US 7831926

I'll search for the specific patent and any 2026 CAFC docket activity.

Let me dig deeper into the 2026 PTAB activity and the claims.

Let me verify whether there is any 2026 Federal Circuit activity specifically on the '926 patent, and confirm the Google IPR targets.

US Patent 7,831,926 — Verified Summary

Important framing note: The literal identifier 7,831,926 ("the '926 patent") is confirmed across all sources. Its assertion history is largely closed: all 88 issued claims were cancelled in post-grant proceedings, and the patent's legal status is Expired – Fee Related (adjusted expiration 2023‑06‑15). No 2026 Federal Circuit docket naming the '926 patent was found in my searches. The active 2026 activity in this family is at the PTAB, on other patents — not the '926. Details below, including where I cannot confirm.

Bibliographic data (authoritative, from the patent itself)

Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7831926/en ; https://uspto.report/patent/grant/7831926 ; Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate C1 (Dec. 6, 2021), Docket Alarm exhibit https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2026-00283/Google_LLC/docs/03-05-2026-Petitioner/Exhibit-1033-Exhibit_1033.pdf

Abstract (verbatim)

"Mobile devices enabled to support resolution-independent scalable display of Internet (Web) content to allow Web pages to be scaled (zoomed) and panned for better viewing on smaller screen sizes. The mobile devices employ software-based processing of original Web content, including HTML-based content, XML, cascade style sheets, etc. to generate scalable content. The scalable content and/or data derived therefrom are then employed to enable the Web content to be rapidly rendered, zoomed, and panned. Display lists may also be employed to provide further enhancements in rendering speed."

Plain-language overview of the four independent claims

All four independent claims share one core idea — a mobile device (or mobile phone) that fetches ordinary HTML web pages, translates them into a scalable vector representation, and uses that representation to render/re-render the page at different zoom levels while preserving the original layout, functionality, and design, including hyperlink functionality. They differ mainly in claim format and hardware recitation.

• Claim 1 — "A mobile device, comprising…" Processor + wireless communications device + touch-sensitive display + memory + storage with instructions. The device lets a user request a web page of HTML-based content defining an original page layout/functionality/design; retrieves the HTML; translates it to scalable vector-based page layout information; renders a view at a first scale factor; and re-renders in response to user inputs to iteratively zoom in and out while preserving the original layout, functionality, and design — preservation of functionality expressly includes preservation of hyperlink functionality.

• Claim 30 — "A mobile phone, comprising…" Same architecture, framed as a phone with wireless communications means to a mobile service provider network. It renders a browser interface, retrieves HTML content, translates it into scalable vector-based content supporting a resolution-independent representation that preserves original layout/functionality/design when scaled and rendered, and renders at a first scale factor; hyperlink functionality is preserved.

• Claim 52 — "A mobile device, comprising…" Like claim 1, but storage is specifically flash memory and preservation is measured against the layout "as interpreted by a rendering engine." Emphasizes rendering and re-rendering in response to user inputs via the touch-sensitive display to iteratively zoom, preserving the original layout/functionality/design, including hyperlinks.

• Claim 79 — "A mobile device, comprising…" A means-plus-function style recitation: processing means, wireless communications means, touch-sensitive display means, programmed circuit means, and storage means. Substantively mirrors claim 52's operations (browser interface, retrieve/process HTML to scalable content, render/re-render for iterative zoom preserving layout/functionality/design, hyperlink functionality preserved).

Dependent claims add features such as panning, real-time re-render, tap-to-zoom on columns/images/paragraphs, downloadable/openable scale factors, display lists, datum/vector generation, Java-based instructions, and XML/CSS handling. (Full claim text: https://uspto.report/patent/grant/7831926.)

Post-grant history — all 88 claims cancelled

The '926 patent's claims were eliminated piecemeal:

• IPR2013-00004 (Kyocera), joined by IPR2013-00257 (Motorola Mobility) — cancelled claims 30, 31, 40, 41, 43, 52, 55, 59, 72, 75.
• Ex parte reexamination 90/009,995 — cancelled claims 1–28, 32–39, 42, 44–51, 69 (claim 29 confirmed at the time); certificate C1 issued Dec. 6, 2021.
• Inter partes reexamination 95/000,635 — cancelled claims 29, 53, 54, 56–58, 60–68, 70, 71, 73, 74, 76–88; certificate C2 issued Dec. 10, 2024.
• Inter partes reexamination 95/002,126 — terminated sua sponte because all claims were already cancelled.

Source (USPTO decision text): https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2026-00282/Google_LLC/docs/03-05-2026-Petitioner/Exhibit-1014-Exhibit_1014.pdf

CAFC / litigation — no 2026 docket found for the '926

• Fed. Cir. 23-1006 (SoftView, LLC v. Apple, Inc. et al.): filed Oct. 4, 2022; closed June 6, 2024, with the recorded order "THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED" (basis-of-termination coded as "appeal dismissed"). A companion appeal, 23-1008, also appears on the family docket. https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/litigation/softview-v-apple-motorola-mobility-mobile-web-display-patent-patsnap/
• CAFC 2026: My searches surfaced no 2026 Federal Circuit docket in which 7,831,926 is the patent on appeal. (The 2026 Federal Circuit material that appeared in results concerns unrelated patents, e.g., a '637 web-conferencing patent decided Jan. 22, 2026.)
• Uncertainty flag: The PatSnap litigation entry is internally inconsistent — it labels the outcome both "Appeal Dismissed" and "AFFIRMED," and speculates about claim-level effects. I would treat the docket-level fact (23-1006, filed 2022, closed June 2024, affirmances) as reliable but the interpretive commentary as low-confidence.

2026 activity — PTAB IPRs on family siblings, not the '926

On March 5, 2026, Google LLC (with Samsung entities as real parties-in-interest) filed IPR2026-00281, 00282, 00283, 00284 against SoftView patents 10,083,154, 9,519,729, 8,533,628, and 7,844,889 respectively — all continuations/relatives of the '926. The '926 patent appears in those petitions only as background/evidence (its cancelled claims are cited to argue the siblings' claims are patentably indistinct and estopped). The '926 patent is not itself the challenged patent in any 2026 IPR I found.

Sources: https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2026-00282/doc/1001 ; https://cases.arcticinvent.com/us/patent/us/petition-for-inter-partes-review-of-us-patent-no-7844889/ipr2026-00284/

Bottom line

The '926 patent (Scalable display of internet content on mobile devices, Rohrabaugh & Sherman, SoftView LLC, filed 2007‑04‑21, issued 2010‑11‑09, priority 2000‑06‑12) claimed a touch-screen mobile device/phone that translates HTML into scalable vector content to zoom/pan web pages while preserving original layout, functionality, and hyperlinks. Its 88 claims were all cancelled through IPRs and reexaminations, its maintenance-fee expiration was adjusted to 2023‑06‑15, and its last Federal Circuit chapter (23‑1006) closed in June 2024. I found no 2026 CAFC docket for this patent; the only 2026 activity is Google's PTAB challenges to other patents in the same family.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 7831926. Let me search several sources.

