`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`FACEBOOK, INC., INSTAGRAM, LLC, and WHATSAPP INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`BLACKBERRY LIMITED,
`Patent Owner
`________________
`
`IPR2019-00516
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO
`AMEND
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`IPR2019-00516
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1
`
`BACKGROUND .......................................................................................... 1
`
`III. RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS ................................................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Proposed Substitute Claims Further Highlight the
`Inventiveness of the ’173 Patent Over the Prior Art ............................ 3
`
`Petitioners Do Not Otherwise Challenge the Proposed
`Substantive Claims ............................................................................. 7
`
`IV. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 9
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`IPR2019-00516
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`Page
`
`Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,
`107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .................................................................... 9
`
`CASES
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00516
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`BlackBerry’s proposed substitute claims 21-32 highlight a key benefit
`
`disclosed and claimed in the ’173 Patent: the ability to arrange tags as desired from
`
`different sources while visually indicating the source of each tag. While the
`
`original claims already reflect the core solution for achieving this benefit—“a tag
`
`type indicator . . . indicative of a tag source”—the proposed substitute claims
`
`enhance this benefit by using these “tag type indicator[s]” to display an
`
`interspersed list of tags from different sources, i.e., to display “a first tag from a
`
`first tag source . . . above a second tag from a second tag source; and the second
`
`tag from the second tag source . . . above a third tag from the first tag source.”
`
`None of the cited prior art references discloses such an interspersed display,
`
`further highlighting the novelty and non-obviousness of both the solution reflected
`
`in BlackBerry’s original claims (“a tag type indicator . . . indicative of a tag
`
`source”) and the benefit recited expressly in BlackBerry’s proposed substitute
`
`claims (“a first tag from a first tag source is displayed above a second tag from a
`
`second tag source; and the second tag from the second tag source is displayed
`
`above a third tag from the first tag source”).
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`BlackBerry’s motion to amend proposed substitute claims 21-32. Proposed
`
`substitute independent claims 21, 25, and 29 are amended versions of original
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`independent claims 1, 7, and 13. Substitute dependent claims 22-24, 26-28, and
`
`30-32 are substantively identical to the original dependent claims challenged by
`
`IPR2019-00516
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`Petitioners.
`
`Proposed substitute claim 21 is representative:
`
`1. A method of selecting a photo tag for a tagged photo,
`
`comprising:
`
`displaying a photograph comprising at least one subject or
`
`object;
`
`receiving a user selection of a location in the photograph
`
`corresponding to the at least one subject or object;
`
`displaying a tag list including tags from one or more tag
`
`sources matching a search string, wherein the tags in the
`
`tag list are displayed in a vertical list, and wherein:
`
`a first tag from a first tag source is displayed above
`
`a second tag from a second tag source; and
`
`the second tag from the second tag source is
`
`displayed above a third tag from the first tag source;
`
`displaying a tag type indicator for each tag appearing in
`
`the tag list, said tag type being indicative of a tag source
`
`associated with the tag; and
`
`associating at least one of the tags in the tag list with the
`
`at least one subject or object.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00516
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`In its preliminary guidance, the Board indicated the proposed substitute
`
`claims likely complied with all statutory and regulatory requirements, but that
`
`“Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that proposed substitute claims 21-
`
`32 are unpatentable” over the prior art. IPR2019-00516, Paper No. 25 at 4-7.
`
`BlackBerry respectfully disagrees.
`
`III. RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
`
`A. The Proposed Substitute Claims Further Highlight the
`Inventiveness of the ’173 Patent Over the Prior Art
`
`Petitioners contend the proposed substitute independent claims would be
`
`obvious over the combination of (1) Zuckerberg and Rothmuller or Plotkin; (2)
`
`Rothmuller, Matthews, and Zuckerberg; or (3) MacLaurin, Zuckerberg, and
`
`Rothmuller or Plotkin. IPR2019-00516, Paper No. 25 (Preliminary Guidance) at
`
`6-7. The proposed substitute claims further highlight the lack of “a tag type
`
`indicator . . . indicative of a tag source,” as required by the original claims of
`
`the ’173 Patent. Due to their lack of the claimed “indicator[s],” none of the cited
`
`references is capable of displaying a vertical tag list “wherein: a first tag from a
`
`first tag source is displayed above a second tag from a second tag source; and the
`
`second tag from the second tag source is displayed above a third tag from the first
`
`tag source,” as recited in the proposed substitute claims.
