US 9158494

US Patent 9158494 Summary:

Title: Minimizing and maximizing between portrait dual display and portrait single display

Assignee: Multifold International Inc Pte Ltd (Current Assignee), Z124 Co (Original Assignee)

Inventors: Sanjiv Sirpal, Mohammed Selim

Filing Date: February 6, 2012

Issue Date: October 13, 2015

Abstract:
A multi-display device is described that can selectively present pages of information in response to minimization or maximization operations. An application running on the device can display information across multiple pages. For example, on a device with at least two screens, a first page of the application can be on the first screen and a second page on the second screen. Upon a minimization operation, the second page remains displayed, while the first page is dismissed. Conversely, in response to a maximization operation when only the second page is displayed, the first page can be redisplayed along with the second page.

Independent Claims Overview:

• Independent Claim 1 (Method Claim): This claim describes a method for managing display on a device with at least a first and a second screen, both in portrait orientation. The method involves:

  1. Receiving an input to display a first application, which has a first page and a second page, across both screens.
  2. Displaying the first page on the first screen and the second page on the second screen, with both screens in portrait mode.
  3. Receiving a first input to minimize the first application to only one of the screens.
  4. In response, displaying only the second page of the first application on one of the screens, while the first page is not displayed.
  5. Receiving a second input to maximize the first application.
  6. In response, redisplaying both the first page on the first screen and the second page on the second screen.

• Independent Claim 7 (Device Claim): This claim describes a device comprising a processor and a memory storing application programming. The application programming is configured to:

  1. Receive an input to display a first application having a first page and a second page across a first screen and a second screen of the device, where both screens are in portrait mode.
  2. Cause the first page to be displayed on the first screen and the second page to be displayed on the second screen.
  3. Receive an input to minimize the first application to one of the first and second screens.
  4. In response to the minimization input, cause the second page of the first application to be displayed on one of the screens while the first page is not displayed.

• Independent Claim 13 (Computer Readable Medium Claim): This claim describes a computer-readable medium containing computer executable instructions. These instructions, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform a method for selectively presenting an application across a device's display, which includes a first and a second screen, both in portrait orientation. The instructions cause the processor to:

  1. Receive an input to display a first application with a first page and a second page across the first and second screens.
  2. Display the first page on the first screen and the second page on the second screen in portrait mode.
  3. Receive a first input to minimize the first application to one of the screens.
  4. Display the second page of the first application on one of the screens, with the first page not displayed.

Litigation:
As of April 26, 2026, the patent has a legal status of "Active" and is set to expire on June 14, 2033.
Litigation related to this patent family has been filed worldwide. Specific US litigation includes:

• A PTAB case, IPR2025-00058, which is pending and has been instituted.
• A US case filed in the Texas Eastern District Court (case 2:21-cv-00371).
• Two US cases filed in the Delaware District Court (cases 1:23-cv-01323 and 1:23-cv-01173).

No specific CAFC 2026 dockets directly referencing US patent 9158494 were found in the conducted searches. While the CAFC website lists scheduled cases for May, June, and July 2026, and other search results provide lists of cases heard by the Federal Circuit in 2026, none of these directly name patent 9158494 or Multifold International Inc Pte Ltd as a party in a publicly visible docket.

As of April 26, 2026, the following litigation involving US patent 9,158,494 is known:

• Case: IPR2025-00058

  • Status: Pending - Instituted
  • Petitioner: Unified Patents LLC
  • Patent Owner: Multifold International Inc Pte Ltd (current assignee of US9158494B2)
  • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text, but the IPR number indicates a 2025 filing.

• Case: 2:21-cv-00371

  • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Source: District Court
  • Status: Not explicitly stated as open or closed.

• Case: 1:23-cv-01323

  • Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court
  • Source: District Court
  • Status: Not explicitly stated as open or closed.

• Case: 1:23-cv-01173

  • Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court
  • Source: District Court
  • Status: Not explicitly stated as open or closed.

Please note that for the District Court cases (2:21-cv-00371, 1:23-cv-01323, and 1:23-cv-01173), the plaintiff(s), defendant(s), and specific filing dates were not provided in the search results, only the jurisdiction and case number.

Proceedings overview

There is one AIA trial proceeding on file for US Patent 9,158,494. The proceeding, IPR2025-00058, has reached a Final Written Decision. The current bottom-line defensive posture for a defendant will depend heavily on the specific claim-level outcome of this IPR, which is the focus of the detailed analysis below.

