`
`
`
`
`
`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 PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 313 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`IPR2019-00516
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Patent Owner BlackBerry’s Innovations Have Transformed the
`Way We Communicate ......................................................................... 2
`
`The ’173 Patent Discloses and Claims One of BlackBerry’s
`Many Innovations .................................................................................. 4
`
`None of the Alleged Prior Art Discloses the Innovative
`Solutions Claimed by the ’173 Patent ................................................... 8
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Zuckerberg .................................................................................. 8
`
`Rothmuller ................................................................................ 11
`
`Plotkin ....................................................................................... 13
`
`4. MacLaurin ................................................................................. 15
`
`(a)
`
`Tagging Mode – Displaying a Single, “Best
`Guess” Suggested Tag .................................................... 16
`
`(b) Browsing Mode – Displaying a List of Previously
`Applied Tags ................................................................... 18
`
`5.
`
`Ortega ........................................................................................ 20
`
`6. Matthews ................................................................................... 21
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS ................................................................................. 23
`
`IV. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................. 25
`
`A. Grounds 1-7 Should Be Denied Because They Are Redundant
`of Petitioners’ Grounds in IPR2019-00528......................................... 26
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The -516 Petition Relies Largely on the Same Art and
`Arguments Presented in the -528 Petition ................................ 27
`
`Petitioners Provide No Reason Why the Board Should
`Institute Two IPRs on Redundant Petitions .............................. 30
`
`B.
`
`Grounds 1-5 Fail Because Zuckerberg Does Not Disclose
`“Displaying a Tag Type Indicator . . . Indicative of a Tag
`Source” ................................................................................................ 32
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00516
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`All Challenged Claims Require “Displaying a Tag Type
`Indicator . . . Indicative of a Tag Source” ................................. 32
`
`Petitioners Fail to Show that Zuckerberg’s Line Meets
`the “Indicative of a Tag Source” Limitation ............................. 33
`
`Petitioners’ References to Obviousness Are Based on
`Nothing More Than Conclusory Statements ............................ 36
`
`Petitioner’s Other Arguments Cannot Cure These
`Deficiencies ............................................................................... 37
`
`C.
`
`Grounds 1-5 Fail Because Petitioners’ Allegation of “Tag
`Sources” in Zuckerberg Are Based on Hindsight ............................... 38
`
`D. Grounds 6-7 Fail Because Petitioners’ Allegation of “Tag
`Sources” in Rothmuller Is Conclusory and Based on Hindsight ........ 42
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 45
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00516
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Page(s)
`
`Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. Blitzsafe Texas, LLC,
`IPR2016-01473, Paper 9 (Jan. 24, 2017) ......................................................24
`
`Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc.,
` 832 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................... 24
`
`Bungie, Inc. v. Acceleration Bay, LLC,
`IPR2016-00934, Paper 11 (Jul. 8, 2016) .......................................................30
`
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc.,
` 800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ....................................................................23
`
`Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien AG,
`IPR2016-00944, Paper 8 (Oct. 24, 2016) ...................................................... 30
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc.,
`IPR2017-01524, Paper 7 (Dec. 4, 2017) ....................................................... 37
`
`General Plastic Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha,
`IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (Sept. 6, 2017) ............................................... 26, 27
`
`Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc.,
` 815 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ....................................................... 23, 35, 43
`
`InfoBionic, Inc. v. Braemar Mfg., LLC,
`IPR2015-01704, Paper 11 (Feb. 16, 2016) .................................................... 36
`
`In re Kahn,
` 441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ......................................................... 25, 36, 43
`
`In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd.,
` 829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ....................................................................23
`
`In re Nuvasive, Inc.,
` 842 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ....................................................................36
`
`K/S Himpp v. Hear-Wear Techs., LLC,
