Paper No. ____
`Filed: February 22, 2019
`
`Filed on behalf of: Snap Inc.
`
`By: Yar R. Chaikovsky (Snap-Blackberry-PH-IPR@paulhastings.com)
`
`Chad Peterman (Snap-Blackberry-PH-IPR@paulhastings.com)
`
`David Okano (Snap-Blackberry-PH-IPR@paulhastings.com)
`
`Paul Hastings LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`SNAP INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BLACKBERRY LIMITED
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,825,084
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,825,084
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`I. 
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1 
`II.  MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 .................................. 1 
`III. 
`PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.15 AND 42.103 ................ 2 
`IV.  GROUNDS FOR STANDING ....................................................................... 2 
`V. 
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ................................................................. 2 
`A. 
`Proposed Grounds and Prior Art .......................................................... 2 
`VI.  LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................ 3 
`VII.  OVERVIEW OF THE ’084 PATENT AND PRIOR ART ............................ 4 
`A. 
`The ’084 Patent .................................................................................... 4 
`B. 
`Prosecution History of the ’084 Patent ................................................ 6 
`C.  Winkler ................................................................................................. 7 
`D. 
`Altman................................................................................................... 9 
`E. 
`Lemmela ............................................................................................. 11 
`F. 
`Crowley .............................................................................................. 13 
`VIII.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 14 
`IX.  DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS ........................................... 16 
`A.  Ground 1: Claims 1-2, 5-6, 9-10, 12-13, and 15 Are Obvious
`Over Winkler in View of Altman ........................................................ 16 
`1. 
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 16 
`2. 
`Claim 2 ..................................................................................... 31 
`3. 
`Claim 5 ..................................................................................... 31 
`4. 
`Claim 6 ..................................................................................... 32 
`5. 
`Claim 9 ..................................................................................... 34 
`6. 
`Claim 10 ................................................................................... 42 
`7. 
`Claim 12 ................................................................................... 42 
`8. 
`Claim 13 ................................................................................... 44 
`9. 
`Claim 15 ................................................................................... 45 
`Ground 2: Claims 1-2 and 5-6 are Obvious Over Lemmela in
`View of Crowley ............................................................................... 46 
`
`B. 
`
`i
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`C. 
`
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 46 
`1. 
`Claim 2 ..................................................................................... 56 
`2. 
`Claim 5 ..................................................................................... 58 
`3. 
`Claim 6 ..................................................................................... 58 
`4. 
`Ground 3: Claims 9-10, 12-13 and 15 are Obvious Over
`Lemmela in View of Crowley, in Further View of Winkler .............. 60 
`1. 
`Claim 9 ..................................................................................... 60 
`2. 
`Claim 10 ................................................................................... 65 
`3. 
`Claim 12 ................................................................................... 66 
`4. 
`Claim 13 ................................................................................... 67 
`5. 
`Claim 15 ................................................................................... 68 
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 69 
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`
`
`X. 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .......................................................... 14
`
`U.S. Surgical v. Ethicon, Inc.,
`103 F.3d 1554, 1568-70 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ........................................................... 14
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`572 U.S. 898, 898-99 (2014) .............................................................................. 15
`KSR Int.’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .....................................................................................passim
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ................................................................................................. 2, 3
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ..................................................................................................... 3
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ..................................................................................................... 3
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ..................................................................................................... 3
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ......................................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ................................................................................................ 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ................................................................................................ 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15 ....................................................................................................... 2
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ..................................................................................................... 2
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 14
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,825,084
`
`Declaration of Dr. Samrat Bhattacharjee
`
`CV of Dr. Samrat Bhattacharjee
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,750,906 (“Winkler”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0250337 A1 (“Lemmela”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0281716 A1 (“Altman”)
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,825,084
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,593,740 (“Crowley”)
`
`Complaint for Patent Infringement, Case No. 2:18-cv-02693, CD CA
`
`
`
`No.
