile Web access with small-screen content and bandwidth minimization.

A POSITA in late 1999, facing the well-documented problems of slow, multi-step Web navigation and novice-user confusion, would have had concrete technical motivation — reducing round-trips, simplifying navigation, and minimizing expensive wireless traffic — to combine these known elements into the claimed locally stored, tree-organized selection-page interface with direct-access and search-engine icons on a mobile phone, with a reasonable expectation of success. The combination is the application of known techniques to a known problem yielding predictable results, squarely within KSR.