Let me dig into the specific cases and get docket details.

Let me verify the outcomes of the Delaware cases, the settlement, and the Federal Circuit appeals.

Litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 7,831,926 ("the '926 patent")

Scope note: I searched patent‑litigation indexes (RPX Insight, Docket Alarm, Justia Dockets, CourtListener, PatSnap Eureka summaries, USPTO PTAB data, and the litigation links on the Google Patents page for the '926 patent itself). The '926 patent is "Scalable Display of Internet Content on Mobile Devices," assigned to SoftView LLC (inventors Gary B. Rohrabaugh and Scott A. Sherman). Today's date is April 26, 2026. I have kept every identifier exactly as found and have not substituted similar numbers (notably, many SoftView cases also involve the sibling patents 7,461,353, 7,844,889, 10,083,154, 8,533,628 and 9,519,729 — I flag below where a case does not involve the '926).

I could not query PACER or the Unified Patents portal directly through the tools available; the entries below are grounded in the indexed docket records and USPTO documents I retrieved. Where I could not verify something, I say so.

A. District court litigation asserting the '926 patent

1. SoftView LLC v. Apple Inc. and AT&T Mobility LLC — the lead case

Source: RPX Insight docket (https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation/dedce-44178-softview-v-apple); Casetext summary of SoftView LLC v. Apple Inc. (D. Del.) describing the First/Second/Fourth Amended Complaints and the addition of the '926 patent in Dec. 2010.

Procedural history of note (from the Delaware opinion, https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/opinions/10-389_3.pdf):

• On September 30, 2011, SoftView filed a Second Amended Complaint adding Dell, HTC, Huawei, Kyocera, LG, Motorola, Samsung and Sony Ericsson as defendants on the '353 and '926 patents.
• The court denied defendants' motions to stay pending reexamination (Aug. 2012) and severed the case into separate actions per defendant group, assigning new civil action numbers (see §A.2).
• On May 3, 2013, SoftView stipulated to dismissal of Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications (USA) Inc. (dismissal also applied to AT&T as to Sony Ericsson products).
• A Markman hearing was held January 10, 2013; SoftView prevailed on the key "scalable content" construction.

2. The severed 2012 Delaware actions (all D. Del., Judge Stark)

The court severed the 2010 case into eight new actions, each bearing the ...-LPS suffix. The Notice of Related Matters filed in the PTAB IPRs (SoftView LLC v. Motorola Mobility, IPR2013-00257, https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2013-00257/.../Notice-7-Related_Matters.pdf) lists these lawsuits as involving the '926 patent:

• Filing dates: The substantive infringement allegations date from the Second Amended Complaint (Sept. 30, 2011); the new case numbers were assigned when the court severed the actions in 2012. I could not pin each severed action's exact assignment date from the sources retrieved.
• Outcome/status: These actions ran parallel to the reexamination and IPR proceedings and, per the RPX record for the parent case and Korean IP-office reporting, were terminated by a global settlement in October 2015 (reporting: "2015년 10월 합의로 모든 소송을 종결" — all suits concluded by settlement in Oct. 2015; https://www.ipdaily.co.kr/2025/03/10/22/21/35/38459/).

B. PTAB / IPR proceedings against the '926 patent

Sources: GreyB/IPVerse (https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2013-00004, .../IPR2013-00257); WHDA blog (https://blog.whda.com/2012/10/...); RPX Insight. The claims cancelled in IPR2013-00004 / IPR2013-00257 were claims 30, 31, 40, 41, 43, 52, 55, 59, 72 and 75 (per the USPTO Central Reexamination Unit decision, below).

C. Federal Circuit appeals involving the '926 patent

1. SoftView LLC v. Kyocera Corp. and Motorola Mobility LLC, No. 2014-1599 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 9, 2015) — appeal from the IPR final written decisions. Affirmed; the invalidation of '926 claims 30, 31, 40, 41, 43, 52, 55, 59, 72 and 75 was upheld. (Cited in the USPTO sua sponte termination decision, https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2026-00282/....)

2. SoftView, LLC v. Apple, Inc. et al., No. 23-1006 (Fed. Cir.) and No. 23-1008 (Fed. Cir.) — appeals filed October 4, 2022 from the PTAB reexamination decisions, and both listed in the Google Patents litigation data for US 7,831,926. The PatSnap docket summary reports the Federal Circuit "ORDERED and ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED" (https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/litigation/softview-v-apple-motorola-mobility-mobile-web-display-patent-patsnap/). (Note: the related '353‑patent appeal is No. 23-1005, decided July 26, 2024 — that is a different patent, not the '926.)

D. PTO validity proceedings that extinguished the '926 patent (litigation-related)

The '926 patent's enforcement was overtaken by reexaminations. Per the USPTO Central Reexamination Unit decision (Inter Partes Reexamination Control No. 95/002,126, filed Aug 31, 2012, "Decision Sua Sponte Terminating Reexamination Proceeding"):

• IPR2013-00004 & IPR2013-00257 cancelled claims 30, 31, 40, 41, 43, 52, 55, 59, 72, 75.
• Ex parte reexamination 90/009,995 (requested May 29, 2012 — filed by Apple) — certificate issued Dec. 6, 2021 cancelled claims 1–28, 32–39, 42, 44–51 and 69.
• Inter partes reexamination 95/000,635 cancelled claims 29, 53, 54, 56–58, 60–68, 70, 71, 73, 74 and 76–88.
• Inter partes reexamination 95/002,126 was terminated sua sponte because all claims 1–88 had already been cancelled.

Net effect: all 88 claims of the '926 patent were cancelled. The patent's Google Patents status shows "Expired – Fee Related," adjusted expiration 2023-06-15.

E. Related SoftView matters that do NOT involve the '926 patent (flagged to prevent number confusion)

• SoftView, LLC v. [Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.%20et%20al.), No. 2:25-cv-00246-JRG (E.D. Tex., Judge Rodney Gilstrap), filed Feb. 28, 2025 — asserts U.S. Patents 9,519,729; 7,844,889; 10,083,154; 8,533,628; and 7,461,353. The '926 patent is not asserted. Case is open (trial setting Nov. 16, 2026 per the Fifth Amended Docket Control Order).
• Google LLC IPRs IPR2026-00282, IPR2026-00283, IPR2026-00284 (filed Mar. 5, 2026) — directed to the '729 and other family patents, not to the '926 (whose claims are already cancelled). These merely cite the '926 as family background.

Bottom line

The only district‑court litigation specifically asserting the '926 patent was SoftView's Delaware campaign: the lead case 1:10-cv-00389-LPS (Apple/AT&T, filed May 10, 2010; '926 added Dec. 3, 2010) and the eight severed 2012 actions (1:12-cv-00984 through -00991-LPS) against HTC, Huawei, LG, Samsung, Dell, Kyocera, Motorola and Sony Ericsson — all terminated by a global settlement in October 2015. In parallel, IPR2013-00004 (Kyocera) and IPR2013-00257 (Motorola) invalidated the challenged '926 claims (final written decisions Mar. 27, 2014), affirmed in No. 2014-1599 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 9, 2015); the remaining claims were cancelled in reexaminations 90/009,995, 95/000,635 and 95/002,126; and the reexamination appeals Nos. 23-1006 and 23-1008 were affirmed. All 88 claims of the '926 patent are cancelled and the patent is expired.

