`
`
`
`
`
`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
`________________
`
`IPR2019-00528
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 313 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`IPR2019-00528
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Patent Owner BlackBerry’s Innovations Have Transformed the
`Way We Communicate ......................................................................... 3
`
`The ’173 Patent Discloses and Claims One of BlackBerry’s
`Many Innovations .................................................................................. 4
`
`None of the Alleged Prior Art Discloses the Innovative
`Solutions Claimed by the ’173 Patent ................................................... 8
`
`1. MacLaurin ................................................................................... 8
`
`(a)
`
`Tagging Mode – Displaying a Single, “Best
`Guess” Suggested Tag ...................................................... 9
`
`(b) Browsing Mode – Displaying a List of Previously
`Applied Tags ................................................................... 11
`
`Rothmuller ................................................................................ 13
`
`Plotkin ....................................................................................... 15
`
`Ortega ........................................................................................ 18
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS ................................................................................. 19
`
`IV. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................. 21
`
`A. Grounds 1-6 Should Be Denied Because They Are Redundant
`of Petitioners’ Grounds in IPR2019-00516......................................... 22
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The -528 Petition Relies Exclusively on Alleged Prior
`Art Presented in the -516 Petition ............................................. 23
`
`Petitioners Provide No Reason Why the Board Should
`Institute Two IPRs on Redundant Petitions .............................. 26
`
`B.
`
`Petitioners Fail to Show Any Disclosure of “Displaying a Tag
`Type Indicator . . . Indicative of a Tag Source” .................................. 28
`
`1.
`
`All Challenged Claims Require “Displaying a Tag Type
`Indicator . . . Indicative of a Tag Source” ................................. 28
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00528
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Petitioners’ Argument that MacLaurin Meets the “Tag
`Type Indicator” Limitation Improperly Conflates
`MacLaurin’s Two Different Modes .......................................... 29
`
`Petitioners’ References to Obviousness Are Based on the
`Same Misinterpretation of MacLaurin ...................................... 34
`
`Petitioners’ Other Arguments Cannot Cure Their
`Misinterpretation of MacLaurin ................................................ 35
`
`C.
`
`Petitioners Fail to Show Any Disclosure of “Displaying a Tag
`List Including Tags” ............................................................................ 36
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`All Challenged Claims Require “Displaying a Tag List
`Including Tags” ......................................................................... 37
`
`Petitioners Fail to Show that MacLaurin’s Tagging Mode
`“Display[s]” the “Tag List Including Tags” (Plural) ................ 37
`
`Petitioners’ References to Obviousness Are Nothing
`More Than Conclusory Assertions ........................................... 42
`
`Petitioners’ Other Arguments Do Not Cure These
`Deficiencies ............................................................................... 42
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 43
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00528
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Page
`
`Abiomed, Inc. v. Maquet Cardiovascular, LLC,
`IPR2017-01204 & -01205, Paper 8 (Oct. 23, 2017) .............................. 33, 35
`
`Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. Blitzsafe Texas, LLC,
`IPR2016-01473, Paper 9 (Jan. 24, 2017) ......................................................20
`
`Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc.,
`832 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .....................................................................20
`
`Bungie, Inc. v. Acceleration Bay, LLC,
`IPR2016-00934, Paper 11 (Jul. 8, 2016) .......................................................26
`
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc.,
`800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .....................................................................19
`
`Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien AG,
`IPR2016-00944, Paper 8 (Oct. 24, 2016) ......................................................26
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc.,
`IPR2017-01524, Paper 7 (Dec. 4, 2017) ............................................... 35, 42
`
`General Plastic Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha,
`IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (Sept. 6, 2017) .............................................. 22, 23
`
`Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc.,
`815 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .....................................................................19
`
`In re Chapman,
`595 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .............................................................. 34, 42
