`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper # 41
`Entered: May 19, 2020
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`
`FACEBOOK, INC., INSTAGRAM, LLC, and WHATSAPP INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BLACKBERRY LIMITED,
`Patent Owner.
`
`__________
`
`Case IPR2019-00516
`Case IPR2019-00528
`Patent 8,279,173 B2
`
`__________
`
`Record of Remote Oral Hearing
`Held: May 5, 2020
`__________
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and AARON W.
`MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00516 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`IPR2019-00528 (Patent 8,279,173 B2
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`ANDREW C. MACE, ESQ.
`HEIDI L. KEEFE, ESQ.
`of: Cooley LLP
`3175 Hanover Street
`Palo Alto, California 94304-1130
`(650) 843-5808 (Mace)
`amace@cooley.com
`(650) 843-5001 (Keefe)
`hkeefe@cooley.com
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`SAM STAKE, ESQ.
`OGI ZIVOJNOVIC, ESQ.
`of: Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
`50 California Street
`22nd Floor
`San Francisco, California 94111
`(415) 875-6387 (Stake)
`samstake@quinnemanuel.com
`(415) 875-6469 (Zivojnovic)
`ogizivojnovic@quinnemanuel.com
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday,
`
`May 5, 2020, commencing at 11:00 a.m. EDT, via
`Video/Teleconference.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00516 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`IPR2019-00528 (Patent 8,279,173 B2
`
`
`
`P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S
`
`11:01 a.m.
`JUDGE QUINN: All right. Welcome, everyone. This is
`
`the hearing for Case IPR 2019-516 and IPR 2019-528 concerning U.S.
`Patent No. 8,279,173. The caption for this case is Facebook, Inc.,
`Instagram, LLC and WhatsApp, Inc. v. BlackBerry Limited. May I
`have, at this point, who is here for Petitioner?
`MR. MACE: Good morning, Your Honor. This is Andrew
`Mace. Can you hear me?
`JUDGE QUINN: I'm sorry about that. This is the
`emergency test for the USPTO. Hold on. Okay. You may proceed.
`MR. MACE: Okay. Good morning, Your Honor. This is
`Andrew Mace for Petitioner, confirming you can hear me.
`JUDGE QUINN: Yes, I can hear you.
`MR. MACE: Okay, great. I've also got Heidi Keefe dialed
`in telephonically, but I'll be making the presentation today.
`JUDGE QUINN: I want to confirm the court reporter has
`been able to determine those names.
`COURT REPORTER: Yes, I have.
`JUDGE QUINN: Thank you. All right, who do we have for
`Patent Owner?
`MR. STAKE: Good morning, Your Honor. This is Sam
`Stake from Quinn, Emanuel for Patent Owner BlackBerry Limited.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00516 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`IPR2019-00528 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`
`With me is Ogi Zivojnovic, an associate at Quinn, Emanuel. Mr.
`Zivojnovic will be presenting for us today.
`JUDGE QUINN: Okay. With me on the screen are Judge
`Aaron Moore and Judge Sally Medley.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Good morning.
`JUDGE QUINN: I am Miriam Quinn. As you know,
`Petitioner begins. You have 30 minutes, and you may reserve time
`for rebuttal. How much time would you like to reserve?
`MR. MACE: I'll reserve 10 minutes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE QUINN: Okay. This is how -- will you be keeping
`some time on your own as well, so that we are not interrupting you, or
`do you want me -- (Simultaneous speaking.)
`JUDGE QUINN: -- to interrupt you? Okay, you are. All
`right, you may start whenever you're ready.
`PETITIONERS' PRESENTATION
`MR. MACE: Okay, thanks, Your Honor. Let's turn to Slide
`4 of Petitioners' demonstratives. This slide provides a brief
`identification of the key disputes between the parties. They are the
`construction of tag source, the prior art disclosure of tag sources, tag
`type indicator, tag list, motivations to combine and Patent Owner's
`motion to amend.
`We go in order with these disputes, starting with tag source.
`Return to Slide 6. This slide sets forth the parties' competing
`constructions for Petitioner. The construction of tag source is either a
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00516 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`IPR2019-00528 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`
`collection of tags or a recognizable collection of tags. Patent Owner
`contends that it's the separately searchable collection of tags.
`JUDGE QUINN: Is your contention --
`MR. MACE: Turning to Slide 7 --
`JUDGE QUINN: -- that the -- let me ask you about your
`contention. What is your proposed construction for the term tag
`source?
