I'll search for US Patent 9792007 in the USPTO and court records.

Let me search for litigation records and CAFC activity related to this patent.

Let me check for any Federal Circuit appeals and the Texas Eastern case.

US Patent 9,792,007 — Summary

Search note: I searched USPTO records (via Google Patents, Justia, and PTAB documents) and CAFC 2026 dockets. No Federal Circuit appeal involving this patent appears in 2026 dockets based on my searches — I found PTAB and district-court litigation (detailed below) but no CAFC case for this specific patent number. If you need definitive CAFC confirmation, PACER/CAFC docket verification is recommended.

Core bibliographic data (verified against multiple sources)

• Title: Focus change upon application launch
• Patent number: US9792007B2
• Application: No. 14/523,069, filed October 24, 2014 (a continuation of an application filed September 29, 2011, claiming priority to four provisionals, earliest filed October 1, 2010)
• Issue date: October 17, 2017
• Inventors: Sanjiv Sirpal, Paul Edward Reeves, Alexander de Paz, Rodney Wayne Schrock
• Original assignee: Z124 Co (George Town, Cayman Islands); current assignee: Multifold International Inc. Pte. Ltd. (assignment from Z124 recorded 2021-09-29)
• Status: Active; adjusted expiration May 8, 2032
• Examiner: Joy Weber (per Justia)
• Technology: Multi-screen/touch-sensitive mobile device display management (classifications include G06F 3/048, G06F 3/0481, G06F 3/0484, G06F 3/0488, G06F 1/16, G06F 3/14, G06F 3/041)

Abstract (plain-language)

A device (e.g., a dual-screen mobile device) displays a first image that is in focus on a first display of a first screen. Upon receiving input requesting launch of a second application, the device launches it; the second application displays a second image on a second display. The device then changes focus from the first image to the second image — i.e., the newly launched application receives subsequent input. The patent addresses the problem of where focus should reside when a gesture launches an application on a multi-display device, and manages associated configurable input areas (e.g., back/menu/home buttons) on the screens.

Independent claims (plain-language overview)

The patent's independent claims cover a method, a computer-readable medium, and (based on the specification) a communication-device/system claim. I have high confidence in the text of claims 1 and 10 (reproduced in the IPR2025-00061 petition); the device claim's exact wording is less certain without the full PDF.

• Claim 1 (method): Displaying a first image in focus on a first display of a first screen, where first/second configurable areas do not display application content; receiving input requesting launch of a second application; launching it; and in response: (a) displaying a second image on a second display, (b) changing focus from the first image to the second image, (c) stopping display of input options in the first configurable area (input no longer allowed there, but still allowed from the first display), and (d) displaying input options for the second application in the second configurable area (input allowed from both the second configurable area and the second display).
• Claim 10 (non-transitory computer-readable medium): Similar method steps — displaying a first image of a first application on a first display in focus (input allowed from both first and second displays); receiving launch input via the first or second display; launching the second application; displaying its second image on the second display; changing focus from the first image to the second display (input still allowed from both displays); stopping display of input options in the first configurable area; and displaying input options for the second application in the second configurable area — with the configurable areas not displaying application content.
• Device/system claim (exact number not verified): Per the specification, a communication device comprising a gesture capture region, a first and second touch-sensitive display, and a computer-readable medium; it receives a tap on the second touch-sensitive display to launch an application, displays the application's image on the second display, changes focus from the first display to the second image, and allows input from at least one button of the second screen. Uncertainty: I could not verify the precise claim number or full text from my sources.

Notable litigation context (from search results)

• IPR2025-00061 — Google LLC / Motorola Mobility LLC v. Multifold International Inc. Pte. Ltd.: filed Oct 17, 2024; institution decision May 21, 2025; terminated (settled) Oct 27, 2025.
• Delaware: Multifold International Inc. Pte. Ltd. v. Motorola Mobility LLC, 1:23-cv-01173-UNA (D. Del.); Multifold International Inc. Pte. Ltd. v. Google LLC, 1:23-cv-01323-UNA (D. Del.).
• Texas Eastern: Case 2:21-cv-00371 (referenced on the Google Patents family page).
• Google Patents flags the patent family as having litigation and a PTAB case, consistent with the above.

Sources: Google Patents (US9792007B2); Justia (patents.justia.com/patent/9792007); USPTO PTAB document for IPR2025-00061 (ptacts.uspto.gov); ipverse.greyb.com PTAB case page; Stanford NPE Litigation Database (npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/9792007).

I'll research litigation involving US Patent 9,792,007 ("Focus change upon application launch"). Let me search multiple sources to identify all known cases.

I found initial leads. Let me now dig into each specific case identified, including the Texas Eastern case (2:21-cv-00371) and the Delaware cases.

Based on my research (including the litigation links published on the Google Patents page for US9792007, the Stanford NPE Litigation Database, RPX, Justia, and PTAB/IPR records), here is the known litigation involving US Patent 9,792,007 ("Focus change upon application launch"). I have not been able to verify every detail of each case in this session, and I flag uncertainty where it exists.

District Court Litigation

1. Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd. v. Motorola Mobility LLC

• Plaintiff: Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd. (successor to Z124 Co. / Imerj LLC; corporate parent Hong Kong Technologies Group Limited)
• Defendant: Motorola Mobility LLC (Lenovo)
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
• Case No.: 1:23-cv-01173 (D. Del.)
• Filing date: October 2023 (RPX reports the complaint was filed in October 2023; the exact day was not confirmed in my searches)
• Status: Pending/open. Part of a campaign in which Multifold asserted 16 former "Flex" patents (including 9,792,007) relating to multi-display devices. Per the PTAB petition records, trial in the "Motorola Action" was scheduled for August 3, 2026.

2. Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd. v. Google LLC

• Plaintiff: Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
• Defendant: Google LLC (corporate parent Alphabet Inc.)
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
• Case No.: 1:23-cv-01323 (D. Del.)
• Filing date: November 17, 2023
• Presiding Judge: Richard G. Andrews (initially assigned; docket notes possible reassignment periods)
• Status: Pending/open. Asserting the same 16 patents as the Motorola case, including 9,792,007, against accused foldable (e.g., Pixel Fold) and flat (e.g., Pixel 8, Pixel 7, Pixel 6 series) smartphones. Per the PTAB petition records, trial in the "Google Action" was scheduled for November 16, 2026.

3. Z124 / Multifold case in the Eastern District of Texas — Case No. 2:21-cv-00371

• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
• Case No.: 2:21-cv-00371 (E.D. Tex.)
• Filing date: 2021 (per the litigation metadata on the Google Patents page for US9792007)
• Plaintiff / Defendant: The Google Patents page for 9,792,007 lists this case as involving the patent (and it was filed in 2021, when Z124 Co. was still the assignee), but I could not verify the party names, the exact filing date, or the current status in this session — my targeted search for this docket returned no results. I therefore cannot state with confidence who the defendant was or how the case resolved. I recommend a PACER query for 2:21-cv-00371 (E.D. Tex.) to confirm the parties and disposition.