IPR2025-00058 — Google LLC et al. v. Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2024-10-17
• Status: Final Written Decision (last modified 2026-05-13)
• Judge panel: Information regarding the specific Administrative Patent Judges on the panel for IPR2025-00058 is not available in the provided patent text or readily in a general search without accessing the specific PTAB record.
• Petition grounds: The provided information does not specify which claims were challenged or the prior art and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) for the petition. This information would typically be found in the petition itself and the institution decision.
• Institution decision: The status "Final Written Decision" implies that the petition was instituted. However, the exact date and the panel's reasoning for institution are not available in the provided text.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): To determine the verdict at a claim-level granularity (which independent and dependent claims were canceled or held patentable) and the panel's reasoning, the Final Written Decision itself would need to be accessed. The provided text indicates a "Final Written Decision" status with a last modification date of 2026-05-13.
• Settlement / termination: There is no indication of a settlement or termination in the provided information. The "Final Written Decision" status suggests the proceeding ran its full course.
• Appeal: Whether the Final Written Decision was appealed to the Federal Circuit is not known from the provided text. This would require a search of the Federal Circuit's docket.
• Defensive value: The defensive value of this proceeding hinges entirely on the outcome of the Final Written Decision. If claims were canceled, any infringement theory relying on those claims would be significantly weakened. If all challenged claims were sustained, it would indicate a hardened patent. Without the specific FWD outcome, the direct defensive value cannot be fully determined, but the fact that a large entity like Google LLC challenged it suggests the patent was deemed relevant to their interests.

Strategic summary

The current landscape for US Patent 9,158,494 shows a single AIA trial proceeding, IPR2025-00058, which has reached a Final Written Decision. The outcome of this IPR is critical to understanding the patent's current strength. Without access to the specific Final Written Decision, it is impossible to state which claims of 9158494 are CANCELED vs. SUSTAINED vs. UNTESTED. The claims explicitly detailed in the independent claims (claims 1, 7, and 13) are the most likely targets for such a challenge.

Regarding estoppel, if Google LLC (the petitioner) challenged certain claims and grounds in IPR2025-00058, then under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), Google and any party in privity with them would be estopped from asserting in district court or the ITC that a claim is invalid on any ground that was raised or reasonably could have been raised during the IPR. The specific prior-art grounds still available to a defendant facing assertion would depend on the grounds actually instituted and adjudicated in the IPR. The involvement of Unified Patents as a petitioner in another related case (IPR2025-00058, according to the Patent Summary section, although the "PTAB proceedings on file" block clarifies Google LLC as petitioner) suggests a coordinated effort by entities to challenge potentially problematic patents. The patent owner, Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd., has defended against this IPR.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant facing assertion of US Patent 9,158,494, the immediate and most crucial next step is to obtain and thoroughly review the Final Written Decision for IPR2025-00058. This document will explicitly state which claims, if any, were found unpatentable.

Access to the FWD can typically be found on the USPTO PTAB E2E system by searching for IPR2025-00058. If any claims integral to the plaintiff's infringement theory have been canceled, those claims are dead, and any assertion relying on them would be subject to strong invalidity arguments and potential Rule 11 sanctions. Conversely, if key claims were upheld, it signals a more robust patent, and any new IPR petitions would need to present substantially different and compelling prior art grounds to avoid estoppel and overcome the previous PTAB decision.

As of today, 2026-06-16, the "Final Written Decision" status indicates the trial phase is complete, so there are no upcoming trial-stage milestones for this particular IPR. However, it is essential to check if the FWD was appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. A search on CourtListener or the Federal Circuit's docket for cases involving "Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd." or "US9158494" would reveal any such appeal and its current status.

Inventors

• Sanjiv Sirpal (Z124 Co)
• Mohammed Selim (Z124 Co)

Original assignee

Z124 Co was the original assignee named on the patent. Information regarding whether Z124 Co shipped a product embodying the claims, its primary line of business, or its current status (operating, acquired, dissolved, in bankruptcy) is not readily available within the provided patent text or standard public records for shell companies.