`MR. MACE: So as we explained in our reply I think, it's a
`collection of tags. Implicit in that is the idea that that collection of
`tags is recognizable, so either of those constructions would be
`acceptable to us, so either a collection of tags or a recognizable
`collection of tags.
`JUDGE QUINN: What does recognizable add to the
`collection of tags phrase?
`MR. MACE: Right, so as we explained in the reply, we think
`the idea of recognizability is implicit in the term collection of tags, but
`in case there's any doubt about that, the idea of recognizability is
`simply that the system that uses the tags for photo tagging would be
`able to recognize distinct collections of tags in order to carry out the
`photo tagging functionality.
`JUDGE QUINN: You mean the source of the tags must
`somehow be captured in some form; some data that goes with that
`information, so that then a tag type indicator can be associated with a
`tag. Is that what you're saying?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00516 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`IPR2019-00528 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`MR. MACE: A tag source is just simply, in the context of the
`claim, simply a collection of tags that is recognizable by the system as
`a distinct set of tags that is distinguished from another collection of
`tags. So for example, in Zuckerberg, there's the collection of tags
`that's used for the text list, and there's a separate collection of tags
`that's used for the friends list. In MacLaurin, there is the automatic
`tags that are generated by the system versus the explicit tags that are
`input by the user. There's also the external tags that the user can
`download, like the attorney tag set or the medical tag set.
`So for all of these examples, these are distinct collections of
`tags that the tagging systems recognize as distinct sets in order to
`provide the tagging functionality. So in Zuckerberg, simply by virtue
`of how that tag list is presented, we know that the system is
`recognizing the tags for the text list as distinct from the tags for the
`friends list, for example. That's all that the patent requires.
`JUDGE QUINN: But it seems to me that the recognizability,
`however implicit, is not recited. And the only limitation that goes to
`indicating such a distinguishing source, one from the other, is that you
`have a tag type associated with each source. Other than that, I don't
`see where the claims require that there would be some recognizability
`expressed from the sources, either when they're -- specifically when
`they're searched or matching a string.
`MR. MACE: No, I think you're exactly right, Your Honor. I
`don't think the claims require that at all. It's just in connection with
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00516 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`IPR2019-00528 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`
`providing the tag type indicator that's indicative of the tag source that
`shows that the tag sources are recognized by the system as these
`distinct collections of tags. That's all the claim requires. I think
`Your Honor is absolutely right.
`JUDGE QUINN: Okay. Now talk to me about “collection
`of tags” because that seems to me, that phrase, even though you both
`agree there must be a collection of tags, there is a dispute as to how to
`articulate the meaning of source, meaning where they come from.
`And it doesn't seem to me that the word “collection of tags” really
`captures the meaning of “source.”
`MR. MACE: Right. So I don't think there's any dispute
`between the parties about what a collection can be. I didn't see, in
`Patent Owner's papers any dispute that prior art discloses a
`recognizable collection of tags or separate collections of tags. The
`dispute about whether -- what's required by a source, I think Patent
`Owner is taking an unduly narrow interpretation of that term. The
`collections of tags, simply by virtue of being distinct collections used
`by the tagging system, provide sources of tags for the tagging.
`That's all there is to it. That's all the claims require. The
`parties agree that collections can each be logically defined. They
`don't have to be -- use separate styles in order to define different tag
`sources. And when that collection is used as a source of tags for the
`tagging functionality, it's a tag source for that functionality. And
`that's all there is to it.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00516 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`IPR2019-00528 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`JUDGE QUINN: Let me try to unpack that because you're
`just saying the collection is the source because they are collections,
`and that sounds circular to me. So you're saying that the fact that all
`of the tags are grouped together, that because they form a group, that
`in and of itself makes that collection a source of tags.
`MR. MACE: Correct. It can be a source of tags is that
`collection of tags is ultimately used for the tagging functionality, and
`in the prior art that we had identified; those collections of tags are
`used for tagging functionality, so they are there for tag sources.
`JUDGE QUINN: What do you say about --
`MR. MACE: You could have a collection of tags --
`JUDGE QUINN: Sorry. Is somebody else asking a
`question? So here's my problem with your contention. It seems to
`be removed from the disclosure. It seems that the disclosure supports
`the contention that the source -- the tag source is where the tags came
`from, not so much that they just happen to be grouped together and
`they happen to be some sort of category that they have in common.
