Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173 B2
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173 B2
`Issue Date: October 2, 2012
`
`Title: User Interface for Selecting a Photo Tag
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,279,173 B2
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`
`
`Page
`
`
`
`
`Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. Mandatory Notices under §42.8(A)(1) ........................................................... 1
`A.
`Real Party-In-Interest under §42.8.(b)(1) ............................................. 1
`B.
`Related Matters under §42.8(b)(2) ....................................................... 2
`C.
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel under §42.8(b)(3) .................................... 3
`D.
`Service Information .............................................................................. 4
`Fee Payment .................................................................................................... 4
`III.
`IV. Requirements under §§42.104 and 42.108 ..................................................... 4
`A. Grounds for Standing ........................................................................... 4
`A.
`Identification of Challenge and Statement of Precise Relief
`Requested ............................................................................................. 4
`Considerations under §§325(d) and 314(a) .......................................... 5
`B.
`V. Overview of the ’173 Patent ........................................................................... 6
`A.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ........................................................ 6
`B.
`Specification Overview ........................................................................ 7
`C.
`The Challenged Claims ........................................................................ 9
`VI. Claim Construction ....................................................................................... 10
`VII. The Challenged Claims are Obvious ............................................................ 10
`A. Overview of Grounds ......................................................................... 10
`B.
`Summary and Date Qualification of the Prior Art ............................. 12
`Zuckerberg [Ex. 1003] ............................................................. 12
`
`Rothmuller [Exs. 1004, 1005] .................................................. 14
`Plotkin [Ex. 1008] .................................................................... 18
`
` MacLaurin [Ex. 1006] .............................................................. 19
` Matthews [Ex. 1009] ................................................................ 19
`Ortega [Ex. 1007] ..................................................................... 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`C.
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`Ground 1: Obviousness of Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, 10, 12-14, 16,
`and 18 Based on Zuckerberg .............................................................. 21
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 21
`
`(a)
`“A method of selecting a photo tag for a tagged
`photo, comprising:” (Claim 1, Preamble) ...................... 21
`“displaying a tag list including tags from one or
`more tag sources matching a search string;” (Claim
`1[a]) ................................................................................ 24
`“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[b]) ................................................................... 27
`Claim 2: “The method of claim 1, further comprising
`providing a tag entry field for entering the search string.” ...... 31
`Claim 4: “The method of claim 1, further comprising
`providing a graphical user interface to select a tag in the
`tag list.” .................................................................................... 31
`Claim 6: “The method of claim 1, further comprising
`selecting as a tag source one or more of an online
`network profile, an address book, browser bookmarks,
`landmark tags, and free-form text.” ......................................... 32
`Claim 7 ..................................................................................... 34
`Claim 8 ..................................................................................... 35
`Claim 10: “The system of claim 7, further comprising an
`apparatus operable to allow selection of a tag in the tag
`list to complete the tag entry field.” ......................................... 36
`Claim 12 ................................................................................... 37
`Claim 13 ................................................................................... 37
` Claim 14 ................................................................................... 38
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
` Claim 16: “The computer medium of claim 13, further
`comprising code for providing a graphical user interface
`to select a tag in the tag list to complete the tag entry
`field.” ........................................................................................ 38
` Claim 18 ................................................................................... 38
`D. Ground 2: Obviousness of Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, 12-14, and 18
`Based on Zuckerberg in View of Rothmuller and MacLaurin .......... 38
`Ground 3: Obviousness of Claims 10 and 16 Based on
`Zuckerberg, Rothmuller, MacLaurin, in Further View of Ortega ..... 45
`Ground 4: Obviousness of Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, 12-14, and 18
`Based on Zuckerberg in View of Plotkin and MacLaurin ................. 49
`G. Ground 5: Obviousness of Claims 10 and 16 Based on
`Zuckerberg, Plotkin, and MacLaurin, in Further View of Ortega ..... 53
`H. Ground 6: Obviousness of Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, 10, 12-14, 16,
`and 18 Based on Rothmuller and Matthews ...................................... 54
`1.