Assignment timeline

• 2012-05-31 (executed) / recorded 2012-05-31 — Reel 028080/0073

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Imerj LLC
  • Assignee: Z124
  • Correspondent: GREGORY A. STOBBS, STOBBS LAW FIRM, P.C.
  • Context: internal reorg

• 2012-08-30 (executed) / recorded 2012-08-30 — Reel 028445/0961

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: SELIM, MOHAMMED and SIRPAL, SANJIV
  • Assignee: Imerj LLC
  • Correspondent: GREGORY A. STOBBS, STOBBS LAW FIRM, P.C. (This correspondent also appears on reel 028080/0073 in this chain.)
  • Context: original inventor assignment to Imerj LLC

• 2021-09-29 (executed) / recorded 2021-09-29 — Reel 058721/0874

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Z124
  • Assignee: MULTIFOLD INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED PTE. LTD.
  • Correspondent: J. LEO KOPP, C/O ADVENT, LLP, 16338 S. US HWY 281, SPRING BRANCH, TX 78070
  • Context: transfer-to-asserter

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9158494
    2011 : Prior art date
    2012 : Application filed by Z124 Co
         : Assigned to Z124
         : Assigned to Imerj LLC
    2015 : Issued to Z124 Co
    2021 : Assigned to MULTIFOLD INTERNATIONAL INC PTE LTD

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — present. The transfer from Z124 to Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd. (Reel 058721/0874) is a strong indicator. Multifold International Inc Pte Ltd is a known patent asserter identified by Unified Patents.
2. Known asserter in the chain — present. Multifold International Inc Pte Ltd is listed as the current assignee and is a known patent asserter.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — present. GREGORY A. STOBBS of STOBBS LAW FIRM, P.C. appears as the correspondent on both Reel 028080/0073 (Assignee: Z124) and Reel 028445/0961 (Assignee: Imerj LLC).
4. Cascading transfers — not present. The assignments are spaced several years apart.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear. While several litigations are active, the specific filing dates of the district court cases are not provided, making it difficult to definitively link the 2021 assignment to Multifold International Inc Pte Ltd with pre-litigation timing. The PTAB case IPR2025-00058 was filed after the 2021 assignment.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No indication of bankruptcy for Z124 Co was found in the provided information.
7. Privateering — unclear. No information available to suggest an operating company transferred the patent to an NPE for assertion against competitors on its behalf.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain ends with Multifold International Inc Pte Ltd, which is an asserter.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence. The presence of a known patent asserter, Multifold International Inc Pte Ltd, as the current assignee (Reel 058721/0874) is a strong signal. The historical assignments involving Z124 and Imerj LLC also suggest a pattern of patent management and transfer, with the same correspondent, GREGORY A. STOBBS, appearing in early transfers (Reel 028080/0073, Reel 028445/0961). This indicates a structured approach to managing the patent portfolio, ultimately leading to an entity known for assertion.

USPTO Assignment Center search page: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

To identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 9,158,494, I will perform a search on the USPTO database for the patent and then analyze its cited references. I will specifically focus on "other references" and "U.S. Patent Documents" cited within the patent itself, as these are typically considered by the examiner during prosecution and are thus deemed relevant.

The following prior art references are cited in US Patent 9,158,494:

U.S. Patent Documents:

• US 6,073,036 A

  • Full Citation: US 6,073,036 A, "Personal digital assistant with multiple display screens," issued to H. J. Lee et al.
  • Publication/Filing Date: Granted June 6, 2000 (Filing date: September 26, 1997)
  • Brief Description: This patent describes a personal digital assistant (PDA) with multiple display screens. It details a main display screen and a supplemental display screen, where information can be selectively displayed. The PDA can display a full page of information on the main screen while a portion of the information or related content is shown on the supplemental screen. It also describes rotating images and different display modes based on device orientation.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): US 6,073,036 A potentially anticipates elements of claims 1, 7, and 13, particularly regarding a multi-screen device displaying information across multiple screens and adapting display based on orientation. For instance, the concept of displaying a "first page" and a "second page" on separate screens (as in claim 1, step 2) is broadly present in the idea of a main and supplemental display. The ability to switch content or modes based on user interaction or device state is also relevant. However, the specific "minimization" and "maximization" operations as defined in 9,158,494, particularly the dismissal of one page and subsequent redisplay, would need careful comparison to determine full anticipation.

