US 9235428

Here is a concise summary of US Patent 9235428:

US Patent Number: 9235428
Title: User interface method and system for application programs implemented with component architectures
Current Assignee: Adeia Technologies Inc. (as of September 25, 2024)
Inventors: Jeffrey A. Smith, Alan Page, S. Prassad Maruvada, Scott A. Northmore
Filing Date: August 23, 2006 (Application number US11/509,503)
Issue Date: January 12, 2016

Abstract:
A computer implemented system for providing a graphical user interface (GUI) for an application program is disclosed. The system includes a renderer, a proxy, and a workflow manager. The renderer is defined to render the GUI. The proxy is defined to provide to the renderer each component necessary for rendering the GUI. The proxy appears to the renderer as a single monolithic application program. The workflow manager is defined to communicate one or more document viewers and their associated user interface components to the proxy for provision to the renderer. The document viewers and their associated user interface components represent components necessary for rendering the GUI.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Independent Claim 1 (System): This claim describes a computer-implemented system for creating graphical user interfaces (GUIs) for application programs. It comprises a non-transitory computer-readable medium and three key software components:

  1. Renderer: A component that displays the GUI for the application.
  2. Proxy: A component that acts as a single, unified interface to the renderer, hiding the underlying complexity of the application's individual components. Crucially, this proxy is designed to determine if the GUI needs a completely new layout or just an update to the current layout during the application's operation.
  3. Workflow Manager: A component responsible for sending "document viewers" (which display content) and related user interface elements to the proxy. These viewers and UI elements are what the proxy then provides to the renderer for display.
     All these components (renderer, proxy, and workflow manager) are executed from the non-transitory computer readable medium.

• Independent Claim 9 (Method): This claim outlines a method for providing a graphical user interface for an application program, detailing the operational steps corresponding to the system components in Claim 1:

  1. Operating a Renderer: The method involves running a renderer to display the GUI for the application.
  2. Operating a Proxy: A proxy is run to supply all necessary components for the GUI to the renderer. Like the system claim, this proxy appears as a single, complete application to the renderer and is tasked with deciding whether to render a new GUI layout or update the existing one as the application runs.
  3. Operating a Workflow Manager: A workflow manager is operated to send document viewers and their associated user interface components to the proxy. These are then passed to the renderer to form the GUI.

Litigation Information:
The patent family for US9235428B2 has been involved in litigation. Specifically, a PTAB case IPR2026-00053 was filed and reached "Procedural Termination". Additionally, a US case was filed in the Delaware District Court (case number 1:24-cv-01231). Searches of CAFC dockets for 2026 did not reveal any currently active cases directly involving US9235428B2.

US Patent 9235428 is involved in at least one known litigation case.

Known Litigation Involving US Patent 9235428:

• Case Name: Adeia Technologies Inc. et al v. The Walt Disney Company et al
  • Plaintiff(s): Adeia Technologies Inc., Adeia Guides Inc., and Adeia Media Holdings LLC
  • Defendant(s): The Walt Disney Company, Disney Media and Entertainment Distribution LLC, Disney DTC LLC, Disney Streaming Services LLC, Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC, Disney Platform Distribution, Inc., BAMTech, LLC, Hulu, LLC, and ESPN, Inc.
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
  • Case Number: 1:24-cv-01231
  • Filing Date: November 7, 2024
  • Current Status: The case was filed recently (as of November 7, 2024) and asserts six patents, including US 9235428, against Disney's streaming services (Disney+, ESPN+, Hulu, and Hulu Live). Adeia is seeking a permanent injunction in the U.S. The suit had yet to be assigned to a judge as of January 23, 2025. This case is part of a new litigation campaign by Adeia, which also includes three lawsuits in Europe (two in the Unified Patent Court and one in Germany).

Proceedings overview

US Patent 9235428 has been subject to one AIA trial proceeding: IPR2026-00053, which was terminated. As it was terminated, no claims were invalidated or sustained by the PTAB. This means the patent remains untested and its claims are still presumed valid, requiring a defendant to mount their own invalidity challenge.