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,825,084
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Snap Inc. (“Petitioner”) requests inter partes review of claims 1-2, 5-6, 9-10,
`
`12-13, and 15 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,825,084 (“the ’084
`
`patent”) (Ex. 1001), which is assigned to Research In Motion Limited, now known
`
`as BlackBerry Limited (“Patent Owner”). For the reasons explained below, the
`
`challenged claims of the ’084 patent should be found unpatentable and canceled.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`Real Party-in-Interest: Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), Petitioner
`
`identifies Snap Inc. as the real party-in-interest.
`
`Related Matters: Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2), Petitioner identifies
`
`the following related matters. The ’084 patent and another patent in the same
`
`family, U.S. Patent No. 8,326,327 (“the ’327 patent”), are at issue in BlackBerry
`
`Limited v. Snap Inc., No. 2:18-cv-02693-GW(KSx) (C.D. Cal.). Petitioner is
`
`concurrently filing a petition for inter partes review challenging claims 1-3, 8-11,
`
`13-15, and 20 of the ’327 patent.
`
`Counsel and Service Information: Lead counsel is Yar Chaikovsky (Reg.
`
`No. 39,625). Backup counsel: (1) Chad Peterman (pro hac vice admission to be
`
`requested), and (2) David Okano (Reg. No. 66,657). Service information: Paul
`
`Hastings LLP, 1117 California Avenue, Palo Alto, CA, Telephone: 650.320.1800,
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,825,084
`
`Fax:
`
`650.320.1900,
`
`E-mail:
`
`Snap-Blackberry-PH-IPR@paulhastings.com.
`
`Petitioner consents to electronic service of documents.
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.15 AND 42.103
`Petitioner submits the required fees with this petition. Please charge any
`
`additional fees required for this proceeding to Deposit Account No. 50-2613.
`
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioner certifies that the ’084 patent is available for inter partes review
`
`and Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting such review of the ’084
`
`patent on the grounds identified herein.
`
`V.
`
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`A. Proposed Grounds and Prior Art
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests review of the challenged claims of the ’084
`
`patent and cancellation of these claims as unpatentable in view of the following
`
`grounds:
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-2, 5-6, 9-10, 12-13, and 15 are unpatentable under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over U.S. Patent No. 8,750,906 (“Winkler”) in view of
`
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2007/0281716 (“Altman”).
`
`Ground 2: Claims 1-2 and 5-6 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
`
`obvious over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2008/0250337 (“Lemmela”) in view of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,593,740 (“Crowley”).
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,825,084
`
`Ground 3: Claims 9-10, 12-13, and 15 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103 as obvious over Lemmela in view of Crowley, and further in view of
`
`Winkler.
`
`For purposes of this proceeding only, Petitioner assumes the earliest
`
`effective filing date of the ’084 patent is August 27, 2010.1 Winkler was filed on
`
`February 20, 2009, published on August 26, 2010, and issued on June 10, 2014.
`
`Altman was filed on June 1, 2006 and published on December 6, 2007. Lemmela
`
`was filed on April 5, 2007 and published on October 9, 2008. Crowley was filed
`
`on May 11, 2005, published on November 30, 2006, and issued on September 22,
`
`2009. Therefore, Winkler is prior art at least under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and (e);
`
`Altman, Lemmela, and Crowley are prior art at least under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), (b),
`
`and (e).
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the alleged
`
`invention (the assumed effective filing date of the ’084 patent) would have had at
`
`least a B.S. degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or an equivalent,
`
`1 Petitioner does not concede that any challenged claim is, in fact, entitled to an
`
`effective filing date of August 27, 2010, and reserves the right to challenge any
`
`claim of priority in any other proceeding involving the ’084 patent.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,825,084
`
`and at least two years of experience in the relevant field, e.g., computer
`
`networking. (Ex. 1002 ¶ 20-22.)2 More education can substitute for practical
`
`experience and vice versa. (Id.)
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE ’084 PATENT AND PRIOR ART
`A. The ’084 Patent
`
`The ’084 patent, titled “System and Method for Determining Action Spot
`
`Locations Relative to the Location of a Mobile Device” is generally directed to
`
`determining and displaying the location of mobile device activity on a map. (Ex.