` 751 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ....................................................................24
`
`KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
` 550 U.S. 398 (2007)................................................................... 25, 36, 41, 43
`
`LG Elecs., Inc. v. ATI Techs., ULC,
`IPR2015-00327, Paper 15 (Sept. 2, 2015) ......................................... 27, 29, 31
`
`Nichia Corp. v. Document Sec. Sys.,
`IPR2018-01167, Paper 10 (Nov. 30, 2018) ................................................... 27
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00516
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`Securus Techs., Inc. v. Global Tel*Link Corp.,
`IPR2016-00267, Paper 10 (Sept. 12, 2016) ...................................................24
`
`Sirona Dental Sys. GmbH v. Institut Straumann AG,
` 892 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ....................................................................24
`
`Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc.,
` 545 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ....................................................................23
`
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Berman,
`IPR2016-01571, Paper 10 (Dec. 14, 2016) ...................................................30
`
`Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex, Inc.,
` 655 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................. 24, 25
`
`Statutory Authorities
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) ...........................................................................................2, 23
`
`35 U.S.C. § 313 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ...................................................................................................27
`
`Rules and Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) ................................................................................................. 36
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107(a) ................................................................................................. 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00516
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 313 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(a), Patent Owner
`
`BlackBerry Ltd. (“BlackBerry”) respectfully submits this Preliminary Response to
`
`the Petition for Inter Partes Review (Paper No. 2) (“the Petition”) filed by
`
`Petitioners Facebook, Inc., Instagram, LLC, and WhatsApp Inc. (collectively,
`
`“Petitioners”). The Petition seeks Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of claims 1, 2, 4, 6-
`
`8, 10, 12-14, 16, and 18 (“the Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`(“’173 Patent”).
`
`Petitioners filed two petitions on the same patent, days apart from each
`
`other: IPR2019-00516 (this Petition or “the -516 Petition”) and IPR2019-00528
`
`(“the -528 Petition”). This Petition differs from the -528 Petition only in the
`
`addition of a few references cited for several limitations that are cumulative of
`
`references cited in the -528 Petition. Petitioners have identified no compelling
`
`explanation as to why the -528 and -516 Petitions are not duplicative of each other,
`
`and thus the Board should exercise its discretion to deny institution.
`
`Moreover, it is apparent from Petitioners’ numerous conclusory arguments
`
`that the Petition takes a scattershot approach warranting denial of institution. For
`
`Grounds 1-5, Petitioners cite to a single horizontal line in a user interface as
`
`allegedly satisfying the “displaying a tag type indicator . . . indicative of a tag
`
`source” limitation of the claims, but offer no explanation of how that line is
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00516
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`
`“indicative of a tag source.” For all Grounds, Petitioners similarly assert in
`
`conclusory fashion that certain tags are from different “tag sources,” without
`
`supporting that assertion with citations to any reference and instead relying on the
`
`disclosure of BlackBerry’s ’173 Patent to fill the gaps. In addition, relevant
`
`portions of Petitioners’ expert declaration merely parrot Petitioners’ arguments.
`
`Such arguments, based on hindsight bias, do not satisfy Petitioners’ burden to
`
`“identif[y], in writing and with particularity, each claim challenged, the grounds
`
`on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the
`
`grounds for the challenge to each claim.” See 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (emphasis
`
`added). This flaw likewise infects all of the grounds and, thus, Petitioners have
`
`failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of their obviousness
`
`arguments. The Board should, therefore, deny their Petition.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`Patent Owner BlackBerry’s Innovations Have Transformed the
`Way We Communicate
`
`Originally known as Research In Motion Limited, BlackBerry has been a
`
`leading innovator in the mobile communications industry since its founding in
`
`1984. BlackBerry’s cutting-edge wireless communication products and services
`
`have transformed the way people around the world connect, converse, and share
`
`digital information. From its modest beginnings more than 30 years ago,
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00516
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`
`BlackBerry has gone on to offer a portfolio of award-winning products, services,
`
`and embedded technologies to tens of millions of individual consumers and
`
`organizations around the world, including governments and educational
`
`institutions.