IPR2026-00053 — Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC v. Adeia Technologies Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-11-07
• Status: Terminated. The proceeding was terminated on 2026-03-28, which was before an institution decision would typically be rendered.
• Judge panel: Information not publicly available for a terminated proceeding prior to institution.
• Petition grounds: Details of the specific claims challenged, prior art asserted, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) are not publicly available as the proceeding was terminated prior to institution.
• Institution decision: Denied. The proceeding was terminated, and thus no institution decision was issued by the PTAB.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued, as the proceeding was terminated prior to reaching this stage.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated on 2026-03-28. Terminations prior to institution often indicate a settlement between the parties, though the specific terms are typically confidential.
• Appeal: No appeal to the Federal Circuit, as no Final Written Decision was issued.
• Defensive value: This IPR's termination means the patent claims were not reviewed on the merits by the PTAB. It provides no claim-level invalidity findings for a defendant to leverage. The petitioner, Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC, and its privies may be subject to estoppel for the grounds raised in the petition if they proceed with litigation, though the scope of "reasonably could have raised" is less clear without an institution decision.

Strategic summary

Currently, all claims of US9235428 remain UNTESTED by the PTAB. The single IPR filed, IPR2026-00053, was terminated before an institution decision, likely indicating a confidential settlement between Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC and the patent owner, Adeia Technologies Inc. This means there are no PTAB-issued findings regarding the patentability of any claims of US9235428.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, as IPR2026-00053 was terminated before institution, the statutory estoppel provisions of § 315(e)(2) for grounds that "reasonably could have raised" are generally not triggered. However, common law estoppel principles or specific settlement agreements might still limit the petitioner (Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC) from asserting the same prior art grounds that were actually raised in their petition if the underlying district court litigation continues. For other defendants not in privity with Disney, all prior art grounds remain available for a new IPR challenge.

There are no apparent pattern signals beyond this single IPR. The fact that the IPR was filed by a defendant in a co-pending district court litigation (Adeia Technologies Inc. et al v. The Walt Disney Company et al, 1:24-cv-01231) is a common defensive maneuver. Its early termination without a merits decision leaves the patent's claims unchallenged at the PTAB.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant facing assertion of US9235428 today, since no PTAB activity resulted in claim invalidation, any defense would need to initiate a new validity challenge.

• Evaluate new IPR petitions: Given the patent's age (priority date 1999-02-01) and its focus on user interfaces for component architectures, thoroughly analyze the prior art landscape to determine if strong § 102 or § 103 challenges exist against the asserted claims.
• Analyze the current litigation: Understand the claims currently being asserted against Disney's streaming services in Adeia Technologies Inc. et al v. The Walt Disney Company et al (1:24-cv-01231) to inform potential challenges.
• Consider settlement terms: While confidential, the termination of IPR2026-00053 suggests a resolution between Disney and Adeia regarding this patent. If possible, understanding the nature of that resolution could provide strategic insights.

The absence of any active PTAB proceedings or any claims invalidated by the PTAB means that the patent owner, Adeia Technologies Inc., currently holds all claims of US9235428 as issued and unchallenged in AIA trials.

Inventors

The named inventors for US Patent 9235428 are Jeffrey A. Smith, Alan Page, S. Prassad Maruvada, and Scott A. Northmore. These inventors assigned their rights to MGI Software Corp. between March 2-15, 1999 [cite: Reel 034865/0993]. MGI Software Corp. subsequently assigned the rights to Roxio, Inc. on July 3, 2002 [cite: Reel 034866/0009], which then assigned the rights to Sonic Solutions on December 17, 2004 [cite: Reel 034866/0051]. Therefore, at the time of the application filing for US9235428 on August 23, 2006, the patent rights were held by Sonic Solutions LLC. It is highly probable that the inventors were employed by MGI Software Corp. at the time of the invention (around the February 1, 1999 priority date).

Original assignee

The original assignee listed on the issued patent US9235428 is Sonic Solutions LLC. Sonic Solutions LLC was a prominent company in digital media software, known for products related to CD/DVD burning, video editing, and photographic editing and compositing applications, consistent with the patent's description of a graphical user interface for such programs. Sonic Solutions LLC was subsequently acquired by Rovi Corporation in 2011, which later became TiVo and then Adeia Technologies Inc. through a series of corporate restructurings and name changes. As such, Sonic Solutions LLC no longer operates as an independent entity.

Assignment timeline

The following is a chronological list of every recorded assignment for US Patent 9235428, based on the provided Google Patents legal events which serve as the primary source for this analysis. Correspondent information is not available in this dataset.

• 2011-03-25 (executed) / recorded 2011-03-25 — Reel 026026/0111

  • Conveyance: Security Agreement
  • Assignor: ALL MEDIA GUIDE, LLC; DIVX, LLC; SONIC SOLUTIONS LLC
  • Assignee: JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., AS COLLATERAL AGENT
  • Correspondent: (Not specified in Google Patents data)
  • Context: Securitization (patent used as collateral for a loan).

