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

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`IPR2019-00528
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`Page
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND OF THE RELEVANT TECHNOLOGY ........................... 2
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ’173 PATENT ............................................................ 4
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ALLEGED PRIOR ART ............................................ 9
`
`A. MacLaurin ............................................................................................. 9
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Rothmuller ........................................................................................... 14
`
`Plotkin.................................................................................................. 16
`
`D. Ortega .................................................................................................. 17
`
`V.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................... 18
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 19
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`“Tag Sources” ...................................................................................... 19
`
`“A Tag Type Indicator . . . Said Tag Type Being Indicative of a
`Tag Source” ......................................................................................... 30
`
`VII. RESPONSE TO ARGUMENT ..................................................................... 31
`
`A. All Grounds Fail Because The Cited Art Does Not Disclose
`Any Indicator “Indicative of a Tag Source” ....................................... 32
`
`1. MacLaurin lacks “a tag type indicator . . . indicative of a
`tag source” ................................................................................. 33
`
`2.
`
`Rothmuller and Plotkin cannot cure MacLaurin’s failure
`to “indicat[e] . . . a tag source” ................................................. 41
`
`(a)
`
`Petitioner’s Grounds 3 and 5 do not rely on
`Rothmuller or Plotkin for the “indicative of a tag
`source” limitation............................................................ 42
`
`(b) Rothmuller or Plotkin cannot cure MacLaurin’s
`deficiencies because they themselves lack a “tag
`type indicator . . . indicative of a tag source” ................. 43
`
`(i)
`
`Rothmuller’s categories are not different
`“tag sources,” and its category icons are thus
`not “indicative of a tag source” ............................ 44
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00528
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`(ii)
`
`Plotkin’s categories are not different “tag
`sources,” and its category icons are thus not
`“indicative of a tag source” .................................. 49
`
`(c)
`
`It would be far from obvious to adapt Rothmuller’s
`or Plotkin’s icons to indicate MacLaurin’s alleged
`“tag source[s]” ................................................................ 52
`
`(i) MacLaurin does not provide express
`motivation for visually indicating tag
`sources .................................................................. 53
`
`(ii) The alleged “popularity of the Adobe
`product” does not lead to the proposed
`combination of MacLaurin and Plotkin ............... 54
`
`B.
`
`All Grounds Fail Because MacLaurin Does Not Disclose
`“Displaying a Tag List” ....................................................................... 56
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 63
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`IPR2019-00528
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`Page
`
`Cases
`
`Abiomed, Inc. v. Maquet Cardiovascular, LLC,
`IPR2017-01204 & -01205, Paper (Oct. 23, 2017) .......................................43
`
`Alloc, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Commc’n,
`342 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .....................................................................41
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. ZitoVault, LLC,
`754 Fed. App’x 965 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................................29
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc.,
`IPR2017-01524, Paper 7 (Dec. 4, 2017) .......................................................64
`
`In re Chapman,
`595 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .....................................................................64
`
`In re Nuvasive, Inc.,
`842 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .....................................................................64
`
`Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.,
`395 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .....................................................................29
`
`SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu,
`138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018) ...................................................................................45
`
`Sinorgchem Co., Shandong v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`511 F.3d 113 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00528
`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
`
`Intentionally Omitted
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00528
`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. IPR2019-00528 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”).
`
`Petitioners cite a single reference—MacLaurin—for the vast majority of
`
`claim limitations. Petitioners, however, fundamentally misapprehend MacLaurin.
`
`Petitioners purport to rely on MacLaurin’s “tagging mode,” which initially presents
`
`a single “best guess” suggested tag and then allows a user to browse other
`
`suggested tags before applying a tag to a file. But Petitioners rely on a key passage
`
`of MacLaurin for the “displaying a tag type indicator . . .indicative of a tag source”
`
`limitation in the Challenged Claims that does not describe tagging mode. Instead,
`
`MacLaurin here describes the display of tags in a separate and distinct “recall”
`
`feature that allows a user to browse previously applied tags. See Ex. 2012
`
`(Chatterjee Tr.) at 118:4-9 122:11-14 (testifying MacLaurin’s mode for “locating
`
`items based on the tags” is “a totally different thing” from MacLaurin’s mode for
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00528
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`
`“assigning the tags” (emphasis added)). In contrast, MacLaurin’s tagging mode
`
`does not “indicat[e]” any “tag source,” as required by the Challenged Claims.