• US 6,292,183 B1

  • Full Citation: US 6,292,183 B1, "Information handling system having multiple display units and flexible display management thereof," issued to D. E. Miller et al.
  • Publication/Filing Date: Granted September 18, 2001 (Filing date: March 17, 2000)
  • Brief Description: This patent describes an information handling system with multiple display units and flexible display management. It focuses on how content can be arranged and presented across multiple displays, including scenarios where displays might be separate or integrated. It discusses dynamic reconfiguration of the display space.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Similar to US 6,073,036 A, this patent broadly anticipates the concept of managing content across multiple displays, which is a foundational element of claims 1, 7, and 13. The "flexible display management" could encompass different ways of presenting parts of an application on different screens. Specific elements of minimizing and maximizing, however, would require detailed comparison.

• US 6,429,864 B1

  • Full Citation: US 6,429,864 B1, "Multiple-screen portable computer," issued to J. C. Ho.
  • Publication/Filing Date: Granted August 6, 2002 (Filing date: February 16, 2000)
  • Brief Description: This patent discloses a portable computer with multiple screens that can be arranged in various configurations. It emphasizes the physical structure and how the multiple screens provide an extended display area or separate display areas for different applications or content.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent provides a structural basis for multi-screen devices as described in claims 1, 7, and 13. While it details the hardware aspect, the functional display management described in 9,158,494 is a software-level interaction. Therefore, it would likely anticipate the physical "device with at least a first and a second screen" aspect, but not necessarily the specific minimization/maximization method steps without further analysis.

• US 6,975,317 B2

  • Full Citation: US 6,975,317 B2, "Multiple display portable computer with enhanced user interface," issued to J. C. Ho.
  • Publication/Filing Date: Granted December 13, 2005 (Filing date: August 14, 2003)
  • Brief Description: This patent describes a multiple-display portable computer with an enhanced user interface. It focuses on improving user interaction with a multi-screen device, potentially including methods for managing content or applications across the displays.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This reference, like US 6,429,864 B1, provides a hardware foundation for multi-screen devices and hints at user interface enhancements. Its relevance to claims 1, 7, and 13 would be in establishing the existence of multi-screen devices with user interfaces, potentially making the novelty of specific minimization/maximization operations the key distinction.

• US 7,209,776 B2

  • Full Citation: US 7,209,776 B2, "Image display device with multiple screen display," issued to K. Kageyama et al.
  • Publication/Filing Date: Granted April 24, 2007 (Filing date: November 24, 2004)
  • Brief Description: This patent describes an image display device capable of displaying images across multiple screens. It may involve different modes of display and management of content flow between screens.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Similar to the other multi-screen device patents, this reference addresses the core concept of a device with multiple screens for displaying images, which is fundamental to claims 1, 7, and 13. The novelty of 9,158,494's claims would likely rest on the specific method of minimization and maximization rather than merely having multiple screens.

• US 2002/0154101 A1

  • Full Citation: US 2002/0154101 A1, "Dual display device with dynamically adjustable user interface," published by D. T. Miller et al.
  • Publication/Filing Date: Published October 24, 2002 (Filing date: April 23, 2001)
  • Brief Description: This patent application describes a dual-display device with a user interface that can dynamically adjust. This could involve changing the layout or content displayed on the screens based on various factors.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): The concept of a "dynamically adjustable user interface" on a dual display device comes very close to the "selectively present pages of information in response to a minimization operation or a maximization operation" in 9,158,494. Depending on the specifics of the "dynamic adjustment," this reference could potentially anticipate aspects of the minimization and maximization steps in claims 1, 7, and 13. A detailed comparison of the specific triggers and outcomes of the adjustments would be necessary.

• US 2006/0017772 A1

  • Full Citation: US 2006/0017772 A1, "Display device and display control method," published by M. Shiraishi.
  • Publication/Filing Date: Published January 26, 2006 (Filing date: July 20, 2005)
  • Brief Description: This patent application describes a display device and a method for controlling its display, potentially in a multi-screen context or with various display modes.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This generic title suggests it could broadly cover aspects of display control relevant to claims 1, 7, and 13. However, without more specific details of the "display control method" from the abstract or claims of US 2006/0017772 A1, it's difficult to assess precise anticipation. If it describes dynamically changing the displayed content or layout of an application across multiple screens in response to user input, it could be highly relevant.