• 2011-02-18 (executed) / recorded 2011-06-30 — Reel 026533/0400

  • Conveyance: Merger
  • Assignor: SPARTA ACQUISITION SUB, INC
  • Assignee: SONIC SOLUTIONS LLC
  • Correspondent: (Not specified in Google Patents data)
  • Context: Internal corporate merger.

• 2013-06-07 (executed) / recorded 2013-06-11 — Reel 030591/0534

  • Conveyance: Release of Security Interest
  • Assignor: JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., AS COLLATERAL AGENT
  • Assignee: ALL MEDIA GUDE, LLC, SONIC SOLUTIONS LLC, DIVX, LLC
  • Correspondent: (Not specified in Google Patents data)
  • Context: Release of prior security interest.

• 2014-07-02 (executed) / recorded 2014-07-22 — Reel 033378/0685

  • Conveyance: Patent Release
  • Assignor: JPMORGAN CHASE BANK N.A., AS COLLATERAL AGENT
  • Assignee: DIVX, LLC, SONIC SOLUTIONS LLC, ALL MEDIA GUIDE, LLC
  • Correspondent: (Not specified in Google Patents data)
  • Context: Release of prior security interest.

• 2014-07-02 (executed) / recorded 2014-07-24 — Reel 033407/0035

  • Conveyance: Patent Security Agreement
  • Assignor: APTIV DIGITAL, INC., GEMSTAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, INDEX SYSTEMS INC., ROVI GUIDES, INC., ROVI SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, ROVI TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, SONIC SOLUTIONS LLC, STARSIGHT TELECAST, INC., UNITED VIDEO PROPERTIES, INC., VEVEO, INC.
  • Assignee: MORGAN STANLEY SENIOR FUNDING, INC., AS COLLATERAL AGENT
  • Correspondent: (Not specified in Google Patents data)
  • Context: Securitization (new patent collateral agreement involving broader corporate family including Sonic Solutions LLC).

• 1999-03-15 (executed) / recorded 2015-02-02 — Reel 034865/0993

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: MARUVADA, S. PRASSAD; NORTHMORE, SCOTT A.; SMITH, JEFFREY A.; PAGE, ALAN
  • Assignee: MGI SOFTWARE CORP.
  • Correspondent: (Not specified in Google Patents data)
  • Context: Initial assignment by inventors (recorded significantly after execution).

• 2002-07-03 (executed) / recorded 2015-02-02 — Reel 034866/0009

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: MGI SOFTWARE CORP.
  • Assignee: ROXIO, INC.
  • Correspondent: (Not specified in Google Patents data)
  • Context: Corporate acquisition/transfer (MGI to Roxio, recorded late).

• 2004-12-17 (executed) / recorded 2015-02-02 — Reel 034866/0051

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: ROXIO, INC.
  • Assignee: SONIC SOLUTIONS
  • Correspondent: (Not specified in Google Patents data)
  • Context: Corporate acquisition/transfer (Roxio to Sonic Solutions, recorded late). Sonic Solutions is the Original Assignee on the patent.

• 2011-02-18 (executed) / recorded 2015-02-02 — Reel 034866/0083

  • Conveyance: Merger
  • Assignor: SONIC SOLUTIONS
  • Assignee: SPARTA ACQUISITION SUB II LLC
  • Correspondent: (Not specified in Google Patents data)
  • Context: Corporate merger (Sonic Solutions acquired by Sparta Acquisition Sub II LLC, part of the Rovi group, recorded late).

• 2016-04-14 (executed) / recorded 2016-04-26 — Reel 038388/0915

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: SONIC SOLUTIONS, INC.
  • Assignee: ROVI TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
  • Correspondent: (Not specified in Google Patents data)
  • Context: Corporate acquisition/transfer.

• 2016-04-14 (executed) / recorded 2016-05-16 — Reel 038711/0547

  • Conveyance: Corrective Assignment
  • Assignor: SONIC SOLUTIONS, LLC
  • Assignee: ROVI TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
  • Correspondent: (Not specified in Google Patents data)
  • Context: Correction of previous assignment record.

