`
`
`
`
`
`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 RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`IPR2019-00516
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`BACKGROUND OF THE RELEVANT TECHNOLOGY ........................... 2
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ’173 PATENT ............................................................ 4
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ALLEGED PRIOR ART ............................................ 9
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Zuckerberg ............................................................................................. 9
`
`Rothmuller ........................................................................................... 10
`
`Plotkin.................................................................................................. 13
`
`D. MacLaurin ........................................................................................... 14
`
`E.
`
`Ortega .................................................................................................. 19
`
`F. Matthews ............................................................................................. 19
`
`V.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................... 19
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 20
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`“Tag Sources” ...................................................................................... 20
`
`“A Tag Type Indicator . . . Said Tag Type Being Indicative of a
`Tag Source” ......................................................................................... 30
`
`VII. RESPONSE TO ARGUMENT ..................................................................... 32
`
`A. Grounds 1-5 Fail Because The Cited Art Does Not Disclose
`Any Indicator “Indicative of a Tag Source” ....................................... 33
`
`1.
`
`Zuckerberg lacks “a tag type indicator for each tag . . .
`indicative of a tag source” ......................................................... 33
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`Zuckerberg’s line is not “indicative of a tag
`source” ............................................................................ 34
`
`Zuckerberg’s “text list” and “friend list” are not
`separate “source[s]” ........................................................ 37
`
`2.
`
`Rothmuller and Plotkin cannot cure Zuckerberg’s failure
`to “indicat[e] . . . a tag source” ................................................. 42
`
`(a)
`
`Petitioners’ Grounds 2 and 4 do not rely on
`Rothmuller or Plotkin for the “indicative of a tag
`source” limitation............................................................ 42
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00516
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`(b) Rothmuller or Plotkin cannot cure Zuckerberg’s
`deficiencies because they themselves lack a “tag
`type indicator . . . indicative of a tag source” ................. 44
`
`(i)
`
`(ii)
`
`Rothmuller’s categories are not different
`“tag sources,” and its category icons are thus
`not “indicative of a tag source” ............................ 45
`
`Plotkin’s categories are not different “tag
`sources,” and its category icons are thus not
`“indicative of a tag source” .................................. 50
`
`B.
`
`Grounds 1-5 Also Fail Because Petitioners’ Proposed
`Combinations Do Not Render Obvious “a Tag Type Indicator
`for Each Tag Appearing in the Tag List” ............................................ 53
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Zuckerberg lacks “a tag type indicator for each tag
`appearing in the tag list” ........................................................... 54
`
`It would be far from obvious to adapt Rothmuller or
`Plotkin’s icons to indicate Zuckerberg’s alleged “tag
`source[s]” .................................................................................. 57
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`Petitioners’ proposed combinations have no
`benefit ............................................................................. 58
`
`Petitioners fail to identify an adequate motivation
`to combine the prior art .................................................. 60
`
`(i) MacLaurin does not provide express
`motivation for visually indicating tag
`sources .................................................................. 61
`
`(ii)
`
`Petitioners’ allegation that combining
`Zuckerberg with Rothmuller or Plotkin is
`based on impermissible hindsight ........................ 70
`
`(iii) Existence of similar tags is not a valid
`motivation to combine .......................................... 71
`
`(iv) The alleged “popularity of the Adobe
`product” does not lead to the proposed
`combination of Zuckerberg and Plotkin ............... 73
`
`C.
`
`Grounds 6-7 Fail Because Rothmuller Does Not Disclose
`“Displaying a Tag Type Indicator . . . Indicative of a Tag
`Source” ................................................................................................ 75
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`VIII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 75
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00516
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`IPR2019-00516
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`Page
`
`CASES
`
`Alloc, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Commc’n,
` 342 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ....................................................................67
`
`Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc.,
` 815 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ....................................................................36
`
`Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd.,
` 821 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ....................................................................72
`
`K/S Himpp v. Hear-Wear Techs., LLC,
` 751 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ....................................................................32
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
` 550 U.S. 398 (2007)......................................................................................42
`
`Lantech, Inc. v. Keip Mach. Co.,
` 32 F.3d 542 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ........................................................................35
`
`Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.,
` 395 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................. 28, 56
`
`SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu,
` 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018) ..................................................................................44
`
`Sinorgchem Co., Shandong v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
` 511 F.3d 1132 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ....................................................................23
`
`The Federal Circuit’s Amazon.com, Inc. v. ZitoVault, LLC,
` 754 Fed. App’x 965 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ........................................................... 29
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00516
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit #
`
`Description
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`Declaration of Rajeev Surati, Ph.D.