`
`In the late 1990s, BlackBerry released a series of game-changing handheld
`
`mobile devices that enabled users to send and receive email and messages on the
`
`go, without needing to be tethered to a modem or a desktop computer. In 2002,
`
`BlackBerry released the BlackBerry 6710 and 6720—the first BlackBerry devices
`
`capable of both sending emails and making phone calls, and some of the earliest
`
`smartphones released in the United States. The next year, BlackBerry introduced
`
`smartphone models that added built-in audio hardware and color screens. In 2005,
`
`BlackBerry introduced the innovative BlackBerry Messenger (or “BBM”)
`
`application, which revolutionized the concept of instant messaging. BlackBerry’s
`
`tradition of innovation continues to this day, with its expansive portfolio of
`
`enterprise security software.
`
`Others in the industry have sought to take advantage of BlackBerry’s
`
`success by copying its innovation without authorization. Accordingly, BlackBerry
`
`has commenced efforts to enforce its intellectual property. See, e.g., BlackBerry
`
`Ltd. v. Facebook, Inc. et al., No. 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KSx (C.D. Cal.); BlackBerry
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00516
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`
`Ltd. v. Snap Inc., No. 2:18-cv-02693-GW-KSx (C.D. Cal.); BlackBerry Ltd. v.
`
`Twitter, Inc., No. 2:19-cv-01444-GW-KSx (C.D. Cal.).
`
`B.
`
`The ’173 Patent Discloses and Claims One of BlackBerry’s Many
`Innovations
`
`The ’173 Patent is entitled “User Interface for Selecting a Photo Tag” and
`
`issued on October 2, 2012, from U.S. Patent Appl. No. 13/252,807 filed October 4,
`
`2011, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Appl. No. 11/746,285 filed on May 9,
`
`2007.
`
`At the time of the claimed invention, identifying people or objects in
`
`photographs had become popular with the advent of photo sharing in social
`
`networks. ’173 Patent at 1:20-23. With the explosion in the quantity and variety
`
`of online media, however, allowing a user to select a single “tag” representing an
`
`identified person or object presented a significant engineering challenge. Id. at
`
`1:23-25. Prior efforts in the art had failed and become impractical. Id. at 1:25-29.
`
`The ’173 Patent solves these and other problems with intuitive and powerful
`
`tag search and selection technology. In particular, the patent allows a user to
`
`identify tags from multiple sources using a unified search functionality, and
`
`presents search results from these sources in a single display along with an
`
`indication of the source of each tag. This is reflected in the claims, which require a
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`user interface for searching photo tags from one or more sources and visually
`
`indicating the source of each tag:
`
`IPR2019-00516
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`1. A method of selecting a photo tag for a tagged photo,
`
`comprising:
`
`displaying a tag list including tags from one or more tag
`
`sources matching a search string;
`
`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.
`
`Claim 1 is representative of the patent’s other two independent
`
`claims (system claim 7 and computer readable medium claim 13). The
`
`patent also includes 17 dependent claims.
`
`In one embodiment, the ’173 Patent presents the user interface shown in
`
`Figure 3B when the user views a shared photograph:
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2019-00516
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`
`
`The user can click the “Add” button to enter into the photo tagging mode. Id. at
`
`4:10-23. The user can then move the cross-hair pointer 308on the photo to identify
`
`the particular area of the photo that will be the subject of one or more “Tags.” Id.
`
`at 4:10-37.
`
`After the user selects the “Add” button 306, the ’173 Patent presents the user
`
`interface shown in Figure 4B that allows the user to search for tags from multiple
`
`sources. Id. at 4:44-60, 5:39-47.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2019-00516
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`
`
`When the user starts entering text into tag entry field 406, the example
`
`embodiment displays a list of tags 412 matching the text currently entered in tag
`
`entry field 406. Id. at 5:32-55. The tags in the search results can be from multiple
`
`sources, such as a list of contacts from the user’s address book, a list of the user’s
`
`browser bookmarks, a list of friends from an online service like Facebook, a cache
`
`of recent text entries, etc. Id. at 5:39-47.