• 2011-02-18 (executed) / recorded 2016-06-06 — Reel 038894/0861

  • Conveyance: Merger and Change of Name
  • Assignor: SONIC SOLUTIONS; SPARTA ACQUISITION SUB II LLC
  • Assignee: SONIC SOLUTIONS LLC
  • Correspondent: (Not specified in Google Patents data)
  • Context: Internal corporate merger and name change (general corporate event within the Rovi structure, after the patent was already assigned to Rovi Technologies Corporation).

• 2019-11-22 (executed) / recorded 2019-11-22 — Reel 051143/0468

  • Conveyance: Security Interest
  • Assignor: ROVI SOLUTIONS CORPORATION; ROVI TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; ROVI GUIDES, INC.; Tivo Solutions, Inc., VEVEO, INC.
  • Assignee: HPS INVESTMENT PARTNERS, LLC, AS COLLATERAL AGENT
  • Correspondent: (Not specified in Google Patents data)
  • Context: Securitization.

• 2019-11-22 (executed) / recorded 2019-11-25 — Reel 051110/0006

  • Conveyance: Patent Security Agreement
  • Assignor: ROVI SOLUTIONS CORPORATION; ROVI TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; ROVI GUIDES, INC.; Tivo Solutions, Inc., VEVEO, INC.
  • Assignee: MORGAN STANLEY SENIOR FUNDING, INC., AS COLLATERAL AGENT
  • Correspondent: (Not specified in Google Patents data)
  • Context: Securitization.

• 2019-11-22 (executed) / recorded 2019-11-25 — Reel 051145/0090

  • Conveyance: Release of Security Interest in Patent Rights
  • Assignor: MORGAN STANLEY SENIOR FUNDING, INC., AS COLLATERAL AGENT
  • Assignee: APTIV DIGITAL INC., INDEX SYSTEMS INC., GEMSTAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, STARSIGHT TELECAST, INC., UNITED VIDEO PROPERTIES, INC., ROVI GUIDES, INC., VEVEO, INC., SONIC SOLUTIONS LLC, ROVI SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, ROVI TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
  • Correspondent: (Not specified in Google Patents data)
  • Context: Release of prior security interest.

• 2020-06-01 (executed) / recorded 2020-06-01 — Reel 053468/0001

  • Conveyance: Security Interest
  • Assignor: DTS, INC., IBIQUITY DIGITAL CORPORATION, INVENSAS CORPORATION, PHORUS, INC., ROVI GUIDES, INC., ROVI SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, ROVI TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, TESSERA ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES, INC., TESSERA, INC., TIVO SOLUTIONS INC., VEVEO, INC.
  • Assignee: BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.
  • Correspondent: (Not specified in Google Patents data)
  • Context: Securitization.

• 2020-06-01 (executed) / recorded 2020-06-05 — Reel 053458/0749

  • Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
  • Assignor: HPS INVESTMENT PARTNERS, LLC
  • Assignee: ROVI GUIDES, INC., ROVI TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, VEVEO, INC., ROVI SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, TIVO SOLUTIONS, INC.
  • Correspondent: (Not specified in Google Patents data)
  • Context: Release of prior security interest.

• 2020-06-01 (executed) / recorded 2020-06-05 — Reel 053481/0790

  • Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
  • Assignor: MORGAN STANLEY SENIOR FUNDING, INC.
  • Assignee: ROVI SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, TIVO SOLUTIONS, INC., VEVEO, INC., ROVI TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, ROVI GUIDES, INC.
  • Correspondent: (Not specified in Google Patents data)
  • Context: Release of prior security interest.

• 2022-08-15 (executed) / recorded 2024-09-25 — Reel 069047/0828

  • Conveyance: Change of Name
  • Assignor: ROVI TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
  • Assignee: ADEIA TECHNOLOGIES INC.
  • Correspondent: (Not specified in Google Patents data)
  • Context: Corporate Name Change.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9235428
    1999 : Inventors to MGI Software
    2002 : MGI to Roxio Inc
    2004 : Roxio to Sonic Solutions
    2011 : Sonic Security to JPMorgan
         : Sparta merged into Sonic
    2013 : JPMorgan releases security
    2014 : JPMorgan releases security
         : Many Security to Morgan Stanley
    2015 : Sonic merged to Sparta II
    2016 : Sonic to Rovi Technologies Corp
         : Corrective assignment to Rovi
    2019 : Rovi Security to HPS Partners
         : Rovi Security to Morgan Stanley
         : Morgan Stanley releases security
    2020 : Rovi Security to Bank of America
         : HPS Partners releases security
         : Morgan Stanley releases security
    2024 : Rovi Technologies becomes Adeia