`The indicator indicating the tag source seems to be tied more to where
`the tags were collected from rather than just a group -- a logical
`grouping of tags that happen to have something in common.
`MR. MACE: So I would have two points to that, Your Honor.
`First of all, the tag sources that are described in the specification are
`merely exemplary. As we pointed out in our papers, the Federal
`Circuit is clear that the examples, preferred embodiments and
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00516 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`IPR2019-00528 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`
`embodiments should not be imported from a specification into the
`claims. For example, in our reply in the 516 proceeding, at 3 to 5, we
`cite the Kara Tech v. Stamps.com Inc. case -- that's 582 F.3d
`1341 -- talking about how the Court should not limit patents to
`preferred embodiments or import a limitation for the specification into
`the claims. That's also Hill-Rom Services v. Stryker Corp. at 755
`F.3d 1367, another case on that. Similarly, we cite Hill-Rom for the
`proposition that the Federal Circuit has expressly rejected the
`argument that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the
`claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that
`embodiment. And so in addition to the law and claim construction,
`I'll also point out that the ’173 patent, itself, seems to contemplate that
`the tag types and tag sources can be essentially co-extensive.
`So for example, at Column 4, Line 46, the ’173 patent
`describes how tag types can include free-form alphanumeric string,
`Facebook friends, address book entries and browser bookmarks. This
`is describing the exemplary tag types. And then in Column 5,
`starting around Line 42, the patent describes tag sources and describes
`them simply as lists of those tag types, of tags of those types. So for
`example, a list of friends from Facebook or a list of contacts from an
`address book. So there is not necessarily a distinction between tag
`types and tag sources.
`JUDGE QUINN: Well how about the fact that all of those
`listings -- for example, in Claim 5, they all say “from,” so it's from the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00516 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`IPR2019-00528 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`
`online service, like Facebook, from the user's address book, and it says
`in the Internet browser or the cache. So it's not just a collection of
`things that happen to have a commonality, but they also come from
`those specific sources. That seems to be the theme. What prior art
`do you have that has a similar tag source identifier or tag source
`indicator, so that we can see they came from a specific source?
`MR. MACE: Sure, Your Honor. I guess starting with
`MacLaurin reference, where we point out that there's both explicit
`tags that are provided by a user and there are automatic tags that are
`generated by the system. And so you've got one set of tags that
`comes from a user and one that comes from the system. In addition
`to the automatic and explicit tags, there's also the external tag sources
`in MacLaurin that come from various online services.
`So there's the medical profession tag set versus the attorney
`tag set. With respect to Zuckerberg, while both of the text lists and
`the friends list are previously used tags, Zuckerberg makes clear that
`the sources of those tags are distinct. For example, around Column 9
`of Zuckerberg, it describes a process for a user to tag a friend in a
`photo. And it talks about how the system identifies an email that's
`been entered as corresponding to a Facebook friend.
`JUDGE QUINN: I'm sorry. Can you be more specific as to
`where in Zuckerberg are you reading this from?
`MR. MACE: Sure, yes. I'm at Column 9. It's sort of
`generally describing the process for a user to tag a friend, starting at
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00516 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`IPR2019-00528 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`
`Line 3. What I'm talking about in particular starts I think around
`Line 31. Zuckerberg said that the email address entered in the email
`entry field corresponds to a user in the social network. It talks about
`sending out a notification and so on. So Zuckerberg is talking about
`identifying Facebook friends in the system in connection with the
`friends lists that are subsequently displayed for the tag list. And so
`you've got separate collections of tags that correspond to these
`different sources for the text list in Zuckerberg versus the friends list.
`I'll also point out, Your Honor, I think in our reply we talked about
`how it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art
`to physically arrange those separate tag lists in Zuckerberg so they're
`physically separate and distinct sources.
`JUDGE QUINN: Let me go back to something on
`Zuckerberg that ties to claim construction. I see a lot of argument
`about whether you could have one source versus multiple sources. It
`seems like that's some way to try to distinguish Zuckerberg if it,
`indeed, had one source. Somehow it requires multiple sources.
`What is your contention on that?