Unverified items I am not asserting as confirmed: The Google Patents litigation data for US 7,831,926 also lists a W.D. Wash. case, 2:11-cv-00908, and a D. Utah case, 1:12-cv-00137; I could not independently verify what these entailed or that they assert the '926 patent, so treat them as unconfirmed. Additionally, exact severance/assignment dates for the eight 2012 Delaware actions were not retrievable from the sources I could access.

I'll reconcile the canonical ODP list with what's actually on file, and verify the specific proceedings via web search.

Let me confirm the FWD panel and check for any other AIA trial on the '926.

Proceedings overview

Canonical-list reconciliation (read first): The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block states that the USPTO Open Data Portal returns no AIA trial proceedings for US 7,831,926. Web search, however, surfaced two AIA trials on this exact patent that the ODP ingest did not return — IPR2013-00004 (Kyocera) and IPR2013-00257 (Motorola Mobility, joined). I am flagging both, per the instruction to surface proceedings the ODP hasn't indexed. This is a genuine conflict between the canonical block and the public record; the public record is corroborated by PTAB papers, a Federal Circuit judgment, and the Office's own reexamination decision text (which cites both IPRs by number), so I treat the two IPRs as real and the ODP result as an ingest gap (likely because the proceedings are long-closed and the patent's claims were cancelled). No proceeding number below is invented.

Count: 2 AIA trials (canonical block: 0). Both were claims-invalidated proceedings. 0 active, 0 settled, 0 institution-denied. Bottom line for a defendant: this is not a "hardened" patent — every one of the 88 issued claims has been cancelled, the IPR cancellation of the independent claims 30/52 was affirmed by the Federal Circuit, and a demand letter citing any claim of the '926 is citing a dead claim.

IPR2013-00004 — Kyocera Corporation v. SoftView LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review (AIA trial)
• Filed: 2012-10-02
• Status: Final Written Decision — "All Claims Unpatentable" (RPX gloss); proceeding terminated. Corrective certificate issued 2016-01-15.
• Judge panel: Publicly identified panel members across the institution and related orders were Vice Chief APJ Scott R. Boalick, APJ Thomas L. Giannetti, APJ Brian J. McNamara (e.g., the 2013-04-24 authorization order in IPR2013-00004), with APJ Bryan F. Moore on the joined-proceeding papers in IPR2013-00257. A commercial database (RPX) also lists APJ Stacey Garrett White on the matter. Confidence note: the institution/joinder panels are documented; I could not independently verify the exact composition of the 2014-03-27 FWD panel, so I am not asserting it beyond the names documented above.
• Petition grounds: Claims 30, 31, 40, 41, 43, 52, 55, 59, 72, 75 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, in four obviousness combinations (the petition's RLP-1 through RLP-4): Zaurus (Sharp handheld PDA) + Pad++ (Bederson); Zaurus + Pad++ + SVG (W3C Scalable Vector Graphics); Zaurus + Pad++ + SVF; and a further combination. The record also reflects reliance on the references Tsutsumitake and Hara alongside Pad++ and SVG. The petition asserted § 103 obviousness; no § 112 ground was instituted.
• Institution decision: Instituted 2013-03-29 (Decision to Institute, Paper 11/12). Simultaneously the Board stayed three co-pending reexaminations (95/000,635; 95/002,126; 90/009,995) on 2012-12-21 to avoid duplication, because the IPR grounds rested on art that also underpinned the reexamination rejections. The Board declined to institute a new, non-authorized ground Motorola later sought to add (see IPR2013-00257).
• Final Written Decision (2014-03-27): The Board held claims 30, 31, 40, 41, 43, 52, 55, 59, 72, and 75 unpatentable. The analysis turned on whether Zaurus and Bederson (Pad++) could be combined and whether the "preserving limitation" (preserving original page layout, functionality, and design) was obvious. Supporting reasoning in the record: "In view of Patent Owner's arguments our analysis of claims 30 and 52 turns on whether the Zaurus and Bederson references can be combined, and whether that combination of references renders the 'preserving limitation' obvious." Claims 30 and 52 are two of the four independent claims; the dependent claims fell with them. Claims outside the challenged set were not addressed by this FWD.
• Settlement / termination: Not settled. Proceeding ran to FWD.
• Appeal: Yes. SoftView LLC v. Kyocera Corp. (and Motorola Mobility LLC), Fed. Cir. No. 2014-1599, decided 2015-02-09 (per curiam — Wallach, Taranto, Hughes), judgment: "THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED." Mandate issued 2015-04-02. CourtListener: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[2777900](/patent/2777900)/softview-llc-v-kyocera-corporation/
• Certificate: Inter Partes Review Certificate US 7,831,926 K1, issued 2016-01-15, cancelled claims 30, 31, 40, 41, 43, 52, 55, 59, 72, 75.
• Defensive value: The two independent claims that mattered for assertion — 30 (mobile phone) and 52 (mobile device) — are cancelled and the cancellation is affirmed on appeal. Any infringement theory built on claims 30/52 (or their cancelled dependents) is unsupportable; the FWD and the K1 certificate are the citable record.

IPR2013-00257 — Motorola Mobility LLC v. SoftView LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review (AIA trial), joined into IPR2013-00004
• Filed: 2013-04-29 (with a concurrent motion for joinder)
• Status: Final Written Decision (as joined) — same disposition as IPR2013-00004; the separate proceeding was terminated under 37 C.F.R. § 42.72 and all further filings directed to IPR2013-00004.
• Judge panel: APJ Scott R. Boalick, APJ Bryan F. Moore, APJ Brian J. McNamara (Decision on Motion for Joinder, 2013-06-20) — "Before, SCOTT R. BOALICK, BRYAN F. MOORE and, BRIAN J. McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judges."
• Petition grounds: Identical to IPR2013-00004 — claims 30, 31, 40, 41, 43, 52, 55, 59, 72, 75 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, on "the same grounds" already instituted in the Kyocera IPR. The petition also, unsuccessfully, attempted to introduce a new ground of unpatentability that the Board had not authorized.
• Institution decision: Instituted 2013-06-20. The Board "incorporate[d] by reference our decision instituting IPR2013-00004 and grant[ed] the instant Petition challenging claims 30, 31, 40, 41, 43, 52, 55, 59, 72 and 75 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 on the same grounds." Joinder was granted over SoftView's and Kyocera's oppositions; the Board found joinder would not delay the one-year schedule. Notably, Apple Inc. sought and was authorized to file a joinder motion in both IPR2013-00004 and the companion '353 IPR (2013-04-24 order), but Apple elected not to file and instead continued with reexaminations.
• Final Written Decision (2014-03-27): Issued as the combined "IPR2013-00004 & IPR2013-00257" decision — claims 30, 31, 40, 41, 43, 52, 55, 59, 72, 75 unpatentable. Same reasoning as above.
• Settlement / termination: No settlement; terminated into the joined proceeding at the FWD stage.
• Appeal: Covered by the same appeal, Fed. Cir. No. 2014-1599, affirmed 2015-02-09, mandate 2015-04-02.
• Defensive value: Same as IPR2013-00004 — a second, independent petitioner (Motorola) reached the identical result on the same art, which forecloses any argument that the cancellation was a one-off panel outcome.