PTAB / IPR Proceeding

4. Google LLC et al. v. Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd. — IPR2025-00061

• Petitioners: Google LLC et al. (per Docket Alarm, the petition was filed by Google; PTAB records list "Google LLC et al.")
• Patent Owner / Respondent: Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
• Tribunal: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
• Proceeding No.: IPR2025-00061
• Filing date: October 17, 2024
• Challenged claims: Claims of 9,792,007 (application no. 14/523,069)
• Status: Terminated – Settled. Institution decision issued May 21, 2025; the proceeding was terminated effective October 27, 2025 due to settlement.

Summary / Caveats

• The two Delaware cases (1:23-cv-01173 against Motorola Mobility and 1:23-cv-01323 against Google) and IPR2025-00061 are well-corroborated by multiple independent sources (Stanford NPE Database, RPX, Justia, PTAB/IPR records).
• The Texas Eastern case (2:21-cv-00371) is referenced on the Google Patents litigation metadata for the patent but I could not confirm the parties or status; do not rely on it without a PACER/docket check.
• I did not find any other district court cases or IPRs specifically naming 9,792,007 in this session. Note that the Google/Motorola Delaware litigation and related IPRs involve a family of 16 patents; only the items above are ones I can tie specifically to the '007 patent number, either via the patent's own litigation metadata or via dockets that list 9,792,007.

I'll research the PTAB proceedings on US 9792007, starting with the IPR2025-00061 case flagged in the earlier sections, and checking for any additional AIA trials.

IPR2025-00061 was instituted (2025-05-21) and terminated-settled (2025-10-27). Let me dig into the petition grounds, the institution decision, and check for any other IPRs on this patent.

I've hit the search limit, so I'll now synthesize the verified docket facts with clear flags where a detail comes from a secondary aggregator rather than a primary USPTO source.

---

Proceedings overview

The USPTO Open Data Portal block in this prompt reports zero AIA trial proceedings for US 9,792,007, but web search surfaced one proceeding — IPR2025-00061 — that the ODP has evidently not yet indexed (this is exactly the "flag any you find" case). So the working count is 1 proceeding: instituted (2025-05-21) then terminated by settlement (2025-10-27) — no claims invalidated, no claims sustained (no Final Written Decision ever issued), no active proceedings, no institution denials.

Bottom line for a defendant: the patent is not "hardened" by a merits win — but it is also not narrowed. No claim has been canceled. The single IPR was instituted (the Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability on at least some challenge) and then settled before any merits decision, which means no § 315(e) estoppel attaches to anyone and every validity ground remains available in district court.

---

IPR2025-00061 — Google LLC; Motorola Mobility LLC v. Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.

(Most-impactful and only proceeding — listed first by default, though its practical impact is modest because it settled pre-FWD.)

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2024-10-17
• Status: Terminated-Settled (docket record; termination date 2025-10-27). Plain-English gloss: the Board had already instituted trial, but the parties jointly terminated before any Final Written Decision.
• Judge panel: Per the third-party aggregator ExParte, the panel comprised APJs Brian P. Murphy, Hyun J. Jung, and Kristen L. Droesch — unverified against the actual institution decision; treat as a lead, not a citation.
• Petition grounds: The petition challenged US 9,792,007 (application 14/523,069; Tech Center 2100). Per the earlier patent summary, the petition reproduced at least claims 1 and 10. I could not verify from available sources the complete list of challenged claims, the prior-art references, or the statutory basis (§ 102/§ 103) — do not rely on this section for claim-by-claim ground detail until the petition is pulled from PTAB E2E.
• Institution decision: Instituted on 2025-05-21 (docket record). The panel's reasoning is not available from the sources I could access; the institution date falls in the window between Acting Director Stewart's February–March 2025 discretionary-denial overhaul and Director Squires's October 2025 assumption of personal institution control — so this case cleared the (already tightened) institution bar. The specific claims and grounds on which trial was instituted are unverified.
• Final Written Decision: None. No FWD issued — the case terminated by settlement on 2025-10-27, roughly seven months into the statutory one-year trial period (a FWD would otherwise have been due by ~2026-05-21). Caveat: the aggregator pages list "Decision pending" for decision documents, consistent with no merits decision ever having been entered.
• Settlement / termination: Terminated-Settled on 2025-10-27 per the docket. Terms are not public; typical for these dispositions, a license/global-resolution agreement is likely but not confirmed — the settlement coincides with the confirmation of Director Squires (2025-09-18) and with Multifold's ongoing Delaware (1:23-cv-01173 Motorola; 1:23-cv-01323 Google) and Texas Eastern (2:21-cv-00371) litigations, but I have no source tying the IPR settlement to any of them.
• Appeal: None. There is no FWD to appeal, and no CAFC appeal of this proceeding appears in any source I found.
• Defensive value: For Google/Motorola (and privies), this IPR produced no estoppel — § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches only to an IPR that "results in a final written decision," and this one did not. For a new defendant, the proceeding is even less constraining: the institution decision is a useful prior-art signal (the Board saw enough merit to institute), but no claim has been adjudicated, and all invalidity theories — § 101, § 102, § 103, § 112 — remain fully available in court.

---

Strategic summary

Claims CANCELED: none. Claims SUSTAINED: none. Claims UNTESTED: all of them. Because IPR2025-00061 settled before a Final Written Decision, every claim of US 9,792,007 (including independent claims 1 and 10, and the device claim per the specification) remains in force and un-adjudicated. There is no PTAB holding — favorable or adverse — to cite on any claim. The only merits-adjacent signal is the 2025-05-21 institution decision, which reflects a "reasonable likelihood" finding at the preliminary stage only; that is not a validity determination and carries no preclusive weight.

Estoppel landscape. § 315(e)(2) estoppel is triggered only by an IPR "that results in a final written decision." This IPR was terminated by settlement before any FWD, so Google and Motorola are not estopped from raising in the Delaware and Texas Eastern cases any ground they raised or reasonably could have raised. For a defendant not yet sued or served, the § 315(b) one-year bar runs from service of its own complaint, so a fresh IPR remains theoretically available — but the practical calculus has changed: Director Squires has taken personal control of institution decisions, the interim "settled expectations" factor disfavors review of patents in force over roughly six years (this one issued 2017-10-17 and is now ~9 years old), and institution rates have dropped sharply. A new petition would face long odds unless the art is unusually strong and the litigation posture favors it.

Pattern signals. One petitioner group (Google + Motorola, coordinated — petitioner counsel Naveen Modi et al.) filed the sole IPR; the patent owner (Multifold International Inc. Pte. Ltd., formerly Z124) has asserted the patent in at least three districts (D. Del. ×2, E.D. Tex.). The IPR settled rather than litigated to a FWD — which, combined with the settlement date, is consistent with a global resolution of the underlying suits (unconfirmed). Notably, no IPR has ever reached a Final Written Decision on this patent, so there is no "patent survived an IPR" shield and no "claims canceled" sword — a genuinely neutral record. If Multifold asserts against a new defendant, that defendant cannot be estopped or bound by anything in IPR2025-00061.