`
`In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .......................................................................21
`
`In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd.,
`829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .....................................................................19
`
`In re Nuvasive, Inc.,
`842 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .............................................................. 34, 42
`
`K/S Himpp v. Hear-Wear Techs., LLC,
`751 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .....................................................................20
`
`KSR, Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007).......................................................................................21
`
`LG Elecs., Inc. v. ATI Techs., ULC,
`IPR2015-00327, Paper 15 (Sept. 2, 2015) ........................................ 23, 25, 27
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00528
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`Nichia Corp. v. Document Sec. Sys.,
`IPR2018-01167, Paper 10 (Nov. 30, 2018) ...................................................23
`
`Securus Techs., Inc. v. Global Tel*Link Corp.,
`IPR2016-00267, Paper 10 (Sept. 12, 2016) ...................................................19
`
`Sirona Dental Sys. GmbH v. Institut Straumann AG,
`892 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .....................................................................21
`
`Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc.,
`545 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .....................................................................19
`
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Berman,
`IPR2016-01571, Paper 10 (Dec. 14, 2016) ...................................................26
`
`Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex, Inc.,
`655 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ..................................................................... 20
`
`Statutory Authorities
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) ............................................................................................... 19
`
`35 U.S.C. § 313 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ................................................................................................... 23
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107(a) ................................................................................................. 1
`
`Rules and Regulations
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00528
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 313 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(a), Patent Owner
`
`BlackBerry Ltd. (“BlackBerry”) respectfully submits this Preliminary Response to
`
`the Petition for Inter Partes Review (Paper No. 2) (“the Petition”) filed by
`
`Petitioners Facebook, Inc., Instagram, LLC, and WhatsApp Inc. (“Petitioners”).
`
`The Petition seeks Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, 10, 12-14,
`
`16, and 18 (“the Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173 (“’173
`
`Patent”).
`
`Petitioners filed two petitions on the same patent, days apart from each
`
`other: IPR2019-00528 (this Petition or “the -528 Petition”) and IPR2019-00516
`
`(“the -516 Petition”). This Petition uses a subset of the alleged prior art cited in
`
`the -516 Petition without identifying any compelling explanation as to why the -
`
`528 and -516 Petitions are not duplicative of each other. The Board should,
`
`therefore, exercise its discretion to deny institution.
`
`Moreover, all petitioned grounds fail because Petitioners fundamentally
`
`misconstrue their primary reference, U.S. Patent No. 7,831,913 (“MacLaurin”).
`
`See Pet. at 14 (“[T]his Petition relies on MacLaurin as the primary reference for all
`
`grounds.”). Petitioners overlook that MacLaurin discloses two distinct modes: (1)
`
`a tagging mode, which presents the user with a single “best guess” tag based on a
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00528
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`
`search string; and (2) a browsing mode, which presents the user with a list of
`
`previously applied tags independent of any search string.
`
`While Petitioners purport to rest each asserted unpatentability ground on this
`
`first mode, tagging mode, they repeatedly cite to MacLaurin’s browsing mode to
`
`support unpatentability. See Pet. at 25, 29, 33, 41-42, 50 (referring to “tagging
`
`mode”). Petitioners thus err in their interpretation of MacLaurin for at least two
`
`limitations of all Challenged Claims: “displaying a tag type indicator . . . indicative
`
`of a tag source” and “displaying a tag list including tags.” For the first limitation,
`
`Petitioners point to MacLaurin’s utilization of “different sizes, fonts, colors, and/or
`
`symbols” for tags that, they contend, distinguish different tag sources. Pet. at 33.
`
`MacLaurin discloses this visual differentiation of tags only, however, in browsing
`
`mode, which falls short on other limitations. Likewise, for the second limitation,
`
`Petitioners contend that MacLaurin discloses a tag list display, but the only such
`
`display shown in MacLaurin’s figures is in browsing mode. Pet. at 31. Petitioners
`
`provide no evidence that tagging mode ever displays such a list; indeed,
`
`Petitioners’ own citations reveal that tagging mode only displays the single best
`
`guess tag.