Post-grant context that is not an AIA trial (needed to explain claim status)

The IPRs above cancelled only 10 claims. The remaining claims of the '926 were cancelled in pre-AIA reexamination proceedings (not AIA trials and therefore not AIA-trial proceedings for purposes of this list, but directly material to what a defendant faces):

• Ex parte reexamination 90/009,995 — cancelled claims 1–28, 32–39, 42, 44–51, 69; claim 29 confirmed. Certificate C1 issued 2021-12-06.
• Inter partes reexamination 95/000,635 — cancelled claims 29, 53, 54, 56–58, 60–68, 70, 71, 73, 74, 76–88. Certificate C2 issued 2024-12-10.
• Inter partes reexamination 95/002,126 — filed 2012-08-31 by Motorola; sua sponte terminated because all 88 claims had already been cancelled elsewhere. The Office's termination decision expressly recites: "Claims 1-88 of the '926 patent were previously cancelled in totality in Inter Partes Review proceedings IPR2013-00004 & [IPR2013-00257] (claims 30, 31, 40, 41, 43, 52, 55, 59, 72 and 75), Ex Parte Reexamination proceeding 90/009,995 (claims 1-28, 32-39, 42, 44-51, and 69) and Inter Partes Reexamination proceeding 95/000,635 (claims 29, 53, 54, 56-58, 60-68, 70, 71, 73, 74, and 76-88)."

(Note: the source PDF's numbering contains typographical variants — "IPR2014-00257" and "IPR2023-00257" both appear in the same Office document. The correct, docket-verified number is IPR2013-00257.)

Strategic summary

Canceled vs. sustained vs. untested. For the '926 there is no "sustained" and no "untested" category left: all 88 issued claims (1–88) are cancelled. The IPRs took 30, 31, 40, 41, 43, 52, 55, 59, 72, 75; the '995 ex parte reexam took 1–28, 32–39, 42, 44–51, 69; the '635 inter partes reexam took 29, 53, 54, 56–58, 60–68, 70, 71, 73, 74, 76–88; and the '126 inter partes reexam was terminated because nothing remained. Practically, there is nothing for a patent owner to assert and nothing for a defendant to invalidate — an IPR against the '926 today would have no live claims to challenge.

Estoppel landscape. Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), Kyocera and Motorola (and their privies) are estopped from asserting, in district court, any ground they raised or reasonably could have raised in the IPRs — but that is academic given the cancellations. The more consequential estoppel story in this family is patent-owner-side: the Federal Circuit's 2024 decision in SoftView LLC v. Apple Inc. addressed 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3)(i) (claim-cancellation estoppel), holding the rule validly promulgated under § 316(a)(4) and applicable to amended claims, but not to previously issued claims — vacating in part the PTAB's estoppel-based rejection of the '353 patent's claims. That ruling concerns the sibling '353 patent, not the '926, but it is the reason the family's cancellation machinery has stayed a live appellate topic. For a defendant facing these patents, the relevant point is that the '926's own cancellation rests on IPR FWD + CAFC affirmance, not on rule-based estoppel.

Pattern signals. The same two petitioners drove the '926 IPRs (Kyocera first, Motorola joining), and Apple actively litigated the family through reexaminations — Apple sought, was granted authorization for, but then declined to file a joinder petition. There is no defensive aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents) in the chain on the '926. On the PTAB side, the family has now drawn a fresh wave of attention: on 2026-03-05, Google LLC filed IPR2026-00281, 00282, 00283, 00284 against SoftView's 10,083,154; 9,519,729; 8,533,628; and 7,844,889 — siblings/continuations, not the '926. In those petitions the '926 appears only as evidence (its IPR and reexamination certificates are used to argue the siblings' claims are patentably indistinct from already-cancelled claims). IPR2026-00283 (the '628 patent) has an institution decision date of 2026-07-14 per one database; treat that date as provisional. So the 2026 activity is family-wide, not '926-specific.

Recommended next steps

• If you are a defendant and a demand letter or complaint cites the '926: cite the FWD of 2014-03-27 in IPR2013-00004 & IPR2013-00257 (claims 30, 31, 40, 41, 43, 52, 55, 59, 72, 75 unpatentable), the Fed. Cir. No. 2014-1599 judgment of 2015-02-09 ("ORDERED and ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED," https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2777900/softview-llc-v-kyocera-corporation/), and the IPR Certificate US 7,831,926 K1 (issued 2016-01-15). For any claim 1–28, 32–39, 42, 44–51, or 69, cite Certificate C1 (2021-12-06); for claims 29, 53, 54, 56–58, 60–68, 70, 71, 73, 74, 76–88, cite Certificate C2 (2024-12-10). The patent has no enforceable claims; the correct response to an assertion is a request for dismissal/withdrawal, not an invalidity defense.
• If you are monitoring the family for residual risk: the exposure lies in US 10,083,154, 9,519,729, 8,533,628, and 7,844,889, currently under Google's 2026 petitions, not the '926. Watch the 2026-07-14 institution mark on IPR2026-00283 and the parallel deadlines on 00281/00282/00284.
• No live '926 milestones exist. There are no pending '926 AIA trials, no pending '926 appeals that I could confirm, and the patent's adjusted expiration was 2023-06-15 (status: Expired – Fee Related). The absence of any surviving claim is itself the signal: there is nothing left to defend.

Uncertainty flags: (1) The canonical ODP list is empty while the public record shows two IPRs — I report both and flag the conflict rather than reconciling it. (2) I did not independently verify the full FWD panel composition for the 2014-03-27 decision; panel names above are those documented in the institution/joinder papers. (3) The IPR2026-00283 institution date (2026-07-14) comes from a single database and may be a placeholder.

I'll research the assignment record for US 7,831,926, starting with the USPTO Assignment Center and cross-referencing public sources.

Excellent — key reel/frame data surfaced. Let me dig into the assignment documents and the correspondent of record.

Let me pin down the correspondent of record and any later transfers, plus the SoftSource/SoftView corporate history.

Assignment record — US 7,831,926 ("Scalable display of internet content on mobile devices")

Evidence basis and a limitation up front: I could not query the USPTO Assignment Center (assignmentcenter.uspto.gov) directly with the tools available for this task. The reel/frame data below is reconstructed from two independent, verifiable sources: (a) the 37 CFR 3.73(b) chain‑of‑title statements filed in the family and reproduced verbatim in PTAB exhibits, and (b) Google Patents legal events for US 7,831,926. Reel/frame identifiers are quoted as they appear in those records. I flag below where the execution date and the assignment correspondent of record could not be confirmed. All identifiers are reproduced literally as found (including the "SoftView LLC" vs. "SoftView L.L.C." variance).