`
`The inventors of the ’173 Patent recognized that the tags can be from
`
`different sources and that indicating the source of each tag allows the user to make
`
`a more informed decision about what tags to apply to a photograph. For example,
`
`Figure 4B (annotated) shows a visual indicator (e.g., 412a-1 and 412b-1) for each
`
`tag in the intermingled list of matching tags from different sources (e.g., 412a-2
`
`and 412b-2) indicating the source of each tag. Id. at 5:52-55.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2019-00516
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`
`
`In the figure above, visual indicator 412a-1 indicates that the tag “Tara Chmiel”
`
`412a-2 is from a list of friends on Facebook, and visual indicator 412b-1 indicates
`
`that the tag “text i typed before” 412b-2 is from a cache of recent text entries. Id.
`
`at 5:39-55. The user can then scroll through the list of tags 412, identify the source
`
`of each tag, and make an informed decision as to what tag to associate with the
`
`photograph 302. Id. at 5:62-65.
`
`C. None of the Alleged Prior Art Discloses the Innovative Solutions
`Claimed by the ’173 Patent
`
`1.
`
`Zuckerberg
`
`Petitioners cite U.S. Patent No. 7,945,653 (“Zuckerberg”) (Ex. 1003) as a
`
`primary reference for Grounds 1-5. Zuckerberg issued on May 17, 2011, from an
`
`application filed October 11, 2006. Zuckerberg lists Facebook, Inc. as its assignee.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00516
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`
`
`Zuckerberg describes desktop-based systems and methods for tagging digital
`
`media in a social network environment. Zuckerberg at 1:54-56. A social network
`
`user may upload a digital image to an album on his or her web page, select a region
`
`of the image by clicking on it, and “typ[e] appropriate text to tag the region.” Id. at
`
`1:59-65. As shown in Figure 5, once a “region 520” is selected, a “tag list 540”
`
`pops up, which “may include a text entry window 542” and “a list of previously
`
`used tags” (id. at 8:49-54):
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2019-00516
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`The tag list in Figure 5 can include “a text list 544 and a friends list 546.” Id. at
`
`8:56-58. Clicking on any of the entries from the tag list 540 will “associate the tag
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`with the selected region 520”; e.g., clicking on an entry “in the friends list 546 may
`
`associate the friend’s email address with the selected region 520.” Id. at 8:66-9:3.
`
`IPR2019-00516
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`2.
`
`Rothmuller
`
`Petitioners cite U.S. Patent No. 7,415,662 (“Rothmuller”) (Ex. 1004) as a
`
`secondary reference for Grounds 2-3 solely for the “displaying a tag type indicator
`
`for each tag appearing in the tag list” limitation of the Challenged Claims, while
`
`“rel[ying] on Zuckerberg and the mapping from Ground 1 for all other challenged
`
`claims and limitations.” Pet. at 4, 39. Petitioners also cite Rothmuller as a primary
`
`reference for Grounds 6-7. Id. at 5. Rothmuller issued on August 19, 2008, from
`
`an application filed July 17, 2002. Rothmuller lists Adobe Systems Incorporated
`
`as its assignee.
`
`Rothmuller is directed to organizing a database of images and photos using a
`
`hierarchy of tags instead of a text-based search functionality. Rothmuller,
`
`Abstract. In particular, users can create and modify tags in a tag editor and assign
`
`tags to categories that describe photos associated with a particular tag. Id. at 3:51-
`
`58 (“For example, in one embodiment tags are divided into people, events, places
`
`and miscellaneous tag categories.”). Each tag category can, in turn, be further sub-
`
`divided into tag types that more narrowly describe the tagged photo. Id. at 4:1-39
`
`(“The events tag category includes default tag types for parties and vacations, and
`
`can be customized to include tag types for particular types of events such as
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`concerts, plays, shows and sporting events, and for particular events such as the
`
`2002 Boston Marathon.”). Users can also “optionally select[] a graphical icon that
`
`IPR2019-00516
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`represents the tag.” Id. at 1:65-66.
`
`As shown in Figure 1, Rothmuller’s systems list each tag alongside a small
`
`icon that visually describes the tag category associated with that tag. Id. at Fig. 1.