`
`Along with these fundamental misinterpretations, Petitioners also fail to set
`
`forth the substantive analysis required to show that it would have been obvious to
`
`combine MacLaurin’s tagging mode and browsing mode. Nor do Petitioners
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00528
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`
`contend that any other alleged prior art references discloses the two foregoing
`
`limitations. Accordingly, Petitioners fail to show a reasonable likelihood of
`
`success on the merits of their obviousness arguments, and the Board should deny
`
`their Petition.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`Patent Owner BlackBerry’s Innovations Have Transformed the
`Way We Communicate
`
`Originally known as Research In Motion Limited, BlackBerry has been a
`
`leading innovator in the mobile communications industry since its founding in
`
`1984. BlackBerry’s cutting-edge wireless communication products and services
`
`have transformed the way people around the world connect, converse, and share
`
`digital information. From its modest beginnings more than 30 years ago,
`
`BlackBerry has gone on to offer a portfolio of award-winning products, services,
`
`and embedded technologies to tens of millions of individual consumers and
`
`organizations around the world, including governments and educational
`
`institutions.
`
`In the late 1990s, BlackBerry released a series of game-changing handheld
`
`mobile devices that enabled users to send and receive email and messages on the
`
`go, without needing to be tethered to a modem or a desktop computer. In 2002,
`
`BlackBerry released the BlackBerry 6710 and 6720—the first BlackBerry devices
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00528
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`
`capable of both sending emails and making phone calls, and some of the earliest
`
`smartphones released in the United States. The next year, BlackBerry introduced
`
`smartphone models that added built-in audio hardware and color screens. In 2005,
`
`BlackBerry introduced the innovative BlackBerry Messenger (or “BBM”)
`
`application, which revolutionized the concept of instant messaging. BlackBerry’s
`
`tradition of innovation continues to this day, with its expansive portfolio of
`
`enterprise security software.
`
`Others in the industry have sought to take advantage of BlackBerry’s
`
`success by copying its innovation without authorization. Accordingly, BlackBerry
`
`has commenced efforts to enforce its intellectual property. See, e.g., BlackBerry
`
`Ltd. v. Facebook, Inc. et al., No. 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KSx (C.D. Cal.); BlackBerry
`
`Ltd. v. Snap Inc., No. 2:18-cv-02693-GW-KSx (C.D. Cal.); BlackBerry Ltd. v.
`
`Twitter, Inc., No. 2:19-cv-01444-GW-KSx (C.D. Cal.).
`
`B.
`
`The ’173 Patent Discloses and Claims One of BlackBerry’s Many
`Innovations
`
`The ’173 Patent is entitled “User Interface for Selecting a Photo Tag” and
`
`issued on October 2, 2012, from U.S. Patent Appl. No. 13/252,807 filed October 4,
`
`2011, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Appl. No. 11/746,285 filed on May 9,
`
`2007.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00528
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`
`
`At the time of the claimed invention, identifying people or objects in
`
`photographs had become popular with the advent of photo sharing in social
`
`networks. ’173 Patent at 1:20-23. With the explosion in the quantity and variety
`
`of online media, however, allowing a user to select a single “tag” representing an
`
`identified person or object presented a significant engineering challenge. Id. at
`
`1:23-25. Prior efforts in the art had failed and become impractical. Id. at 1:25-29.
`
`The ’173 Patent solves these and other problems with intuitive and powerful
`
`tag search and selection technology. In particular, the patent allows a user to
`
`identify tags from multiple sources using a unified search functionality, and
`
`presents search results from these sources in a single display along with an
`
`indication of the source of each tag. This is reflected in the claims, which require a
`
`user interface for searching photo tags from one or more sources and visually
`
`indicating the source of each tag:
`
`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.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00528
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`
`
`Claim 1 is representative of the patent’s other two independent
`
`claims (system claim 7 and computer readable medium claim 13). The
`
`patent also includes 17 dependent claims.