`
`Having fundamentally misapprehended MacLaurin’s disclosure, Petitioners
`
`have not and cannot rely on obviousness or their secondary references to cure
`
`MacLaurin’s deficiencies. 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; 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
`
`Photo.net allowed users to post photographs online and to browse
`
`photographs posted by other users. Id. Later versions of the website allowed users
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`to enter keywords describing aspects of their photographs, such as “Location,”
`
`“Equipment,” or other “Technical Details,” and to add other “Custom Fields”:
`
`IPR2019-00528
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`
`
`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
`
`if individual fields could be populated using a search function, there was no
`
`motivation for a multi-source search. Id.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00528
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`
`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. ¶ 39. 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
`
`IPR2019-00528
`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
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2019-00528
`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. ’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.
`
`See ’173 Patent at Fig. 1 (annotated); see also Surati Decl. ¶ 45:
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2019-00528
`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. Id.; ’173 Patent at 5:52-55.
`
`IPR2019-00528
`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
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00528
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ALLEGED PRIOR ART
`
`A. MacLaurin
`
`Petitioners cite U.S. Patent No. 7,831,913 (“MacLaurin”) (Ex. 1006) as the
`
`main primary reference throughout this Petition. 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.
`
`MacLaurin at 7:32-35, Fig. 4; Surati Decl. ¶ 49. 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. ¶ 50. 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. ¶ 51. 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. ¶ 52. In particular,
`
`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
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00528
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`
`“display[s] the current ‘best guess’ tag in a textual readout associated with the
`
`window.” Id.; MacLaurin at 7:66-8:10. 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. ¶ 55. 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. ¶ 55.
`
`MacLaurin illustrates its tagging mode in connection with Figure 8. Surati
`
`Decl. ¶ 56. 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.; MacLaurin at 5:31-34. 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):
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2019-00528
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`
`
`
`
`Surati Decl. ¶ 56.
`
`Tag “Recall” Mode. MacLaurin’s recall mode includes a window that
`
`“shows tags already created.” MacLaurin at 8:33-35; Surati Decl. ¶ 58. 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.” Surati Decl. ¶ 58; MacLaurin at 8:46-47; id. at Figure 6:
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2019-00528
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`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. Surati Decl. ¶ 59; MacLaurin at 8:47-51; id. at Figure 7:
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2019-00528
`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. ¶ 60. 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. ¶ 61. 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. ¶ 61.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00528
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`
`
`B. 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
`
`for each tag appearing in the tag list” limitation of the Challenged Claims, while
`
`they rely on MacLaurin for all other Challenged Claims and limitations. Pet. at 4-
`
`5, 55, 61.
`
`Rothmuller is directed to organizing a database of images and photos using
`
`tags. Rothmuller at Abstract; Surati Decl. ¶ 62. All of those tags are stored in the
`
`same “tag drawer,” also called a “tag keeper.” Id.; see also Rothmuller Prov. at 68
`
`(“The Tag Drawer holds all the tags currently defined in the system” (emphasis
`
`added)); Rothmuller at Fig. 1 (annotated to identify TAG KEEPER with red box):
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2019-00528
`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. ¶ 63. 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. ¶ 64. Each tag category can,
`
`in turn, be further sub-divided into tag types that more narrowly describe the
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00528
`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. ¶ 64.
`
`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. ¶
`
`65.
`
`C.
`
`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.”
`
`Id. at 61.
`
`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. ¶
`
`66. Plotkin, like Rothmuller, describes a hierarchy of tag keywords or phrases
`
`organized by subject matter. Plotkin at 322; Surati Decl. ¶ 67. Plotkin shows a
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00528
`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. ¶ 67. 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. ¶
`
`68.
`
`D. 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 23-
`
`24, 50-55, 61, 67. Ortega issued on May 13, 2003, from an application filed April
`
`18, 2000. Ortega lists Amazon.com, Inc. as its assignee.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00528
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`
`
`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; Surati Decl. ¶
`
`69. 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.”
`
`Ortega at 5:25-29; Surati Decl. ¶ 70. If the 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 search query.” Ortega at 5:42-46; Surati
`
`Decl. ¶ 70.
`
`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. 8) at 6. For purposes of this IPR,
`
`BlackBerry does not dispute and adopts the Board’s adopted level of ordinary skill
`
`in the art.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00528
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`
`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 or group of predefined tags.” Pet. at 33; see also Ex. 2012
`
`(Chatterjee Tr.) 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
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00528
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`
`every collection of tags or even any collection of tags pertaining to common
`
`subject matters. Surati Decl. ¶ 72. The word “source” relates to the origin of the
`
`information (e.g., where information is from) and not the subject matter of the
`
`information. Id.; see also 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”); Ex. 2012 (Chatterjee Tr.) at
`
`53:25-54:5 (acknowledging the word “source” does not depart from its definition
`
`in “a general purpose dictionary”).