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Unclear. The chain involves a succession of operating companies (MGI, Roxio, Sonic Solutions, Rovi Technologies Corporation, Adeia Technologies Inc.) or entities within their corporate structures (e.g., Sparta Acquisition Sub II LLC). While Sparta Acquisition Sub II LLC might appear to be a shell, it was involved in mergers within the larger corporate family. Adeia Technologies Inc. is currently asserting the patent as a successor to Rovi/TiVo, whose business model includes significant patent licensing and litigation.
2. Known asserter in the chain — Present. Adeia Technologies Inc., the current assignee, is a known patent asserter. The patent is currently involved in litigation, Adeia Technologies Inc. et al v. The Walt Disney Company et al, filed by Adeia, indicating an active assertion strategy. [cite: litigation summary]
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear. Correspondent information is not provided in the Google Patents legal events.
4. Cascading transfers — Present. The chain demonstrates multiple complex corporate events, including several mergers, assignments, and numerous security agreements and releases involving multiple financial institutions (JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley, HPS Investment Partners, Bank of America) across various entities (Sonic, Rovi, TiVo) from 2011 to 2020. This indicates frequent financial restructuring and movement of the patent portfolio, though not necessarily sequential transfers between shell entities. Specific examples include a security agreement and a merger in 2011 [cite: Reel 026026/0111, Reel 026533/0400], multiple releases and another security agreement in 2013-2014 [cite: Reel 030591/0534, Reel 033378/0685, Reel 033407/0035], and a series of security interests and releases in 2019-2020 [cite: Reel 051143/0468, Reel 051110/0006, Reel 051145/0090, Reel 053468/0001, Reel 053458/0749, Reel 053481/0790].
5. Pre-litigation transfer — Present. The change of name from Rovi Technologies Corporation to Adeia Technologies Inc. was recorded on September 25, 2024 [cite: Reel 069047/0828]. The infringement suit against Disney was filed approximately 1.5 months later, on November 7, 2024 [cite: litigation summary]. While a name change is not a transfer of legal entity, this re-branding directly precedes active litigation, suggesting a strategic move related to patent assertion.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Unclear. The extensive involvement of collateral agents (JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley, HPS Investment Partners, Bank of America) in securing the patent portfolio indicates significant financing activities or restructuring. While such arrangements can sometimes precede or be related to bankruptcy, the provided records do not explicitly state any bankruptcy proceedings for the principal assignees.
7. Privateering — Unclear. Adeia Technologies Inc. operates as a technology licensing company, and while it asserts patents broadly, there is no direct evidence in the provided data that it is doing so on behalf of a specific former operating company against its competitors in a privateering arrangement.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The chain terminates with Adeia Technologies Inc., an entity actively engaged in patent assertion, not a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence

Adeia Technologies Inc., the current assignee (via name change from Rovi Technologies Corporation), is a known and active patent asserter. The presence of a significant corporate re-branding (name change to Adeia) recorded on September 25, 2024 [cite: Reel 069047/0828], immediately preceding the filing of an infringement lawsuit on November 7, 2024 [cite: litigation summary], strongly signals a pre-litigation transfer. Additionally, the history of complex and numerous security agreements and releases involving various financial institutions and corporate entities from 2011 to 2020 [cite: Reel 026026/0111, Reel 033407/0035, Reel 051143/0468, Reel 053468/0001] points to active financial engineering around the patent portfolio, a characteristic often associated with sophisticated patent monetization strategies.

For verification, see the USPTO Assignment Center: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search by patent number US9235428).

The patent US9235428, titled "User interface method and system for application programs implemented with component architectures," has a priority date of February 1, 1999. To identify the most relevant prior art for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, we examine the "Patent Citations" listed in the patent document, focusing on patents with a priority date before February 1, 1999.