`
`In one embodiment, the ’173 Patent presents the user interface shown in
`
`Figure 3B when the user views a shared photograph:
`
`
`
`The user can click the “Add” button to enter into the photo tagging mode. Id. at
`
`4:10-23. The user can then move the cross-hair pointer 308 on the photo to
`
`identify the particular area of the photo that will be the subject of one or more
`
`“Tags.” Id. at 4:10-37, 5:39-47.
`
`After the user selects the “Add” button, the ’173 Patent presents the user
`
`interface shown in Figure 4B that allows the user to search for tags from multiple
`
`sources. Id. at 4:44-60.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2019-00528
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`
`
`When the user starts entering text into tag entry field 406, the example
`
`embodiment displays a list of tags 412 matching the text currently entered in tag
`
`entry field 406. Id. at 5:32-55. The tags in the search results can be from multiple
`
`sources, such as a list of contacts from the user’s address book, a list of the user’s
`
`browser bookmarks, a list of friends from an online service like Facebook, a cache
`
`of recent text entries, etc. Id. at 5:39-47.
`
`The inventors of the ’173 Patent recognized that the tags can be from
`
`different sources, and that indicating the source of each tag allows the user to make
`
`a more informed decision about what tags to apply to a photograph. For example,
`
`Figure 4B (annotated) shows a visual indicator (e.g., 412a-1 and 412b-1) for each
`
`tag in the intermingled list of matching tags from different sources (e.g., 412a-2
`
`and 412b-2) indicating the source of each tag. Id. at 5:52-55.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2019-00528
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`
`
`In the figure above, visual indicator 412a-1 indicates that the tag “Tara Chmiel”
`
`412a-2 is from the a list of friends on Facebook, and visual indicator 412b-1
`
`indicates that the tag “text i typed before” 412b-2 is from a cache of recent text
`
`entries. Id. at 5:39-55. The user can then scroll through the list of tags 412,
`
`identify the sources of each tag, and make an informed decision as to what tag to
`
`associate with the photograph 302. Id. at 5:62-65.
`
`C. None of the Alleged Prior Art Discloses the Innovative Solutions
`Claimed by the ’173 Patent
`
`1. MacLaurin
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,831,913 (“MacLaurin”) (Ex. 1006) is Petitioners’ primary
`
`reference across all six grounds in the Petition. See Pet. at 14 (“[T]his Petition
`
`relies on MacLaurin as the primary reference for all grounds.”). MacLaurin issued
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`on November 9, 2010, from an application filed July 29, 2005. MacLaurin names
`
`IPR2019-00528
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`Microsoft Corporation as its assignee.
`
`MacLaurin describes methods for tagging and finding items in a file
`
`management system, such as word processing documents and other files.
`
`MacLaurin at 7:32-35; id. at Fig. 4. MacLaurin’s primary stated goal is to
`
`“provide users with automated item tagging with minimal impact to the user.” Id.
`
`at 2:41-47; see also id. at 4:15-19 (“The systems and methods herein provide an
`
`improved user interface for applying tags automatically when the user has made a
`
`selection of items to be tagged and/or provides an input such as, for example,
`
`typing any character on a keyboard.”). Beyond automatic tagging, MacLaurin
`
`discloses two other, distinct modes: (1) a tagging mode for tagging items; and (2) a
`
`browsing mode for selecting from a list of previously applied tags to locate items.
`
`MacLaurin at 7:48-8:57. These two modes are discussed in turn.
`
`(a) Tagging Mode – Displaying a Single, “Best Guess”
`Suggested Tag
`
`MacLaurin discloses a “tagging mode” allowing a user to tag a set of files.