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 54
`(a)
`“A method of selecting a photo tag for a tagged
`photo, comprising:” (Claim 1, Preamble) ...................... 54
`“displaying a tag list including tags from one or
`more tag sources matching a search string;” (Claim
`1[a]) ................................................................................ 55
`“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[b]) ................................................................... 65
`Claim 2 ..................................................................................... 68
`Claim 4 ..................................................................................... 68
`Claim 6 ..................................................................................... 69
`Claim 7 ..................................................................................... 70
`Claim 8 ..................................................................................... 70
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`2.
`3.
`4.
`5.
`6.
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`7.
`Claim 10 ................................................................................... 71
`Claim 12 ................................................................................... 72
`8.
`Claim 13 ................................................................................... 72
`9.
`10. Claim 14 ................................................................................... 72
`11. Claim 16 ................................................................................... 73
`12. Claim 18 ................................................................................... 73
`Ground 7: Obviousness of Claims 10 and 16 Based on
`Rothmuller and Matthews, in Further View of Ortega ...................... 73
`VIII. Conclusion .................................................................................................... 75
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ............................................................................... 78
`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`
`
`-iv-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173 B2
`
`List of Exhibits
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`Description of Document
`No.
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173 B2 to Michael S. Brown et al. (filed May 9,
`2007, issued Oct. 2, 2012) (“’173” or “’173 patent”)
`1002 Declaration of Sandeep Chatterjee, Ph.D. (“Chatterjee”)
`1003 U.S. Patent No. 7,945,653 B2 to Mark Zuckerberg et al. (filed Oct. 11,
`2006, issued May 17, 2011) (“Zuckerberg”)
`1004 U.S. Patent No. 7,415,662 B2 to Kenneth Rothmuller et al. (filed July
`17, 2002, issued Aug. 19, 2008) (“Rothmuller”)
`1005 U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/334,516 to Kenneth Rothmuller
`et al. (filed Oct. 31, 2001) (“Rothmuller Provisional”)
`1006 U.S. Patent No. 7,831,913 B2 to Matthew B. MacLaurin (filed July 29,
`2005, issued Nov. 9, 2010) (“MacLaurin”)
`1007 U.S. Patent No. 6,564,213 B1 to Ruben E. Ortega et al. (filed Apr. 18,
`2000, issued May 13, 2003) (“Ortega”)
`1008 Excerpts from David Plotkin, How to Do Everything with Photoshop
`Elements 4.0 (“Plotkin”)
`1009 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US2006/0218503 A1 to
`David A. Matthews et al. (filed March 22, 2005, published September
`28, 2006) (“Matthews”)
`1010 Excerpts from Theo Mandel, Elements of User Interface Design
`(1997)
`1011 Excerpts from New Oxford American Dictionary (2nd ed. 2005)
`1012 Excerpts from Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary
`(2001)
`1013 Photoshop Elements 4 One-on-One (2005)
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173 B2
`
`List of Exhibits
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`Description of Document
`No.
`1014 Certificates of Service from BlackBerry Limited v. Facebook, Inc. et
`al., No. 2:18-cv-01844-GW (C.D. Cal.), ECF Nos. 20-23, showing
`that service on Petitioners was effected on April 6, 2018
`
`1015
`
`First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement from BlackBerry
`Limited v. Facebook, Inc. et al., No. 2:18-cv-01844-GW (C.D. Cal.),
`ECF No. 15, filed on April 4, 2018
`
`1016
`
`Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) by Applicant filed in U.S.
`Patent App. Ser No. 13/252,807, April 16, 2012
`1017 Notice of References Cited filed in U.S. Patent App. Ser No.
`11/746,285, December 10, 2010
`1018 Declaration of Sylvia Hall-Ellis, Ph.D. (“Hall-Ellis)
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173 B2
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173 (Ex. 1001) purports to describe techniques for
`
`attaching tags to digital photographs. The Patent Owner, BlackBerry, used
`
`Facebook’s existing photo tagging system as the basis for its alleged invention – as
`
`confirmed by the multiple disclosures in the patent that refer explicitly to Facebook.