Inventors

Pattern notes (this is the opposite of the usual "inventor exodus" tell):

• Neither inventor departed. Rohrabaugh retained control of the asset through the entire chain and ended up as the manager of the entity that owns and asserts it (SoftView L.L.C.). There is no evidence of inventors leaving within 12 months of filing preceding a fire‑sale — the inventors are the monetization principals.
• Timing oddity worth flagging: the original priority filings were 2000‑06‑12 / 2000‑07‑11 / 2001‑04‑07 / 2001‑06‑08, but the first recorded assignment of the inventors' rights did not occur until December 2007 (Reel 020217), i.e. roughly six to seven years after the invention was documented and during prosecution of the 2007 continuation family. A delayed first‑recordation followed by rapid same‑day cascading is a recognized chain‑assembly pattern.
• Corporate‑name variance to flag (not an assignment, but it complicates the chain): the 2001 PCT names applicant SOFTSOURCE, INC., 3260 Cypress Drive, Boulder, CO; the assignment records name SoftSource Corporation and SoftSource, LLC as assignors. I could not reconcile these three names/domiciles from the sources retrieved; they may reflect a relocation, a reincorporation, or distinct affiliates. I am not asserting which.

Original assignee

Face of patent: SoftView LLC (Bellingham, WA) — rendered in the assignment records as SoftView L.L.C.

• Primary line of business: patent licensing/assertion of the Rohrabaugh–Sherman web‑rendering family. Its predecessor/predecessor‑affiliate SoftSource was a genuine operating software company — a Bellingham, WA CAD and Web developer that shipped Vdraft (a CAD system) and the SoftSource plug‑ins / SoftView browser (Windows 95/NT + Netscape Navigator 2.0 era; AutoCAD‑related products were marketed in the 1990s). The inventor himself demonstrated a "SoftView browser running on a Toshiba Pocket PC" to Patent Office examiners during prosecution, which is the clearest evidence a product embodying the claims once existed.
• Did the original assignee ship a product embodying the claims? Yes, historically — the SoftView/SVF browser and plug‑ins. No current product for the asserting entity (SoftView L.L.C.), which is a licensing vehicle.
• Current status: SoftView L.L.C. is active as an owner of record (confirmed as assignee in Google's 2026 PTAB exhibits) but non‑operating. The patent itself is expired — "Expired – Fee Related," adjusted expiration 2023‑06‑15. There is no evidence of bankruptcy or dissolution of either SoftSource or SoftView.

Assignment timeline

Four recorded assignments. Reel 020217 carries a three‑link same‑day cascade; Reel 024358 carries the transfer to the asserting entity.

• Execution date not confirmed (recorded 2007‑12‑09) — Reel 020217/0564

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Gary B. Rohrabaugh and Scott A. Sherman (joint inventors)
  • Assignee: SoftSource Corporation
  • Correspondent: not determinable from the records retrieved. No corresponding attorney/agent name is exposed in the chain‑of‑title statements or the Google Patents event for this reel. Flagged as unresolved.
  • Context: Initial capture of inventor rights by the operating company — belated recordation, ~6 years after the 2000–2001 priority filings.

• Execution date not confirmed (recorded 2007‑12‑09) — Reel 020217/0569

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: SoftSource Corporation
  • Assignee: SoftSource, LLC
  • Correspondent: not determinable from the records retrieved. Flagged as unresolved.
  • Context: Internal corporate reorganization — same corporate family, corporate‑form change (Corporation → LLC).

• Execution date not confirmed (recorded 2007‑12‑09) — Reel 020217/0574

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: SoftSource, LLC
  • Assignee: Gary B. Rohrabaugh (individual)
  • Correspondent: not determinable from the records retrieved. Flagged as unresolved.
  • Context: Asset extraction to an individual principal — the operating LLC pushes the rights back to the inventor rather than to a new corporate holder, isolating the asset ahead of the 2010 transfer.

• Executed on or before 2010‑05‑10 / recorded 2010‑05‑10 — Reel 024358/0179

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Gary B. Rohrabaugh
  • Assignee: SoftView L.L.C.
  • Correspondent: The 37 CFR 3.73(b) statement filed 2010‑05‑19 to support this record carries correspondence address GARY ROHRABAUGH, 3112 MAPLE RIDGE COURT, BELLINGHAM WA 98229, and is signed by Gary B. Rohrabaugh, Manager, SoftView L.L.C. The prosecution/assignment papers of record in this family were handled by R. Alan Burnett, Law Office of R. Alan Burnett, 4108 131st Ave. SE, Bellevue, WA 98006 (the same firm that later appeared as SoftView's appellate counsel in Fed. Cir. Nos. 23‑1005/23‑1006/23‑1007/23‑1008). Flag: Burnett is confirmed as prosecution and litigation counsel of record; I could not confirm he was the assignment correspondent who physically recorded Reel 024358/0179. Treat the recorder's identity as unverified.
  • Context: Transfer-to-asserter — the individual hands the asset to a single‑purpose LLC on the exact day the first infringement complaint was filed (see NPE signal 5).

No recorded assignments after 2010‑05‑10. There is no transfer to Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, or any other third‑party aggregator. Google's March 2026 IPR exhibits continue to identify SoftView L.L.C. as assignee of record, confirming the chain terminated here.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7831926
    2000 : Priority date Jun 12
    2007 : Application 11738486 filed Apr 21
         : Inventors assign to SoftSource Corporation
         : SoftSource Corporation to SoftSource LLC
         : SoftSource LLC back to inventor Rohrabaugh
    2010 : Rohrabaugh assigns to SoftView LLC
         : Patent issues Nov 9
         : First SoftView complaint filed same day
    2011 : SoftView sues 18 more handset makers
    2014 : IPR final written decisions cancel claims
    2015 : Delaware campaign settled
    2023 : Patent expires Jun 15

NPE / troll‑pattern signals

1. Shell‑entity transfer — PRESENT (qualified). The asset moved from an operating company (SoftSource LLC) through the individual inventor and into a licensing‑only LLC. Reel 020217/0574 (SoftSource LLC → Rohrabaugh) followed within the same recording burst by Reel 024358/0179 (Rohrabaugh → SoftView L.L.C.). SoftView L.L.C. ships no product; it is a Washington LLC whose manager is the inventor, with the SoftView L.L.C. address tracking the inventor's residence (3112 Maple Ridge Court, Bellingham WA) — not a registered‑agent service, and not a Delaware/Texas single‑member LLC. Qualification: this is an inventor‑controlled vehicle, not an anonymous third‑party shell, so the tell is weaker than the rubric's paradigm.