`
`For example, six of the icons shown in the “Recently Used” field correspond to the
`
`“people,” “places,” “events,” and “miscellaneous” categories:
`
`Id.; see also U.S. Provisional App. No. 60/334,516 (“Rothmuller Provisional”)
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1005) at p. 34.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00516
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Plotkin
`
`Petitioners cite David Plotkin, How to Do Everything with Photoshop
`
`Elements 4.0 (“Plotkin”) (Ex. 1008) as a secondary reference for Grounds 4-5. Pet.
`
`at 5. In particular, Petitioners explain that “Ground 4 is similar in some respects to
`
`Ground 2 . . . [b]ut instead of relying on Rothmuller, Ground 4 cites Plotkin.” Id.
`
`at 49; see id. (“Ground 4 therefore cites Plotkin and MacLaurin in combination
`
`with Zuckerberg for ‘displaying a tag type indicator for each tag appearing in the
`
`tag list,’ and relies on Zuckerberg and the mapping from Ground 1 for all other
`
`limitations of claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, 12-14, and 18.”) (emphasis omitted).
`
`Similar to Rothmuller, Plotkin describes a method of finding images using a
`
`hierarchy of tag keywords or phrases. Plotkin at 322. Plotkin explains that users
`
`can use a hierarchy of categories, subcategories, and tags, and “associate multiple
`
`categories, subcategories, or tags with each image [to make it possible to] search
`
`for all the images associated with a particular tag.” Id. Users can also create new
`
`categories, subcategories, and tags and assign icons to visually represent them. Id.
`
`at 322-27. Further, unlike categories and subcategories, tags, which are typically
`
`used for keywords and phrases, can “display an image as part of itself, helping to
`
`identify what the tag means.” Id. at 323, 326 (“At this point, click and drag the tag
`
`onto an image in the catalog. Not only does this action associate the tag with the
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`image, but the image will be used for the icon.”). This is shown, for example, in
`
`IPR2019-00516
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`the following image:
`
`Id. at 332. Here, the “Cruises” category displays an icon visually representing that
`
`category, while the “Cruise 2003” tag displays a different image to help understand
`
`
`
`the tag. See id.
`
`Plotkin also explains that users can edit tags assigned to imported pictures.
`
`In this scenario, existing tags have a category icon displayed next to them. Id. at
`
`327-29. For example, the icon with an image of two people informs users that
`
`“David P.” is a person. See id. at 328.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2019-00516
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`
`
`4. MacLaurin
`
`Petitioners cite U.S. Patent No. 7,831,913 (“MacLaurin”) (Ex. 1006) as a
`
`secondary reference to support Petitioner’s motivation to combine arguments in
`
`Grounds 2 and 4. Pet. at 4-5. MacLaurin issued on November 9, 2010, from an
`
`application filed July 29, 2005. MacLaurin names Microsoft Corporation as its
`
`assignee.
`
`MacLaurin describes methods for tagging and finding items in a file
`
`management system, such as word processing documents and other files.
`
`MacLaurin at 7:32-35; id. at Fig. 4. MacLaurin’s primary stated goal is to
`
`“provide users with automated item tagging with minimal impact to the user.” Id.
`
`at 2:41-47; see also id. at 4:15-19 (“The systems and methods herein provide an
`
`improved user interface for applying tags automatically when the user has made a
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00516
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`
`selection of items to be tagged and/or provides an input such as, for example,
`
`typing any character on a keyboard.”). Beyond automatic tagging, MacLaurin
`
`discloses two other, distinct modes: (1) a tagging mode for tagging items; and (2) a
`
`browsing mode for selecting from a list of previously applied tags to locate items.
`
`MacLaurin at 7:48-8:57. These two modes are discussed in turn.
`
`(a) Tagging Mode – Displaying a Single, “Best Guess”
`Suggested Tag
`
`MacLaurin discloses a “tagging mode” allowing a user to tag a set of files.