`
`(’173, Figs. 3A-3E, 4A-4F, 4:44-50, passim.) But the Patent Owner never told the
`
`PTO that preexisting Facebook photo tagging technology, as disclosed in U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,945,653 to Mark Zuckerberg (Ex. 1003), teaches each limitation of its claims
`
`and renders them obvious.
`
`The Patent Owner’s claims are also obvious over Rothmuller (Ex. 1004), an
`
`Adobe reference that predates the ’173 patent by several years. Through this
`
`Petition, Facebook seeks to prevent the Patent Owner from continuing to lay claim
`
`to photo tagging technology that it did not invent.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER §42.8(A)(1)
`A. Real Party-In-Interest under §42.8.(b)(1)
`Facebook, Inc. and two of its subsidiaries Instagram, LLC, and WhatsApp
`
`Inc., are the real parties-in-interest to this IPR petition. For ease of reference, this
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173 B2
`
`Petition will refer to Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp collectively as the
`
`“Petitioner” (singular).1
`
`B. Related Matters under §42.8(b)(2)
`The ’173 patent is the subject of pending litigation involving the Petitioner:
`
`BlackBerry Ltd. v. Facebook, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KS (C.D.
`
`Cal.). Petitioner was first served on April 6, 2018. (Ex. 1014.)2 The First Amended
`
`Complaint in that action alleges that Facebook and Instagram infringe the ’173
`
`patent through features relating to photo tagging. (Ex. 1015, ¶¶173-175.)
`
`As of the filing of this Petition, the district court has not issued any claim
`
`construction rulings. A claim construction hearing is currently scheduled for April
`
`1, 2019. No trial date has been set.
`
`
`1 As explained in Part II.B, WhatsApp was not accused of infringement of the ’173
`
`patent in the district court litigation, but was named as a defendant in that litigation
`
`with respect to other asserted patents. This Petition nevertheless, in an abundance
`
`of caution, identifies WhatsApp as an additional real party-in-interest.
`
`2 The initial Complaint in that action was filed on March 6, 2018, and a First
`
`Amended Complaint on April 4, 2018. Service on the Petitioner first took place on
`
`April 6, 2018, after the filing of the First Amended Complaint. (Ex. 1014.)
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173 B2
`
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel under §42.8(b)(3)
`Petitioners provide the following designation of counsel.
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`
`Heidi L. Keefe (Reg. No. 40,673)
`hkeefe@cooley.com
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel: (650) 843-5001
`Fax: (650) 849-7400
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Andrew C. Mace (Reg. No. 63,342)
`amace@cooley.com
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 700
`Washington D.C. 20004
`Tel: (650) 843-5287
`Fax: (650) 849-7400
`Mark R. Weinstein (Admission pro hac
`vice to be requested)
`mweinstein@cooley.com
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
`Suite 700
`Washington D.C. 20004
`Tel: (650) 843-5007
`Fax: (650) 849-7400
`Yuan Liang (Admission pro hac vice to
`be requested)
`yliang@cooley.com
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
`Suite 700
`Washington D.C. 20004
`Tel: (202) 728-7132
`Fax: (202) 842-7899
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173 B2
`
`D.
`Service Information
`This Petition is being served by Federal Express to the attorney of record for
`
`the ’173 patent, BLACKBERRY LIMITED (NOVAK DRUCE), 2200 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
`
`EAST, WATERLOO ON N2K 0A7. Petitioner consents to electronic service at the
`
`addresses provided above for lead and back-up counsel.
`
`III. FEE PAYMENT
`Petitioner requests review of 12 claims, with a $30,500 payment.
`
`IV. REQUIREMENTS UNDER §§42.104 AND 42.108
`A. Grounds for Standing
`Petitioner certifies that the ’173 patent is available for IPR and that Petitioner
`
`is not barred or otherwise estopped.
`
`A.