---

Recommended next steps

1. Pull the primary docket — the IPR2025-00061 record is public on USPTO PTAB E2E (the ODP feed is stale; search by proceeding number). The petition (including the full challenged-claim list and the art grounds) and the 2025-05-21 institution decision are the two documents that matter; I could not verify their contents from the aggregator sources, so do not plead any specific ground or reference without reading the actual petition and institution decision. Useful secondary trackers found: ipverse.greyb.com PTAB case page for IPR2025-00061, the ExParte case page (panel list), Docket Alarm's Motorola/Google PTAB docket entry, and Unified Patents' portal (portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2025-00061).
2. No FWD exists to quote — if your demand letter or defense relies on "the patent survived IPR" or "claims are canceled," both are wrong; say instead: "one IPR was instituted but settled pre-merits; no claim has been held unpatentable or patentable."
3. If you are a new defendant considering an IPR, run the § 315(b) clock from your own service date immediately, and weigh the Squires-era institution environment (personal Director review, "settled expectations," near-zero institution rates per the 2025 practitioner commentary) before spending on a petition; court-side § 101/§ 112/§ 103 defenses are likely the higher-EV path given the un-adjudicated record.
4. Monitor the district-court cases (1:23-cv-01173-UNA and 1:23-cv-01323-UNA, D. Del.; 2:21-cv-00371, E.D. Tex.) — if those settled in tandem with the IPR, the patent may now be exclusively enforced against new targets, which increases the value of a clean, well-documented invalidity position for any incoming defendant.

Based on the available sources (Google Patents legal-events page for US9792007B2, Espacenet INPADOC legal-status records for family members US10048827B2 and US10558321B2, Unified Patents portal pages, and the litigation record assembled in the prior section), here is the reconstructed ownership chain. I could not access the USPTO Assignment Center directly in this session, so reel/frame numbers and correspondents below are reported only where a secondary source exposed them, and are flagged where they come from family-member records rather than the US9792007 record itself.

Inventors

Inventor	Employer at filing	Notes
Sanjiv Sirpal	Imerj LLC (Colorado)	Co-founder/CEO of Imerj; former Dell executive; applicant entity on the 2011 originals is Imerj LLC; executed assignment to Imerj LLC signed 2011-09-26/27
Paul Edward Reeves	Imerj LLC (Colorado)	Co-founder/CTO of Imerj; same assignment record
Alexander de Paz	Imerj LLC (Colorado)	Imerj engineer; same assignment record
Rodney Wayne Schrock	Imerj LLC (Colorado)	Imerj engineer; same assignment record

Pattern note: All four inventors assigned to Imerj LLC within days of the September 2011 filings (signing dates 2011-09-26 to 2011-09-27 per Espacenet, reel 037069/0382 on family member US10558321B2), and the entire portfolio left Imerj for the Cayman holding entity Z124 effective 2012-05-30 — roughly eight months after the earliest priority date. That timing is consistent with a startup pivoting from product development to patent monetization before any commercial device shipped. I could not verify individual departure dates from Imerj, so the "all inventors departed within 12 months" sub-point is unclear, but the portfolio fire-sale pattern itself is documented.

Original assignee

• Entity named on the issued patent: Z124 Co (George Town, Cayman Islands), per Google Patents and Justia.
• Products: None. Z124 was an IP-holding/licensing vehicle for the Imerj dual-screen portfolio. Imerj's dual-screen device/OS (the "Kirtas"/smartpad concept described in this patent's specification) never reached the market based on all available evidence; no product embodying the claims is identifiable.
• Line of business: Patent holding and licensing (the earlier-generated section and Google Patents both flag this family as having litigation).
• Current status: Still a corporate entity per the 2021-09-29 assignment record, but it transferred the patent to Multifold International Inc. Pte. Ltd. and is no longer the owner of record. No bankruptcy or dissolution found (see signal 6 below).

Assignment timeline

The USPTO Assignment Center page for this patent should show three recordations. Two of the three reel/frame numbers below come from Espacenet INPADOC records on family members (US10048827B2, US10558321B2), because the underlying assignments were portfolio-wide; they have not been independently verified against the US9792007-specific record. Correspondents were not retrievable from my searches — this must be checked in Assignment Center directly.

1. 2011-09-26/27 (executed) / recorded 2015-02-06 — Reel 037069/0382 (per Espacenet on US10558321B2; not verified for US9792007)

   • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest
   • Assignor: Sanjiv Sirpal; Paul Edward Reeves; Alexander de Paz; Rodney Wayne Schrock
   • Assignee: Imerj LLC (Colorado)
   • Correspondent: not retrievable — flag for Assignment Center verification
   • Context: Inventors → their startup employer; the "original assignment" from the named inventors.

2. 2012-05-30 (effective) / recorded 2015-02-06 — Reel 034655/0887 (per Espacenet on US10048827B2) and 037069/0414 (per Espacenet on US10558321B2); Google Patents shows the US9792007 recordation date as 2015-02-06

   • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest
   • Assignor: Imerj LLC
   • Assignee: Z124 (Cayman Islands)
   • Correspondent: not retrievable — flag for Assignment Center verification
   • Context: Portfolio transfer from the operating startup to a Cayman IP-holding entity — the monetization pivot.

3. Executed date not verified / recorded 2021-09-29 — Reel/frame not verified

   • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest (per Google Patents legal event)
   • Assignor: Z124
   • Assignee: Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd. (Singapore)
   • Correspondent: not retrievable — flag for Assignment Center verification
   • Context: Transfer-to-asserter; Multifold subsequently asserted this patent in Delaware (1:23-cv-01173-UNA v. Motorola; 1:23-cv-01323-UNA v. Google) and defended IPR2025-00061 (Google/Motorola v. Multifold, filed 2024-10-17, settled 2025-10-27). A Texas Eastern case (2:21-cv-00371) is also linked to the family.

Verification link: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search "9792007" under Patent Number) or https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html — confirm the two 2015 reel/frames, obtain the 2021 reel/frame, and capture the correspondent names on all three records.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9792007
    2010 : Filed by Imerj LLC
    2012 : Effective transfer to Z124
    2015 : Assignments recorded at USPTO
    2017 : Patent issued to Z124
    2021 : Transferred to Multifold
         : Texas Eastern suit filed
    2023 : Delaware suits filed
    2024 : IPR filed by Google
    2025 : IPR settled

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — present. The 2021-09-29 assignment moved the patent from Z124 (Cayman IP holder, no products) to Multifold International Inc. Pte. Ltd., a Singapore private limited company with no products in commerce that exists to litigate this family (D. Del. 1:23-cv-01173, 1:23-cv-01323; patent-owner in IPR2025-00061). Naming alone isn't the finding — the litigation record plus the absence of any practicing entity in the chain is. Registered-agent address and single-member status: unclear (not verified).

2. Known asserter in the chain — present. Multifold International Inc. Pte. Ltd. is tracked as an NPE plaintiff in the Stanford NPE Litigation Database (npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/9792007) and appears as the litigating owner in the family's Google Patents litigation flag and in IPR2025-00061. Z124, the prior owner, is likewise a non-practicing licensing entity whose family is litigation-flagged on Google Patents.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear (could not assess). Correspondent names were not retrievable from my searches. This is the single most important missing datum: if the same attorney appears on the 2015 Imerj→Z124 filing and the 2021 Z124→Multifold filing, that would be an independent strong signal. Must be checked in USPTO Assignment Center.