`
`Excerpts from the American Heritage College
`Dictionary, 4th ed. (2002)
`
`Excerpts from Webster’s New World College Dictionary,
`4th ed. (2008)
`
`Excerpts from Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary,
`11th ed. (2003)
`
`Exhibit 9 from the Deposition of Sandeep Chatterjee,
`Ph.D.
`
`Petitioners’ Opposition to BlackBerry’s Motion for
`Partial Summary Judgment of Infringement in the
`District Court Litigation
`
`Facebook Design Principles
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 9,495,335
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 13/252,807
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 11/746,285
`
`Redline comparison of ’807 and ’285 Applications
`
`Transcript of November 7, 2019 Deposition of Sandeep
`Chatterjee, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00516
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.120, Patent Owner BlackBerry Ltd.
`
`(“BlackBerry”) respectfully submits this Patent Owner Response in connection
`
`with Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) No. IPR2019-00516 instituted based on the
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review (Paper No. 2) (“the Petition”) filed by Petitioners
`
`Facebook, Inc., Instagram, LLC, and WhatsApp Inc. (collectively, “Petitioners”).
`
`The Board instituted this 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”).
`
`The ’173 Patent is directed to multi-source search technology for photo tags.
`
`Yet none of the prior art Petitioners cite for the relevant limitations of the
`
`independent claims—Zuckerberg, Rothmuller, and Plotkin—discloses the core
`
`concept of multiple “sources” or the claimed “tag type indicator . . . indicative of a
`
`tag source.” The alleged sources in Zuckerberg are part of a single list of
`
`previously entered tags, and in any event the Board already concluded that
`
`Zuckerberg lacks a “tag type indicator . . . indicative of a tag source.” Rothmuller
`
`and Plotkin cannot cure this deficiency in Zuckerberg because their tag categories
`
`are not different “tag sources” and their category icons therefore also are not
`
`“indicative of a tag source.” As Petitioners themselves argued in district court
`
`litigation, “‘tag type indicators’ . . . correspond[ing] to categories of tag
`
`suggestions” are not indicative of “their sources.” Ex. 2006 (Petitioners’
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00516
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`Opposition to Partial Summary Judgment in the District Court Litigation) at 13.
`
`The same logic applies here. In Rothmuller, all tags from all categories are part of
`
`the same “tag drawer” and not separate sources. And the feature in Plotkin cited
`
`by Petitioners is silent about how tags are sourced.
`
`Failing to cite a single reference that discloses the “tag type indicator . . .
`
`indicative of a tag source” limitation, Petitioners have not shown that the
`
`limitation, and thus any Challenged Claim, is obvious. The Board should,
`
`therefore, affirm the validity of the Challenged Claims.
`
`II. BACKGROUND OF THE RELEVANT TECHNOLOGY
`
`The ’173 Patent relates to computer software for tagging photographs. Ex.
`
`2001 (Surati Decl.) ¶ 34. For example, a user desiring to share a photograph on a
`
`social network may wish to identify people or objects in the photograph by
`
`selecting a “tag” to associate with an identified point in the photograph. Ex. 1001
`
`(’173 Patent) at 1:21-25; see also Surati Decl. ¶ 34. As of the priority date of
`
`the ’173 Patent—May 9, 2007—the technology for sharing photographs on the
`
`Internet was still in its infancy. Surati Decl. ¶ 35. Photo.net, a website business
`
`created by BlackBerry’s expert (Dr. Surati) and Dr. Philip Greenspun in 2000 and
`
`operated by them until 2007, is a prime example of the rudimentary state of this
`
`field at that time. Id. ¶ 36.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00516
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`Photo.net allowed users to post photographs online and to browse
`
`photographs posted by other users. Id. ¶ 36. Later versions of the website allowed
`
`users to enter keywords describing aspects of their photographs, such as
`
`“Location,” “Equipment,” or other “Technical Details,” and to add other “Custom
`
`Fields”:
`
`Id.
