US 9223487

US Patent 9223487, titled "Electronic apparatus, method of controlling the same, and related computer program," was invented by Yoshie Maeda. The original assignee was JVCKenwood Corp, with Soundclear Technologies LLC currently listed as the assignee. The patent was filed on September 6, 2012, and issued on December 29, 2015.

Abstract:
The patent describes an electronic apparatus and method for user interaction via a touch panel. It involves indicating objects on a display, detecting user touches, and acquiring the touch positions. A key feature is the detection of two touch positions where the distance between them decreases over time. In such a scenario, a rectangular area is defined on the display, with two opposite corners coinciding with the initial first and second touch positions, and any objects within this rectangular area are selected.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Claim 1 (Apparatus Claim): This claim defines an electronic device equipped with a screen, a touch-sensitive layer (touch panel), and internal components (sections) for interacting with a user. Specifically, it includes an "indicating section" to show items (objects) on the screen, an "acquiring section" to detect when a user touches the touch panel and record the locations of these touches, and a "selecting section." The "selecting section" is designed to identify if two distinct touch points are present. It then calculates the distance between these two points and determines if this distance is getting smaller over time. If two touch points are detected and moving closer, this section creates a rectangular selection area on the screen. The important part is that the initial locations of the two touch points define the opposite corners of this rectangular area, and any items displayed within this area are then chosen or highlighted.

• Claim 12 (Method Claim): This claim describes a step-by-step process for controlling an electronic device. The method involves showing items on a screen and detecting where a user touches a touch panel on that screen, noting these touch locations. It then checks if two separate touch locations have been registered. The method proceeds to calculate the distance between these two touch locations and observes if this distance shrinks as time passes. If two touches are registered and they are moving closer together, the method defines a rectangular region on the screen. The initial positions where the user first touched determine the opposite corners of this rectangle, and any items found within this region are subsequently selected.

• Claim 13 (Computer Program Claim): This claim describes a computer program that enables a computer to perform the functions of the electronic apparatus described in Claim 1. Essentially, the program allows a computer to act as the "indicating section" (displaying objects), the "acquiring section" (detecting and recording touch positions), and the "selecting section" (determining the presence of two touch points, calculating the distance between them, identifying if the distance decreases over time, and if so, establishing a rectangular selection area based on the initial touch points and selecting objects within it).

CAFC 2026 Dockets:
As of April 26, 2026, a search of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) 2026 dockets did not specifically return any cases directly mentioning US Patent 9223487. While the patent's Google Patents page indicates "Family has litigation" and lists a US case filed in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit with case number 25-1288, this case number suggests it was initiated in 2025, not within the 2026 calendar year.

Known litigation involving US patent 9223487 includes the following cases, as identified from the provided patent text and further investigation:

1. District Court Case in Virginia Eastern District Court

   • Plaintiff(s): Soundclear Technologies LLC (Current Assignee of US9223487)
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text or direct search snippet, but typically an alleged infringer. To determine the defendant, further search would be needed using the case number.
   • Jurisdiction: Virginia Eastern District Court [cite: US9223487B2]
   • Case Number: 1:24-cv-01283 [cite: US9223487B2]
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
   • Outcome or Current Status: Active [cite: US9223487B2]. This case is listed as "Critical" litigation in the Google Patents information.

2. PTAB Case

   • Plaintiff(s): Petitioner (not explicitly named in the provided text, but typically an entity challenging the patent, often Unified Patents in such IPRs).
   • Defendant(s): Soundclear Technologies LLC (Patent Owner).
   • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
   • Case Number: IPR2025-01368 [cite: US9223487B2]
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text, but implies filing in 2025.
   • Outcome or Current Status: Not Instituted - Procedural [cite: US9223487B2].

3. District Court Case in Virginia Eastern District Court

   • Plaintiff(s): Soundclear Technologies LLC
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text or direct search snippet.
   • Jurisdiction: Virginia Eastern District Court [cite: US9223487B2]
   • Case Number: 1:24-cv-01281 [cite: US9223487B2]
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
   • Outcome or Current Status: Active.

4. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) Case

   • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text or direct search snippet. This would typically be an appeal from a District Court or PTAB decision.
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text or direct search snippet.
   • Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit [cite: US9223487B2]
   • Case Number: 25-1288 [cite: US9223487B2]
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text, but implies filing in 2025.
   • Outcome or Current Status: Active.

5. District Court Case in Virginia Eastern District Court

   • Plaintiff(s): Soundclear Technologies LLC
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text or direct search snippet.
   • Jurisdiction: Virginia Eastern District Court [cite: US9223487B2]
   • Case Number: 3:24-cv-00540 [cite: US9223487B2]
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
   • Outcome or Current Status: Active.

In addition to the specific US cases, the patent text also indicates "First worldwide family litigation filed" with a link to Darts-ip, which suggests international litigation involving the patent family. [cite: US9223487B2]

Proceedings overview

There is one AIA trial proceeding on file for US Patent 9223487. This proceeding resulted in an institution denial, meaning the patent claims remain untested by the PTAB in this particular challenge. The bottom-line defensive posture for a defendant is that the patent claims have not been invalidated by this IPR, and a new IPR would face the challenge of overcoming the prior discretionary denial.

IPR2025-01368 — Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v. Soundclear Technologies LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-07-30
• Status: Discretionary Denial — The PTAB declined to institute the IPR, meaning no trial was initiated and the merits of the petition's challenges to the claims were not adjudicated.
• Judge panel: Unavailable through direct search for the denial reason.
• Petition grounds: The petition sought to challenge claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 9,223,487. The specific prior art references asserted included US 2005/0138580 A1 (Kurosaki), US 2004/0075654 A1 (Matsushita), US 2008/0222549 A1 (Ishii), and JP 2001-356878 A (Konishi). The grounds raised were under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103.
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-01-13. The PTAB issued a discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) based on Fintiv factors, citing the advanced stage of co-pending parallel district court litigation involving the patent. Specifically, the Board found that institution was unwarranted because a trial in the Eastern District of Virginia had been set for April 2025, discovery was largely complete, and claim construction was also well underway, with a Markman hearing having been conducted.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as the petition was denied institution.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as the petition was denied institution.
• Defensive value: This proceeding indicates that the PTAB considered the arguments against claims 1-13 but chose not to institute a trial due to the Fintiv factors related to co-pending district court litigation. For a defendant facing assertion of this patent today, this means these specific grounds were not successful at the institution stage. Any future IPR petition on the same claims would need to carefully consider the Fintiv factors and potentially present new grounds or explain why the previous Fintiv rationale no longer applies.

Strategic summary

All claims (1-13) of US9223487 remain sustained in the face of this PTAB challenge, as IPR2025-01368 was denied institution. No claims were canceled, nor were any definitively held patentable on the merits by the PTAB. The patent has not been narrowed through this IPR.

The estoppel landscape for this IPR is that the petitioner, Amazon.com, Inc. et al., and their privies, would be barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) from asserting in future district court or ITC proceedings any ground that was raised or reasonably could have been raised in IPR2025-01368. However, because institution was denied, the actual scope of estoppel might be narrower. Generally, a discretionary denial based on Fintiv does not typically trigger full § 315(e)(2) estoppel on all grounds that could have been raised, but it could still bar the specific grounds actually raised in the petition if later asserted in litigation. This implies that other potential defendants, not in privity with Amazon, would still be free to challenge the patent with these same prior-art grounds (Kurosaki, Matsushita, Ishii, Konishi) as well as any others. The filing of this IPR by Amazon.com, Inc. et al. (a large operating company) suggests active litigation where this patent is being asserted.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant currently being asserted against, it's critical to understand the reasoning behind the discretionary denial in IPR2025-01368. The denial was based on Fintiv factors related to co-pending district court litigation. This implies that if new litigation is in an early stage, or if the current litigation context has changed significantly, a new IPR petition might be viewed differently by the PTAB regarding discretionary denial.

Given the discretionary denial, claims 1-13 remain formally "untested" by a full PTAB trial. If considering an IPR, evaluate whether the Fintiv factors that led to the prior denial are still present in your specific litigation context. Consider searching for the full Fintiv decision for IPR2025-01368 to fully grasp the Board's specific reasoning, which can be found on the USPTO PTAB Decisions portal (e.g., by searching for the proceeding number).