`
`Information from a single source can relate to different subject matters.
`
`Surati Decl. ¶ 73. 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. at ¶
`
`74. 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 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.
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00528
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`
`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). 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.” Id. at ¶ 75-76.
`
`The intrinsic evidence confirms the plain meaning of “tag sources” as
`
`describing not just any collection of tags grouped by subject matter, but rather
`
`“separately searchable collection of tags,” as reflected in BlackBerry’s proposed
`
`construction. Id. at ¶ 77. The claims require “displaying a tag list including tags
`
`from one or more tag sources.” 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. at ¶ 78. The intrinsic evidence further confirms different “tag
`
`sources” are separately searchable. Id. at ¶ 79. Independent claims 1, 7, and 13
`
`require “displaying a tag list including tags from one or more tag sources.” 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. at ¶ 80. Dependent claims 6, 12, 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,
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00528
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`
`landmark tags, and free-form text.” Id. at ¶ 81. 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. at
`
`¶ 82.
`
`The ’173 Patent’s specification further illustrates the process by which tags
`
`are obtained from various “tag sources.” Id. at ¶ 83. The specification explains
`
`that “photo tag selection module 148B may be configured to search one or more
`
`selected ‘tag sources’ for tags.” Id. at ¶ 84; ’173 Patent at 5:39-42.2 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 well as “the
`
`ability to search multiple tag sources”). Otherwise, “tag selection module 148B”
`
`could never be configured to “search just one” tag source. Surati Decl. at ¶ 84.
`
`
`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 specification defines and characterizes the term “tag
`
`sources.” See Sinorgchem Co., Shandong v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 511 F.3d 1132,
`
`1136 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`
`
`22
`
`

`

`
`This is captured in BlackBerry’s proposed construction: “separately searchable
`
`IPR2019-00528
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`collections of tags.” Id. at ¶ 85.
`
`Moreover, every example “tag source” in the ’173 patent specification is
`
`consistent with separately searchable collections of tags. Id. at ¶ 86. The “tag
`
`sources” identified in the specification include “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” populated by “photo tag selection module
`
`148B.” Id. at ¶ 87; ’173 Patent at 5:39-47, 5:56-61. These example “tag sources”
`
`correspond to tags obtained “from” separate “software applications.” Surati Decl.
`
`at ¶ 87; see also ’173 Patent at 3:40-55; Fig. 1 (annotated):
`
`
`
`23
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2019-00528
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`The other two tag sources described in the ’173 patent specification are “a
`
`list of friends from an online service like FacebookTM” and “a list of famous
`
`landmarks . . . prepared by a third party.” ’173 Patent at 5:43-44, 6:49-52. These
`
`“tag sources” thus correspond to two different, remote third parties. Surati Decl. at
`
`
`
`
`
`24
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00528
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`
`¶ 88. The ’173 patent also explains that the “list of famous landmarks” can
`
`alternatively be generated by “visit[ing] each of the landmarks identified in [a]
`
`photo” and “record[ing] geographic location information at each landmark
`
`location” (e.g., “geographic coordinates”). ’173 Patent at 6:27-48; Surati Decl. at ¶
`
`89.3 That a user must physically “visit” a location to obtain “geographic
`
`coordinates” indicates that this alternative relies on yet another separate software
`
`application (“GPS Map 146”) and/or hardware component (“GPS Subsystem
`
`124”). See ’173 Patent at Fig. 1; see also Ex. 2012 (Chatterjee Tr.) at 65:10-24
`
`(agreeing GPS “can be used to obtain a user’s current location” and to “calculate
`
`longitude and latitude coordinates”); Surati Decl. at ¶ 89. Thus, every example of
`
`a “tag source” in the ’173 patent specification refers to obtaining tags from
`
`separate software or hardware components. Surati Decl. at ¶ 90. The
`
`specification, consistent with the claim language, thus confirms that different “tag
`
`sources” can be separately searched to obtain tags. Id.
`
`
`3 Petitioners’ expert failed to consider this embodiment in forming his opinions.
`
`Ex. 2012 (Chatterjee Tr.) at 63:22-64:5 (“I don’t think I’ve considered this. . . . I
`
`don’t think I’ve really opined on this landmark tag and unique geographic location
`
`tags within my declaration[].”).
`
`
`
`25
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00528
`U.S. Patent No. 8,279,173
`
`
`
`While Petitioners have not proposed an express