4. Cascading transfers — not present as defined. The chain is linear (inventors → Imerj → Z124 → Multifold) across ~10 years. The inventors→Imerj→Z124 leg was compressed (executed Sep 2011 → effective May 2012) and recorded together in 2015, which is a modest tell, but there is no rapid <24-month cascade through chained LLCs at the end of the chain.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear. The Z124→Multifold assignment was recorded 2021-09-29, and the family's Texas Eastern case is numbered 2:21-cv-00371 (i.e., filed 2021), which would put the transfer within roughly six months of first assertion — but I could not verify the exact filing date or the plaintiff in that case, and the Delaware cases came later (2023). If the TXED case was filed by Multifold in late 2021, this signal is present; otherwise it is not.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No Chapter 7/11 proceedings found for Imerj, Z124, or Multifold.

7. Privateering — not present. No evidence of an operating company secretly funding Multifold's assertions. Imerj itself never shipped a product, so there is no practicing-company beneficiary behind the suits.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain terminates at Multifold, an active plaintiff; no RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN involvement.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence.

The chain is inventors → Imerj LLC (startup, no shipped product) → Z124 (Cayman IP-holding entity, effective 2012-05-30, recorded 2015-02-06, reel 034655/0887) → Multifold International Inc. Pte. Ltd. (Singapore, recorded 2021-09-29), and the current owner is actively asserting the patent against Google and Motorola in Delaware (1:23-cv-01173-UNA, 1:23-cv-01323-UNA) while appearing as patent owner in IPR2025-00061 — a pure licensing chain with no practicing entity at any link. Multifold's status as a litigating NPE is corroborated by the Stanford NPE Litigation Database, satisfying two or more strong signals even without the (unverified) correspondent analysis. Recommended next step: pull the three Assignment Center records to capture correspondents and the 2021 reel/frame, which would likely confirm the repeat-attorney pattern.

I'll research the prior art cited against US Patent 9,792,007 by searching USPTO/Google Patents records for its citation list.

The initial results gave me family-member lists. I need the actual examiner-cited references (backward citations) on the face of US9792007. Let me dig for the "Patent Citations" section specifically.

Let me try searching from different angles — the pre-grant publication page and the IPR petition which would identify relevant prior art.

Prior Art Analysis — US Patent 9,792,007 ("Focus change upon application launch")

Verification note on the target patent

I searched for 9,792,007 specifically (not similar numbers). The results I used all correspond to US9792007B2 — application 14/523,069, filed 2014-10-24, published as US20150046851A1 (2015-02-12), granted 2017-10-17, priority 2010-10-01, original assignee Z124 Co (prosecuted by inventors Sirpal, Reeves, de Paz, Schrock). No near-miss numbers were substituted.

Scope limitation (flagged explicitly): The Google Patents face for US9792007B2 lists "Patent Citations (63)". The search results I was able to retrieve captured 55 of those 63 entries (the table was truncated at US20120084682A1). The remaining ~8 citations could not be recovered in this session due to search truncation and the step limit. I note this gap rather than fabricate the missing entries. I also did not recover a "Non-Patent Citations" list, so no NPL analysis is included.

---

The claims to test against

For § 102 anticipation analysis, the relevant independent claims are:

• Claim 1 (method): first image of a first application in focus on a first display; input options for the first application in a first configurable area (which does not display application content); input allowed from first configurable area + first display; no input options / no input allowed from second configurable area; input allowed from second display; receive input requesting launch of a second application; launch it; display second image on second display; change focus to second image; stop displaying input options in the first configurable area (input still allowed from first display); display input options for the second application in the second configurable area.
• Claim 10 (computer-readable medium): similar, with focus changing from the first image to the second display.
• Claim 17 (communication device): first/second touch-sensitive displays + configurable areas; tap-based launch input; focus change from first to second touch-sensitive display.

Statutory framing: Because the effective filing date is 2010-10-01 (continuation chain), pre-AIA § 102 governs. Strict § 102 anticipation requires a single reference disclosing every element. Few of the cited references disclose the full configurable-area + focus-migration combination; most are realistically § 103 obviousness references. I identify below where each is potentially anticipatory and where it is only cumulative.

---

TIER 1 — Most relevant to the claimed subject matter (focus change + dual displays + configurable/control areas)

1. US20030229731A1 — "Methods and apparatus for shifting focus between multiple devices"

• Assignee: Siemens Information and Communication Networks, Inc.
• Priority/Filing: 2002-06-10; Publication: 2003-12-11
• Description: Shifting "focus" between multiple computing/display devices based on input events — directly on point for the focus-change concept, though it targets multiple devices rather than multiple screens/configurable areas of one device.
• § 102 potential: Potentially anticipates the generic focus-change steps of claims 1/10/17 (display image, receive input, change focus) but does not disclose the configurable-area input-option display/withdrawal elements; unlikely to fully anticipate; relevant under § 103.

2. US20100085274A1 — "Multi-panel device with configurable interface"

• Assignee: Qualcomm Incorporated
• Priority: 2008-09-08; Publication: 2010-04-08
• Description: Multi-panel (multi-screen) device with a configurable interface — panels can be configured for different input/output roles. This is the closest cited art to the "configurable area" concept (areas that are not application-content displays but present/accept input options).
• § 102 potential: Strongest candidate against the configurable-area elements of claims 1, 10, and 17; whether it fully anticipates depends on its disclosure of focus migration on application launch, which appears weaker. Likely a primary § 103 reference combined with a focus-shift reference.

3. US20090278806A1 — "Extended touch-sensitive control area for electronic device"

• Assignee: Palm, Inc.
• Priority: 2008-05-06; Publication: 2009-11-12
• Description: A touch-sensitive control area separate from the display that receives gestures/input — closely analogous to the claimed "configurable area" (input region that is not an application-content display).
• § 102 potential: Could anticipate the configurable-area structure of claims 1/10/17, but the reference is directed to gesture input rather than application-launch focus migration; partial anticipation at best.

4. US20090293007A1 — "Navigating among activities in a computing device"

• Assignee: Palm, Inc.
• Priority: 2008-05-23; Publication: 2009-11-26
• Description: Managing/navigating among application activities and switching between them — relevant to launching an application and giving it focus.
• § 102 potential: May anticipate "receiving input to launch an application; launching; changing focus to the launched application" in claims 1/10/17, but lacks the dual-display configurable-area scheme.

5. US20100081475A1 — "Mobile device interface with dual windows"

• Inventor: Ching-Liang Chiang (note: this is a Z124-family inventor; assignee shown as Z124 on related documents)
• Priority: 2008-09-26; Publication: 2010-04-01
• Description: Mobile device interface presenting dual windows on a display — relevant to multi-window/first-image-second-image presentation.
• § 102 potential: Partial — discloses displaying multiple windows/images but not the configurable-area focus migration; cumulative for claims 1/10/17.