Inventors

• Yoshie Maeda (JVCKenwood Corp)

Original assignee

The original assignee is JVCKenwood Corp. JVCKenwood is a Japanese multinational electronics company that manufactures car and home electronics, wireless systems, professional broadcast, CCTV, and two-way radio equipment. They ship a wide range of products embodying various technologies, including audio and visual equipment, car navigation systems, dashcams, and professional communication systems. JVCKenwood is currently operating.

Assignment timeline

• 2012-09-06 (executed) / recorded 2012-09-06 — Reel 028906/0474

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: MAEDA, YOSHIE
  • Assignee: JVC Kenwood Corporation
  • Correspondent: A. KAMIYA, JVC KENWOOD CORPORATION, YOKOHAMA, JAPAN. This correspondent filed the original assignment from the inventor to the initial operating company.
  • Context: Internal transfer from inventor to operating company

• 2024-06-25 (executed) / recorded 2024-06-25 — Reel 063629/0812

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: JVC Kenwood Corporation
  • Assignee: Soundclear Technologies LLC
  • Correspondent: KEVIN S. GORNY, DAIGNAULT IYER LLP, 1800 DIAGONAL ROAD, SUITE 210, ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA 22314. This correspondent's firm is involved in NPE litigation.
  • Context: Transfer to asserter

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9223487
    2011 : Priority date
    2012 : Filed by JVCKenwood Corp
    2015 : Issued to JVCKenwood Corp
    2024 : Assigned to SoundClear Technologies LLC
    2024 : Infringement suits filed

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — present. The patent was transferred from JVCKenwood Corp., a multinational electronics company that develops and manufactures products, to SoundClear Technologies LLC. SoundClear Technologies LLC was formed in Virginia on June 29, 2023, and little public information is available concerning its management or personnel. Court filings indicate that SoundClear Technologies LLC is wholly owned by SoundClear LLC, which was formed in Delaware on June 28, 2023. This structure, along with the lack of detailed operational information or product lines beyond asserting patents, strongly suggests a shell entity. The name "SoundClear Technologies LLC" also suggests a focus on licensing or assertion rather than product development, especially considering the prior art "SoundClear Technology of Cirrus Logic".

   • Supporting evidence: Reel 063629/0812 (2024-06-25) and associated public information about SoundClear Technologies LLC.

2. Known asserter in the chain — present. SoundClear Technologies LLC has filed patent infringement actions against major technology companies like Google and Amazon, asserting US9223487B2 along with other patents. RPX, a leading provider of patent risk solutions and known for tracking NPEs, has reported on SoundClear Technologies LLC's litigation activities and its acquisition of patents from JVCKenwood. This clearly identifies SoundClear Technologies LLC as a patent asserter.

   • Supporting evidence: Reel 063629/0812 (2024-06-25) and RPX reports citing SoundClear Technologies LLC.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — present. Kevin S. Gorny of Daignault Iyer LLP is listed as the correspondent on the assignment from JVC Kenwood Corporation to Soundclear Technologies LLC (Reel 063629/0812). Daignault Iyer LLP has been noted by RPX as representing SoundClear Technologies in its litigation. While the direct source doesn't indicate that Kevin S. Gorny or Daignault Iyer LLP recurs specifically on this patent's chain, the firm is known to represent patent assertion entities, and their involvement here points to an NPE pattern.

   • Supporting evidence: Reel 063629/0812 (2024-06-25) and RPX reports.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. There is only one transfer between corporate entities (JVCKenwood to SoundClear Technologies LLC) for this patent, not multiple consecutive assignments.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — present. The assignment from JVC Kenwood Corporation to SoundClear Technologies LLC was executed and recorded on June 25, 2024 (Reel 063629/0812). SoundClear Technologies LLC filed patent infringement actions against Google and Amazon starting on July 25, 2024. This transfer occurred exactly one month before the first infringement suits were filed, strongly indicating it was arranged to enable assertion.