`MR. MACE: So our contention is that Zuckerberg does
`disclose multiple tag sources, at least in the form of the tags that are
`used to populate the text list. I think it's 544. And the tags that are
`used -- the question of tags that are used to populate the friends list is
`546. They're absolutely separate and distinct collections of tags that
`are recognized by the system.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00516 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`IPR2019-00528 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`To the extent that there's some sort of physical requirements
`for the construction of tag source, that they have to be physically
`distinct in some way, stored in separate parts of memory, we explain
`in the reply that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
`skill in the art to organize the tags in that manner, both because
`Zuckerberg talks about how the text list is -- comprises two separate
`tag lists and to provide a benefit of more efficient searching and
`collating process.
`JUDGE QUINN: Okay. Do you read the claims as requiring
`multiple tag sources?
`MR. MACE: No, absolutely not. I think we describe how
`Zuckerberg discloses multiple tag sources just because of the idea that
`the claims provide a tag type indicator to distinguish the tag types in
`the tag list. And so the best way to present that concept is by having
`tags from multiple tag sources with the capability of including them in
`the list to drive home the point that it would be obvious to include
`these different tag type indicators indicating the different sources of
`the tags in the list.
`JUDGE QUINN: Okay. And a question about your
`combination of Zuckerberg with Rothmuller. What we understand
`now is the issue that Zuckerberg provides the teaching for the one or
`more tag sources, and you're relying on Rothmuller for disclosing the
`tag type indicator. And I want you to talk a little bit about your
`motivation to combine those two.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00516 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`IPR2019-00528 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`I think you've already alluded to the fact of putting everything
`in one list and having everything listed together, but it seems to me
`that motivation to combine relies a little bit -- if I'm mistaken, please
`correct me -- on Rothmuller potentially also having tag sources. And
`if we find that Rothmuller does not have a tag source because they're
`just mere groupings of tags, then how do you argue your motivation to
`combine these two references?
`MR. MACE: Right, so Slide 39 has some bullet points
`identifying the rationale and motivation to combine Zuckerberg and
`Rothmuller. And so in the combinations where Zuckerberg is the
`primary reference, we absolutely are not relying on whether or not
`Rothmuller discloses tag sources as required by the claims. It's
`simply for the teaching that it would be obvious benefits of providing
`visual indicators, sort of icons that identify the tags by tag type or tag
`category.
`When you have a situation in Zuckerberg where the text list is
`analogous to the miscellaneous category of Rothmuller, and the
`friends list of Zuckerberg is analogous to the people category of
`Rothmuller, when you apply Rothmuller's teachings of distinct icons,
`visual indicators for those tag categories, with Zuckerberg's
`disclosures, it results in the tag type indicators in Zuckerberg that are
`indicative of the tag source.
`As I mentioned before, the ’173 patent expressly contemplates
`that the tag type can be essentially co-extensive with a tag source.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00516 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`IPR2019-00528 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`
`You can have a one-to-one correspondence with that. As a result, if
`you have a tag type indicator that indicates a tag type, it's going to
`also indicate the tag source.
`JUDGE QUINN: Okay. Now in connection with that
`contention, Patent Owner has presented additional evidence that there
`wouldn't be a motivation to combine because of Facebook's own style
`guide with respect to the Web, I would say the clean look of their
`service in design principles. And I wanted to ask you about that
`because I don't know where your rebuttal to that particular evidence
`was, other than you're relying on your expert. So what do you say
`about that?
`MR. MACE: Yeah, so I don't have the page number right in
`front of me right now, but we absolutely do address it in our reply. I
`think the upshot was that they're pointing to a document that
`post-dates the patent and the application by several years. It's their
`general design guidelines and principles. It has nothing to do with
`photo tagging in particular.
`And I don't think there's -- it's not sufficiently tied to -- the
`idea of displaying icons is not sufficiently tied to extraneous visual
`clutter that would negatively impact the user experience. The idea of
`providing tag type indicators to distinguish the tags in the tag list
`would provide benefits that clearly outweigh any type of visual clutter
`argument.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00516 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`IPR2019-00528 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`JUDGE QUINN: We are running into your rebuttal time.
`Do you want to keep going?
`MR. MACE: No, I'll pass to Patent Owner, Your Honor.
`Thank you very much.
`JUDGE QUINN: All right, you have eight minutes and
`eighteen seconds left. All right. I think we're ready, now, for Patent
`Owner's presentation. Are you ready?
`PATENT OWNER'S PRESENTATION
`MR. ZIVOJNOVIC: Yes, Your Honors. So good morning.