`
`Identification of Challenge and Statement of Precise Relief
`Requested
`Petitioners request the Board institute IPR of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13,
`
`14, 16, and 18 based on:
`
`Ground
`1
`
`
`2
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Claims
`1, 2, 4, 6-8, 10,
`12-14, 16, 18
`
`1, 2, 4, 6-8, 12-
`14, 18
`
`Basis for Challenge under §103(a)
`Zuckerberg (Ex. 1003)
`
`
`Zuckerberg, in view of Rothmuller (Exs. 1004, 1005)
`and MacLaurin (Ex. 1006)
`
`10, 16
`
`Zuckerberg, in view of Rothmuller, MacLaurin, and
`Ortega (Ex. 1007)
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173 B2
`
`
`Ground
`
`4
`
`Claims
`
`1, 2, 4, 6-8, 12-
`14, 18
`
`Basis for Challenge under §103(a)
`
`
`Zuckerberg, in view of Plotkin (Ex. 1008) and
`MacLaurin
`
`5
`
`
`6
`
`7
`
`10, 16
`
`
`1, 2, 4, 6-8, 10,
`12-14, 16, 18
`
`Zuckerberg, in view of Plotkin, MacLaurin, and
`Ortega
`
`Rothmuller, in view of Matthews (Ex. 1009)
`
`10, 16
`
`Rothmuller, in view of Matthews and Ortega
`
`Submitted with this Petition is a Declaration of Sandeep Chatterjee, Ph.D. (Ex.
`
`1002) (“Chatterjee”), a qualified technical expert. (Chatterjee, ¶¶1-8, Ex. A.)
`
`B. Considerations under §§325(d) and 314(a)
`This Petition does not present a scenario in which “the same or substantially
`
`the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” §325(d).
`
`Zuckerberg, Plotkin, Ortega, and Matthews were never cited during prosecution and
`
`are thus new art.
`
`A published patent application for Rothmuller (US 2008/0306921), was listed
`
`on an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on April 16, 2012 alongside
`
`more than two dozen other references. (Ex. 1016 (Page 2, Cite No. 7).) But
`
`Rothmuller was never substantively discussed by the Examiner or Applicants, and
`
`was never the subject of any Office Action. See, e.g., Digital Check Corp. v. E-
`
`Imagedata Corp., IPR2017-00178, Paper 6 at 12-13 (P.T.A.B. April 25, 2017)
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173 B2
`
`(rejecting §325(d) argument because “there is no indication in the record that the
`
`Examiner rejected any claims based on either reference or that the Examiner or
`
`applicant substantively discussed either reference during prosecution of the
`
`[challenged] patent.”). Rothmuller (US 2008/0306921) was also listed on a “Notice
`
`of References Cited” during prosecution of the parent to the ’173 patent. (Ex. 1017,
`
`Item (K), Page 1.) But like the ’173 patent, Rothmuller was never substantively
`
`discussed or the subject of any Office Action.
`
`This Petition also relies on disclosures in the Rothmuller Provisional (Ex.
`
`1005) incorporated into Rothmuller. There is no evidence that the Rothmuller
`
`Provisional was separately cited or otherwise considered during prosecution of the
`
`’173 patent or its parent.
`
`Petitioner is further unaware of any basis for the Board to exercise
`
`discretionary authority under §314(a). This Petition was timely filed, months before
`
`the statutory deadline, and Petitioner is aware of no previous IPR petitions against
`
`the ’173 patent.
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’173 PATENT
`A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`The ’173 patent states that it “relates generally to a user interface for selecting
`
`a photo tag.” (’173, 1:16-17.) A person of ordinary skill in the art as of May 2007
`
`(earliest priority date for the ’173 patent) would have possessed at least a bachelor’s
`
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173 B2
`
`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). (Chatterjee, ¶¶12-15.)
`
`B.