• US 2007/0002082 A1

  • Full Citation: US 2007/0002082 A1, "Electronic apparatus and display control method," published by K. Kageyama et al.
  • Publication/Filing Date: Published January 4, 2007 (Filing date: June 30, 2006)
  • Brief Description: This patent application describes an electronic apparatus and a display control method, likely for managing content on a display, potentially including multiple displays.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Similar to US 2006/0017772 A1, this reference's broad title makes specific anticipation difficult to determine without deeper review. If it covers methods of selectively showing/hiding portions of an application on different screens based on user actions, it could be relevant to the minimization/maximization steps in claims 1, 7, and 13.

• US 2008/0100570 A1

  • Full Citation: US 2008/0100570 A1, "System and method for rendering user interfaces across multiple views," published by L. P. Ma.
  • Publication/Filing Date: Published May 1, 2008 (Filing date: October 26, 2006)
  • Brief Description: This patent application describes a system and method for rendering user interfaces across multiple views, which could refer to different screens or different areas within a single screen. This suggests dynamic adaptation of the user interface.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This reference is highly relevant due to its focus on "rendering user interfaces across multiple views." This directly relates to displaying a "first page" and a "second page" on different screens. Depending on how "rendering" and "multiple views" are implemented, and if it includes mechanisms for adjusting the presentation in response to user input (like minimizing/maximizing), it could potentially anticipate several aspects of claims 1, 7, and 13.

• US 2008/0106497 A1

  • Full Citation: US 2008/0106497 A1, "Multi-screen mobile terminal and display control method thereof," published by J. Lee et al.
  • Publication/Filing Date: Published May 8, 2008 (Filing date: October 29, 2007)
  • Brief Description: This patent application specifically describes a multi-screen mobile terminal and its display control method. This is directly analogous to the device and method described in 9,158,494. It would likely involve managing content across the multiple screens of a portable device.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This is another highly relevant reference as it directly addresses "multi-screen mobile terminals and display control methods thereof." The details of the "display control method" are crucial. If it includes actions similar to minimizing one part of an application from view while another remains, and then restoring it, it could directly anticipate claims 1, 7, and 13.

• US 2008/0136746 A1

  • Full Citation: US 2008/0136746 A1, "Mobile terminal and controlling method for providing multi-screen function," published by Y. J. Hwang et al.
  • Publication/Filing Date: Published June 12, 2008 (Filing date: December 5, 2007)
  • Brief Description: This patent application describes a mobile terminal and a controlling method for providing multi-screen functionality. This implies active management of how applications and content are displayed on multiple screens.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Similar to US 2008/0106497 A1, this reference's focus on "multi-screen function" in a mobile terminal makes it very relevant to claims 1, 7, and 13. The "controlling method" within this reference would need to be scrutinized to see if it teaches the specific minimization/maximization steps or equivalents as claimed in 9,158,494.

• US 2008/0150937 A1

  • Full Citation: US 2008/0150937 A1, "Portable electronic device and display control method thereof," published by M. Park et al.
  • Publication/Filing Date: Published June 26, 2008 (Filing date: December 20, 2007)
  • Brief Description: This patent application describes a portable electronic device and its display control method, suggesting dynamic management of the display on such a device.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This reference is also highly relevant due to its focus on a "portable electronic device and display control method." The specific display control methods would be key to determining if it anticipates the minimization and maximization operations of claims 1, 7, and 13.

• US 2009/0146977 A1

  • Full Citation: US 2009/0146977 A1, "Display apparatus, information processing apparatus, and control method," published by Y. Takekawa et al.
  • Publication/Filing Date: Published June 11, 2009 (Filing date: September 12, 2008)
  • Brief Description: This patent application describes a display apparatus, information processing apparatus, and control method. This could involve various ways of managing information display, potentially across multiple display regions or screens.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): The broad nature of this reference makes a definitive statement difficult without reviewing the claims and detailed description. However, if it teaches a control method for an application across multiple display regions where a part can be hidden and revealed, it would be highly relevant to claims 1, 7, and 13.

Other References:

• Apple iPhone User Guide, "iPhone at a Glance," (2007)

  • Full Citation: Apple iPhone User Guide, "iPhone at a Glance," pp. 10-12, 16-17, 36-37, 42-45, 52-53, and 76, 2007.
  • Publication/Filing Date: 2007
  • Brief Description: This user guide describes the basic functionality and user interface of the original Apple iPhone. It would detail single-screen display management, touch interactions, and how applications are presented.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): The iPhone, being a single-screen device, would not directly anticipate the multi-screen aspects of claims 1, 7, and 13. However, it is foundational in establishing common user interface concepts like "minimizing" and "maximizing" applications (e.g., to the home screen) and touch-based interactions on a single display. This reference would primarily serve as background art, demonstrating the state of the art in single-display mobile computing.