`
`1001, Abstract; Ex. 1002, ¶ 28.) The ’084 patent recognizes that previously
`
`existing mobile devices could retrieve maps and directions for locations relative to
`
`a mobile device. (Ex. 1001, 1:36-39.) The ’084 patent also recognizes that prior
`
`device users could determine “events and happenings” occurring proximate to a
`
`mobile device’s location and manually compare the location of such events to the
`
`mobile device’s location, which could be “tedious.” (Id., 3:11-23.) According to
`
`Patent Owner, the patented concept differs from the prior art by disclosing “action
`
`spots” determined using location data and the activity of at least one other mobile
`
`device. (See Ex. 1009, ¶ 77.)
`
`2 Petitioner submits herewith the declaration of Dr. Samrat Bhattacharjee (Ex.
`
`1002), an expert in the field of the ’084 patent. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 3-16; Ex. 1003.)
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,825,084
`
`The ’084 patent explains that an “action spot” refers to a location or an event
`
`where at least one other mobile device engages in certain types of activity. (Ex.
`
`1001, 3:3-5; Ex. 1002, ¶ 29.) This “activity” may include a “documenting action”
`
`(such as text messaging, emailing, blogging, posting a message on a social
`
`networking internet site), a “recording action” (such as video recording, audio
`
`recording, or photographing), or “any other action where the mobile device is
`
`being used to observe and make note of a location or an event currently occurring
`
`at the location of the mobile device.” (Ex. 1001, 2:61-3:3.)
`
`The ’084 patent also teaches that action spots may be determined within a
`
`“predetermined distance” from a mobile device and may correspond to device
`
`activity occurring within a “predetermined period of time.” (Id., 3:34-35, 3:40-42;
`
`Ex, 1002, ¶ 30.) This predetermined distance and predetermined period of time
`
`can be set manually by the user, or can be predefined by the software application
`
`developer, the server provider, the manufacturer of the mobile device, or the
`
`communication network service provider. (Ex. 1001, 8:24-32, 8:37-44.) This
`
`predetermined distance can be any specific distance from the current location of
`
`the mobile device; this predetermined period of time can be any specific time
`
`period that is measured from the time the mobile device arrived at the current
`
`location. (Id., 8:32-37, 8:44-48.)
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,825,084
`
`Further, the ’084 patent teaches that action spots may be displayed with an
`
`indication of activity level occurring at each spot. (Id., Abstract; Ex. 1002; ¶ 31.)
`
`Graphical items associated with action spots may employ colors, shapes, or sizes,
`
`to display the relative level of activity occurring at the spot. (Ex. 1001, 10:9-14.)
`
`For example, “the graphical item associated with the action spot 410 can have a
`
`green color to indicate that the most activity is occurring at that action spot 410.
`
`The graphical item associated with the action spot 406 can be orange to indicate
`
`that the action spot 406 has the second most activity.” (Id., 10:14-19.)
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History of the ’084 Patent
`
`The ’084 patent issued on September 2, 2014 from U.S. Patent Application
`
`No. 13/648,167 (“the ’167 application”), filed on October 9, 2012. (Id., Title.)
`
`The ’167 application is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 12/870,676
`
`(“the ’676 application”), filed on August 27, 2010, now U.S. Patent No. 8,326,327.
`
`(Id.) The ’167 application claims priority to the ’676 application. (Id.)
`
`During prosecution of the ’167 application, the PTO issued a non-final
`
`rejection on January 2, 2014. (Ex. 1007, Pgs. 0169-76.) In response, applicant
`
`amended the claims to clarify that a “documenting action” included “at least one of
`
`capturing images, capturing videos and transmitting messages,” and the “level of
`
`activity” was based on “at least one of a number of images captured, a number of
`
`videos captured, and a number of messages transmitted.” (Id., at 0234.)
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,825,084
`
`Applicant’s amendment was successful, as the PTO subsequently issued a Notice
`
`of Allowance on April 28, 2014. (Id., at 0244.)
`
`C. Winkler
`
`Winkler generally relates to a system for determining and displaying
`
`dynamic elements on a mobile device’s map application. (Ex. 1004, Abstract.)