`Specification Overview
`The ’173 patent does not claim to have invented photo tagging. The
`
`specification acknowledges that “[i]dentifying people or objects in photographs is
`
`popular in many online contexts, such as photo sharing, social networking, etc.” but
`
`alleges that “[s]electing a ‘tag’ to associate with an identified point in a photograph
`
`can be a complicated task if there are many potential tags to choose from.” (’173,
`
`1:21-25.) The patent also asserts that existing tagging techniques “do not work as
`
`well” with wireless mobile communication devices in light of display size and user
`
`input constraints.” (’173, 1:25-29.) Despite that statement, none of the claims
`
`require use of wireless or mobile devices, or recite any limitations specifically
`
`directed at the capabilities or constraints of such devices.3
`
`
`3 In fact, the Patent Owner has accused photo tagging on Facebook’s non-mobile
`
`website (at www.facebook.com) of infringement. (Ex. 1015, ¶¶175, 180.)
`
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173 B2
`
`The ’173 patent purports to describe an
`
`improved user interface for tagging photos. (’173,
`
`1:30-32.) Figure 3A shows a photo 301 of a
`
`particular human subject 302. (’173, 4:13-14.)
`
`The user can click the “Add” button 306 to
`
`identify the particular area or region of the photo
`
`301 that will be the subject of the tag. (’173, 4:19-37, Fig. 3B.)
`
`Figure 4A shows that the user is initially
`
`presented with a tag entry field 406 indicating
`
`that he should start typing a tag. (’173, 5:35-37.)
`
`As the user begins to type text, “photo tag
`
`selection module 148B may be configured to
`
`search one or more selected ‘tag sources’ for tags that match the currently entered
`
`text.” (’173, 5:39-42.) For example, Figure
`
`4D shows that the user has typed “te” into the
`
`tag entry field 406, and matching tags (e.g.,
`
`412a, “Terrill Dent”) are displayed in a tag
`
`list 412. The patent explains:
`
`As shown in screen 400C of FIG. 4C, and 400D of FIG. 4D, photo tag
`selection module 148B may be configured to display any matching tags
`
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173 B2
`
`(e.g. 412a, 412b, 412c) from one of the tag sources to the tag being
`typed by the user in the tag entry field 406 in a matching tag list 412.
`Each tag may have an icon or some other visual identifier associated
`with it that clearly indicates its type, and allows the user to quickly
`distinguish between different types of tags.
`
`(’173, 5:48-55.)
`
`The passage above refers to “tag sources” and tag “types.” The ’173 patent
`
`describes a “tag source” as a source of predefined tags for associating with photos.
`
`(’173, e.g., 6:5-12, 5:39-47.) “[T]ag sources could include, for example, a list of
`
`friends from an online service like Facebook™, a list of contacts from the user’s
`
`address book 142, a list of the user’s browser bookmarks (in Internet browser 138),
`
`a cache of recent free-form text entries, etc.” (’173, 5:43-47; see also id., e.g., 8:25-
`
`28, 8:47-50, 9:5-8.) The patent does not require that a “tag source” have any
`
`particular structure or organization, or correspond to information provided by a
`
`particular individual or entity. (Chatterjee, ¶29.)
`
`Moreover, the ’173 patent describes a “tag type” as a type or category of tags.
`
`(’173, e.g., 4:58-59, 5:52-55.) “[T]he tag types could include a free-form
`
`alphanumeric string, Facebook™ friends, address book entries (in address book
`
`142), browser bookmarks (in Internet browser module 138), etc.” (’173, 4:46-50.)
`
`C. The Challenged Claims
`This Petition addresses claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, 10, 12-14, 16, and 18, with claims
`
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173 B2
`
`1, 7, and 13 being independent claims. Claim 1 is representative and recites:
`
`1. A method of selecting a photo tag for a tagged photo, comprising:
`[a]
`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.
`
`[b]
`
`(’173, 9:14-21.) Claims 7 and 13 recite, respectively, “system” and “computer
`
`readable medium” claims for performing the steps of claim 1.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`For purposes of the prior art cited herein, Petitioner does not, at this time,
`
`contend that any term requires express construction.
`
`VII. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE OBVIOUS
`A. Overview of Grounds
`As listed above, this Petition presents seven grounds of obviousness, each
`
`revolving around one of two primary prior art references – Zuckerberg for Grounds
`
`1-5 and Rothmuller for Grounds 6-7.