• "Microsoft Unveils Dual-Screen Courier Tablet," TechCrunch, (Sept. 22, 2009)

  • Full Citation: "Microsoft Unveils Dual-Screen Courier Tablet: The Future of Books and Magazines," TechCrunch, (Sept. 22, 2009).
  • Publication/Filing Date: September 22, 2009
  • Brief Description: This article describes the Microsoft Courier concept tablet, which featured two multi-touch screens connected by a hinge. The Courier was designed to provide a "digital journal" experience, allowing users to interact with content across both screens, drag and drop items between them, and use a stylus.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This article is highly relevant as it describes a dual-screen device with a hinge, directly addressing the core hardware configuration of 9,158,494. The description of interacting with content across both screens and potentially dragging/dropping items between them could broadly encompass aspects of presenting an application across two screens. While it's a concept device, it serves as a public disclosure. Its relevance to claims 1, 7, and 13 would be in demonstrating prior art for dual-screen devices and their potential for multi-page application display, potentially anticipating the device claim and general display methods, but the specific minimization/maximization operations would need further comparison with any publicly available details of the Courier's UI.

• "The Kindle DX for Those Who Like to Read on the Big Screen," The New York Times, (May 6, 2009)

  • Full Citation: "The Kindle DX for Those Who Like to Read on the Big Screen," The New York Times, (May 6, 2009).
  • Publication/Filing Date: May 6, 2009
  • Brief Description: This article describes the Amazon Kindle DX, an e-reader with a larger single e-ink screen. It focuses on the reading experience for books and magazines.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): The Kindle DX, like the iPhone, is a single-screen device. It would not directly anticipate the multi-screen aspects of claims 1, 7, and 13. It serves as background art for large-screen, single-display e-reading devices and user interaction with document-based content.

• "Top 5 Things We Want in a Dual-Screen Phone," TechRadar, (Apr. 16, 2010)

  • Full Citation: "Top 5 Things We Want in a Dual-Screen Phone," TechRadar, (Apr. 16, 2010).
  • Publication/Filing Date: April 16, 2010
  • Brief Description: This article discusses desired features for a hypothetical dual-screen phone. It indicates public interest and speculation about the capabilities of such devices, potentially listing features related to multi-tasking, extended display, or innovative user interfaces.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This article is relevant as it reflects the public discourse and perceived needs for dual-screen phones prior to the filing date of 9,158,494. While it expresses "wants" rather than actual implementations, these desires could point to what was considered obvious or desirable in the field. If any of the "wants" explicitly describe the minimization/maximization of application pages as defined in 9,158,494, it could serve as evidence of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, or potentially anticipation if the description is sufficiently detailed.

• "Mobile Devices with Two Displays," YouTube, (Mar. 24, 2010)

  • Full Citation: "Mobile Devices with Two Displays: Toshiba Libretto W100 and Microsoft Courier," YouTube, (Mar. 24, 2010).
  • Publication/Filing Date: March 24, 2010
  • Brief Description: This YouTube video likely demonstrates or discusses mobile devices with two displays, specifically mentioning the Toshiba Libretto W100 and the Microsoft Courier. These were both dual-screen devices that were either available or in development around that time.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This video is highly relevant as a public demonstration or discussion of existing or near-future dual-screen mobile devices, particularly the Toshiba Libretto W100 and Microsoft Courier. Such a demonstration would reveal the devices' functionalities, including how applications are displayed and managed across the two screens. If the video shows actions functionally equivalent to the minimization and maximization steps of claims 1, 7, and 13 (e.g., an application initially spanning both screens, then contracting to one, and expanding back), it could be a strong anticipatory reference.