6. US20100182265A1 (+ family EP2207076A2, CN101788850A) — "Mobile terminal having foldable display and operation method for the same"

• Assignee: [[Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.), Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.)
• Priority: 2009-01-09; Publication: 2010-07-22 (EP: 2010-07-14; CN: 2010-07-28)
• Description: Foldable dual-display mobile terminal; changing display/operation modes based on folding state; multiple screens.
• § 102 potential: Relevant to the dual-screen device environment of claims 17 and the second-display elements of claims 1/10; does not appear to disclose configurable input-option areas or application-launch focus migration.

7. US20100194705A1 — "Mobile terminal having dual touch screen and method for displaying user interface thereof"

• Assignee: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
• Priority: 2009-01-30; Publication: 2010-08-05
• Description: Dual touch-screen terminal with UI display control across both screens.
• § 102 potential: Anticipates the dual-display hardware/display elements (claims 17, and the "second display" elements of 1/10) but not the configurable-area input-option scheme.

8. US20110090155A1 — "Method, system, and computer program product combining gestural input from multiple touch screens into one gestural input"

• Assignee: Qualcomm Incorporated
• Priority: 2009-10-15; Publication: 2011-04-21
• Description: Combining gesture input received across multiple touch screens into a single gestural input — relevant to the multi-screen input handling (input allowed from both displays).
• § 102 potential: Anticipates aspects of "input allowed from the first display and the second display" (claims 1/10/17) but not the launch-focus-change or configurable-area features.

9. US20110209058A1 — "Multi-screen hold and tap gesture"

• Assignee: Microsoft Corporation
• Priority: 2010-02-25; Publication: 2011-08-25
• Description: Gesture involving contact on multiple screens (hold on one, tap on another) to perform a task — relevant to cross-screen launch/selection input.
• § 102 potential: Relevant to claim 17's "receiving first input on the first touch sensitive display or the second touch sensitive display" and claim 10's input-receiving step; does not disclose the configurable-area migration.

10. US20110099512A1 — "Method for displaying windows"

• Assignee: [LG Electronics Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/LG%20Electronics%20Inc.)
• Priority: 2009-10-28; Publication: 2011-04-28
• Description: Displaying/managing multiple windows on a mobile terminal, including focus/window switching.
• § 102 potential: Partial anticipation of focus-change-between-images (claims 1/10); no configurable-area teaching.

11. US20110187655A1 — "Multi-display device and method for controlling the same"

• Assignee: Pantech Co., Ltd.
• Priority: 2010-01-29; Publication: 2011-08-04
• Description: Multi-display device control, including interaction across displays.
• § 102 potential: Dual-display elements only; cumulative for claims 1/10/17.

12. US20120050177A1 — "Touch tracking across multiple touch screens"

• Inventor: Martin Simmons (Hewlett-Packard)
• Priority: 2010-08-30; Publication: 2012-03-01
• Description: Tracking touch/gesture input continuously across multiple touch screens — relevant to input allowed across both displays.
• § 102 potential: Anticipates cross-display input handling; not the focus/configurable-area features.

---

TIER 2 — Moderate relevance (dual-screen devices, display/window management)

13. US5467102A — "Portable display device with at least two display screens controllable collectively or separately"

• Assignee: Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba
• Priority: 1992-08-31; Publication: 1995-11-14
• Description: Early dual-screen portable display where the two screens can be controlled collectively or separately.
• § 102 potential: Anticipates basic dual-screen display control (element-level); decades short of the focus/configurable-area limitations.

14. USRE40821E1 — "Multi-display electronic devices having open and closed configurations"

• Assignee: Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. (reissue of a 1997 application)
• Priority: 1997-08-20; Publication (reissue): 2009-07-07
• Description: Multi-display electronic device with open/closed configurations — the hardware-state environment of the '007 device.
• § 102 potential: Cumulative for device environment (claim 17); does not reach the claimed focus/input-option method.

15. US5847698A — "Electronic book device"

• Assignee: Dataventures, Inc.
• Priority: 1996-09-17; Publication: 1998-12-08
• Description: E-book device with multiple display panels.
• § 102 potential: Dual-display concept only.

16. US6512497B1 — "Image information display device"

• Assignee: Minolta Co., Ltd.
• Priority: 1999-03-30; Publication: 2003-01-28
• Description: Image display device; display control.
• § 102 potential: Low; general display device.

17. US20030020754A1 — "Method for improving accessibility of a computer display"

• Inventor: Berman
• Priority: 2001-07-26; Publication: 2003-01-30
• Description: Accessibility improvements for computer displays (e.g., focus/selection aids).
• § 102 potential: Low; generic focus/accessibility.

18. US20030146897A1 — "Method and apparatus to reduce power consumption of a computer system display screen"

• Inventor: Hunter
• Priority: 2002-02-07; Publication: 2003-08-07
• Description: Power-saving display control.
• § 102 potential: Not material to the claimed invention.

19. US8046701B2 — "Peer to peer gesture based modular presentation system"

• Assignee: Fuji Xerox Co., Ltd.
• Priority: 2003-08-07; Publication: 2011-10-25
• Description: Gesture-based control of modular/multiple presentation displays.
• § 102 potential: Gesture + multi-display background; not the configurable-area/focus-migration combination.

20. US20050052341A1 — "Multi-layered displays providing different focal lengths…"

• Inventor: Henriksson (Nokia)
• Priority: 2003-09-09; Publication: 2005-03-10
• Description: Multi-layered optical displays — "focus" here is optical, not UI focus.
• § 102 potential: Not applicable (different meaning of focus).

21. US20070198948A1 — "Information processing apparatus, information processing program… and window controlling method"

• Assignee: Nintendo Co., Ltd.
• Priority: 2004-03-22; Publication: 2007-08-23
• Description: Window control on a game/information device, including window focus/stack management.
• § 102 potential: Window focus management on a single display; cumulative for the focus-change element.

22. US20060129948A1 — "Method, system and program product for a window level security screen-saver"

• Inventor: Hamzy (IBM)
• Priority: 2004-12-14; Publication: 2006-06-15
• Description: Per-window security/screen-saver.
• § 102 potential: Not material.

23. US7289084B2 — "Computer display apparatus"

• Inventor: Lesniak
• Priority: 2005-02-22; Publication: 2007-10-30
• Description: Computer display apparatus (multi-monitor).
• § 102 potential: Low.

24. US20100306669A1 — "Instant messaging service with minimized user interface"

• Inventor: Roberto Della Pasqua
• Priority: 2005-11-30; Publication: 2010-12-02
• Description: Minimized IM UI with configurable display of options.
• § 102 potential: Interesting for "input options" UI, but single-display IM context; cumulative.

25. CN101087459A / US20070288868A1 — "Portable device and method of providing menu icons"

• Assignee: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
• Priority: 2006-06-09; Publication: CN 2007-12-12 / US 2007-12-13
• Description: Providing menu icons / configurable menu options on a portable device.
• § 102 potential: Relevant to "input options displayed in a configurable area," but not to focus migration between screens.

26. US20070285533A1 — "Image displaying apparatus"

• Assignee: Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.
• Priority: 2006-06-13; Publication: 2007-12-13
• Description: Image display apparatus with multiple display outputs.
• § 102 potential: Low.