`
`With respect to Zuckerberg, Ground 1 presents a single reference
`
`obviousness ground for all challenged claims. Zuckerberg presents a compelling
`
`basis for unpatentability, which is unsurprising as the ’173 patent essentially sought
`
`to lay claim to photo tagging techniques that Facebook previously developed. For
`
`example, the ’173 patent and Zuckerberg both disclose the same types of exemplary
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173 B2
`
`“tag sources” and “tag types,” the same techniques for entering search strings, listing
`
`matching tags, etc.
`
`Because IPR proceedings are governed by the same claim construction
`
`standard as district courts (and the district court has provided no claim construction
`
`rulings), uncertainty exists as to how certain limitations may be interpreted by the
`
`Board. Accordingly, Grounds 2-5 present Zuckerberg in combination with other
`
`references to account for narrower claim construction positions that the Patent
`
`Owner may raise. In particular, Grounds 2 and 4 establish that, even under a narrow
`
`construction of the “displaying a tag type indicator for each tag” limitation of the
`
`independent claims, the claims are still obvious. Grounds 3 and 5 establish that
`
`dependent claims 10 and 16 are obvious even if narrowly construed.
`
`While Zuckerberg discloses a tagging system in the context of a social
`
`networking service, Grounds 6-7 rely on Rothmuller, which discloses a software
`
`system for organizing and tagging photos. Rothmuller, which predates the ’173
`
`patent by many years, provides a second compelling ground of obviousness.
`
`Petitioner has taken considerable effort to explain how the prior art references
`
`can be properly combined, as set forth below. In some cases, Petitioner and its expert
`
`have explained in detail how the techniques in one reference could technologically
`
`work with and complement the Zuckerberg or Rothmuller primary reference. In
`
`making this showing, Petitioner is not suggesting that invalidity of the challenged
`
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173 B2
`
`claims depends on physically combining the systems disclosed by the prior art – as
`
`no such showing is required under the law. See, e.g., In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322,
`
`1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012). These explanations are instead intended to illustrate how
`
`technologically straightforward the proposed combinations would have been to a
`
`person of ordinary skill, which provides a further motivation to combine.
`
`B.
`
`Summary and Date Qualification of the Prior Art
`
`Zuckerberg [Ex. 1003]
`Zuckerberg, entitled “Tagging Digital Media,” is a Facebook patent
`
`disclosing a photo tagging method. Zuckerberg qualifies as prior art under §102(e).
`
`The process of tagging photos in Zuckerberg is similar in some respects to the
`
`way the Facebook service continues to operate today:
`
`A user of a social network may upload digital media (e.g., a digital
`image) to a file (e.g., an album) on their web page thus becoming a
`media owner of the digital image. The media owner may select and tag
`a region of the image by clicking on a point in the digital image to select
`the region and typing appropriate text to tag the region. The media
`owner may select and tag multiple regions.
`
`(Zuckerberg, 1:59-65.) Zuckerberg further explains that devices used to tag digital
`
`media can include computers and wireless telephones, among others. (Zuckerberg,
`
`3:10-15.) Figure 5 provides an exemplary screen shot of one user interface:
`
`
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173 B2
`
`
`
`(Zuckerberg, Fig. 5, 8:14-16.) Figure 5 shows a photograph in which the user has
`
`
`
`selected a particular region 520 to tag, for example, by selecting a person’s face.
`
`(Zuckerberg, 8:19-25.) Figure 5 includes tag list 540, shown to the left of the
`
`selected region 520. Zuckerberg explains:
`
`The tag list 540 may include a text entry window 542 and a list of
`previously used tags. As text is entered in the text entry window 542,
`the list of previously used tags may be culled to include only those that
`match the text in some manner. In some embodiments, the list of
`previously used tags includes a text list 544 and a friends list 546….
`Clicking any of the previously used tags may associate the tag with the
`
`
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173 B2
`
`selected region 520. Clicking any of the entries in the friends list 546
`may associate the friend’s email address with the selected region 520.