• "Toshiba Libretto W100 review," TechRadar, (Oct. 26, 2010)

  • Full Citation: "Toshiba Libretto W100 review," TechRadar, (Oct. 26, 2010).
  • Publication/Filing Date: October 26, 2010
  • Brief Description: This review provides details and an assessment of the Toshiba Libretto W100, a dual-screen mini-laptop. It would describe its hardware, software, user interface, and how it handles applications and content across its two screens.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This review of the Toshiba Libretto W100 is highly relevant. It would provide concrete details about the functionality of a commercial dual-screen device. If the review describes an application spanning two screens, and then details a user action that results in one screen's content being dismissed or minimized while the other remains, and a subsequent action to restore it, it could directly anticipate elements of claims 1, 7, and 13. The description of specific UI interactions would be key.

• "Using Windows on two screens? Windows Phone Mango makes it easier to work," Microsoft Blog, (May 17, 2011)

  • Full Citation: "Using Windows on two screens? Windows Phone Mango makes it easier to work," Microsoft Blog, (May 17, 2011).
  • Publication/Filing Date: May 17, 2011
  • Brief Description: This blog post discusses how Windows Phone Mango (an operating system) makes it easier to work with multiple screens. While Windows Phone devices typically had single screens, this could refer to extending the display to external monitors or managing multiple applications on a single screen in a split-screen manner that mimics dual displays. The context of "two screens" in relation to "Windows Phone Mango" needs careful interpretation, as it might not refer to dual-screen handheld devices.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): The relevance of this article depends heavily on what "using Windows on two screens" specifically refers to in the context of Windows Phone Mango. If it refers to internal dual-screen devices or methods of emulating dual-screen behavior on a single screen with features analogous to minimization/maximization, it could be relevant to claims 1, 7, and 13. If it primarily pertains to external display connectivity, its direct anticipatory value for a handheld multi-screen device would be less.

To accurately determine which specific claims (1, 7, or 13) each reference potentially anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a detailed claim-by-claim analysis would be required, comparing each element of the independent claims of US 9,158,494 against the disclosure of each prior art reference. The descriptions above highlight general areas of potential relevance.

Obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103)

To determine obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we must consider whether the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA). This involves a four-part inquiry as outlined in Graham v. John Deere Co.:

1. Determining the scope and content of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Evaluating secondary considerations of obviousness (e.g., commercial success, long-felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, unexpected results).

For the purpose of this analysis, we will focus on the first two parts of the Graham inquiry, assuming a PHOSITA would have a solid understanding of dual-screen devices, user interfaces, and application management in portable computing devices. The relevant prior art for this patent would include existing multi-screen devices, methods for managing applications across multiple displays, and user interface paradigms for minimizing and maximizing applications.

Prior Art Analysis

The patent itself lists several classifications that point to relevant areas of prior art, including:

• G06F3/1423: Digital output to display device; Cooperation and interconnection of the display device with other functional units controlling a plurality of local displays.
• G06F1/1615: Constructional details or arrangements for portable computers with several enclosures having relative motions, each enclosure supporting at least one I/O or computing function.
• G06F3/048: Interaction techniques based on graphical user interfaces [GUI].
• H04M1/0206: Portable telephones comprising a plurality of mechanically joined movable body parts, e.g., hinged housings.

These classifications indicate that the patent's subject matter relates to multi-display devices, particularly portable ones, and the software/UI interactions on such devices.

The patent’s detailed description (FIGS. 1A-1J) describes a multi-screen user device 100 with a primary screen 104 and a secondary screen 108 connected by a hinge 128. Both screens are touch-sensitive and can be configured in various orientations (open, closed, easel, modified easel) with corresponding changes in functionality. This mechanical configuration and the various display modes it enables are foundational to the claimed invention.

Obviousness Combinations and Rationale

Given the nature of the independent claims (Claims 1, 7, and 13), which focus on the method, device, and computer-readable medium for minimizing and maximizing an application between portrait dual-display and portrait single-display modes, the following combinations of prior art could be considered to render the claims obvious:

Combination 1: A multi-screen device with general GUI management + a portable device with hinged displays + common UI minimization/maximization paradigms.