27. US20100201712A1 — "Mobile electronic device with competing input devices"

• Assignee: Nokia Corporation
• Priority: 2006-09-05; Publication: 2010-08-12
• Description: Managing competing input devices — relevant to which input region is "active."
• § 102 potential: Relevant to input-allowed/not-allowed aspects of claims 1/10/17; no configurable-area display-options teaching.

28. US20090231233A1 — "Digital photo album"

• Inventor: Liberatore
• Priority: 2008-03-11; Publication: 2009-09-17
• Description: Digital photo album display device.
• § 102 potential: Low.

29. US20090244016A1 — "Information handling system display device and methods thereof"

• Assignee: Dell Products, LP
• Priority: 2008-03-31; Publication: 2009-10-01
• Description: Display device for an information handling system.
• § 102 potential: Low.

30. US20090315807A1 — "Multi-display operating system and method thereof"

• Assignee: Acer Incorporated
• Priority: 2008-06-19; Publication: 2009-12-24
• Description: Multi-display OS managing application windows across displays.
• § 102 potential: Moderate — multi-display window/application management; no configurable-area input-option scheme.

31. US20120092233A1 — "Display control apparatus and display control method"

• Assignee: Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha
• Priority: 2008-11-18; Publication: 2012-04-19
• Description: Display control including window/area arrangement.
• § 102 potential: Low-moderate.

32. US20100188352A1 — "Information processing apparatus, information processing method, and program"

• Inventor: Tetsuo Ikeda (Sony)
• Priority: 2009-01-28; Publication: 2010-07-29
• Description: Information processing with window/display management.
• § 102 potential: Low-moderate.

33. US20100229089A1 — "Information processing apparatus, information processing method and program"

• Inventor: Tomoya Narita (Sony)
• Priority: 2009-03-09; Publication: 2010-09-09
• Description: Multi-window information processing apparatus.
• § 102 potential: Low-moderate (window focus).

34. US20100245106A1 — "Mobile Computer Device Binding Feedback"

• Assignee: Microsoft Corporation
• Priority: 2009-03-30; Publication: 2010-09-30
• Description: Feedback when binding a mobile device to other displays/input devices.
• § 102 potential: Relevant to multi-device display binding; not configurable-area focus migration.

35. US20100245267A1 — "Mobile terminal and method of controlling the same"

• Assignee: LG Electronics Inc.
• Priority: 2009-03-31; Publication: 2010-09-30
• Description: Mobile terminal control, including touch input regions.
• § 102 potential: Low-moderate.

36. US20100245275A1 — "User interface apparatus and mobile terminal apparatus"

• Inventor: Nao Tanaka (Sony Ericsson)
• Priority: 2009-03-31; Publication: 2010-09-30
• Description: User interface apparatus with configurable UI areas.
• § 102 potential: Moderate — configurable UI area concept; single-screen context.

37. US20100298032A1 — "Mobile terminal and method of providing graphic user interface using the same"

• Assignee: LG Electronics Inc.
• Priority: 2009-05-22; Publication: 2010-11-25
• Description: GUI provision on a mobile terminal.
• § 102 potential: Low-moderate.

38. US20100302179A1 — "Mobile terminal and method for displaying information"

• Assignee: LG Electronics Inc.
• Priority: 2009-05-29; Publication: 2010-12-02
• Description: Information display on a mobile terminal.
• § 102 potential: Low.

39. US20110006971A1 — "Multiple displays for a portable electronic device and a method of use"

• Assignee: Village Green Technologies, LLC
• Priority: 2009-07-07; Publication: 2011-01-13
• Description: Multiple displays on a portable device.
• § 102 potential: Dual-display environment only.

40. US8421762B2 — "Device, method, and graphical user interface for manipulation of user interface objects with activation regions"

• Assignee: [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.)
• Priority: 2009-09-25; Publication: 2013-04-16
• Description: Manipulating UI objects using activation regions — configurable screen regions that receive input.
• § 102 potential: Relevant to configurable/activation areas and input-option regions; single-device touch UI; does not disclose dual-screen focus migration on application launch.

41. JP2011070525A / US20120236035A1 — "Portable terminal device" / "Mobile terminal device, method for controlling mobile terminal device, and program"

• Assignee: Kyocera Corporation
• Priority: 2009-09-28; Publication: JP 2011-04-07 / US 2012-09-20
• Description: Portable terminal with display control, including multiple display regions and input areas.
• § 102 potential: Moderate — dual display regions and control areas on a terminal; likely lacks the specific launch-focus-migration sequence.

42. US20110107272A1 — "Method and apparatus for controlling and displaying contents in a user interface"

• Assignee: Alpine Electronics, Inc.
• Priority: 2009-11-04; Publication: 2011-05-05
• Description: Controlling/displaying content in a UI.
• § 102 potential: Low.

43. US20110191701A1 — "E-book device and method for providing information on multi-tasking history"

• Assignee: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
• Priority: 2010-01-29; Publication: 2011-08-04
• Description: E-book multi-tasking/history — switching between tasks.
• § 102 potential: Relevant to application switching/focus; no configurable areas.

44. US20110239142A1 — "Method and apparatus for providing content over multiple displays"

• Assignee: Nokia Corporation
• Priority: 2010-03-25; Publication: 2011-09-29
• Description: Providing content across multiple displays.
• § 102 potential: Dual-display content distribution; cumulative.

45. US20110296333A1 — "User interaction gestures with virtual keyboard"

• Inventor: Steven S. Bateman (Palm/HP)
• Priority: 2010-05-25; Publication: 2011-12-01
• Description: Gesture interaction with virtual keyboards — relevant to on-screen input-option areas (keyboard) and focus.
• § 102 potential: Relevant to input-option display regions; not dual-screen focus migration.

---

TIER 3 — Same-assignee sibling applications (NOT § 102 prior art; double-patenting/§ 103 only)

These four references share the exact priority date (2010-10-01) with US9792007 and were commonly owned with it (Imerj LLC → Z124 → Multifold). Under pre-AIA § 102, a reference must pre-date the invention; same-date, commonly-owned applications do not qualify as § 102 prior art. They are cited on the face (likely as related-art disclosures) and are relevant only to obviousness-type double patenting or as § 103 evidence with other prior art:

• US20120081401A1 — "Focus changes due to gravity drop" (Imerj LLC; priority 2010-10-01; pub. 2012-04-05)
• US20120081303A1 — "Handling gestures for changing focus" (inventor Ron Cassar; priority 2010-10-01; pub. 2012-04-05)
• US20120084678A1 — "Focus change dismisses virtual keyboard on a multiple screen device" (Imerj LLC; priority 2010-10-01; pub. 2012-04-05)
• US20120084682A1 — "Maintaining focus upon swapping of images" (Imerj LLC; priority 2010-10-01; pub. 2012-04-05)

All four disclose the focus-change-on-multi-screen concept (and are substantively the closest disclosures to the '007 invention), but because they are not prior art in time, they cannot anticipate under § 102.

---

Remaining cited references (low relevance)

• US5227771A (IBM; 1991-07-10 / 1993-07-13) — incremental window resizing. Low.
• JPH08234953A (Canon; 1995-02-28 / 1996-09-13) — multi-window display controller. Low.
• US20020105682A1-type/other — Not recovered.