`
`Even if these keywords were considered tags, they were manually entered by
`
`the user. Id. ¶ 37. The main focus of photo.net was on allowing users to describe
`
`their own, individual photographs. Id. Each type of tag had its own field, so even
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`if individual fields could be populated using a search function, there was no
`
`IPR2019-00516
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`motivation for a multi-source search. Id.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ’173 PATENT
`
`The ’173 Patent—unlike photo.net and other prior art photography sharing
`
`software—recognized that, in view of the explosion in the quantity and variety of
`
`online media, selecting a single “tag” representing an identified person or object
`
`became an increasingly complicated task. ’173 Patent at 1:23-25; Surati Decl. ¶
`
`38. This task becomes only more difficult on wireless mobile communication
`
`devices where display size and input mode might be constrained. ’173 Patent at
`
`1:25-29; Surati Decl. ¶ 38.
`
`The ’173 Patent solves these and other problems by allowing a user to select
`
`tags from multiple sources using a unified search functionality, and presenting
`
`search results from these sources in a single display along with a visual indication
`
`of the source of each tag. Surati Decl. ¶ 38. This is reflected in the claims:
`
`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.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`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
`
`IPR2019-00516
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`dependent claims.
`
`In one embodiment, the ’173 Patent presents the user interface shown in
`
`Figure 3B for displaying a shared photograph:
`
`
`
`The user can click the “Add” button to enter into the photo tagging mode. ’173
`
`Patent at 4:10-18; Surati Decl. ¶ 41. The user can then move the cross-hair pointer
`
`308 on the photo to identify the particular area of the photo that will be the subject
`
`of one or more “Tags.” ’173 Patent at 4:19-37; Surati Decl. ¶ 41.
`
`After the user selects the “Add” button, the ’173 Patent presents the user
`
`interface shown in Figure 4B, which allows the user to search for tags from
`
`multiple sources. ’173 Patent at 4:44-59, 5:39-47; Surati Decl. ¶ 42.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`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. ’173 Patent at 5:32-55; Surati Decl. ¶ 43. 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, and geographic
`
`coordinates recorded by visiting locations. ’173 Patent at 5:39-47, 6:5-16; Surati
`
`Decl. ¶ 44. In the disclosed embodiment, most if not all of these tag sources
`
`correspond to different applications or components on a user’s mobile device.
`
`Surati Decl. ¶ 45; see ’173 Patent at Fig. 1 (annotated):
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00516
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`For each tag source, the ‘173 patent visually indicates the tag source
`
`allowing the user to make a more informed decision about what tag to apply to a
`
`photograph. Surati Decl. ¶ 46. For example, Figure 4B (annotated) discloses using
`
`an icon or other visual identifier (e.g., 412a-1 and 412b-1) for each tag in the
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`intermingled list of matching tags from different sources (e.g., 412a-2 and 412b-2)
`
`indicating the source of each tag. ’173 Patent at 5:52-55; Surati Decl. ¶ 46.
`
`IPR2019-00516
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`
`
`In the figure above, a friends icon (visual indicator 412a-1) indicates that the tag
`
`“Tara Chmiel” 412a-2 is from a list of friends on Facebook, and a text icon (visual
`
`indicator 412b-1) indicates that the tag “text i typed before” 412b-2 is from a cache
`
`of recent text entries. ’173 Patent at 5:39-55; Surati Decl. ¶ 47. 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. ’173 Patent
`
`at 5:62-65; Surati Decl. ¶ 48.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00516
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ALLEGED PRIOR ART
`
`A. Zuckerberg
`
`Petitioners cite U.S. Patent No. 7,945,653 (“Zuckerberg”) (Ex. 1003) as a
`
`primary reference for Grounds 1-5.
`
`Zuckerberg describes desktop-based systems and methods for tagging digital
`
`media using tags from a single list of previously entered tags. Zuckerberg at 1:54-
`
`56; Surati Decl. ¶ 49. 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.” Zuckerberg at 1:59-65; Surati Decl.