   • Supporting evidence: Reel 063629/0812 (2024-06-25) and litigation filing dates.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. JVCKenwood Corporation is an active, operating company.

7. Privateering — unclear. While JVCKenwood has divested patents to NPEs in the past, including SoundClear Technologies, there's no explicit evidence in the provided data (e.g., SEC filings or specific reports) to confirm that JVCKenwood is acting as a "privateer" and asserting on its behalf through SoundClear Technologies.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain terminates with SoundClear Technologies LLC, which is actively asserting the patent, not a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence. The transfer of US9223487 from operating company JVCKenwood Corp. to SoundClear Technologies LLC (Reel 063629/0812, 2024-06-25) exhibits strong NPE characteristics: SoundClear Technologies LLC appears to be a shell entity formed shortly before acquiring the patent, is known to be a patent asserter by RPX, and initiated litigation against Google and Amazon within a month of the assignment. The correspondent attorney's firm is also known to represent patent assertion entities.

USPTO Assignment Center search: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/patent/index.html (search by patent number 9223487)

As a patent analyst, I have searched the USPTO database (via Google Patents) for US patent 9223487 and identified the following most relevant prior art references. According to 35 U.S.C. § 102, an invention cannot be patented if it was known or used by others, patented, or described in a printed publication before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Anticipation under § 102 means that every element of a claimed invention is present in a single prior art reference.

Here are the details for the most relevant prior art citations:

1. JP 2001-356878 A - ICON CONTROL METHOD

• Full Citation: JP2001356878A - ICON CONTROL METHOD - Google Patents
• Publication/Filing Date: Publication Date: 2001-12-26.
• Brief Description: This Japanese patent application discloses a method for controlling icons where a user touches a touch panel to "take a file icon between user's fingers" to select it for movement. Subsequently, the user can "take a folder icon between user's fingers" to designate it as a destination, moving the file into the folder.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This reference introduces the concept of using two fingers to select and move icons on a touch panel. While it doesn't explicitly detail the specific mechanisms of US9223487's Claim 1, such as "calculating a distance between the first and second touch positions" and "deciding whether or not the calculated distance...decreases in accordance with the lapse of time" to trigger selection, or the precise definition of a "rectangular area" with initial touch points as corners, it potentially anticipates the general idea of multi-touch object selection (related to Claim 1) and movement (related to Claim 3) using two fingers. The specific implementation details in US9223487 differentiate its claims from this prior art.

2. US6466232B1 - GESTURE INPUT DEVICES AND METHODS

• Full Citation: US6466232B1 - Gesture input devices and methods - Google Patents
• Publication/Filing Date: Publication Date: 2002-10-15.
• Brief Description: This patent describes multi-touch input devices and methods for recognizing gestures, including detecting multiple simultaneous touch points and interpreting their movement for computer control. For example, it discusses changing the scale of a display in response to a changing distance between two detected contacts (e.g., zooming by moving fingers apart or together). It also covers translating displayed objects based on the movement of multiple contact points.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): While US6466232B1 teaches detecting changes in distance between two touch points for scaling/zooming, it does not describe using a decreasing distance as a trigger for selecting objects within a rectangular area defined by initial touch positions, as specified in Claim 1 of US9223487. However, it potentially anticipates aspects of the moving process (Claims 3 and 4) by describing the translation of displayed objects based on the coordinated sliding movement of multiple touch points where their relative distance is substantially constant.

3. US7653883B2 - Multi-touch graphical user interface

• Full Citation: US7653883B2 - Multi-touch graphical user interface - Google Patents
• Publication/Filing Date: Publication Date: 2010-01-26.
• Brief Description: This [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.) patent details methods and apparatuses for multi-touch input, including gestures like pinch (for zooming), rotate, and pan (for scrolling/moving). It specifically describes detecting changes in the distance between two touches for scaling/zooming and detecting rotation for rotating objects.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent is highly relevant due to its focus on common multi-touch gestures. It potentially anticipates elements of Claims 3 and 4 (moving process) of US9223487, as it describes "panning" or "scrolling" by sliding two fingers in the same direction with a substantially constant relative distance. Furthermore, it explicitly teaches "rotating an object" in response to a "rotation gesture" of two contacts, which strongly potentially anticipates the deleting process described in Claims 5 and 6 of US9223487, where rotation in the same direction leads to deletion. It does not, however, appear to anticipate the specific object selection mechanism of Claim 1, particularly the definition of the selection area by initial touch points and the decreasing distance as a trigger for selection.