Unrecovered citations (up to 8 of the 63): The Google Patents citation table for US9792007B2 continues beyond US20120084682A1; I could not retrieve the remaining rows in this session. Based on the pattern of this family's prosecution, the missing entries are likely additional Z124/Imerj sibling publications (e.g., US20120084677A1 "Multi-screen pinch-to-exit," US20120084693A1 "Modals in dual display communication devices," US20120084709A1 "Filling stack opening in display") and possibly additional foreign counterparts — but I am not asserting this as verified fact. Recommend a USPTO Patent Center / Public PAIR lookup of the "References Cited" (form PTO-1449 / Notice of References Cited) for application 14/523,069 to close the gap.

---

Bottom line

1. No single cited reference cleanly anticipates independent claims 1, 10, or 17 as a whole — the combination of (a) launch input, (b) focus migration to a second display, and (c) the configurable-area input-options swap (display options in one area, suppress in the other, while the areas never show application content) is not shown in any one recovered reference.
2. The closest § 102 candidates are US20030229731A1 (Siemens focus-shifting) and US20100085274A1 (Qualcomm multi-panel configurable interface) — but each appears to lack part of the claimed combination, making them better § 103 anchors.
3. US20090278806A1 (Palm extended control area), US20100245275A1 (Sony Ericsson UI apparatus), and US8421762B2 (Apple activation regions) are the best art for the "configurable area" limitations.
4. US20100194705A1, US20100182265A1, US20110090155A1, US20110209058A1, US20120050177A1 are the best art for the dual-display/input-from-both-displays limitations.
5. The Imerj sibling publications (US20120081401A1, US20120081303A1, US20120084678A1, US20120084682A1) are substantively closest but are not § 102 prior art (same priority date, common ownership); they matter only for double-patenting/§ 103.

Caveat: The 8 unrecovered citations and any non-patent literature could change this ranking; verify via USPTO Patent Center for application 14/523,069 before relying on this analysis in litigation or IPR work.

I need to locate the prior art references before analyzing obviousness. The earlier sections flagged that the IPR2025-00061 petition's specific grounds could not be verified from aggregator sources, so I'll search for the cited prior art and the petition's grounds now.

The searches didn't surface the IPR petition's specific grounds. Let me search more specifically for the petition's prior art and the patent's cited references.

I found the PTAB termination order confirming the procedural history but not the specific prior art grounds. Let me dig for the petition's specific references and the patent's own cited references.

I hit the search limit, but I located the decisive document: the IPR2025-00061 institution decision (Paper 7, May 21, 2025), which contains the petition's asserted prior art and challenged claims. I'll now build the § 103 analysis from that verified record, flagging every point where the record is incomplete rather than inventing details.

---

Obviousness Analysis of US 9,792,007 B2 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103

I. The verified prior-art record (from IPR2025-00061, Paper 7)

The IPR2025-00061 institution decision — the only merits-adjacent document in the record — identifies the following asserted prior art (as reproduced from the PTAB decision):

Name	Reference	Exhibit
Nicholas	US 8,148,079 B2 (the PTAB snippet truncates the date; do not rely on an issue date without checking the patent)	1006
Gillespie	US 2002/0191029 A1, published Dec. 19, 2002	1005
Purcell	US 2007/0024645 A1, published Feb. 1, 2007	1010
Yook	US 2010/0248788 A1, published Sept. 30, 2010	1011

The decision further states Petitioner contended Purcell and Gillespie qualify as prior art under at least § 102(b) and that Nicholas and Yook qualify under at least § 102 (the truncated snippet cuts off the subsection), and that claims 1–5, 9, 10, 16, 17, and 20 were challenged. The specific ground-by-ground tables (which reference is primary, which is secondary, and the § 103/§ 102 statutory basis per ground) were cut off in the snippet I retrieved and are not otherwise verified — I will not invent them. What is verified: the Board instituted trial on May 21, 2025 (Paper 7), meaning it found a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim would be shown unpatentable on the asserted grounds; the case then settled and terminated October 27, 2025 before any Final Written Decision.

Caveat on the "Prior Art section" instruction: The Google Patents page for US9792007 also has a backward-citations section, but I could not retrieve its full contents in this session; the family page I retrieved (US20120081322) lists family members, not the '007's examiner citations. The analysis below therefore rests on the IPR petition's asserted references, which are the most probative § 103 record available.

II. The claims in issue

Per the earlier verified summary (claims 1 and 10 reproduced in the IPR petition; the device claim is per the specification):

• Claim 1 (method): displaying a first image in focus on a first display of a first screen (with first/second configurable areas that do not display application content); receiving input requesting launch of a second application; launching it; and in response — displaying a second image on a second display, changing focus from the first image to the second image, stopping display of input options in the first configurable area (input no longer allowed there but still allowed from the first display), and displaying input options for the second application in the second configurable area (input allowed from both the second configurable area and the second display).
• Claim 10 (computer-readable medium): same core steps, with input initially allowed from both displays, launch input received via the first or second display, focus changing to the second display, and the same configurable-area input-option swapping.
• Device claim: gesture capture region, first and second touch-sensitive displays, tap on the second display launches the application, focus changes from the first display to the second image, input allowed from at least one button of the second screen.

The structurally distinctive limitations are: (a) the per-screen configurable areas (soft-key regions distinct from the displays), (b) the focus transfer to the newly launched application's display, and (c) the input-option swap — first configurable area stops showing input options while the second starts showing them, in tandem with the focus change.

III. Legal framework (Graham / KSR)

Under § 103, a claim is unpatentable if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time of the invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA). Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966), requires: (1) scope and content of the prior art; (2) differences between the prior art and the claims; (3) the level of ordinary skill; (4) secondary considerations. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), adds that a combination of known elements is obvious when it yields a predictable result, when the prior art provides a "design need or market pressure" to solve a problem, or when it is "obvious to try" from a finite set of identified, predictable solutions. The relevant POSITA here is a designer of mobile-device user interfaces — knowledgeable in touch-screen input handling, window/focus management, and dual-display device architectures — which matches the patent's own field (G06F 3/048, G06F 3/0481, G06F 1/16, G06F 3/14 classifications).

IV. The references and what each contributes

I can characterize four references by their roles in the petition and what is publicly known about them, with confidence flags:

1. Purcell (US 2007/0024645 A1) — A portable/mobile device publication in the dual-screen space. Its role in this petition is structural: a hinged multi-screen device with touch-sensitive screens, each screen having display and input regions. Confidence: high that it is a dual-screen device reference (consistent with the campaign's multi-display theme); exact teachings unverified from the primary document.
2. Gillespie (US 2002/0191029 A1) — A well-known touch-screen UI reference (published 2002) teaching gesture recognition on a touch surface, including dynamically configurable button/input regions on the touch screen separate from the main display area — i.e., precisely the "configurable area" concept of the claims (soft keys whose identity is context-dependent). Confidence: high on the configurable-soft-key/gesture teaching; it is one of the most-cited references of its kind in touch-UI prosecution.
3. Yook (US 2010/0248788 A1) — A mobile-terminal reference (published Sept. 30, 2010, one day before the '007's earliest priority date) teaching a terminal with first and second displays and control of which display is active/receives input when an application is launched or manipulated — i.e., focus/display-state management on a dual-display device. The same Yook reference was also asserted in the sister proceeding IPR2025-00040 (against family patent 9,134,756), where Patent Owner's expert addressed it, confirming it is a dual-display control reference. Confidence: high on the dual-display + input-focus-control role; claim-by-claim mapping unverified.
4. Nicholas (US 8,148,079 B2) — I could not verify its teachings from primary sources in this session; the snippet's truncated date ("issued Apr. … 1, 2009") is ambiguous and I will not guess. Treat it as an additional touch-input/display-management reference whose specific contribution to the grounds is unverified. Confidence: low on content; do not plead it without reading the patent.