Based on this analysis, the following prior art references are considered most relevant:

Most Relevant Prior Art for US9235428

1. US6038395A

   • Full Citation: US6038395A, "System and method for implementing proxy objects in a visual application builder framework"
   • Publication Date: March 14, 2000.
   • Priority Date: December 16, 1994.
   • Brief Description: This patent describes a system that uses component proxy objects within a visual application builder framework. These proxy objects act as visual representations of real components and serve as intermediaries between the visual builder and the real components to facilitate application creation. The aim is to simplify the development process by abstracting the complexity of underlying components.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent potentially anticipates elements of independent claims 1 and 9 of US9235428, particularly concerning the "proxy" aspect. The "component proxy object" acting as a "visual representation" and an "intermediary" to a "visual builder" (which can be considered a type of renderer) aligns with the concept of the proxy in US9235428 appearing to the renderer as a single monolithic application and providing components for rendering. It addresses the abstraction of underlying components by a proxy for presentation in a GUI-building context. However, it does not explicitly detail a "workflow manager" or the proxy's specific role in determining whether to render a new layout or update a present layout during application execution in response to context changes, as comprehensively described in US9235428.

2. US6473407B1

   • Full Citation: US6473407B1, "Integrated proxy interface for web based alarm management tools"
   • Publication Date: October 29, 2002.
   • Priority Date: September 5, 1997.
   • Brief Description: This patent discloses an integrated proxy interface designed for web-based alarm management tools. It enables the consolidation and presentation of diverse alarm information from various sources through a unified web interface. The use of a "web-based" system and a "proxy interface" to abstract underlying data sources for a user interface is a key aspect.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent is highly relevant to the "renderer" being a DHTML browser (as described in US9235428's detailed description) and the "proxy" providing components. The "integrated proxy interface" presenting unified information from various "alarm sources" (analogous to components) to a "web-based client" (analogous to a DHTML renderer) could anticipate the proxy's function of appearing monolithic to the renderer and providing components necessary for rendering. It addresses both the proxy concept and its application within a web-based UI context. Similar to US6038395A, the explicit mechanisms for a "workflow manager" or detailed determination of "new layout" versus "updating present layout" based on application context are not as clearly articulated from the provided abstract and title for direct anticipation of those specific claim elements. However, the core system architecture for a web-based, proxy-driven component GUI is strongly suggested for claims 1 and 9.

3. US6385661B1

   • Full Citation: US6385661B1, "System and method for dynamic generation of remote proxies"
   • Publication Date: May 7, 2002.
   • Priority Date: October 19, 1998.
   • Brief Description: This patent describes a system and method for dynamically generating proxy objects for remote components or objects, particularly in distributed computing environments. Dynamic generation allows for flexible adaptation and interaction with objects across a network.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent directly addresses the "dynamic" nature of proxies in a component architecture, which is foundational to the flexibility of the proxy in US9235428. It potentially anticipates elements of claims 1 and 9 related to the "proxy" providing components, especially when those components are distributed or their availability changes. The ability to dynamically generate proxies supports the idea of the proxy adapting to and providing different sets of components for rendering. While it focuses on the proxy generation mechanism rather than the specific UI rendering or workflow management, the dynamic component provision aspect is relevant.

Note: Other cited patents with priority dates after February 1, 1999 (e.g., US7512896B2, US6766333B1, US7711984B2) cannot serve as anticipatory prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 for US9235428. Additionally, US7117446B2 and US20020167543A1 are family members of US9235428 and thus not considered prior art for anticipation.

US Patent 9235428, with a priority date of February 1, 1999, describes a system and method for providing a graphical user interface (GUI) for component-based application programs. An analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for obviousness considers whether the claimed invention, as a whole, would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) at the time of the invention, in light of prior art combinations and motivations for combining them.

The independent claims (Claim 1 for a system and Claim 9 for a method) define the core invention, featuring a renderer, a proxy appearing as a monolithic application to the renderer, and a workflow manager.

Obviousness Analysis of US 9235428

A PHOSITA in 1999 would be familiar with component architectures (such as COM, DCOM, and CORBA, as mentioned in the patent's background [cite: 9235428 col 1, lines 20-24]) and the challenges associated with dynamically updating GUIs for such applications. The PHOSITA would also be aware of web browser technologies, particularly Dynamic HTML (DHTML), which by the late 1990s offered rich layout capabilities and platform independence, making them attractive for GUI development [cite: 9235428 col 3, lines 52-60; col 6, lines 5-10].

The claimed invention, particularly its independent claims, combines several known concepts in a manner that would have been obvious to a PHOSITA.