`This is Ogi Zivojnovic here, speaking on behalf of BlackBerry. And
`I would like to reserve 10 minutes for rebuttal as well.
`JUDGE QUINN: Okay, got it.
`MR. ZIVOJNOVIC: May I proceed?
`JUDGE QUINN: You may proceed now. Thank you.
`MR. ZIVOJNOVIC: Thank you, Your Honors. I want to
`start where the previous presentation left off. That's in connection
`with Zuckerberg's teachings. If I may direct Your Honors' attention
`to Slide 25 of Petitioners' presentation. This slide shows
`Zuckerberg's descriptions of Figure 5, which is what Petitioners rely
`on for their tag lists. And it specifically discloses that all the tags in
`this list are from a list of previously used tags.
`Now this list can be organized as subject matter, such as text
`entries. Text List 544 is displayed above friends entries, Friends List
`546. The main thing I want to emphasize at this stage is that both of
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00516 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`IPR2019-00528 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`
`these lists are, at this point in time, when they're presented to the user,
`from the same list of previously used tags.
`And so during their presentation, Petitioners pointed to
`Column 9 in Zuckerberg, which the portion they cite actually relates
`to Figure 6, which is okay, the user does not have anything from the
`list of previously used tags they want to associate with a photograph,
`and so it provides an opportunity to enter a new email address for a
`new user or a new name that would then be added to the system.
`JUDGE QUINN: But it seems to me -- I don't want you to
`waste your time on things that are not contentious, but you could be
`using your time more wisely. You may have, in Zuckerberg, a
`sub-grouping of that group. And to the extent that they are indicative
`of where the tag came from, that's all we're looking for. Now my
`question to you, as far as Zuckerberg and what you're arguing, is that
`it only has one list or one source. Are you contending that because it
`might be one source, it doesn't meet the claims because the claims
`require, in your view, multiple sources?
`MR. ZIVOJNOVIC: Your Honors, the issue is that lines and
`the symbols are an icon cited by Petitioners' different references are
`not indicative of a tag source as required by the claims unless those
`different symbols and icons actually correspond to different tag
`sources. So for example, in the case of Rothmuller, they say that the
`people icon and the events icon are two different tag type indicators.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00516 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`IPR2019-00528 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`JUDGE QUINN: I don't think you're answering my question.
`You're going into the combination. I want to know your contention
`on claim construction. If you're saying that Zuckerberg -- let's say
`we agree that it has one tag list. And I think you don't dispute that
`there is a list of tags in Zuckerberg. And let's say, for purposes of
`this question, we find that there is one tag source. What is your
`contention about the claims vis-a-vis one tag source in light of your
`arguments about multiple tag sources being required?
`MR. ZIVOJNOVIC: We agree, Your Honors, that the claims
`recite one or more tag sources. And implicit in that is that some
`limitations of the claims can be met with just a single tag source.
`What I was attempting to address -- and maybe it would help if we
`turn to Slide No. 9, which has the claim language, is that even if some
`limitation met with just one tag source, the second limitation requires
`the tag type being indicative of tag source. And so what we're saying
`is in Petitioners' specific prior art and validity allegations, those
`allegations do not meet the indicative of a tag source limitation if the
`various prior art references have just one tag source. And so again,
`we fully acknowledge that the first limitation says tags from one or
`more tag sources, but the issue is that the specific grounds advanced
`by Petitioners do not meet the indicative of tag source limitation
`unless the different symbols and icons they point to actually
`correspond to different tag sources. And so with that, I would like
`to --
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00516 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`IPR2019-00528 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`JUDGE QUINN: I'm sorry. Can you -- what is the specific
`word in the claim that you are hanging this argument on?
`MR. ZIVOJNOVIC: It is the phrase "indicative of a tag
`source."
`JUDGE QUINN: Is it the Article “a” tag source, or what
`exactly --
`(Simultaneous speaking.)
`MR. ZIVOJNOVIC: No, Your Honor. It is Petitioners'
`allegations on how that specific limitation is allegedly met. So if you
`look at Petitioners' allegations, they're pointing to different symbols
`that they say are indicative of tag source, but those symbols are not
`actually indicative of any tag source if what those symbols indicate is
`not actually a tag source. So this was what I was hoping -- this is
`what I was pointing to Rothmuller to maybe try and clarify why their
`arguments fail if there are not multiple tag sources.
`JUDGE QUINN: I think you -- what is your proposed
`construction for tag sources exactly? Be very precise. What is your
`proposed construction?