`
`¶50. 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” (Zuckerberg at 8:49-54; Surati Decl. ¶ 51):
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00516
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`
`
`The “list of previously used tags” in Figure 5 is, in turn, visually subdivided into “a
`
`text list 544 and a friends list 546” using a line. Zuckerberg at 8:56-58; Surati ¶
`
`52. Clicking on any of the entries from the tag list 540 will “associate the tag 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.” Zuckerberg at
`
`8:66-9:3; Surati Decl. ¶ 53.
`
`B. 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
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00516
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`for each tag appearing in the tag list” limitation of the Challenged Claims, while
`
`they rely on Zuckerberg 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 is directed to organizing a database of images and photos using
`
`tags. Rothmuller at Abstract; Surati Decl. ¶ 54. All of those tags are stored in the
`
`same “tag drawer,” also called a “tag keeper.” See Ex. 1005 (Rothmuller Prov.) at
`
`68 (“The Tag Drawer holds all the tags currently defined in the system”) (emphasis
`
`added); see also Rothmuller at Fig. 1 (annotated to identify TAG KEEPER with
`
`red box); Surati Decl. ¶ 54:
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00516
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`
`
`Users can create and modify tags in a tag editor and assign tags to categories
`
`that describe photos associated with a particular tag. Rothmuller at 3:51-58 (“For
`
`example, in one embodiment tags are divided into people, events, places and
`
`miscellaneous tag categories.”); Surati Decl. ¶ 55. There are just four predefined
`
`categories—people, events, places, and miscellaneous—and the user cannot create
`
`new categories. Rothmuller Prov. at 62 (“There are four categories of tags:
`
`People[;] Events[;] Places[;] Miscellaneous[.] Users cannot create their own
`
`categories.” (emphasis in the original)); Surati Decl. ¶ 56. Each tag category can,
`
`in turn, be further sub-divided into tag types that more narrowly describe the
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00516
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`tagged photo. Rothmuller 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 concerts, plays, shows and sporting events, and
`
`for particular events such as the 2002 Boston Marathon.”); Surati Decl. ¶ 56.
`
`Rothmuller’s system then displays each tag in the “tag keeper”/“tag drawer”
`
`alongside a small icon that visually describes the tag category associated with that
`
`tag. Rothmuller at Fig. 1; see also Rothmuller Prov. at 34 (“Small icons are used
`
`to distinguish between tag categories (people, places, events, and miscellaneous),
`
`[and] whether the image is a favorite or not (the heart icon) . . . .”); Surati Decl. ¶
`
`57.
`
`C.
`
`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.
`
`The feature in Plotkin cited by Petitioners allows a user to edit tags assigned
`
`to imported pictures without explaining how those tags are sourced. Surati Decl. ¶
`
`58. Plotkin, like Rothmuller, describes a hierarchy of tag keywords or phrases
`
`organized by subject matter. Plotkin at 322; Surati Decl. ¶ 59. Plotkin shows a
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00516
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`user interface for importing pictures with existing tags that have a category icon
`
`displayed next to them, but provides no context as to how that user interface was
`
`generated. Plotkin at 327-29; Surati Decl. ¶ 59. For example, the user interface
`
`has an icon with an image of two people next to “David P.,” but does not explain
`
`how the “David P.” tag was sourced or selected. See Plotkin at 328; Surati Decl. ¶
`
`60.
`
`
`
`D. 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 describes methods for tagging and finding items in a file
`
`management system, such as word processing documents and other files.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00516
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`MacLaurin at 7:32-35; id. at Fig. 4; Surati Decl. ¶ 61. MacLaurin’s primary stated
`
`goal is to “provide users with automated item tagging with minimal impact to the
`
`user.” MacLaurin at 2:39-47; 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 selection of items to be tagged and/or provides an input such as,
`
`for example, typing any character on a keyboard.”); Surati Decl. ¶ 62. Beyond
`
`automatic tagging, MacLaurin discloses two other, distinct modes: (1) a tagging
`
`mode for tagging items; and (2) a recall mode for selecting from a list of
`
`previously applied tags to locate tagged items. MacLaurin at 7:48-8:57; Surati
`
`Decl. ¶ 63. These two modes are discussed in turn.