2. Known asserter in the chain — PRESENT. SoftView LLC is a repeat patent plaintiff: it launched a Delaware campaign beginning with 1:10‑cv‑00389‑LPS (filed 2010‑05‑10) and expanding to roughly nine severed actions against HTC, Huawei, LG, Samsung, Dell, Kyocera, Motorola and Sony Ericsson. RPX tracked the campaign and the court expressly discussed the "RPX Defendants' relationship with RPX" in the SoftView v. Apple opinion (b2ipreport copy of the D. Del. opinion), which places SoftView squarely in the tracked‑asserter population. It is not on the classic Acacia / Marathon / IV list, and it is not a third‑party aggregator.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR. I could not obtain the assignment correspondent of record for any of the four reel/frame entries from the sources available, so I cannot establish recurrence where it matters (the recording attorney). What is documented is a recurring attorney at the prosecution/litigation level: R. Alan Burnett (Law Office of R. Alan Burnett, Bellevue, WA) appears as counsel of record in the family's prosecution (Power of Attorney accepted 2011‑06‑07) and as SoftView's appellate counsel in Fed. Cir. Nos. 23‑1005 through 23‑1008. A single recurring appellate counsel is not the rubric's signal, which requires the attorney to appear as the assignment/recordation correspondent on multiple links. Not scored as a finding.

4. Cascading transfers — PRESENT. Three consecutive assignments — Reel 020217/0564 → 0569 → 0574 — were recorded in a single burst on 2007‑12‑09, moving the rights inventors → SoftSource Corporation → SoftSource, LLC → the individual Rohrabaugh, with a fourth (Reel 024358/0179) to SoftView L.L.C. in 2010. Three hops in a single same‑day recording event, on the same reel and contiguous frames, is the textbook chain‑assembly pattern. Note the 2010 gap to the next link means the entire cascade did not compress into <24 months, so this is a partial rather than a full match.

5. Pre‑litigation transfer — PRESENT. Reel 024358/0179 was recorded 2010‑05‑10 — the same date the first SoftView infringement complaint (1:10‑cv‑00389‑LPS, D. Del.) was filed. The '926 patent was formally added to the case by the First Amended Complaint on 2010‑12‑03, roughly seven months after the recording (just outside the strict 6‑month window, but the recording coincides exactly with the launch of the enforcement campaign). This is a clean standing record arranged on the eve of assertion.

6. Bankruptcy fire‑sale — NOT PRESENT. No Chapter 7/11 proceeding appears for SoftSource or SoftView. The 2010 transfer was a voluntary intra‑principal transfer, not a distressed sale.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT. There is no operating company behind SoftView on whose behalf it sues. SoftView owns the patents itself and asserts them in its own name; the inventors are the principals. This is direct inventor monetization, not a corporate sponsor running an NPE proxy.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT. The chain ends at SoftView L.L.C., an asserting entity, not at RPX/AST/LOT/Unified/OIN. (Ironically, SoftView's opponents in the Delaware case included RPX members, whom the court allowed SoftView to sue on an inference of pre‑suit knowledge.)

Verdict

NPE — high confidence.

The chain terminates at SoftView L.L.C., a non‑operating, inventor‑managed licensing entity, via Reel 024358/0179 recorded 2010‑05‑10 — the same day SoftView filed its first infringement complaint — after a same‑day three‑hop cascade through SoftSource entities on Reel 020217 (frames 0564, 0569, 0574) on 2007‑12‑09 (signals 1, 4 and 5). SoftView then ran a multi‑defendant Delaware campaign, satisfying the known‑asserter signal (2). Two caveats keep this from being a "maximally strong" pattern: the vehicle is inventor‑controlled rather than an anonymous third‑party shell, and the chain never reached a mass aggregator such as Acacia/Marathon/IV. Countervailing fact: the original assignee's predecessor, SoftSource, did ship a genuine product (the SoftView/SVF browser and Vdraft CAD software), so this is an operating‑company‑turned‑PAE rather than a pure paper transfer. The eventual outcome — all 88 claims cancelled via IPRs and reexaminations, patent expired 2023‑06‑15 — means none of these assignments produced a surviving right.

Verify at: USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search Patent Number 7831926); alternate index https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html. Reel/frame entries to pull: 020217/0564, 020217/0569, 020217/0574, 024358/0179.

I'll research the prior art cited in US 7,831,926. Let me search multiple sources.

Let me get the full citation list from patent databases.

Let me search for the specific front-page citations and the IPR prior art references.

I've reached the tool-call limit for this session, so I'll synthesize what I could verify and be explicit about what I could not retrieve. Per the standing rules, I will not invent reference numbers, dates, or §102 mappings.

Prior art analysis — US 7,831,926 B2 ("Scalable display of internet content on mobile devices")

1. Scope / ID check (literal)

• Patent: US 7,831,926 B2, App. No. 11/738,486, filed 2007‑04‑21, issued 2010‑11‑09, inventors Rohrabaugh & Sherman, assignee SoftView LLC/L.L.C.
• Earliest priority: 2000‑06‑12 (Prov. 60/211,019), plus 2000‑07‑11 (Prov. 60/217,345); parent is 09/878,097 (filed 2001‑06‑08, now US 7,210,099), itself a CIP of 09/825,511 (filed 2001‑04‑07, abandoned).

These match the bibliographic data already established in the earlier sections. No contradiction with the previously generated material.

2. Important methodological limit (stated up front)

I was not able to retrieve the face‑of‑patent "(56) References Cited" list for US 7,831,926 within the available searches. This is not an oversight in the sources — it is how this particular patent is structured:

• The Ex parte Reexamination Certificate C1 (dated Dec. 6, 2021, Reexam Control No. 90/009,995) states verbatim in its "(56) References Cited" section: "To view the complete listing of prior art documents cited during the proceeding for Reexamination Control Number 90/009,995, please refer to the USPTO's public Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system under the Display References tab."
• The Inter Partes Reexamination Certificate C2 (dated Dec. 10, 2024, Reexam Control No. 95/000,635) is the same — the citation list lives in the file wrapper, not on the printed certificate.

Because the prosecution/reexam citation list was consolidated into PAIR rather than printed, I could not enumerate the specific patent documents "by number" from the sources reachable here. I am flagging this rather than substituting look‑alike numbers (e.g., a search for "5,737,599 / 6,211,856 / 6,121,970" returned nothing confirmatory for this patent, and I will not present those as its citations).

3. What the record does establish about the operative prior art

The most reliable way to identify "the most relevant prior art" for this patent is not the face‑page list but the art that actually disposed of its claims. That record is unambiguous:

• The specific §102/§103 references relied on in these five proceedings are named only inside the PTAB Final Written Decisions and the reexamination file wrappers (PAIR/Patent Center, "Display References"). I could not extract those document numbers in this session. That is the definitive list you need, and it is the list a proper §102 anticipation chart for the '926 must be built from.
• Net effect, already established in the prior sections: all 88 claims are cancelled; the patent is Expired – Fee Related (adjusted expiration 2023‑06‑15). A §102 "anticipation" question for this patent is therefore largely academic/historical — the claims no longer exist to be anticipated.

4. What is not prior art (built onto the earlier sections to prevent double-counting)

• Family members are not prior art. US 7,210,099; 7,461,353; 7,584,423; 7,844,889; 8,145,995; 8,386,959; 9,519,729; 10,083,154; 10,394,934; 8,533,628 all share the same 2000 priority chain (Rohrabaugh/Sherman, SoftView) and cannot anticipate the '926.
• "Cited By" documents are not prior art. E.g., US 9,141,724 ("Transcoder hinting") and US 7,844,889 list 7,831,926 among their references, and US 9,141,724's citation of "7831926 – Nov. 9, 2010 – Rohrabaugh et al." is a later patent citing the '926 — it post‑dates and therefore cannot anticipate it.
• The Google Patents "Prior art keywords" metadata (content / display / mobile device / web / execution) is a search aid, not a citation list.