`
`Id. at 7:66-8:3. One goal of MacLaurin’s tagging mode is to allow users to “add
`
`tags to items without entering a complex mode and/or substantially interrupting
`
`their current activity.” Id. at 7:9-11. Indeed, MacLaurin explains that “[t]ags can
`
`be applied without opening a dialog box, menu, and/or other selection user
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`interface.” Id. at 7:12-13. Another goal of MacLaurin’s tagging mode is to
`
`enforce use of consistent tags. See id. at 7:21-28 (emphasis added):
`
`IPR2019-00528
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`[I]f a user is looking for a house, they may tag items with
`
`“house” during the day. On the next day, the same user
`
`may have forgotten the previous day’s tag and start to tag
`
`items with “home.” Thus, at the moment the user is
`
`applying tags, they can be reminded that they previously
`
`used “house” instead of “home,” saving them from
`
`utilizing multiple tags when they did not intend to do so.
`
`MacLaurin’s “tagging mode” serves this goal of consistent tags through a “best
`
`guess” tag search interface. MacLaurin discloses a text-entry interface that
`
`“accumulate[s] each key a user types into a ‘tag buffer,’” “use[s] this tag buffer to
`
`guess at likely tags,” and then “display[s] the current ‘best guess’ tag in a textual
`
`readout associated with the window.” Id. 7:66-8:10. If the user wishes to view
`
`other “likely tags,” the user may “choose between ‘tag guesses’ using cursor
`
`arrows.” Id. at 8:11-12. Once the user has chosen a tag, “the user hits the
`
`enter/return key (or similar), [to] apply the items to the tag.” Id. at 8:17-18.
`
`MacLaurin illustrates its tagging mode in connection with Figure 8. For
`
`example, MacLaurin states that “possible tags that begin with the letter ‘g’”
`
`include “‘graphics,’ ‘group A,’ ‘group B,’ ‘green,’ and/or ‘garage’ and the like.”
`
`Id. at 5:31-34. Notwithstanding these various options, when a user in tagging
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00528
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`
`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):
`
`(b) Browsing Mode – Displaying a List of Previously
`Applied Tags
`
`Unlike its tagging mode, the goal of MacLaurin’s browsing mode is to
`
`
`
`“allow[] easy recall of the tagged items at another time.” Id. at 2:41-44; see also
`
`id. at 6:6-8 (“The utilized tags are then relayed to the user via the user
`
`interface 308 at appropriate times to facilitate the user 304 in recalling items based
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00528
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`
`on tag information.”); id. at 6:40-44 (“Simple text-based strings or tags . . . allow a
`
`variety of items to be easily recalled later utilizing only a single tag.”).
`
`Furthering this goal, MacLaurin’s browsing mode includes a window that
`
`“shows tags already created.” Id. at 8:33-35. For example, the interface shown in
`
`Figure 6 includes a “tag list 604” of previously-applied tags that “allows the user to
`
`quickly find items associated with the tags in the list.” Id. at 8:46-47; id. Figure 6:
`
`Thus, as shown in Figure 7, when a user selects tag 702 (“graphics”) from
`
`the list, MacLaurin displays only files 704 that were previously associated with the
`
`“graphics” tag. Id. at 8:47-51; id. Figure 7:
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2019-00528
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`
`
`The browsing mode also allows users to differentiate between (1) automated
`
`tags generated by the tagging system and (2) explicit tags entered by the user. Id.
`
`at 7:48-65. MacLaurin explains that, because “a user may have high confidence in
`
`their explicit tags and lesser confidence in system generated tags,” “a user can be
`
`alerted to their confidence level with regard to the tags” if the user can easily
`
`distinguish between these two types of tags. Id. at 7:49-53. For example,
`
`MacLaurin distinguishes between these two types of tags “utilizing different sizes,
`
`fonts, colors, and/or symbols and the like.” Id. at 8:19-22.
`
`2.
`
`Rothmuller
`
`Petitioners cite U.S. Patent No. 7,415,662 (“Rothmuller”) (Ex. 1004) as a
`
`secondary reference for Grounds 3-4 solely for the “displaying a tag type indicator
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00528
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`
`for each tag appearing in the tag list” limitation of the Challenged Claims, while
`
`“rel[ying] on MacLaurin and the mapping from Ground 1 for all other challenged
`
`claims and limitations.” Pet. at 4, 55. Rothmuller issued on August 19, 2008, from
`
`an application filed July 17, 2002. Rothmuller lists Adobe Systems Incorporated
`
`as its assignee.