`
`Winkler labels these elements as “map elements,” which may correspond to
`
`locations where mobile devices have performed actions. (Id., 1:8-12; 2:14-26;
`
`10:40-52; 12:5-10; Ex. 1002, ¶ 38.)
`
`“Map elements” can be dynamically modified based on “events” occurring
`
`at a user’s mobile device or at other locations associated with map elements. (Ex.
`
`1004, 10:1-7.) “Events” can reflect movement of mobile devices near a “map
`
`element” or activity on a mobile device associated with a “map element,” such as
`
`posting comments. (Id., 10:40-47; Ex, 1002, ¶ 39.) When the occurrence of an
`
`event is detected, the associated “map element” can change color, blink, or issue an
`
`audible signal, and an updated “map element” will be displayed. (Ex. 1004, 10:54-
`
`64; 11:6-26.) For example, Figures 6A-6C display mobile device screens with a
`
`“map element” dynamically changing based on the occurrence of an “event”:
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,825,084
`
`
`
`(Id., FIG. 6.)
`
`Winkler also discloses use of “map elements” to display additional
`
`information on a map, such as the range of user device activity in different
`
`locations. (Id., 11:66-12:2; Ex. 1002, ¶ 40.) For example, Winkler discloses “heat
`
`map[s],” which display zones with varying concentrations of user activity:
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,825,084
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1004, FIG. 7A; 12:4-10.) The highlighted areas 710, 720, 730 represent
`
`different zones. (Id., 12:4-10, 12:45-46.) These zones are colored based on the
`
`amount of activity in each region. (Id., 12:45-51.) Activity in a zone may equate
`
`to, for example, the number of “map elements,” mobile device users, or comments
`
`posted about locations within that region. (Id., 12:5-10.) The Winkler system can
`
`also filter information shown on a map based on user feedback and/or input. (Id.,
`
`12:25-26; Ex. 1002, ¶ 40.)
`
`D. Altman
`
`
`
`Altman generally
`
`relates
`
`to a system
`
`for
`
`location-based mobile
`
`communications. (Ex. 1006, ¶¶ 2, 5-6; Ex. 1002, ¶ 41.) Altman teaches a mobile
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,825,084
`
`communication system that initiates communication among users based on the
`
`users’ current device location. (Ex. 1006, Abstract.)
`
`Altman discloses a “location-based social network manager process” and a
`
`“mobile communication device that incorporates a real-time map.” (Id., ¶ 29.) In
`
`general, the process first determines the current location of a mobile device. (Id.,
`
`¶ 7.) It then displays a map representation of an area, for example, the area
`
`surrounding the mobile device. (Id.) The process then superimposes on the map
`
`the locations of other user devices. (Id.) Messaging using the communications
`
`capability of a mobile device can then incorporate this location information. (Id.)
`
`This allows users’ interactions to be based on their relative location to each other.
`
`(Id.)
`
`Altman discloses one embodiment in which the location-based social
`
`network manager includes a point of interest (POI) feature. (Id., ¶ 54; Ex. 1002, ¶
`
`43.) This feature allows device users to program and share POIs with one another.
`
`(Ex. 1006, ¶ 54.) It also allows the system to determine a POI that might be of
`
`interest to a user based on her location. (Id.) Altman discloses that the POI feature
`
`can also include an auto-messaging mechanism which sends an alert to a user
`
`based on the POI of another user. (Id., ¶ 59.) For example, one user can tag a
`
`location as a POI, and then be alerted when any of her friends gets within a specific
`
`distance of this POI:
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,825,084
`
`(Id., FIG. 9; ¶ 59.) In Figure 9, the system alerts the user when her friend Cindy is
`
`within 0.5 miles from her. (Id.) This specific distance may be set by the user in
`
`
`
`advance. (Id., ¶ 60.)
`
`E.
`
`Lemmela
`
`Lemmela generally relates to determining and displaying information
`
`regarding location-based electronic postings. (Ex. 1005, ¶ 1; Ex. 1002, ¶ 44.)