`
`Tagging Mode. MacLaurin discloses a “tagging mode” allowing a user to
`
`tag a set of files. MacLaurin at 7:66-8:3; Surati Decl. ¶ 64. In particular, a text-
`
`entry interface “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.” MacLaurin at 7:66-8:10;
`
`Surati Decl. ¶ 67. If the user wishes to view other “likely tags,” the user may
`
`“choose between ‘tag guesses’ using cursor arrows.” MacLaurin at 8:11-12; Surati
`
`Decl. ¶ 67. Once the user has chosen a tag, “the user hits the enter/return key (or
`
`similar), [to] apply the items to the tag.” MacLaurin at 8:17-18; Surati Decl. ¶ 67.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00516
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`MacLaurin illustrates its tagging mode in connection with Figure 8. Surati
`
`Decl. ¶ 68. 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.” MacLaurin at 5:31-34; Surati Decl. ¶ 68. 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):
`
`Surati Decl. ¶ 68.
`
`Tag “Recall” Mode. MacLaurin’s recall mode includes a window that
`
`“shows tags already created.” MacLaurin at 8:33-35; Surati Decl. ¶ 70. For
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00516
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`example, the interface shown in 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.” MacLaurin at 8:46-47; id. at Figure 6; Surati Decl. ¶ 70:
`
`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. ’173 Patent at 8:47-51; id. at Figure 7; Surati Decl. ¶ 71:
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00516
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`
`
`Recall mode also allows users to differentiate between (1) automated tags
`
`generated by the tagging system and (2) explicit tags entered by the user.
`
`MacLaurin at 7:48-65; Surati Decl. ¶ 72. 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. MacLaurin
`
`at 7:49-53; Surati Decl. ¶ 73. For example, MacLaurin distinguishes between these
`
`two types of tags “utilizing different sizes, fonts, colors, and/or symbols and the
`
`like.” MacLaurin at 8:19-22; Surati Decl. ¶ 73.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00516
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`E. 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
`
`the “tag entry field” limitation of dependent claims 10 and 16. Pet. at 45, 53-54,
`
`73. Ortega relates to searching a database, but does so without the use of tags.
`
`Ortega at 1:55-60, 5:25-29, 5:42-46; Surati Decl. ¶¶ 74-76.
`
`F. 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, 4, 8, 10, 14, and 16. Pet. at 5, 59, 68-73. Like Ortega, Matthews relates to a
`
`search tool and does not disclose any tagging. Matthews at Abstract, Fig. 5, ¶¶
`
`0014, 0085; see also Surati Decl. ¶¶ 77-79.
`
`V. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`In its institution decision, the Board adopted Petitioners’ proposed definition
`
`of the level of ordinary skill in the art: “a bachelor’s degree in software
`
`engineering, computer science, computer engineering, or electrical engineering
`
`with at least two years of experience in software application development,
`
`including graphical user interface development (or equivalent degree or
`
`experience).” Institution Decision (Paper No. 7) at 6-7. For purposes of this IPR,
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`BlackBerry does not dispute and adopts the Board’s adopted level of ordinary skill
`
`IPR2019-00516
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`in the art.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`A.
`
`“Tag Sources”
`
`While none of the terms in the Challenged Claims depart from their plain
`
`and ordinary meaning, Petitioners’ interpretation of “tag source” is far broader than
`
`the term’s plain meaning—Petitioners contend that any collection of tags qualifies
`
`as a “source”—and effectively renders the term meaningless. This interpretation
`
`of “tag sources” is contrary to the term’s plain meaning and the intrinsic evidence.
`
`Petitioners’ interpretation should thus be rejected. To the extent the Board
`
`concludes an express construction is necessary, the Board should construe the term
`
`“tag source” as “separately searchable collection of tags.”1
`
`Petitioners have taken the position that “tag source” refers “broadly” to “a
`
`stored collection of predefined tags.” Pet. at 59; see also Ex. 2012 (Chatterjee Tr.)
`
`
`1 To be clear, a “tag source” may be “separately searchable” by the system. ’173
`
`Patent at 5:39-42 (“[P]hoto tag selection module 148B may be configured to
`
`search one or more selected ‘tag sources’ for tags.” (emphasis added)). The
`
`intrinsic evidence and BlackBerry’s proposed construction do not require “tag
`
`sources” be “separately searchable” by an end user.
