`
`
`IPR2019-00516 & IPR2019-00528
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00528
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173 B2
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ SUR-REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S
`CONDITIONAL MOTION TO AMEND UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.1211
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 An identical sur-reply is filed in IPR2019-00516.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`Page
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1
`Patent Owner’s Reply Merely Repeats Arguments Related to Original
`Claim Limitations ........................................................................................... 2
`III. The ’173 Patent’s Happenstance Disclosure of Interspersed Tags in
`Figure 4B Supports the Board’s Preliminary Observation that the
`Substitute Claims are Not Patentable ............................................................. 4
`IV. Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 5
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00516 & IPR2019-00528
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The Board’s comprehensive Preliminary Guidance2 correctly found that
`
`Patent Owner’s proposed substitute claims would be unpatentable. Patent Owner’s
`
`Reply3,4 offers no new analysis or evidence to challenge any aspect of the Board’s
`
`guidance. Patent Owner offers no expert testimony with its Reply, thus leaving Dr.
`
`Chatterjee’s testimony unrebutted.
`
` In fact, Patent Owner offers no argument to refute Petitioners’ arguments and
`
`the Board’s preliminary findings as to two of the three features introduced by the
`
`proposed substituted claims: (1) display of a photograph and user selection of a
`
`subject or object in the photograph, and (2) associating at least one of the tags in the
`
`tag list with the selected subject or object. Petitioners explained how those features
`
`were readily disclosed in Zuckerberg, and further explained the rationale and
`
`motivation to combine those features with the other prior art of record. (Pet. Resp.
`
`at 2-4, 16-19 (Grounds 6-7 of IPR2019-00516), 19-22 (Grounds 3-6 in IPR2019-
`
`
`2 Paper 25, IPR2019-00516; Paper 26, IPR2019-00528.
`
`3 Other than references to the case numbers, Patent Owner’s replies in IPR2019-
`
`00516 and IPR2019-00528 are identical.
`
`4 Patent Owner did not propose any revised substitute claims following issuance of
`
`the Board’s guidance.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00516 & IPR2019-00528
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`00528).) Patent Owner makes no attempt to defend these features.
`
`Patent Owner instead focuses its Reply on the most inconsequential of the
`
`new features in the proposed substituted claims – the display of a “vertical” tag list
`
`showing at least three tags from two tags sources in a particular arrangement. But
`
`even with respect to this limitation, Patent Owner merely repeats the arguments from
`
`its Patent Owner Response regarding the existing claim limitations. Petitioners have
`
`explained at length how the prior art discloses and renders obvious both the existing
`
`and proposed substitute claims. Patent Owner’s motion to amend should be denied.
`
`II.
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REPLY MERELY REPEATS ARGUMENTS
`RELATED TO ORIGINAL CLAIM LIMITATIONS
`Patent Owner does not dispute that the prior art discloses a “vertical” tag list
`
`and that such a list would have been obvious. (Pet. Resp., e.g., at 5-12 (Rothmuller
`
`and Plotkin), 15 (Zuckerberg).) Patent Owner’s Reply instead repeats its argument
`
`about the prior art allegedly failing to disclose distinct “tag sources,” recycling the
`
`argument it made for the original claims. (PO Reply at 7 (“The proposed substitute
`
`claims thus further highlight the novelty and non-obviousness of the ’173 patent’s
`
`‘tag type indicator…indicative of a tag source.’”) (emphasis added).) These
`
`arguments make little sense in the context of Patent Owner’s contingent motion to
`
`amend because those arguments would only be considered if the existing claims are
`
`found unpatentable. But if the existing claims were found unpatentable, the Board
`
`would have necessarily rejected Patent Owner’s distinct “tag source” argument.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00516 & IPR2019-00528
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`That argument has no greater applicability with respect to the proposed substitute
`
`claims than it does with the original challenged claims.
`
`Patent Owner also makes the irrelevant argument that Zuckerberg alone does
`
`not disclose interspersing of tags from different tag sources.5 Petitioners did not rely
`
`on Zuckerberg alone for that feature, but rather, explained that the feature would
`
`have been obvious in view of Rothmuller and Plotkin. (Pet. Resp. at 15 (“…doing
`
`so would have provided the benefit of a more flexibly-organized tag list, where tags
`
`could be displayed in any order, without the constraints of a separate list for each
`
`type.”).) Patent Owner’s attack on Zuckerberg individually is of no moment. See
`
`Bradium Techs. LLC v. Iancu, 923 F.3d 1032, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“A finding of
`
`obviousness...cannot be overcome ‘by attacking references individually where the
`
`rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references.’”).