`
`Lemmela discloses determining “interesting locations” by utilizing other device
`
`users’ location-based electronic postings. (Ex. 1005, ¶¶ 7, 9.) “Interesting
`
`locations” are determined by analyzing other users’ location-based postings and
`
`identifying information which is common in postings within a geographic area.
`
`(Id.) For example, if various neighboring postings contain the same salient
`
`word(s), those words are determined common to postings in the area, and therefore
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,825,084
`
`are likely to be reliable and useful. (Id.) The disclosed system then groups
`
`postings which exist within a particular geographic area and contain the same
`
`salient words. (Id., ¶¶ 7, 9, 11)
`
`Lemmela discloses a mobile device that can display graphics representing
`
`information based on groups of location-based postings:
`
`
`
`(Id., FIG. 1; ¶ 26.) In Figure 1, a “display 20 shows a map of an area of interest.”
`
`(Id.) To illustrate “an overall picture of the activities, services, sights and
`
`atmosphere” of the area, the information regarding the most salient words used in
`
`public postings can be presented to the user. (Id.) This information “may [be] in
`
`the form of a cloud 24 or 26.” (Id., ¶ 27.) In Figure 1, “cloud 24 indicates an area
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,825,084
`
`with several shopping opportunities,” as determined by postings within the
`
`bordered area. (Id., ¶¶ 26, 27.) Similarly, “cloud 26 indicat[es] an area [where
`
`location postings mention] one or more cafes.” (Id.)
`
`Lemmela also discloses signifying the relative amount of mobile device
`
`activity at each grouped posting location. (See id., ¶¶ 12, 28; Ex. 1002, ¶ 45.) For
`
`example, a mobile device’s display of grouped posting information may take the
`
`form of a “heat map,” “in which certain areas are colored based on information”
`
`corresponding to posts within that area. (Ex. 1005, ¶¶ 12, 28.) The heat map may
`
`use different colors to illustrate the density of location postings in different areas.
`
`(Id.) In another example, size variations may be used to show the popularity of a
`
`certain word within an area’s location-based electronic postings. (Id., ¶ 29.)
`
`F.
`
`Crowley
`
`Crowley generally relates to “location-based social software for mobile
`
`devices.” (Ex. 1008, 2:19-21.) Crowley teaches a system and method for location-
`
`based communication between mobile device users. (See id., 2:32-38; Ex. 1002, ¶
`
`46.) In one aspect, Crowley teaches a system which determines the location of
`
`multiple user devices, receives a message from a first user, and then sends this
`
`message to other users based on the proximity of the first user to the other users.
`
`(Ex. 1008, 2:32-38 (emphasis added).) To determine whether users are sufficiently
`
`“proximate” to each other, a distance parameter is set. (Id., 12:53-64.) Crowley
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,825,084
`
`distinguishes between distance parameters which are specific and distance
`
`parameters which vary: the distance parameter may be either a “predetermined
`
`distance (e.g., ten blocks) or may vary based on location (e.g., closer for areas, like
`
`a downtown, where people can expect to walk from venue to venue).” (Id., 12:60-
`
`64.)
`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b), a claim is construed using the standard
`
`set forth by Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`
`Petitioner contends the only term that must be construed for purposes of this
`
`petition is the phrase “determine at least one action spot within a predetermined
`
`distance from the current location of the first mobile device.” See U.S. Surgical v.
`
`Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1568-70 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
`
`Petitioner contends a POSITA would understand this phrase as meaning
`
`“determine each action spot within a specific distance from the current location of
`
`the first mobile device, the specific distance being set prior to the determining
`
`step.”