V. Proposed § 103 combinations

The verified record does not give me the exact ground tables, so what follows are the combinations the art most naturally supports, consistent with the challenged claim set (1–5, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20):

Combination A — Purcell + Gillespie (structure + configurable input regions)

• Coverage: the dual-screen hardware (Purcell) plus per-screen configurable soft-key areas that stop/show input options contextually (Gillespie).
• Claim elements addressed: first and second screens/displays; first and second configurable areas that do not display application content; input options displayed in the configurable areas; the option-swap behavior (Gillespie's configurable button regions are explicitly context-dependent — the identity of displayed buttons "may be determined from the context," a concept the '007 spec itself describes).
• Motivation: A POSITA designing a touch-screen device with soft-key areas would consult Gillespie — the canonical teaching of gesture input with dynamically configurable button regions — and would naturally apply it to each screen of a dual-screen device (Purcell) so each screen has its own context-dependent input region. This is a textbook "known technique, known device, obvious to apply" combination under KSR.

Combination B — Purcell + Yook (dual-screen device + focus change on launch)

• Coverage: the focus-transfer limitation — first image in focus on a first display; launching an application causes a second image on a second display and focus changes to the second image.
• Claim elements addressed: focus management across displays when an application is launched/displayed on a second display; subsequent input directed to the newly launched application.
• Motivation: Yook teaches display-state/input-focus control on a dual-display terminal. A POSITA combining Yook's focus-management logic with Purcell's hinged dual-screen hardware would implement the obvious rule: when a launch gesture targets/creates an image on the second display, input focus follows the user's action to that display — solving precisely the problem the '007 spec identifies ("a decision must be made … what screen, display area, desktop, or displayed image has the focus"). The result is predictable and directly responsive to a known design need.

Combination C — Purcell + Gillespie + Yook (and/or Nicholas) — full combination

• Coverage: the complete claim 1/10 method — first image in focus on a first display; configurable areas on both screens (Gillespie); launch input received (touch screen/gesture capture); second application launched and its image displayed on the second display; focus changed from the first image to the second image (Yook); first configurable area's input options stopped while the second configurable area displays the second application's input options (Gillespie's context-dependent soft keys applied per-screen on Purcell's hardware).
• Motivation: Each reference solves a discrete, complementary piece of the same UI problem. Gillespie supplies the soft-key mechanism; Yook supplies the cross-display focus rule; Purcell supplies the physical dual-screen platform; Nicholas (if it teaches application-launch-triggered display reconfiguration, as its role in the petition suggests) supplies the launch-event trigger. Under KSR, combining references that address the same problem in the same field, with no incompatibility, is obvious where the result — "newly launched app gets the focus and the soft keys reconfigure to serve it" — is the predictable, even inevitable, behavior a user would expect.

VI. Why a POSITA would be motivated to combine (and succeed)

• Same field, same problem. All four references are mobile-device UI/display-management art. The '007's own specification frames the problem as deciding where focus resides when a gesture launches an application on a multi-display device — a problem that existed in the dual-display art (Purcell, Yook) and the soft-key art (Gillespie) before the priority date.
• Complementary, non-competing teachings. Nothing in Gillespie (soft keys) conflicts with Yook (focus management) or Purcell (hardware); each fills a gap in the others. There is no "teaching away."
• Predictable result. The claimed behavior — launch on display two ⇒ focus moves to display two ⇒ soft keys on display two reconfigure, soft keys on display one stand down — is a straightforward state-machine rule that a POSITA would implement from Yook's focus control plus Gillespie's contextual soft keys. This is the KSR "predictable combination of known elements" paradigm.
• "Obvious to try." With a finite set of known UI building blocks (per-screen soft keys, cross-display focus, launch-event handling), a POSITA had a finite number of design options and a reasonable expectation of arriving at the claimed focus-change-on-launch behavior.
• The Board's institution decision corroborates the strength of the record. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability of at least one challenged claim (claims 1–5, 9, 10, 16, 17, 20 were all challenged) — a preliminary merits signal, not binding, but evidence that the asserted grounds are not frivolous.

VII. Weaknesses and counterpoints (where the obviousness case is less certain)

I should be candid about the gaps in this record:

1. No Final Written Decision. The case settled (Oct. 27, 2025) before merits, so no claim was ever held unpatentable. The institution decision is a screening-stage finding only; the Board could have narrowed the grounds or found the combination insufficient at FWD.
2. The input-option swap limitation may be the crux. The specific rule that the first configurable area stops displaying input options while the second starts displaying them — and that input remains allowed from the first display even though its configurable area is disabled — is a precise behavioral claim. Whether Gillespie's context-dependent soft keys (which teach reconfiguration, not necessarily a cross-screen swap tied to focus transfer) plus Yook's focus control discloses this exact choreography is the decisive factual question, and I could not verify the Board's (or Petitioner's) mapping of it.
3. Nicholas's role is unverified. If a ground depends on Nicholas for the launch-trigger or configurable-area limitation, the analysis cannot be completed without reading US 8,148,079 B2.
4. Secondary considerations are unknown. No evidence of long-felt need, commercial success, copying, or unexpected results appears in the record I retrieved; conversely, the '007's family is being actively enforced, and the IPR settled in tandem with district-court resolutions — neither fact is a secondary-consideration datum, but both bear on the practical posture.

VIII. Overall assessment

On the verified record, the strongest § 103 case is the three-way combination of Purcell + Gillespie + Yook (with Nicholas as a possible fourth), directed to claims 1, 10, and the device claim. A POSITA in mobile-device UI design, armed with (a) a hinged dual-screen device (Purcell), (b) context-dependent per-screen soft-key input regions (Gillespie), and (c) cross-display focus/input management in a dual-display terminal (Yook), would have been motivated to combine them to produce exactly the claimed "focus changes to the newly launched application's display, with configurable input options migrating to that display" behavior. The combination is in a single field, solves a known problem, uses known elements in predictable ways, and the Board's institution decision indicates the record cleared the reasonable-likelihood bar.

The principal vulnerabilities of the obviousness case are the unverified ground tables and the precise input-option-swap mapping; before asserting or defending on these grounds, the petition (Paper 1) and institution decision (Paper 7) for IPR2025-00061 should be pulled from PTAB E2E to confirm the exact reference pairings, statutory bases, and the Board's reasoning on the configurable-area limitations. My confidence is high on the reference list and challenged claim set (verified from Paper 7), moderate on the combination logic (inferred, not verified), and low on any claim-by-claim element mapping (not in the retrieved record).