`
`All invalidity grounds presented by Petitioners against BlackBerry’s
`
`proposed substitute claims rely on Zuckerberg for the majority of new claim
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00516
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`limitations. See IPR2019-00516, Paper No. 23 (Petitioners’ Response to Motion to
`
`Amend) at 2-4. As explained in BlackBerry’s Patent Owner Response and Sur-
`
`Reply, Zuckerberg lacks multiple “tag source[s]” and its horizontal line is not
`
`“indicative of a tag source.” But even if these features were disclosed in
`
`Zuckerberg or obvious in light of other prior art (they are not), the only solution in
`
`Zuckerberg for distinguishing between the alleged “sources” is to separate the tags
`
`from each alleged “source” using a horizontal line. See Zuckerberg at Fig. 5
`
`(annotated):
`
`
`
`Zuckerberg does not teach, and in fact is incapable of, interspersing of tags
`
`from different sources. Zuckerberg thus does not, and cannot, disclose “displaying
`
`. . . a vertical [tag] list, . . . wherein: a first tag from a first tag source is displayed
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`above a second tag from a second tag source; and the second tag from the second
`
`tag source is displayed above a third tag from the first tag source,” as recited in the
`
`IPR2019-00516
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`proposed substitute claims.
`
`BlackBerry respectfully disagrees with the Board’s characterization that the
`
`“wherein” clauses added by the proposed substitute claims is “one of the
`
`predictable options of arranging data.” IPR2019-00516, Paper No. 25 (Preliminary
`
`Guidance) at 9. Zuckerberg’s shortcoming as prior art in this respect is that, even
`
`if it disclosed multiple “tag source[s]” and indicated the source of each tag (it does
`
`not), Zuckerberg’s solution (a horizontal line) cannot be used to intersperse tags
`
`from different sources within that list. The only way Zuckerberg’s line provides
`
`any information regarding the displayed tags is by keeping tags from different
`
`alleged sources separate. Only BlackBerry’s “tag type indicator . . . indicative of a
`
`tag source” presents a solution that allows display of a “vertical list” of tags where
`
`“a first tag from a first tag source is displayed above a second tag from a second
`
`tag source; and the second tag from the second tag source is displayed above a
`
`third tag from the first tag source,” as recited in BlackBerry’s proposed substitute
`
`claims.
`
`Petitioners’ other cited art—MacLaurin, Rothmuller, and Plotkin—cannot
`
`cure this deficiency. As addressed in more detail in BlackBerry’s Patent Owner
`
`Response and Sur-Reply, MacLaurin does not disclose visually distinguishing
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00516
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`between tags in its tagging mode, and if Petitioner’s revised interpretation of
`
`MacLaurin were adopted, MacLaurin would not visually distinguish between tags
`
`from different tag sources. MacLaurin also discloses displaying only a single
`
`suggested tag at a time and is silent on how suggested tags are arranged. See, e.g.,
`
`MacLaurin at Fig. 8 (annotated):
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00516
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`Accordingly, Rothmuller does not disclose displaying a “vertical list” of tags
`
`interspersed from different sources, and thus cannot cure Zuckerberg’s deficiency
`
`in connection with that limitation.
`
`Rothmuller and Plotkin fail to disclose multiple tag sources, and their
`
`category icons are thus not “indicative of a tag source.” For that reason,
`
`Rothmuller and Plotkin do not disclose the subject matter of the proposed
`
`substitute claims, nor can they cure Zuckerberg’s deficiencies. For example, even
`
`if one of ordinary skill were to insert Rothmuller or Plotkin’s category icons into
`
`Zuckerberg’s user interface, the icons would continue to indicate tag categories
`
`and not any “tag source.” Accordingly, modifying Zuckerberg based on
`
`Rothmuller or Plotkin would not allow one of ordinary skill to re-arrange
`
`Zuckerberg’s list of previously used tags to intersperse tags from different sources.
`
`The proposed substitute claims thus further highlight the novelty and non-
`
`obviousness of the ’173 patent’s “tag type indictor . . . indicative of a tag source.”