`
`Rothmuller is directed to organizing a database of images and photos using a
`
`hierarchy of tags instead of a text-based search functionality. Rothmuller,
`
`Abstract. In particular, users can create and modify tags in a tag editor and assign
`
`tags to categories that describe photos associated with a particular tag. Id. at 3:51-
`
`58 (“For example, in one embodiment tags are divided into people, events, places
`
`and miscellaneous tag categories.”). Each tag category can, in turn, be further sub-
`
`divided into tag types that more narrowly describe the tagged photo. Id. at 4:1-39
`
`(“The events tag category includes default tag types for parties and vacations, and
`
`can be customized to include tag types for particular types of events such as
`
`concerts, plays, shows and sporting events, and for particular events such as the
`
`2002 Boston Marathon.”). Users can also “optionally select[] a graphical icon that
`
`represents the tag.” Id. at 1:65-66.
`
`As shown in Figure 1, Rothmuller’s systems list each tag alongside a small
`
`icon that visually describes the tag category associated with that tag. Id. at Fig. 1.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`For example, six of the icons shown in the “Recently Used” field correspond to the
`
`“people,” “places,” “events,” and “miscellaneous” categories:
`
`IPR2019-00528
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`Id.; see also U.S. Provisional App. No. 60/334,516 (“Rothmuller Provisional”)
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1005) at p. 34.
`
`3.
`
`Plotkin
`
`Petitioners cite David Plotkin, How to Do Everything with Photoshop
`
`Elements 4.0 (“Plotkin”) (Ex. 1008) as a secondary reference for Grounds 5-6. Pet.
`
`at 4-5. In particular, Petitioners explain that “Ground 5 is similar in some respects
`
`to Ground 3 . . . [b]ut instead of relying on Rothmuller, Ground 5 cites Plotkin.”
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00528
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`
`Pet. at 61; see id. (“Ground 5 therefore cites Plotkin in combination with
`
`MacLaurin for ‘displaying a tag type indicator for each tag appearing in the tag
`
`list,’ and relies on MacLaurin and the mapping from Ground 1 for all other
`
`challenged claims and limitations.”) (emphasis omitted).
`
`Similar to Rothmuller, Plotkin describes a method of finding images using a
`
`hierarchy of tag keywords or phrases. Plotkin at 322. Plotkin explains that users
`
`can use a hierarchy of categories, subcategories, and tags, and “associate multiple
`
`categories, subcategories, or tags with each image [to make it possible to] search
`
`for all the images associated with a particular tag.” Id. Users can also create new
`
`categories, subcategories, and tags and assign icons to visually represent them. Id.
`
`at 322-27. Further, unlike categories and subcategories, tags, which are typically
`
`used for keywords and phrases, can “display an image as part of itself, helping to
`
`identify what the tag means.” Id. at 323, 326 (“At this point, click and drag the tag
`
`onto an image in the catalog. Not only does this action associate the tag with the
`
`image, but the image will be used for the icon”). This is shown, for example, in
`
`the following image:
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2019-00528
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`Id. at 332. Here, the “Cruises” category displays an icon visually representing that
`
`category, while the “Cruise 2003” tag displays a different image to help understand
`
`
`
`the tag. See id.
`
`Plotkin also explains that users can edit tags assigned to imported pictures.
`
`In this scenario, existing tags have a category icon displayed next to them. Id. at
`
`327-29. For example, the icon with an image of two people informs users that
`
`“David P.” is a person. See id. at 328.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2019-00528
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`4. Ortega
`
`Petitioners cite U.S. Patent No. 6,564,213 (“Ortega”) (Ex. 1007) as a
`
`
`
`secondary reference for Grounds 2, 4, and 6 solely for allegedly rendering obvious
`
`the “tag entry field” limitation of dependent claims 2, 8, 10, 14, and 16. Pet. at 50,
`
`61, 67. Ortega issued on May 13, 2003, from an application filed April 18, 2000.