`
`Petitioner’s proposed construction is consistent with the ’084 patent’s
`
`specification. (Ex. 1002, ¶ 35.) The ’084 patent repeatedly and exclusively
`
`describes the predetermined distance as specific distances: “[t]he predetermined
`
`distance can be within five blocks, ten blocks, ten yards, one hundred yards, one
`
`14
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,825,084
`
`hundred feet, thirty feet, ten meters, fifteen meters, five miles, ten miles, twelve
`
`miles, twenty miles, or any other distance from the current location 302 of the
`
`mobile device 100.” (Ex. 1001, 8:32-37.) Nowhere in the specification do the
`
`inventors disclose the predetermined distance as a range, or as the output of a
`
`predetermined algorithm. (See generally, id.; Ex. 1002, ¶ 35)
`
`Logic requires the “predetermined distance” to be set prior to the
`
`determination of action spots. (Ex. 1002, ¶ 36.) The determination of action spots
`
`is limited to action spots “within a predetermined distance from the current
`
`location of the mobile device.” (Ex. 1001, 19:29-21:67.) Therefore, the “distance”
`
`must be determined before action spots are determined. (Ex. 1002, ¶ 36.)
`
`Further, “each action spot” within a specific distance from the current
`
`location of the first mobile device must be determined. (Ex. 1002, ¶ 37.) This
`
`limitation recites “at least one action spot,” but the specification does not explain
`
`how a system would treat action spots within the “predetermined distance from the
`
`mobile device” differently so that some action spots within that distance would be
`
`“determined” and others would not. (Id.) Without interpreting this limitation as
`
`applying to each action spot, the ’084 patent thus fails to inform a POSITA with
`
`reasonable certainty about the claim’s scope. See Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig
`
`Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 898-99 (2014). Petitioner does not waive any
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`Petitioon for Interr Partes Reeview of UU.S. Patent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No. 8,8255,084
`
`
`
`argumennts conceerning inddefinitenesss or claimm scope
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`that may
`
`
`
`be raisedd in
`
`
`
`litigatioon.
`
`
`
`BBlackBerryy may advaance a diffferent and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`broader c
`
`
`
`bove onstructionn of the ab
`
`
`
`
`
`phrase. Petitionerr reserves tthe right too respond tto any consstruction thhat BlackBBerry
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`may offfer or that
`
`
`
`the Boardd may adoppt. Underr a broaderr constructtion, the BBoard
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`should
`
`
`
`still instiitute trial
`
`
`
`demonsstrate the challenged
`
`
`
`based onn the folllowing grrounds, ass the grouunds
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`claims aree unpatentaable under
`
`
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`’s construcction
`
`
`
`
`
`and anyy broader constructionn.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IX. DDETAILEDD EXPLAANATIONN OF GROOUNDS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AA. Grouund 1: Claaims 1-2, 55-6, 9-10,
`
`
`
`Winkkler in Vieew of Altman
`
`1.
`
`Claim 1
`
`
`
`12-13, andd 15 Are OObvious OOver
`
`
`
`
`
`
`red to:” er configur[1aa] “A serve
`
`a.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TTo the exteent the prreamble is considereed limitingg, Winklerr disclosess the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`stem
`preamble. (Ex. 11002, ¶¶ 440,48[1a].)) For exaample, Winnkler disclloses a sys
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`which ““includes ttwo or moore mobile
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`devices anand a serveer[.]” (Ex
`
`
`
`. 1004, 2:
`
`1-3.)
`
`
`
`Winklerr further ddiscloses aa server coonfigured
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`to performm certain
`
`
`
`tasks, succh as
`
`
`
`“displayy and/or ppresent information
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`herein.”” (Id., 4:433-45.)
`
`
`
`to users
`
`
`
`of the mmobile dev
`
`
`
`ices descrribed
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`Petitioon for Interr Partes Reeview of UU.S. Patent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`b.
`
`
`
`t location f a currentdicative of[1bb] “receive data ind
`
`
`
`
`
`No. 8,8255,084
`
`of a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`firrst mobile ddevice;”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WWinkler disscloses a seerver conffigured to rreceive datta indicativve of a currrent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`locationn of a first mobile deevice. (Exx. 1002, ¶448[1b].) WWinkler teaaches a sy
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`which rreceives “innput identiifying a location of aa user’s moobile devicce” and/or
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`locationn of the moobile devicce” and “transmits [thhis] data too the serveer.” (Ex. 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`stem
`
`“the
`
`004,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10:17-224.) Winkler also expplicitly claaims a “servrver [] furthher configuured to recceive
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`data froom the moobile devicce,” “wherre the receeived data
`
`
`
`
`
`includes llocation d
`
`ata.”