`
`B.
`
`Petitioners Do Not Otherwise Challenge the Proposed Substantive
`Claims
`
`Other than their obviousness arguments, Petitioners do not challenge that the
`
`proposed substitute claims comply with statutory and regulatory requirements.
`
`The Board should thus adopt its preliminary conclusion that those requirements are
`
`met. IPR2019-00516, Paper No. 25 (Preliminary Guidance) at 4-7; see also
`
`IPR2019-00516, Paper No. 15 (BlackBerry’s Motion to Amend) at 2-13.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00516
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`Petitioners remark that the “wherein” clause added in Patent Owner’s
`
`substitute claims “is discussed nowhere in the textual description of the ’173
`
`Patent,” but offer no rebuttal to the patent’s clear graphical disclosure of the
`
`amended claimed invention. IPR2019-00516, Paper No. 23 (Petitioners’
`
`Opposition) at 5 (emphasis added). The clause at issue recites: “wherein the tags
`
`in the tag list are displayed in a vertical list, and wherein a first tag from a first tag
`
`source is displayed above a second tag from a second tag source; and the second
`
`tag from the second tag source is displayed above a third tag from the first tag
`
`source.” There can be no dispute that at least Figure 4B and accompanying text in
`
`the ’173 Patent supports the added “wherein” clause by depicting an example of
`
`the claimed “vertical list.” :
`
`See also, ‘173 Patent, 5:42-47 (“As shown by way of illustration in screen 400B of
`
`FIG. 4B, these tag sources could include, for example, a list of friends from an online
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00516
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`service like FacebookTM, a list of contacts from the user's address book 142, a list of
`
`the user's browser bookmarks (in Internet browser 138), a cache of recent free-form
`
`text entries, etc.”).
`
`The adequacy of the written description is evaluated based on the totality of
`
`the patent, not just the “textual” portion, as Petitioners erroneously contend. See
`
`Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (explaining
`
`that the necessary support may be provided through the “words, structures, figures,
`
`diagrams, formulas, etc., that fully set forth the claimed invention”). There is no
`
`requirement that every claim limitation must be expressly described in the
`
`“textual” portion of the patent, and here Figure 4B in the ’173 Patent provides the
`
`necessary support for the “wherein” clause added by the proposed substitute
`
`claims.
`
`Accordingly, BlackBerry’s proposed substitute claims meet all statutory and
`
`regulatory requirements.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`It is respectfully submitted that BlackBerry’s conditional Substitute Claims
`
`should be found patentable.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Date: March 16, 2020
`
`IPR2019-00516
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
` By: /Jim Glass/
`James M. Glass (Reg. No. 46,729)
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN LLP
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
`New York, NY 10010
`Email: jimglass@quinnemanuel.com
`Phone: 212-849-7142
`Fax: 212-849-7100
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`BlackBerry Limited
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00516
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`CERTIFICATE OF LENGTH (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.24(D))
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that, according to the word-processing
`
`system used to prepare the foregoing document, this document has 1,630 words and
`
`thus complies with the applicable word limit.
`
`Date: March 16, 2020
`
` By: /Jim Glass/
`James M. Glass (Reg. No. 46,729)
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN LLP
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
`New York, NY 10010
`Email: jimglass@quinnemanuel.com
`Phone: 212-849-7142
`Fax: 212-849-7100
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`BlackBerry Limited
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00516
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(E), 42.105(A))
`
`
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing document was served in
`
`its entirety on March 16, 2020 upon the following parties via Electronic Mail.
`
`Heidi L. Keefe
`Andrew C. Mace
`Mark R. Weinstein
`Yuan Liang
`
`Cooley LLP
`Attn: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20004
`
`Email: hkeefe@cooley.com
`Email: amace@cooley.com
`Email: mweinstein@cooley.com
`Email: yliang@cooley.com
`
`Date: March 16, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` By: /Jim Glass/
`James M. Glass (Reg. No. 46,729)
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN LLP
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
`New York, NY 10010
`Email: jimglass@quinnemanuel.com
`Phone: 212-849-7142
`Fax: 212-849-7100
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`BlackBerry Limited
`
`
`12
`
`