`
`(Zuckerberg, 8:52-9:3.)4
`
`Zuckerberg discloses at
`
`least
`
`two
`
`different types of tags, shown in the two lists
`
`544 and 546 of previously-used tags in Figure
`
`5, excerpted at right.5 List 544 is a “text list”
`
`and list 546 is a “friends list.” (Zuckerberg,
`
`8:56-66.) Between two lists 544, 546 is a black
`
`line (shown in Figure 5) that visually separates
`
`the two lists and indicates which tags belong to
`
`the “text list” 544 type and which ones belong
`
`to the “friends list” 546 type.
`
`
`Rothmuller [Exs. 1004, 1005]
`Rothmuller, entitled “Digital Media Management Apparatus and Methods”
`
`(Ex. 1004), is a patent describing photo tagging techniques similar in some respects
`
`
`4 Unless otherwise noted, all underlining has been added for emphasis.
`
`5 Unless otherwise noted, all highlighting and annotation has been added for
`
`emphasis.
`
`
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173 B2
`
`to Zuckerberg. Rothmuller’s system allows users to assign textual “tags” to photos
`
`to facilitate organization. (Rothmuller, 1:55-62.) Rothmuller qualifies under at least
`
`§102(e).
`
`Petitioner also cites Rothmuller’s provisional patent application, U.S.
`
`Provisional Application No. 60/334,516 (“Rothmuller Provisional”) (Ex. 1005),
`
`which is referenced on the face of the issued Rothmuller patent. (Rothmuller, face
`
`page.) The issued Rothmuller expressly “incorporate[s] by reference” the disclosure
`
`of the provisional. (Rothmuller, 1:15-17.)
`
`Federal Circuit law is clear that when a document is “incorporated by
`
`reference” into a host document, the incorporated document effectively becomes
`
`part of the host document as if it were explicitly contained therein. See, e.g., Paice
`
`LLC v. Ford Motor Co., 881 F.3d 894, 906 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing Advanced
`
`Display Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ., 212 F.3d 1272, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). The
`
`Rothmuller Provisional is thus properly considered part of Rothmuller for prior art
`
`purposes. M.P.E.P. §2127 (“[T]he subject matter of an abandoned application,
`
`including both provisional and nonprovisional applications, referred to in a prior art
`
`U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication may be relied on in a 35 U.S.C.
`
`102(a)(2) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) rejection based on that patent or patent
`
`application publication if the disclosure of the abandoned application is actually
`
`included or incorporated by reference in the patent.”); see also, e.g., Comcast Cable
`
`
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173 B2
`
`Commc’s, LLC v. Rovi Guides, Inc., IPR2017-01065 (Paper 35), at 9, 19-21
`
`(P.T.A.B. October 15, 2018) (holding that incorporated-by-reference provisional
`
`application could be relied upon as prior art in IPR proceeding).6
`
`Petitioner cites the Rothmuller Provisional because, in some cases, it provides
`
`additional background and detail about the user interface of the tagging system
`
`described in the issued Rothmuller patent. For convenience, this Petition will refer
`
`to the issued patent as “Rothmuller” and the incorporated-by-reference provisional
`
`as “Rothmuller Provisional.”
`
`Figure 1 of Rothmuller “illustrates one embodiment of a user interface” for
`
`the photo tagging system:
`
`
`6 37 C.F.R. §1.57(d)-(e) indicates that a patent may not incorporate by reference
`
`“essential material” from a provisional application. But §1.57(d)-(e) applies only
`
`when the PTO assesses the claims of the incorporating patent (in this case the issued
`
`Rothmuller) for compliance with §112 – not when, as here, the incorporating patent
`
`is being cited as prior art to another patent. Ex Parte Michelson, 2015 WL 5118373,
`
`*3 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 27, 2015) (holding that §1.57 did not apply when patent and
`
`incorporated provisional were used as prior art). Nevertheless, even if §1.57(d)-(e)
`
`applied, none of the disclosures unique to the Rothmulle