Obviousness

As a senior US patent analyst, I will now analyze the obviousness of US patent 6,266,674 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. This analysis builds upon the previous summaries of the patent, its litigation history, and its PTAB proceedings. While the patent has been invalidated under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for being directed to an abstract idea, this analysis will focus on the separate grounds of obviousness based on prior art.

---

Obviousness Analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103

1. Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA)

At the time of the invention (priority date March 16, 1992), a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been a computer scientist or software engineer with a bachelor's degree in a relevant field and approximately 2-3 years of experience. This individual would have been familiar with common data storage and retrieval methods, database fundamentals, hierarchical data structures (e.g., tree structures), and the user interfaces of prevalent operating systems like MacOS and MS-DOS/Windows, which utilized graphical or command-line-based hierarchical file systems.

2. Scope of the Claims

The independent claims of the '674 patent (1, 18, 35, and 45) collectively describe a method and system for storing and retrieving information. The core concept involves a user:

• Inputting information (e.g., audio).
• Defining a portion of that information as "data" and another portion as a "label."
• Navigating a user-defined or user-manipulated hierarchical data structure.
• Storing the label within this structure.
• Creating a link between the stored label and its associated data, allowing for later retrieval by navigating the structure and selecting the label.

The central thesis of the invention is the application of a user-customizable hierarchical structure of labels for random access to stored data chunks.

3. Relevant Prior Art

Several prior art references, cited during the patent's prosecution, disclose the core components of the '674 patent's claims. For this analysis, the following combination is particularly relevant:

• US Patent 5,113,340 ("Voice memo for a computer"), filed Nov. 29, 1990 ("Wang '340"): This patent teaches a system for creating, storing, and retrieving voice annotations (audio data) within a computer system. The voice memos can be associated with specific applications, documents, or even locations within a document. This association acts as a form of linking data (the voice memo) to a context or identifier. However, Wang '340 does not explicitly describe organizing the voice memos themselves into a user-defined hierarchical structure.

• US Patent 4,931,935 ("Method and apparatus for information storage and retrieval employing user-defined document and file-folder templates"), filed Sep. 29, 1988 ("Glinka '935"): This patent discloses a system for organizing information using user-defined templates for documents and, critically, for file folders. It explicitly teaches the creation of a hierarchical structure (cabinets, drawers, folders) where the user can define the properties and relationships of the storage containers. This is a direct teaching of a user-defined hierarchical data structure for organizing information.

4. Motivation to Combine and Obviousness Argument

A POSITA in early 1992, presented with the systems taught by Wang '340 and Glinka '935, would have found it obvious to combine their respective features to arrive at the invention claimed in the '674 patent.

The motivation to combine stems from a recognized problem in the art: as the amount of stored information grows, retrieval becomes inefficient without a robust organizational system. The Wang '340 system, while useful for creating voice memos, would become unwieldy as a user creates dozens or hundreds of such memos. A user would have no way to browse or manage their memos other than by opening the various documents they are linked to.

A POSITA would be motivated to improve the usability and efficiency of the Wang '340 system. The Glinka '935 patent and, indeed, the common knowledge of hierarchical file systems (e.g., folders on a Macintosh desktop) provide a clear and well-understood solution to this exact problem of information organization. The motivation would be to provide a dedicated organizational structure for the voice memos themselves, independent of the documents they might be linked to, thereby allowing a user to manage, sort, and retrieve their audio notes more effectively.

Applying the user-defined hierarchical folder structure of Glinka '935 to the voice memo data of Wang '340 would have been a predictable and logical step for a POSITA seeking to enhance the functionality of the voice memo system.

5. Mapping the Combination to Independent Claim 1

The combination of Wang '340 and Glinka '935 renders the elements of claim 1 obvious:

• a method for storing information by a user, said method comprising the steps of: The combination describes such a method.
• user inputting a first information; Taught by Wang '340, where a user records a voice memo.
• user designating at least a portion of said first information as a data; Taught by Wang '340, where the entire recorded voice memo is the data to be stored.
• user designating at least a portion of said first information as a label; A user naming a file or memo is a fundamental aspect of computer use and is inherent in any filing system. In the combined system, the user would name the voice memo file (the label) before saving it into the hierarchical structure.
• user interacting with a data structure; Taught by Glinka '935, where the user interacts with the system of user-defined folders and cabinets.
• user designating a first location in said data structure at which to store said label; Taught by Glinka '935 and common computer knowledge. A user selects a folder in which to save their file (the named voice memo).
• storing said label at said first location in said data structure; Taught by Glinka '935. The file is saved in the designated folder.
• and storing an association between said data and said label. This is the fundamental principle of a file system, taught by both references, where a file name (label) is intrinsically associated with the file's content (data).

The same logic applies to the corresponding apparatus claims (18 and 45) and the retrieval method claim (35), as the combined system would inherently provide the means for navigating the structure and playing back the selected voice memo.

Conclusion

The claims of US patent 6,266,674 are rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the combination of US Patent 5,113,340 and US Patent 4,931,935. The '674 patent claims no more than the application of a well-known organizational technique (user-defined hierarchical structures for filing) to a known type of data (voice memos). A person of ordinary skill in the art in 1992 would have been motivated to make this combination to achieve the predictable result of a more organized and user-friendly voice memo system. This conclusion is further supported by the 2015 district court ruling that invalidated the patent under § 101, which found the patent was directed to the abstract and conventional idea of "storing and labeling information" without adding a sufficient inventive concept.