`MR. ZIVOJNOVIC: Our proposed construction is that a tag
`source is a separately searchable collection of tags.
`JUDGE MOORE: And so is this argument that you're making
`based on construction?
`MR. ZIVOJNOVIC: Excuse me, Your Honor, I couldn't
`quite catch -- I didn't quite hear that.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00516 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`IPR2019-00528 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`JUDGE MOORE: Sure. Is this argument that you're making
`based on that construction, a separable search?
`MR. ZIVOJNOVIC: That is correct. So our argument for
`why the various symbols and icons in the prior art do not meet this
`indicative of tagged source limitation, that specific argument does rely
`on BlackBerry's construction that once you reject -- or if you were to
`reject Petitioners' interpretation that any grouping of tags can qualify
`as a tag source, then under BlackBerry's construction, none of the
`prior art discloses the indicative of a tag source limitation.
`JUDGE MOORE: So does the argument go away if we agree
`with Petitioners' construction of tag source?
`MR. ZIVOJNOVIC: So if Your Honors agree with Petitioners'
`construction of tag source, it would still not address some of the
`motivation to combine issues presented in BlackBerry's Patent Owner
`response. And the Petitioners themselves acknowledge that they're
`relying on combinations of Zuckerberg and Rothmuller or MacLaurin
`and Rothmuller for the entire claim, so it would not resolve the
`petition altogether.
`JUDGE MOORE: Okay.
`JUDGE QUINN: Now let me ask you something I asked
`Petitioner. So it seems that you agree with the portion of the
`construction that says collection of tags. So you do agree that there
`has to be some sort of grouping of the tags that are logically
`associated with each other. Is that right?
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00516 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`IPR2019-00528 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`MR. ZIVOJNOVIC: Yes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE QUINN: Okay. Now it seems to me the dispute is as
`to how the tags are collected or how would the display show that these
`tags have the significance of where they come from. And your
`phrase that you want in your claim construction of separately
`searchable seems to me that doesn't really capture that. You
`submitted dictionary definitions of the plain meaning of the word
`"source" as being more like the origin or where something originates
`from. And that seems to be closer to what we're talking about here.
`What do you say about trying to clarify that concept rather than
`focusing on whether something is searchable separately or otherwise?
`MR. ZIVOJNOVIC: So Your Honor, our proposed
`construction is based on what is in -- what we found in the
`specification. And so we looked at the specification to interpret the
`meaning of tag sources. With that said, from even the claim
`language itself, the two main takeaways we wanted to emphasize here
`is this form language that I believe Your Honor has also noted. And
`that is addressed also by these dictionary definitions of "origin," as
`well as the possibility of distinguishing one or more tag sources. So
`again, we do agree that the focus is probably on where tags are from,
`the origin. The one thing that we sought though to clarify with our
`construction of separately searchable is that the phrase "origin" should
`not be interpreted to refer to some sort of historical -- how tags were
`generated in some previous point in time, but really where is the
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00516 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`IPR2019-00528 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`
`system searching for tags? Where is the system retrieving tags from
`to display this tag list? And so for example, in the specification,
`there's the example of a tag source being a list of friends from the
`Facebook platform.
`And the thing we want to emphasize here is that this source
`isn't referring to each individual user entering his or her name at some
`previous point in time. But it is really where the system, when it is
`displaying a tag list including tags from one or more tag sources
`matching a search string, it is where the system is retrieving those tags
`at that point in time.
`So even though that indicates the Facebook list, for example,
`each individual user, billions of them, individually enters their names,
`from the perspective of the system, there are not a billion tag sources.
`It's talking about just one tag source, Facebook. And so we agree
`ultimately that yes, tag sources should reflect the origin of the tag, but
`the additional language of separately searchable was meant to capture
`how -- if this is from the perspective of the system and not some sort
`of historical origin.
`JUDGE QUINN: I'm asking the question not to trick you
`here. I think we know that the specification has these examples.
`And what we discussed with Petitioner was that all of the example had
`something in common. That is, where the collection of tags was
`obtained from. And so you cannot take that to the logical conclusion
`of at some point somebody created a tag. It's not about the creation
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00516 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`IPR2019-00528 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`
`of it, but rather how the system gets the tags to prepare the tag list that
`is displayed. So how do we capture that concept without imbuing the
`construction with some process by which the tags are collecte