Prior art — US Patent 8700996

Based on a review of the citations listed in US patent 8,700,996 and the patent's prosecution history, the following references are identified as the most relevant prior art. The analysis considers the priority date of the '996 patent family, which is August 28, 1998. Any patent filed before this date is considered prior art.

Analysis of Key Prior Art References

The core inventive concept of US patent 8,700,996 is the in-place, real-time preview of a formatting command on the main document display, triggered by a user merely "identifying" (e.g., hovering a cursor over) a command, rather than fully selecting or executing it. The following prior art references are evaluated against this concept.

1. U.S. Patent 5,301,326 (Microsoft)

Full Citation: U.S. Patent 5,301,326, "Method and system for controlling the execution of an application program," assigned to Microsoft Corporation.
Dates: Filed September 24, 1991; Issued April 5, 1994. This patent qualifies as prior art.
Brief Description: This patent discloses a method for "previewing" the effect of a command before it is permanently applied. When a user selects a command from a menu, the system executes that command on a temporary copy of the user's data. The user can then view the result and either confirm the command, which makes the temporary copy permanent, or cancel the command, which discards the temporary copy. This allows the user to see the full effect of an operation without commitment.
Potential Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102:
- Claim 1 & Dependent Claims: This reference is highly relevant but likely does not fully anticipate Claim 1. The '326 patent teaches previewing a command's effect on the user's data. However, it requires the user to "select" the command to initiate the preview. The '996 patent makes a critical distinction by claiming the preview is triggered by merely "identifying but not executing" the command, with the specification clarifying this action as "hovering a cursor over" the command option (Claim 3). The action of "selecting" in the '326 patent implies a more deliberate user action, such as a mouse click, which is different from a hover. Therefore, because the '326 patent does not appear to disclose the "hover to preview" trigger mechanism, it does not anticipate all elements of Claim 1.
- Claims 14 & 22: For the same reasons, the '326 patent would not anticipate the specific applications of the method described in independent claims 14 (text wrap) and 22 (table formatting), as they both rely on the same "identifying but not executing" trigger.

2. U.S. Patent 5,307,086 (IBM)

Full Citation: U.S. Patent 5,307,086, "Method of implementing a preview window in an object oriented programming system," assigned to International Business Machines Corporation.
Dates: Filed October 8, 1991; Issued April 26, 1994. This patent qualifies as prior art.
Brief Description: This patent describes a system that provides a dedicated "preview window" to show how a document will look with certain features applied. For example, a user could see a preview of how a document will appear when printed. The user can select different formatting options like fonts or margins and see the result displayed in this separate preview window before committing to the change in the main document or printing.
Potential Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102:
- Claim 1 & Dependent Claims: This reference does not anticipate Claim 1. The '996 patent claims a method of "updating the display of the portion of the document," implying an in-place modification of the primary document view. The '086 patent, in contrast, teaches the use of a separate preview window. This is precisely the type of prior art that the '996 patent's background section describes as inadequate because it only shows a small sample and is not representative of the command's impact on the entire document layout (as stated in the Abstract and Background of US 8,700,996). Because the preview is not performed in-place on the main document display, the '086 patent does not teach a key element of the claim.
- Claims 14 & 22: As with Claim 1, this patent fails to anticipate claims 14 and 22 because it does not disclose the in-place, real-time update of the actual document content (be it text wrapping around an object or table formatting) but rather a preview in a separate window.