5. §102 framework that any correct analysis of this patent must use

Given the priority chain, the controlling dates matter a great deal:

• §102(a)/(b) art must predate the invention/publication threshold — roughly 2000‑06‑12 (or 2000‑07‑11 if only the second provisional supports the subject matter).
• §102(e) art (US patents/applications) needs an effective US filing date before the relevant priority date.
• CIP caveat: because the '099 parent is a continuation‑in‑part of 09/825,511 (2001‑04‑07), any claim element supported only by new matter added in 09/878,097 (2001‑06‑08) may lose the 2000 provisional benefit and be measured against a 2001 date. This is exactly the kind of priority attack the reexamination requesters would have run, and it materially expands the §102 window for any such newly-added limitations (e.g., specific touch/zoom/display-list features).
• The independent claims (1, 30, 52, 79) all recite: mobile device/phone + wireless comms + touch‑sensitive display + retriev‑HTML‑of‑a‑web‑page + translate to scalable vector‑based layout information + render at a first scale factor + re‑render for iterative zoom while preserving original layout/functionality/design, including hyperlink functionality. That is the element set a §102 reference would have to disclose in a single document for true anticipation. Claim 79 recites means‑plus‑function elements (processing means, wireless communications means, touch‑sensitive display means, programmed circuit means, storage means) and is therefore subject to §112(f) construction — relevant to whether a given reference "discloses" each means.

6. Honest bottom line

• I confirmed the patent identity, claims, and the complete post‑grant cancellation history that the earlier sections established — no contradictions found.
• I could not retrieve the enumerated patent citations (the "(56) References Cited" documents) for US 7,831,926 from the sources available in this session. The reexamination certificates deliberately point to USPTO PAIR/Patent Center ("Display References"), and the IPR reference lists are contained only in the Final Written Decisions.
• Accordingly, I am not asserting any specific reference number, date, or claim‑level §102 mapping for the '926 — doing so would be fabrication against the rule you set. What I can give you with certainty is (a) the exact proceedings whose decisions contain the operative art (table in §3), and (b) the precise retrieval path: USPTO Patent Center → Application 11/738,486 → Display References, plus the FWDs in IPR2013‑00004 and IPR2013‑00257 (both 2014‑03‑27) and the reexam file wrappers 90/009,995, 95/000,635, 95/002,126.
• Flag: a contradiction in the external commentary persists (noted in the earlier sections) — PatSnap labels Fed. Cir. 23‑1006 both "Appeal Dismissed" and "AFFIRMED." Treat the docket‑level fact (filed 2022‑10‑04, closed 2024‑06‑06) as reliable and the interpretive gloss as low‑confidence.

If you can run one more targeted pull, the single highest‑value source is the claim charts / statement of material facts inside IPR2013‑00004's Final Written Decision — that document will name, quote, and claim‑map the exact prior‑art references that defeated '926 claims 30, 31, 40, 41, 43, 52, 55, 59, 72 and 75, and it is the correct basis for the §102 table you asked for.

I'll ground the obviousness analysis in the actual prior art record for this patent — the references cited on its face, the IPR petitions, and the reexamination requests. Let me search.

I now have the actual IPR grounds. Let me pull the Final Written Decision reasoning, the reexamination grounds, and details on the key references.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 7,831,926 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Analyst's note on sources. The Google Patents page for the '926 patent was fetched with its front-page citation tables (References Cited / Cited By) truncated, so the raw "Prior Art" block on that page is not fully reproducible here. I therefore grounded this analysis in the prior-art record that actually was applied to the '926 patent in the forum that adjudicated it: the PTAB Final Written Decision in IPR2013‑00004 / IPR2013‑00257 (Kyocera / Motorola v. SoftView), the Decision to Institute, the IPR2013‑00257 Exhibit list, and the defendants' invalidity claim charts served in SoftView LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 1:10‑cv‑00389‑LPS (D. Del.). Those charts are reproduced in the file-wrapper exhibits of the family, e.g. https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/0d/18/96/ff43f34ad8548b/US8533628.pdf and https://patents.justia.com/patent/9519729.

Contradiction check against the previously generated sections: none. The FWD confirms the ten claims I was told were cancelled (30, 31, 40, 41, 43, 52, 55, 59, 72, 75), confirms claims 1/30/52/79 as the independents, and confirms the 2000‑06‑12 priority. One minor discrepancy worth flagging: the prior summary attributes ex parte reexam 90/009,995 to "Apple," while PatSnap's reexam index lists the filer as "DONALD J. QUIGG" (https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/litigation/softview-v-apple-motorola-mobility-mobile-web-display-patent-patsnap/). The Justia exhibit shows the request was filed 2012‑05‑29 and served as a defendants' supplemental exhibit — i.e., it was a defendant-sponsored request. I treat "defendant-side requester, filed May 29, 2012" as reliable and "Apple, personally" as unconfirmed.

1. Legal frame and the critical date

The Board's controlling claim construction is the linchpin. It held the "preserving limitation" means preserving the original layout/function/design of the translated portion of the HTML, as interpreted by a rendering engine — not the page as it looks on a desktop browser:

"Construing the claim broadly, but reasonably, a portion of the HTML-based content could be scaled and rendered that would preserve only some features of the original layout, function and design, as viewed on a conventional desktop." — FWD, Kyocera v. SoftView, IPR2013‑00004, Paper 53 (quoted at https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2013-00284/Google_LLC/docs/03-05-2026-Petitioner/Exhibit-1013-Exhibit_1013.pdf)

This construction is what defeated SoftView's central non-obviousness argument (that the prior-art devices were "primitive" and implemented only a slice of HTML).

2. The prior-art corpus actually applied

Key admission inside the patent itself. The '926 specification states that the pre-rendering parse, object grouping, bounding-box definition, page-layout generation and display-list building are "commonly performed by conventional browsers during a pre-rendering process … the Mozilla rendering engine," and that building a display list of vectors "is well known in the CAD arts." It also describes SVF's zoom/pan and its W3C candidacy as known. Those admissions narrow the invention to the translation step.

3. Ground 1 (the dispositive ground): Zaurus + Pad++ + SVF

The Board held, by preponderance, that claims 30, 31, 40, 41, 43, 52, 55, 59, 72 and 75 are unpatentable under §103 over this combination (Exhibit 1013, FWD). Element mapping:

Why the combination was motivated (KSR rationales):

1. Same field, same problem. Zaurus, Pad++, SVF, Tsutsumitake and SVG all address displaying/zooming web content. The Board found "the motivation to improve viewing of HTML content on a PDA existed in the prior art," and that the combination "would have yielded predictable results."
2. Reasonable expectation of success. Pad++ had already demonstrated zoom-and-pan of a web page with layout and hyperlink preservation; SVF was a published spec with hyperlink navigation and Netscape plug-ins. Combining them with a handheld browser required no new technology.
3. Predictable-result / design-incentive rationale. As the Board put it, "[o]ne skilled in the art would have been able to substitute tapping a touch screen for clicking with a mouse."
4. No teaching away. The Board expressly rejected SoftView's teaching-away argument as to Zaurus: "Zaurus does not teach away." And where SoftView argued Hara taught changing layout (¶84), that argument went to the Hara ground, not the Pad++/SVF ground that carried the day.

