Prior art — US Patent 11200252

Prior Art Analysis for U.S. Patent 11,200,252

An analysis of the prior art cited during the prosecution of U.S. Patent 11,200,252 reveals several key references that were considered by the USPTO examiner. These references are crucial in understanding the patented invention's scope and the technological landscape at the time of the invention. Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a patent claim is anticipated if a single prior art reference discloses each and every element of the claim.

The following is a review of the most relevant prior art cited against the '252 patent, with an analysis of the claims each reference could potentially anticipate.

1. U.S. Patent No. 7,496,841 (Re-issued as RE43,622)

Full Citation: US Patent No. 7,496,841, filed August 26, 2004, and issued February 24, 2009. Re-issued as RE43,622 on August 28, 2012. Titled "Method and apparatus for text input." Assignee: Tegic Communications, Inc.
Brief Description: This patent, commonly known as '841, discloses a method for text input on devices with limited keyboards, such as mobile phones. It describes a predictive text system where a user presses a key corresponding to a desired letter, and the system presents a list of possible words based on the sequence of key presses. The system uses a dictionary to predict the intended word and allows the user to select from a list of completions.
Potential Anticipation of Claims: The '841 patent appears to be highly relevant to the core concepts of the '252 patent. It could be argued that '841 anticipates the independent claims of the '252 patent, particularly Claim 1, which describes a method of selecting an item from a database by generating a display of "one or more parts of item identifiers" and enabling their selection to build a larger part of the identifier. The predictive text system of '841, which presents word segments and completions based on initial user input, aligns with this process. Dependent claims that specify the nature of the input device (e.g., a joystick) or the type of item (e.g., a contact or song title) build upon this core method and may also be anticipated if the '841 patent discloses or renders obvious these specific implementations.

2. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0109033 A1

Full Citation: US Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0109033 A1, filed December 10, 2002, and published June 10, 2004. Titled "Method for entering text with a reduced keyboard." Inventor: Kushler, et al.
Brief Description: This publication details a text input method for devices with a reduced number of keys. It describes a system where a user can enter text by pressing a sequence of keys, and the system predicts the intended word. A key feature is the disambiguation of input, where a single key can represent multiple characters. The system presents a list of word choices that match the input sequence.
Potential Anticipation of Claims: This reference is similar in concept to the '841 patent and also poses a significant challenge to the validity of the '252 patent's claims. It could potentially anticipate Claim 1 by disclosing the fundamental steps of presenting partial identifiers (word predictions) based on ambiguous user input and allowing the user to select from these options to form a complete identifier. The methods described could be seen as directly corresponding to the "partial word completion" system of the '252 patent.

3. U.S. Patent No. 6,801,190 B1

Full Citation: US Patent No. 6,801,190 B1, filed December 29, 2000, and issued October 5, 2004. Titled "Reduced keyboard disambiguating computer." Assignee: Microsoft Corporation.
Brief Description: This patent describes a system for text input on a device with a reduced keyboard. It focuses on disambiguating ambiguous keystrokes to determine the intended text. The system uses a linguistic model and a dictionary to generate a list of likely words based on the sequence of key presses. The user can then select the desired word from the presented list.
Potential Anticipation of Claims: The '190 patent is another strong piece of prior art that could be argued to anticipate the core claims of the '252 patent. Its disclosure of a system that presents a list of candidate words based on ambiguous input from a reduced keyboard appears to teach the essential elements of Claim 1 and Claim 15 (which describes a corresponding apparatus). The '190 patent's system of generating and selecting from a list of potential "item identifiers" (words) based on partial user input directly aligns with the inventive concept claimed in the '252 patent.

4. U.S. Patent No. 7,376,903 B2

Full Citation: US Patent No. 7,376,903 B2, filed February 24, 2003, and issued May 20, 2008. Titled "Method for facilitating data entry." Assignee: Research In Motion Limited.
Brief Description: This patent discloses a method for data entry on a handheld electronic device. It describes a predictive text system where, as a user types, a list of suggested words or phrases is displayed. The user can select a suggestion from the list to complete the entry. The system can learn from the user's past entries to improve its predictions.
Potential Anticipation of Claims: This reference further reinforces the concepts present in the other cited prior art. It describes a system that generates a display of "one or more parts of item identifiers" (word suggestions) for selection, directly addressing the core limitation of Claim 1. The dynamic and predictive nature of the system described in the '903 patent, which adapts to the user's input, could be seen as anticipating the "partial word completion" method claimed in the '252 patent.

In summary, the prior art cited against U.S. Patent 11,200,252, particularly the '841, '033, and '190 references, discloses systems for predictive and disambiguated text entry on devices with limited input mechanisms. These references teach the core concept of presenting a user with a list of partial or complete identifiers (words or phrases) based on an initial sequence of inputs, from which the user can make a selection. This fundamental process appears to be a strong anticipation of at least the independent claims of the '252 patent. The ongoing Inter Partes Review (IPR2026-00072) will likely focus on detailed arguments regarding how these and other prior art references disclose the specific limitations of the challenged claims.