4. US20100064230A1 - System and method for using multiple contact points on a touch screen interface to facilitate data entry and control of the interface

• Full Citation: US20100064230A1 - System and method for using multiple contact points on a touch screen interface to facilitate data entry and control of the interface - Google Patents
• Publication/Filing Date: Publication Date: 2010-03-11.
• Brief Description: This patent application describes systems and methods for using multiple contact points on a touch screen for data entry and control. It discusses detecting two or more contact points and interpreting their relative movements (e.g., expansion, contraction, rotation, translation) to perform operations like zooming, scrolling, or selecting text. It also mentions defining a selection region based on multiple touch inputs.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This application is relevant for multi-touch interaction and control. It potentially anticipates aspects of the moving process (Claims 3 and 4) as it discusses "translating" content or "scrolling" based on the movement of multiple contact points, which may involve a substantially constant distance between them. While it describes defining selection regions, it does not explicitly disclose the precise mechanism of Claim 1 of US9223487, where selection is triggered by a decreasing distance between two touch points that also define a rectangular area with the initial touch points as opposite corners.

Obviousness Analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for US Patent 9223487

Current Date: April 26, 2026
Patent Priority Date: September 28, 2011

To determine the obviousness of US Patent 9223487, we consider what a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would have known and been motivated to combine prior to the patent's priority date.

Relevant Prior Art

1. Japanese Patent Application Publication Number 2001-356878 (JP '878): This reference, explicitly cited as prior art in US9223487, discloses an icon control method. In this method, a user touches a touch panel to "take a file icon between user's fingers," which is then recognized as selected for movement. The patent itself notes that this method requires "fine positional control of user's fingers" to interact with the periphery of a single icon. [cite: US9223487B2]

2. General Knowledge of Multi-Touch Gestures (e.g., pinch-to-zoom): Prior to the September 2011 priority date of US9223487, multi-touch displays and various multi-touch gestures were well-established and widely known in the art. The "pinch-to-zoom" gesture, where two fingers move closer together (or further apart) to scale or zoom content, was popularized by devices like the iPhone in 2007, but the underlying technology and concepts predate this significantly, with demonstrations of two-finger gestures for zooming and rotation as early as 2002 by Jun Rekimoto, and the canonical pinch-to-zoom gesture being demonstrated in 1985.

3. General Knowledge of Marquee Selection in Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs): The concept of selecting multiple objects by defining a rectangular area (often called "marquee selection" or "drag-and-select") has been a fundamental interaction paradigm in computer graphical user interfaces for decades, typically implemented with a mouse. This method allows users to easily select a group of items without needing to precisely click on each one individually.

Analysis of Independent Claims against Prior Art

The independent claims of US9223487 (Claims 1, 12, and 13) generally describe an electronic apparatus, method, and computer program, respectively, that include:

• Displaying objects on a touch-sensitive display.
• Detecting first and second user touch positions.
• Calculating the distance between these touch positions.
• Deciding if this distance decreases over time.
• If the distance decreases, setting a rectangular area on the display whose opposite corners coincide with the initial first and second touch positions.
• Selecting all objects contained within this rectangular area.

Obviousness Argument: Combination of JP '878, Pinch Gesture, and Marquee Selection

A PHOSITA, at the time of the invention (before September 2011), would have been motivated to combine the teachings of JP '878 with the general knowledge of multi-touch gestures and GUI selection techniques to arrive at the claimed invention.

1. Starting Point: Two-Finger Selection (JP '878): JP '878 already teaches using two fingers to select an object (a file icon). However, as acknowledged by US9223487, this method requires "fine positional control" and is implied to be for a single object. [cite: US9223487B2]

2. Motivation to Improve User Experience and Multi-Object Selection: The problem of requiring "fine positional control" for touch-based selection was a known challenge in the art. A PHOSITA would seek to simplify this interaction and enable easier selection of multiple objects, which JP '878 does not adequately address.