`
`With respect Rothmuller and Plotkin, Patent Owner merely repeats its
`
`argument that neither discloses multiple tag sources (PO Reply at 7), the same
`
`argument that Petitioner already addressed in connection with the original claims.
`
`
`5 Patent Owner also spends two pages irrelevantly arguing that Zuckerberg’s
`
`“horizontal” line is not a tag type indicator. (PO Reply at 4-5.) As explained in
`
`Petitioners’ Reply, Petitioners no longer contend that Zuckerberg’s horizontal line
`
`qualifies as a tag type indicator. (Pet. Reply (IPR2019-00516) at 11 n.3.)
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00516 & IPR2019-00528
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`(E.g., Pet. Reply (IPR2019-00516) at 21-24; Pet. Reply (IPR2019-00528) at 21-23.)
`
`In fact, Petitioners explained that, even if it were found that Rothmuller and Plotkin
`
`do not disclose multiple tag sources, a vertical tag list with interspersed tags still
`
`would have been obvious over Zuckerberg based on Zuckerberg’s own disclosure of
`
`tag sources in combination with Rothmuller and Plotkin. (Pet. Resp. at 15-16.)
`
`As for MacLaurin, Patent Owner only repeats its argument from its Patent
`
`Owner Response that MacLaurin does not disclose a list of tags or visually
`
`distinguishing tags (PO Reply at 5-6), which Petitioner already addressed in detail
`
`in its Reply. (Pet. Reply (IPR2019-00528) at 11-20 (visually distinguishing tags),
`
`23 (list of tags).) Like the combinations based on Zuckerberg, even if it were found
`
`that Rothmuller and Plotkin do not disclose multiple tag sources, a vertical tag list
`
`with interspersed tags still would have been obvious based MacLaurin’s tag sources
`
`in combination with Rothmuller and Plotkin. (E.g., Pet. Resp. at 21-22.) In sum, a
`
`vertical tag list in which a tag from one tag source is displayed between tags from a
`
`second tag source provides no patentable distinction over the prior art.
`
`III. THE
`’173 PATENT’S HAPPENSTANCE DISCLOSURE OF
`INTERSPERSED TAGS IN FIGURE 4B SUPPORTS THE BOARD’S
`PRELIMINARY OBSERVATION THAT THE SUBSTITUTE CLAIMS
`ARE NOT PATENTABLE
`To help show that interspersing tags in a vertical tag list is not patentable,
`
`Petitioners pointed out that Patent Owner’s sole written description support is the
`
`fortuity that Figure 4B of the patent shows a vertical tag list that happens to include
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00516 & IPR2019-00528
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`three interspersed tags. (Pet. Resp. at 5.) In other words, nothing in the patent
`
`suggests that the applicants believed that interspersing tags was novel or significant
`
`in any way to the alleged invention. (Pet. Resp. at 5.) The Board’s Preliminary
`
`Guidance agreed, finding that the patent’s nominal disclosure of interspersing tags
`
`in a vertical list shows that it is no more than a predictable variation of arrangements
`
`of data in a list. (Preliminary Guidance at 9.)
`
`Patent Owner responds that the ’173 patent has adequate written description
`
`support for interspersing tags in a vertical tag list (PO Reply at 8-9)—but Patent
`
`Owner’s argument misses the point. Patent Owner’s Reply does not identify
`
`anything in the specification suggesting that the applicants regarded this
`
`arrangement as an inventive feature that contributed to patentability. Instead, as
`
`explained, the apparently happenstance disclosure of Figure 4B supports the Board’s
`
`observation that interspersing tags does not provide a nonobvious distinction over
`
`the prior art of record.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`The Board should deny Patent Owner’s motion to amend.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00516 & IPR2019-00528
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`
`Dated: April 13, 2020
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
`Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel: (650) 843-5001
`Fax: (650) 849-7400
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`/Heidi L. Keefe/
`Heidi L. Keefe
`Reg. No. 40,673
`Counsel for Petitioners
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00516 & IPR2019-00528
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. Section 42.6, that a complete copy of
`the attached PETITIONERS’ SUR-REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S
`CONDITIONAL MOTION TO AMEND UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.121 and
`related documents, are being served via electronic mail on the 13th day of April,
`2020, upon the Patent Owner’s attorneys of record in this proceeding as follows:
`
`
`/ Heidi L. Keefe /
`Heidi L. Keefe
`Reg. No. 40,673
`
`James M. Glass
`Ogi Zivojnovic
`Sam Stake
`John McKee
`QUINN EMANUEL
`qe-blackberry-ipr@quinnemanuel.com
`
`
`
`DATED: April 13, 2020
`
`
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Docketing
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 700
`Washington, D.C. 20004
`Tel: (650) 843-5001
`Fax: (650) 849-7400
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`