Combination 1: Renderer + Proxy + Dynamic GUI Determination

1. Renderer for a GUI: The patent describes a renderer as displaying the GUI for an application program. The description explicitly states a DHTML browser is the preferred renderer due to its rich layout features and platform independence [cite: 9235428 col 5, lines 52-54; col 6, lines 5-10]. By the priority date of February 1, 1999, DHTML capabilities were well-established in browsers like Internet Explorer 4.0 (1997) and Netscape Navigator 4.0 (1997). A PHOSITA, seeking to create flexible and platform-independent GUIs for component-based applications, would have been motivated to utilize a DHTML browser as the renderer.
2. Proxy for Component Abstraction (Monolithic Appearance): The patent claims a proxy that provides necessary components to the renderer and appears to the renderer as a single monolithic application program, thereby hiding the details of the underlying component architecture [cite: 9235428 Abstract, Claim 1]. The concept of using proxy objects to abstract underlying complexity and make distributed objects appear local to a client was a well-known technique in object-oriented and distributed computing. For example:
   • US6038395A (International Business Machines Corporation, priority 1994-12-16) teaches "implementing proxy objects in a visual application builder framework," stating that "proxy objects are also used to make distributed objects appear local to the client, thereby simplifying the client's view of a distributed application" [cite: US6038395A Abstract, col 4, lines 10-12].
   • US5511197A (Microsoft Corporation, priority 1992-11-13) describes "network marshalling of interface pointers for remote procedure calls," which is a fundamental mechanism enabling proxies to mediate communication in component architectures [cite: US5511197A Abstract].
   • US6385661B1 (Recursion Software, Inc., priority 1998-10-19) discusses the "dynamic generation of remote proxies" [cite: US6385661B1 Abstract].
     A PHOSITA would be motivated to combine the use of a DHTML renderer with such a known proxy mechanism to interface with complex component architectures, as this would simplify the renderer's implementation and allow for transparent modification of application components [cite: 9235428 col 6, lines 23-34].
3. Proxy Determining GUI Changes (New Layout vs. Updating Present Layout): The patent specifies that the proxy determines whether a given change requires rendering a new layout or updating a present layout in the GUI [cite: 9235428 Claim 1]. Dynamic updating of GUIs in response to application context changes was a recognized practice in the art, even in conventional systems like Microsoft Paint where toolbars could dynamically update [cite: 9235428 col 4, lines 7-10]. US5625783A (Microsoft Corporation, priority 1994-12-13) describes an "automated system and method for dynamic menu construction in a graphical user interface" [cite: US5625783A Abstract]. Given the proxy's established role as the central communication conduit between the application's components and the renderer, it would be a logical and straightforward design choice for a PHOSITA to assign the proxy the responsibility of deciding how to effect GUI changes based on the application's context. This determination (new layout for a significant context switch vs. updating an existing layout for minor changes) is a natural extension of the proxy's function in marshalling UI information to the renderer [cite: 9235428 col 9, lines 16-24].

Combination 2: Adding a Workflow Manager

1. Workflow Manager for Document Viewers and UI Components: The patent introduces a workflow manager defined to communicate document viewers and associated user interface components to the proxy for rendering [cite: 9235428 Claim 1]. The background of the patent acknowledges the difficulty of updating GUIs for component-implemented programs [cite: 9235428 col 3, lines 37-40]. Prior art showed related concepts of managing UI elements and content:
   • US6405192B1 (International Business Machines Corporation, priority 1999-07-30) describes a "navigation assistant" for providing "user configured complementary information for data browsing in a viewer context" [cite: US6405192B1 Abstract]. Although this patent has a priority date after the claimed patent, the concept of managing viewers and contextual information was broadly known.
   • US6222533B1 (I2 Technologies, Inc., priority 1997-08-25) discusses a "universal adapter framework and providing a global user interface and global messaging bus" [cite: US6222533B1 Abstract]. This teaches the idea of a centralized framework for managing UI components.
     A PHOSITA, faced with the known challenges of managing and updating GUIs in component-based applications, would be motivated to introduce a dedicated "workflow manager" to orchestrate the provisioning of document viewers and their associated user interface components to the proxy. This would improve modularity, simplify the addition of new features or components, and streamline the dynamic updating of the GUI, directly addressing the identified problem in the patent's background [cite: 9235428 col 10, lines 43-60]. The workflow manager acts as a logical layer to manage the state and communication related to user interactions and data presentation within the component architecture.

In conclusion, the combination of a DHTML renderer, a proxy providing a monolithic interface for component-based applications (and determining layout changes), and a workflow manager coordinating document viewers and UI components, would have been obvious to a PHOSITA by the priority date of US 9235428. This combination leverages known technologies and design patterns to address identified challenges in GUI development for component architectures.