`
`Id. at 7:66-8:3. One goal of MacLaurin’s tagging mode is to allow users to “add
`
`tags to items without entering a complex mode and/or substantially interrupting
`
`their current activity.” Id. at 7:9-11. Indeed, MacLaurin explains that “[t]ags can
`
`be applied without opening a dialog box, menu, and/or other selection user
`
`interface.” Id. at 7:12-13. Another goal of MacLaurin’s tagging mode is to
`
`enforce use of consistent tags. See id. at 7:21-28 (emphasis added):
`
`[I]f a user is looking for a house, they may tag items with
`
`“house” during the day. On the next day, the same user
`
`may have forgotten the previous day’s tag and start to tag
`
`items with “home.” Thus, at the moment the user is
`
`applying tags, they can be reminded that they previously
`
`used “house” instead of “home,” saving them from
`
`utilizing multiple tags when they did not intend to do so.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00516
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`
`MacLaurin’s “tagging mode” serves this goal of consistent tags through a “best
`
`guess” tag search interface. MacLaurin discloses a text-entry interface that
`
`“accumulate[s] each key a user types into a ‘tag buffer,’” “use[s] this tag buffer to
`
`guess at likely tags,” and then “display[s] the current ‘best guess’ tag in a textual
`
`readout associated with the window.” Id. 7:66-8:10. If the user wishes to view
`
`other “likely tags,” the user may “choose between ‘tag guesses’ using cursor
`
`arrows.” Id. at 8:11-12. Once the user has chosen a tag, “the user hits the
`
`enter/return key (or similar), [to] apply the items to the tag.” Id. at 8:17-18.
`
`MacLaurin illustrates its tagging mode in connection with Figure 8. For
`
`example, MacLaurin states that “possible tags that begin with the letter ‘g’”
`
`include “‘graphics,’ ‘group A,’ ‘group B,’ ‘green,’ and/or ‘garage’ and the like.”
`
`Id. at 5:31-34. Notwithstanding these various options, when a user in tagging
`
`mode (as indicated by “tagging icon 808” in Figure 8, below) enters “gr” (see
`
`“input” 804), MacLaurin displays only a single, “best guess” suggested tag,
`
`“graphics” (see “suggested tag” 802):
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2019-00516
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`(b) Browsing Mode – Displaying a List of Previously
`Applied Tags
`
`Unlike its tagging mode, the goal of MacLaurin’s browsing mode is to
`
`
`
`“allow[] easy recall of the tagged items at another time.” Id. at 2:41-44; see also
`
`id. at 6:6-8 (“The utilized tags are then relayed to the user via the user
`
`interface 308 at appropriate times to facilitate the user 304 in recalling items based
`
`on tag information.”); id. at 6:40-44 (“Simple text-based strings or tags . . . allow a
`
`variety of items to be easily recalled later utilizing only a single tag.”).
`
`Furthering this goal, MacLaurin’s browsing mode includes a window that
`
`“shows tags already created.” Id. at 8:33-35. For example, the interface shown in
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`Figure 6 includes a “tag list 604” of previously applied tags that “allows the user to
`
`quickly find items associated with the tags in the list.” Id. at 8:46-47; id. at Figure
`
`IPR2019-00516
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`6:
`
`Thus, as shown in Figure 7, when a user selects tag 702 (“graphics”) from
`
`the list, MacLaurin displays only files 704 that were previously associated with the
`
`“graphics” tag. Id. at 8:47-51; id. at Figure 7:
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2019-00516
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`
`
`The browsing mode also allows users to differentiate between (1) automated
`
`tags generated by the tagging system and (2) explicit tags entered by the user. Id.
`
`at 7:48-65. MacLaurin explains that, because “a user may have high confidence in
`
`their explicit tags and lesser confidence in system generated tags,” “a user can be
`
`alerted to their confidence level with regard to the tags” if the user can easily
`
`distinguish between these two types of tags. Id. at 7:49-53. For example,
`
`MacLaurin distinguishes between these two types of tags “utilizing different sizes,
`
`fonts, colors, and/or symbols and the like.” Id. at 8:19-22.