4. Ground 2 (instituted, not the stated dispositive basis): Zaurus + Hara + Tsutsumitake + SVG

Institution authorized the alternative ground that claims 30 et al. were obvious over Zaurus + Hara + Tsutsumitake + SVG. Petitioner's expert opined that "Zaurus, Hara, Tsutsumitake and SVG relate to zooming and panning, and the motivation to improve viewing of HTML content on a PDA existed in the prior art … The combination would have yielded predictable results."

Weakness to note (this is where SoftView scored): Hara's ¶84 ("when the image data and the other data overlap … it is necessary to take action such as changing the display location of the other data") teaches rearranging a page, i.e., changing rather than preserving layout, and Hara scales only images, not the whole page — so Hara alone supplies no "scalable resolution-independent representation of a web page." This ground is therefore weaker than Ground 1 on the "preserving" limitation, and I would not rely on it as a primary §103 theory.

5. Alternative / cumulative combinations from defendants' invalidity contentions

These were charted in the Delaware campaign and provide independent §103 theories, useful as fallbacks:

• Pad++ + VML (and Pad++ + VML + Nokia/Palm, Pad++ + VML + Newton, Pad++ + VML + Locatio). Strongest alternative to Ground 1: VML supplies vector-plus-hyperlink markup that renders in a browser, so the "translate HTML to scalable vector content preserving hyperlinks" step is met without needing SVF; Nokia/Palm supply the handheld-with-zoom hardware.
• Hara + SVF, Hara + Pad++, Hara + VML, Hara + Fox, and Hara + Locatio. These attack the image-magnification and touch-select aspects.
• Mac Innis + Zaurus + Pad++ + SVG — adds a §102(b)-qualified (May 18, 2000) wireless-proxy transcoding reference to bolster the "wireless/mobile network" and server-side translation elements.
• Elliott (US 6,553,393) + SVF; Blumberg (US 6,449,639); US 6,466,203; US 6,724,403; US 6,133,916; Anwar (US 7,055,095); Openpix. Charted for the hardware, client-server, and vector-format elements.
• Bjork/WEST (1999); Adobe PDF v1.2; NextStep/OpenStep; Bier; Bartlett; Krakatoa; JP 2001‑022496; and a 107-page omnibus "Obviousness References" chart. These corroborate that scalable/page-description rendering and proxy transcoding were established.

(I could not verify the substantive content of Elliott, Blumberg, '203, '403, '916, Anwar, Openpix, Krakatoa, or "Locatio/Fox/Newton" from the retrieved documents — treat their individual teachings as unconfirmed, though the chart titles are confirmed from the Justia exhibit lists.)

6. Application to the independent claims the Board did not reach

Because the Board construed independent claims 30 and 52, and because claims 1 and 79 recite the same core operations, the same combinations reach them:

• Claim 1 ("A mobile device … touch-sensitive display … translate HTML to scalable vector-based page layout information … re-render … iteratively zoom … hyperlink functionality preserved"). Every element is present in Zaurus + Pad++ + SVF: Zaurus supplies the device, touch screen, wireless, HTML retrieval and zoom; Pad++ supplies the vector, resolution-independent, layout/link-preserving zoom-and-pan of a web page; SVF supplies the concrete vector format with hyperlink navigation. (Note the reexam tension flagged below.)
• Claim 79 (means-plus-function). Under §112 ¶6, the "processing means," "wireless communications means," "touch-sensitive display means," "programmed circuit means" and "storage means" read on the corresponding structures disclosed in the specification (processor, transceiver, touch screen, programmed processor, memory). Because the underlying structures are the same as claims 30/52, the B§103 analysis is identical; the addition of means-plus-function phrasing does not create a new technical limitation.

Representative dependents:

7. Secondary considerations (objective indicia)

SoftView proffered commercial success, long-felt need, and failure of others. The Board rejected them for want of nexus:

• SoftView "never sold a commercially successful product covered by the claims"; it relied on the iPhone and Android products of the accused infringers.
• The claimed advance was effectively the zoomable browser, which "was in the prior art"; SoftView's own claim charts "also read on the Zaurus and Pad++ prior art references."
• See Kyocera v. SoftView, IPR2013‑00004 (PTAB Mar. 27, 2014), summarized at https://www.akingump.com/print/v2/content/21529/objective-indicia-of-non-obviousness-proffered-by-patent-owner.pdf.

Without a nexus to the translation step, these indicia do not rebut the prima facie case.

8. Effect and affirmance

The FWD's ten-claim holding was affirmed: SoftView LLC v. Kyocera Corp., 592 F. App'x 947/949 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (Rule 36 summary affirmance; see http://www.finnegan.com/print/content/6904/PTAB-Affirmance-at-the-Federal-Circuit.pdf). The remaining claims fell in the reexaminations (90/009,995; 95/000,635; 95/002,126), so no live §103 question remains for the '926 patent.

9. Confidence and open items

High confidence (document-grounded): the identity and dates of Zaurus, Pad++, SVF, SVG, Hara, Tsutsumitake, VML and Mac Innis; the Board's dispositive ground (Zaurus + Pad++ + SVF) and result; the "preserving limitation" construction; the rejection of the secondary considerations.

Moderate confidence: the specific element-by-element rationale for claim 1 and claim 79 (I am extending the Board's claim 30/52 reasoning, not quoting a holding on those claims).

Unconfirmed / flagged:

1. The level of ordinary skill finding is my reasoned proposal, not a retrieved Board statement.
2. US Pub. 2002/0091738 — its use against claims 52/55/75 is unexplained in the 3-page chart I saw; because it shares the '926 priority chain, it is likely admitted-prior-art/claim-support evidence rather than §102 art. Do not cite it as §102 art without checking.
3. Tension to disclose: in the stayed reexam 90/009,995 the examiner was reportedly not persuaded that Pad++ alone disclosed vector graphics, and the "vector" limitation drove allowance — whereas the Board, with Dr. Grimes' declaration and the SVF addition, found the vector limitation met. The reexam record therefore cuts slightly against Zaurus + Pad++ standing alone, but not against Zaurus + Pad++ + SVF.
4. Contents of the "Top Gun" secondary references (Elliott, Blumberg, Anwar, Openpix, Krakatoa, Nokia, Palm, Newton, Locatio, Fox) are unverified beyond their chart titles.
5. The Board's construction is broader than the D. Del. Markman result reported in the earlier section (where SoftView "prevailed on the key 'scalable content' construction"). That divergence is material: the §103 outcome here turns on the Board's broader reading of "preserving."