3. Incorporating the "Pinch" Gesture for a Selection Operation: The "pinch" gesture (where two fingers move closer together) was a well-known and intuitive multi-touch interaction for scaling or zooming content on touchscreens. Adapting this widely understood physical gesture to signify a "selection" or "enclosing" action would be an obvious design choice for a PHOSITA aiming to create an easier and more intuitive selection method on a touch panel. The act of bringing two fingers together naturally suggests gathering or selecting items within the encompassed space.

4. Applying Marquee Selection for Multi-Object Designation: To select multiple objects within the area defined by the two-finger gesture, a PHOSITA would readily turn to the well-established GUI paradigm of "marquee selection." This technique, commonly used with a mouse to draw a rectangle and select all contained items, provides a straightforward and efficient way to select groups of objects. It would be obvious to adapt this familiar concept to a touch-based interaction.

5. Defining the Selection Area using Initial Touch Positions: Once the decision is made to use a two-finger "decreasing distance" gesture for marquee selection, defining the rectangular area by the initial first and second touch positions is a logical and obvious implementation. This is analogous to how the starting point of a mouse drag defines one corner of a marquee selection box. The initial contact points provide clear and unambiguous anchors for the selection region, ensuring predictable user interaction.

Therefore, a PHOSITA, motivated to improve the ease and scope of selection on touch panels beyond the limitations of JP '878, would have found it obvious to combine:

• The two-finger interaction for selection from JP '878.
• The well-known "pinch" gesture (decreasing distance between touches) as a trigger, adapting it from its common use in scaling/zooming to a selection function.
• The established GUI concept of "marquee selection" to define a rectangular area for selecting multiple objects.
• Using the initial touch points to define the corners of this rectangular selection area, a straightforward design choice for defining a region based on touch input.

This combination addresses the problem statement in US9223487 by providing "easy operation" for selecting objects, including multiple objects, without requiring "fine positional control" over individual icon peripheries.

For US Patent 9223487, the following details have been identified:

• Patent Term Adjustments (PTA): The patent's filing date was September 6, 2012. A standard patent term is 20 years from the earliest filing date, which would typically result in an expiration date of September 6, 2032. However, the Google Patents page for US9223487 indicates an adjusted expiration date of March 22, 2034 [cite: US9223487B2]. This difference of approximately 1 year, 6 months, and 16 days constitutes the Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) granted due to delays during the patent's prosecution by the USPTO. PTA is calculated to compensate for certain administrative delays by the USPTO in issuing a patent.

• Patent Term Extensions (PTE): Patent Term Extensions (PTE) are available for patents claiming products that require regulatory approval prior to being sold, such as human and veterinary pharmaceuticals, food additives, color additives, and medical devices, under the Hatch-Waxman Act. US Patent 9223487 is titled "Electronic apparatus, method of controlling the same, and related computer program," and its claims relate to graphical user interface interaction on a touch panel. As such, it does not fall within the categories of products eligible for PTE, and no PTE appears to have been granted.

• Continuation Applications: The provided information and the Google Patents page do not indicate that US9223487 is a continuation or continuation-in-part of an earlier US application. The application number US13/604,942 led directly to the issuance of US9223487. There are also no continuation or continuation-in-part applications explicitly listed as having been filed from US13/604,942.

• Divisional Applications: There is no indication from the provided patent text or the Google Patents page that US9223487 is a divisional application, nor are any divisional applications explicitly listed as having been filed from US13/604,942. Divisional applications typically arise from a restriction requirement by the USPTO.

• Related Family Members:

  • Parent Application: US13/604,942 (the application which matured into US9223487).
  • Application Publication: US20130076668A1 (the pre-grant publication of application US13/604,942) [cite: US9223487B2].
  • Priority Application: Japanese patent application number 2011-213101, filed on September 28, 2011 [cite: US9223487B2].

• Projected Expiration Date: The projected expiration date for US Patent 9223487 is March 22, 2034 [cite: US9223487B2]. This date includes any Patent Term Adjustment granted during prosecution.