`
`
`
`(Id., 15::45-48.)
`
`c.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[1cc] “determmine at lleast one
`
`action sspot withiin a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`preedetermineed distancee from thee current llocation off the
`spot
`
`
`firrst mobilee device,
`the at
`
`least onee action
`
`
`
`
`
`
`correspondinng to a loocation whhere at leaast one seccond
`
`
`
`
`
`
`moobile devicce has enggaged in aat least onee documennting
`
`
`
`
`acttion, the ddocumentinng action iincluding
`
`at least onne of
`tting
`
`
`
`
`
`cappturing immages, caapturing vvideos andd transmi
`
`meessages;”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`oses these WWinkler in vview of Altman discl
`
`features.
`
`(Ex. 1002
`
`
`
`, ¶ 48[1c].))
`
`i.
`
`
`
`WWinkler disscloses a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“determinne . . . actiion spot . .. . the at leeast one acction
`
`
`one
`
`
`
`
`spot corrrespondingg to a locaation wherre at least
`one
`
`
`
`
`second mmobile devvice has eengaged inn at least
`
`
`
`
`
`documentting actionn, the docummenting acction incluuding
`
`
`
`
`
`at least onne of captuuring imagges, capturring videoss and
`
`
`transmittiing messagges”
`
`
`
`
`
`server connfigured too determinne “actionn spots.”
`
`
`
`
`
`(Id.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Winklerr discloses action spoots as “mapp elements
`
`
`
`
`
`.” (Id.) WWinkler disccloses netwwork
`
`
`
`
`
`servers
`
`
`
`which innclude “mmapping coomponentss” that “ggenerate mmap and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`map
`
`17
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,825,084
`
`elements.” (Ex. 1004, 4:45-48; 5:61-64.) These “map elements” correspond to
`
`locations where “events” have occurred. (Id., 2:16-18; 10:40-42.) “Events” may
`
`take “a number of different forms,” including:
`
`movement of another mobile device near to, or proximate
`to a tagged location, such as movement to within a
`pre-selected range of a map element,
`movement of a user’s mobile device near, to, or
`proximate to the user’s tagged location,
`a certain frequency or amount of activity in a certain
`region, such as above a threshold value,
`a certain frequency or amount of activity within a certain
`time period,
`a certain frequency or amount of activity around a certain
`tagged item on a map,
`a certain frequency or amount of activity after a time
`period has lapsed,
`movement of a threshold number of mobile devices near,
`to, or proximate to the user’s tagged location, and/or
`when the time of placement of a map element exceeds a
`threshold time, and so on.
`
`
`(Id., 11:36-54 (emphasis added).) As shown, an “event” can correspond to device
`
`activity. (Ex. 1002, ¶ 48[1c].) Winkler discloses that such “activity” corresponds
`
`to “activity at another user’s mobile device.” (Ex. 1004, 11:43-49, 59-61.)
`
`“Activity” can correspond to mobile devices transmitting messages, such as by
`
`18
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,825,084
`
`commenting on a location, or sending emails or texts. (Id., 2:20-22; see 8:7-18.)
`
`Therefore, Winkler discloses determining “map elements” as action spots which
`
`correspond to locations where other mobile devices have engaged in documenting
`
`actions, such as transmitting messages. (Ex. 1002, ¶ 48[1c].)
`
`ii.
`
`“at least one [action spot] . . . within a predetermined
`distance from the current location of the first mobile
`device”
`
`Winkler in view of Altman discloses determining only those action spots
`
`
`
`“within a predetermined distance from the current location of the first mobile
`
`device.” (Id.) As discussed, Winkler discloses determining action spots based on
`
`input identifying a first device’s location. (Id.) In Figure 5, Winkler provides an
`
`illustration of “updating map elements” based on a first user device location input:
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,825,084
`
`(Ex. 1004, FIG. 5 (annotated).) In describing step 510 of Figure 5, Winkler teaches
`
`that the system may generate “one or more map elements, such as pin i