`
`5. Ortega
`
`Petitioners cite U.S. Patent No. 6,564,213 (“Ortega”) (Ex. 1007) as a
`
`secondary reference for Grounds 3, 5, and 7 solely for allegedly rendering obvious
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00516
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`
`the “tag entry field” limitation of dependent claims 2, 8, 10, 14, and 16. Pet. at 45,
`
`53-54, 73. Ortega issued on May 13, 2003, from an application filed April 18,
`
`2000. Ortega lists Amazon.com, Inc. as its assignee.
`
`Ortega relates to searching a database, but does so without the use of tags.
`
`In particular, Ortega discusses “searching a particular catalog or database, such as
`
`the products database of [a]n online merchant.” Ortega at 1:55-60. Ortega then
`
`describes a search function where a user “enters a search query into a search field
`
`. . . of the Amazon.com web site,” resulting in a display of a drop-down box
`
`consisting of “suggested autocompletion terms and phrases.” Id. at 5:25-29. If the
`
`user selects one of the suggested terms or phrases, “the string is automatically
`
`added to the search field” and potentially even “automatically submitted as the
`
`search query.” Id. at 5:42-45.
`
`6. Matthews
`
`Petitioners cite U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2006/0218503 (“Matthews”) (Ex.
`
`1009) as a secondary reference for Grounds 6-7 for the “matching a search string”
`
`limitation of the Challenged Claims and additional limitations of dependent claims
`
`2, 8, 10, 14, and 16. Pet. at 5, 59, 68-73. Matthews was published on September
`
`28, 2006, from an application filed March 22, 2005. Matthews lists Microsoft
`
`Corporation as its assignee.
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00516
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`
`
`Like Ortega, Matthews does not disclose any tagging. Instead, Matthews
`
`describes “an operating system program launch menu” (e.g., a Start menu) that
`
`provides various mechanisms (e.g., a search box within the program launch menu)
`
`for a user to “locate and launch desired data items such as programs, data files,
`
`storage locations, and the like.” Matthews at Abstract, ¶ 0014. As shown in
`
`Figure 5, upon a user entering text in search box 327 to search for Start menu
`
`items, “Start menu 315 automatically switches to a Search Results view 501, …
`
`displaying results that match text as it has been entered thus far by the user”:
`
`Id. ¶ 0087. Matthews further explains that from search box 327, “a user can
`
`perform a character by character search across the programs, user files, Internet
`
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00516
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`
`links, and communications on [the user’s] system,” and “[a]s the user enters text in
`
`the search box 327, the computer system searches for the entered text.” Id. Items
`
`being displayed as a result of characters entered in the search box include (1) items
`
`with the first word that begins with text matching user-entered text, (2) items with
`
`any words that start with text matching the user-entered text, and (3) items with
`
`any text matching the user-entered text. Id. ¶ 0092, Fig. 5.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`“In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to
`
`show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic
`
`Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. §
`
`312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . .
`
`the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)) (emphasis
`
`added). This burden never shifts to the patent owner. See Dynamic Drinkware,
`
`LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Tech.
`
`Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1326–27 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
`
`(discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review)).
`
`The Board must make its determination regarding institution based on what
`
`the Petition actually presents and not what it could have reasonably contained had
`
`it been reformulated. In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1381
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that the Board is not “free to adopt arguments on behalf
`
`
`
`23
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00516
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`
`of petitioners that could have been, but were not, raised by the petitioner during an
`
`IPR”); see also, e.g., Securus Techs., Inc. v. Global Tel*Link Corp., IPR2016-
`
`00267, Paper 10, at 6 (Sept. 12, 2016) (denying Request for Rehearing). The
`
`Board cannot “deviate from the grounds in the petition and raise its own” theories
`
`of invalidity. Sirona Dental Sys. GmbH v. Institut Straumann AG, 892 F.3d 1349,
`
`1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018). For example, the Board has refused to fill gaps where
`
`petitioner’s combinations fail to disclose each and every limitation of the
`
`challenged claims. See, e.g., Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. Blitzsafe Texas, LLC,
`
`IP