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00516
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`at 52:24-53:6 (interpreting “a tag source” as “a stored collection or group of
`
`predefined tags”). But the plain meaning of “tag source” does not cover every
`
`collection of tags or even any collection of tags pertaining to common subject
`
`matters. Surati Decl. ¶ 83. The word “source” relates to the origin of the
`
`information (e.g., where information is from) and not the subject matter of the
`
`information. Ex. 2002 (The American Heritage College Dictionary, 4th ed.
`
`(2002)) (defining “source” as “[t]he point of origin” and “[o]ne, such as a person or
`
`document, that supplies information”); Ex. 2003 (Webster’s New World College
`
`Dictionary, 4th ed. (2008)) (defining “source” as “a person, book, document, etc.
`
`that provides information); Ex. 2004 (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary,
`
`11th ed. (2003)) (defining “source” as “a point of origin or procurement” and “one
`
`that supplies information”); see also Ex. 2012 (Chatterjee Tr.) at 53:25-54:5
`
`(acknowledging the word “source” does not depart from its definition in “a general
`
`purpose dictionary”); Surati Decl. ¶ 83.
`
`Information from a single source can relate to different subject matters.
`
`Surati Decl. ¶ 84. For example, the same cable television channel may show both
`
`action movies and sporting events in a single day. Id. At the same time,
`
`information from different sources can relate to the same subject matter. Id. ¶ 85.
`
`For example, the same action movie can be viewed on a cable television channel or
`
`an online service. Id. Identifying two collections of tags pertaining to different
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00516
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`subject matter—like two different types of movies on the same television
`
`channel—does not mean those collections are from two different “tag sources.” Id.
`
`Even Petitioners’ expert agreed that, given a collection of tag names, “you would
`
`not be able to make heads or tails out of anything just from the names of . . . tags,”
`
`and would not be able to discern “how many sources those tags are from.” Ex.
`
`2012 (Chatterjee Tr.) at 109:22-110:5 (emphasis added); Surati Decl. ¶ 86. Thus,
`
`not every collection of tags is a “tag source,” and the subject matter of a tag, alone,
`
`is also insufficient to identify the “tag source.” Surati Decl. ¶ 87.
`
`The intrinsic evidence confirms the plain meaning of “tag sources” as
`
`describing not just any collection of tags grouped by subject matter, but rather a
`
`“separately searchable collection of tags,” as reflected in BlackBerry’s proposed
`
`construction. Id. ¶ 88. The claims require “displaying a tag list including tags
`
`from one or more tag sources.” Id. ¶ 89. The term “tag sources” thus does not
`
`describe the tags themselves but rather refers to how tags are obtained (“from one
`
`or more tag sources”). Id. The intrinsic evidence further confirms different “tag
`
`sources” are separately searchable. Id. ¶ 90. Independent claims 1, 7, and 13
`
`require “displaying a tag list including tags from one or more tag sources.” Id. ¶
`
`91. The claims thus cover displaying tags from “one” tag source and displaying
`
`tags from “more” than one (i.e., multiple) tag sources, indicating that there is a
`
`substantive difference between these two scenarios. Id. Dependent claims 6, 12,
`
`
`
`22
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00516
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`and 18 go even further and cover “selecting” a single, individual tag source, such
`
`as “one or more of an online network profile, an address book, browser
`
`bookmarks, landmark tags, and free-form text.” Id. ¶ 92. Accordingly, the claim
`
`language itself indicates that it must be possible to differentiate between tags from
`
`“one” tag source, as opposed to tags from “more” than one (i.e., multiple) tag
`
`sources. Id. ¶ 93.
`
`The ’173 Patent’s specification further illustrates the process by which tags
`
`are obtained from various “tag sources.” Id. ¶ 94. The specification explains that
`
`“photo tag selection module 148B may be configured to search one or more
`
`selected ‘tag sources’ for tags.” ’173 Patent at 5:39-42; Surati Decl. ¶ 95.2 In
`
`addition to distinguishing between “one or more” tag sources like the claims, the
`
`specification further indicates that searching “one” tag source can be performed
`
`without searching all tag sources. See Ex. 2012 (Chatterjee Tr.) at 55:13-21
`
`(agreeing the specification discloses “the ability to search just one tag source” as
`
`
`2 The use of quotation marks—coupled with the fact that this is the first
`
`references to “sources” in the specification—is “a strong indication” that the
`
`quoted portion of the specifica