`
`Ortega lists Amazon.com, Inc. as its assignee.
`
`Ortega relates to searching a database, but does so without the use of tags.
`
`In particular, Ortega discusses “searching a particular catalog or database, such as
`
`the products database of [a]n online merchant.” Ortega at 1:55-60. Ortega then
`
`describes a search function where a user “enters a search query into a search field
`
`. . . of the Amazon.com web site,” resulting in a display of a drop-down box
`
`consisting of “suggested autocompletion terms and phrases.” Id. at 5:25-29. If the
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`user selects one of the suggested terms or phrases, “the string is automatically
`
`added to the search field” and potentially even “automatically submitted as the
`
`IPR2019-00528
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`search query.” Id. at 5:42-45.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`“In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to
`
`show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic
`
`Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. §
`
`312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . .
`
`the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)) (emphasis
`
`added). This burden never shifts to the patent owner. See Dynamic Drinkware,
`
`LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Tech.
`
`Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1326–27 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
`
`(discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review)).
`
`The Board must make its determination regarding institution based on what
`
`the Petition actually presents and not what it could have reasonably contained had
`
`it been reformulated. In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1381
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that the Board is not “free to adopt arguments on behalf
`
`of petitioners that could have been, but were not, raised by the petitioner during an
`
`IPR”); see also, e.g., Securus Techs., Inc. v. Global Tel*Link Corp., IPR2016-
`
`00267, Paper 10, at 6 (Sept. 12, 2016) (denying Request for Rehearing). The
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00528
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`
`Board cannot “deviate from the grounds in the petition and raise its own” theories
`
`of invalidity. Sirona Dental Sys. GmbH v. Institut Straumann AG, 892 F.3d 1349,
`
`1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018). For example, the Board has refused to fill gaps where
`
`petitioners’ combinations fail to disclose each and every limitation of the
`
`challenged claims. See, e.g., Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. Blitzsafe Texas, LLC,
`
`IPR2016-01473, Paper 9, at 15-16 (Jan. 24, 2017) (denying institution where
`
`petitioner’s obviousness combination was missing an element of the independent
`
`claims).
`
`All Grounds in this Petition rely on obviousness. Even “obviousness,”
`
`however, “require[s] record evidence to support an assertion that [the claimed]
`
`structural features . . . were known prior art elements.” K/S Himpp v. Hear-Wear
`
`Techs., LLC, 751 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “[W]hile ‘common sense’ can
`
`be invoked, even potentially to supply a limitation missing from the prior art, it
`
`must still be supported by evidence and a reasoned explanation.” Arendi S.A.R.L.
`
`v. Apple Inc., 832 F.3d 1355, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Moreover, “[o]bviousness
`
`requires more than a mere showing that the prior art includes separate references
`
`covering each separate limitation in a claim.” Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex, Inc.,
`
`655 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “Rather, obviousness requires the
`
`additional showing that a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention
`
`would have selected and combined those prior art elements in the normal courses
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00528
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`
`of research and development to yield the claimed invention.” Id. These additional
`
`requirements cannot be met by “conclusory statements”—“there must be some
`
`articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
`
`conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006); KSR,
`
`Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`
`The Board should exercise its discretion to deny this Petition as redundant to
`
`the -516 Petition. Petitioners do not present any new alleged prior art absent from
`
`the -516 Petition, and this Petition contains many of the same arguments.
`
`Instituting both petitions and conducting two parallel IPRs would be a waste of the
`
`Board’s resources.
`
`Even if the Board entertains this Petition on the merits, Petitioners
`
`fundamentally misconstrue MacLaurin’s file tagging system in connection with at
`
`least two limitations in the challenged independent claims: “displaying a tag list
`
`including tags” and “displaying a tag t