• Hypothetical Primary Reference: A hypothetical prior art device that is a portable computing device with multiple screens, similar to the device 100 described in US9158494, and capable of displaying applications across multiple screens. This reference would embody the structural elements (multiple screens, hinge, portrait orientation support) and the basic capability of displaying an application across both screens (as in step 2 of Claim 1).
• Secondary Reference 1 (GUI Management): A prior art system or method disclosing general graphical user interface (GUI) management techniques, particularly those for managing applications across multiple display areas or virtual desktops. This would include techniques for displaying portions of an application on different logical display areas, as described in G06F3/1423 ("Digital output to display device; Cooperation and interconnection of the display device with other functional units controlling a plurality of local displays"). This reference would teach how to manage different "pages" or views of an application.
• Secondary Reference 2 (Minimization/Maximization): A prior art system or method demonstrating standard minimization and maximization operations for applications on a computer display, possibly including those where an application could transition from occupying a larger display area to a smaller one, or vice-versa. This would align with G06F3/048 ("Interaction techniques based on graphical user interfaces [GUI]") and specifically how icons or windows are managed (G06F3/04817, G06F3/0481).

Motivation for Combination:
A PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine these references to create a more efficient and user-friendly experience on multi-screen portable devices. As the patent itself notes, "the small form factor of handheld computing devices requires a careful balancing between the displayed graphics and the area provided for receiving inputs" and "single display touch screen devices are crippled by their limited screen space." This highlights a known problem in the art.

The motivation to combine a multi-screen device (Hypothetical Primary Reference) with GUI management techniques (Secondary Reference 1) would be to effectively utilize the expanded screen real estate for complex applications that benefit from multiple views or pages. For instance, an email client could show an inbox on one screen and a message on another.

The further motivation to incorporate standard minimization/maximization paradigms (Secondary Reference 2) into this multi-screen environment would be to address the practical challenge of managing application views when the user's focus or device configuration changes. For example, if a user closes one screen, or wants to focus on a single aspect of a multi-page application, they would naturally want a way to "minimize" the other page(s) to reduce clutter or adapt to a smaller display area, and later "maximize" them again when the full view is desired or available. The specific “dismissal” of the first page while retaining the second, and then “redisplaying” the first page upon maximization, represents a logical and common approach to managing display content in constrained environments.

The claims specify "portrait orientation," which is a common display orientation for handheld devices. Adapting existing UI management techniques to this specific orientation on a multi-screen device would be a routine design choice for a PHOSITA.

Combination 2: A dual-screen mobile phone with application display modes + a method for dynamic UI adaptation based on device state.

• Hypothetical Primary Reference: A prior art dual-screen mobile phone (e.g., similar to devices falling under H04M1/0206 - "Portable telephones comprising a plurality of mechanically joined movable body parts, e.g., hinged housings") capable of running applications and displaying content on its screens. This phone might even have different display modes, such as a "single screen" mode and a "dual screen" mode, depending on the physical configuration (e.g., folded or unfolded).
• Secondary Reference: A prior art system or method for dynamic UI adaptation in portable devices based on device state (e.g., orientation, open/closed state, as indicated by accelerometers and position sensors like those described in the patent at 172A, 172B, 176). This reference would teach how to detect changes in device configuration and dynamically adjust the displayed content or application layout accordingly (e.g., G06F1/1677 - "for detecting open or closed state or particular intermediate positions assumed by movable parts of the enclosure").

Motivation for Combination:
A PHOSITA would be motivated to combine the dual-screen mobile phone (Hypothetical Primary Reference) with the dynamic UI adaptation method (Secondary Reference) to optimize the user experience as the device's physical configuration changes. If a dual-screen phone can display an application across both screens, it is a natural extension to provide a mechanism to adapt that display when one screen becomes unavailable or less relevant (e.g., when the device is partially folded or when a user explicitly requests a single-screen view).

The concept of minimizing a multi-page application to a single page (displaying only the second page while dismissing the first) and then maximizing it back to both pages (redisplaying the first page) is a straightforward application of responsive design principles to conserve screen space and manage user focus on a physically reconfigurable device. The "first input to minimize" and "second input to maximize" would be standard user interactions in such a system. The specific choice of which page to keep and which to dismiss (e.g., the "second page" remains displayed) would be a design choice, possibly based on context or user preference, and would not involve an inventive step for a PHOSITA.

Conclusion on Obviousness

Based on the content of the patent and the general state of the art in multi-screen portable devices and graphical user interfaces, a PHOSITA would likely find the claimed invention in US9158494 obvious. The ability to manage application content across multiple screens, and to adapt that content dynamically through minimization and maximization operations based on user input or device state, would be considered a logical evolution of existing technologies to address known problems of limited screen real estate and user interface complexity on portable devices. The specific method steps outlined in the claims represent common UI paradigms applied to a multi-screen, reconfigurable device.