`
`
`IPR2019-00925
`U.S. Patent No. 8,209,634
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`FACEBOOK, INC., INSTAGRAM, LLC, and WHATSAPP INC.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`BLACKBERRY LIMITED
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00925
`U.S. Patent No. 8,209,634
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`Page
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`PETITIONER PROVIDED COMPELLING MOTIVATIONS TO
`COMBINE FOR EACH GROUND AND PRIOR ART REFERENCE ....... 1
`A.
`The IPR Petition provided a compelling motivation to combine
`the teachings of Ording and Abiko. ..................................................... 3
`
`The Apple Macintosh’s commercial embodiment is
`irrelevant to the instituted grounds and obviousness. ................ 6
`The IPR Petition provided a compelling motivation to adapt the
`application icon numeric character in Ording to report the
`number of distinct senders of messages. .............................................. 9
`The IPR Petition provided a compelling motivation to adapt
`Abiko to process only new (unread) messages. ................................. 13
`
`Crumlish ................................................................................... 14
`
`Abiko ........................................................................................ 17
`PATENT OWNER’S ARGUMENTS IMPROPERLY ATTACK THE
`PRIOR ART REFERENCES INDIVIDUALLY AND IGNORE THE
`INSTITUTED OBVIOUSNESS COMBINATIONS .................................. 19
`III. DEPENDENT CLAIMS 6, 12, AND 18 ARE UNPATENTABLE
`BASED ON THE PRIOR ART CITED IN GROUND 2 ............................ 20
`IV. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 23
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00925
`U.S. Patent No. 8,209,634
`
`Petitioner respectfully submits the following Reply in support of its Petition
`
`for Inter Partes Review:
`
`I.
`
`PETITIONER PROVIDED COMPELLING MOTIVATIONS TO
`COMBINE FOR EACH GROUND AND PRIOR ART REFERENCE
`In an attempt to make the instituted obviousness grounds seem more complex
`
`than they are, or improperly suggest that the instituted grounds require a physical
`
`combination,1 Patent Owner structured its response around a list of five purported
`
`technical “modifications” it claims must be applied to the computer system of
`
`Ording to meet the claim limitations of the challenged claims. (Response at 14-15.)
`
`For each of these purported “modifications,” Patent Owner primarily argues that the
`
`Petition did not articulate a sufficient motivation to combine. Patent Owner does
`
`not appear to seriously contest that the prior art cited in the instituted grounds, as a
`
`whole, discloses all limitations of the challenged claims.
`
`
`1 See, e.g, Allied Erecting & Dismantling Co., Inc. v. Genesis Attachments, LLC,
`
`825 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“‘The test for obviousness is not whether the
`
`features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of
`
`the primary reference,’ but rather whether ‘a skilled artisan would have been
`
`motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed
`
`invention.’”) (citations omitted).
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00925
`U.S. Patent No. 8,209,634
`
`A closer look at Patent Owner’s list of “modifications” confirms that the
`
`instituted obviousness combinations, even under the stilted and complex way in
`
`which Patent Owner frames them, are straightforward, well-reasoned, and not based
`
`on hindsight analysis. The Petition supported each of these so-called modifications
`
`with multiple motivations to combine. Patent Owner does not dispute any of
`
`Petitioner’s evidence that a skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation
`
`of success in combining the prior art references in the manner described.
`
`Patent Owner makes no challenge whatsoever to its first modification (nor
`
`could it) – adapting the Ording computer to incorporate wireless communication
`
`capabilities. (Response at 14, ¶1.) The second purported modification – combining
`
`Ording with the email program of Abiko – is fully supported by the record and the
`
`multiple motivations to combine set forth in the Petition. The same is true for the
`
`third purported modification – adapting the numeric character in Ording to report
`
`the number of distinct senders as opposed to the number of new messages – as also
`
`explained in the Petition. And as for the fourth and fifth modifications, they merely
`
`relate to the ability to identify new messages (and separate them from all received
`
`messages), a feature of prior art messaging systems so basic that Patent Owner
`
`cannot credibly claim provides any point of novelty or distinction over the prior art.
`
`Nevertheless, even as to this trivial feature, the Petition provided an exhaustive
`
`analysis of the motivations to combine with respect to Abiko and Crumlish.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00925
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,209,634
`A. The IPR Petition provided a compelling motivation to combine the
`teachings of Ording and Abiko.
`Patent Owner’s first attack focuses on its second so-called modification, i.e.
`
`combining the user interface of Ording with the email capabilities of Abiko.
`
`(Response at 17-24.) But Patent Owner’s arguments ignore the actual motivations
`
`set forth in the Petition.2
`
`The Petition explained that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`been motivated to combine Ording with Abiko because Abiko provided wireless
`
`communications capabilities not disclosed in Ording. (Ex. 1102, ¶¶67, 71-73.) This
`
`motivation is not only relevant to Patent Owner’s first so-called modification (which
`
`Patent Owner does not dispute), but also the second. The Petition explained that
`
`wireless capabilities “provide a key convenience in that the user need not be tethered
`
`
`2 Patent Owner claims that Petitioner’s entire motivation to combine analysis was
`
`contained on pages 33-34 of the Petition (and the corresponding paragraphs of its
`
`expert declaration). (Response at 17-18.) But those pages were devoted to simply
`
`laying out and explaining the combination itself, i.e. adapting the userbar 600 of
`
`Ording to include an icon for the Abiko email program. (Petition at 33-34; Ex. 1102,
`
`¶80.) Patent Owner ignored other disclosures in the Petition (under sections
`
`conspicuously entitled “Rationale and Motivation to Combine”) that provide the
`
`motivations to combine the teachings of Ording and Abiko, as explained in the text.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00925
`U.S. Patent No. 8,209,634
`
`to wires to connect to a computing network,” a convenience that was “particularly
`
`advantageous in the context of electronic messaging, as it allows users to send and
`
`receive messages on the go, as Abiko expressly confirms.” (Petition at 32; see also
`
`Chatterjee Opening Declaration, Ex. 1102, ¶73 (“[M]arket and competitive forces
`
`would have further encouraged a person of ordinary skill in the art to support the
`
`ability to use wireless computing devices, as disclosed in Abiko, with the user
`
`interface techniques in Ording.”) (underlining added).) An email system that can
`
`communicate wirelessly (such as Abiko) obviously has advantages over one that
`
`cannot. And although not expressly required by the claim, the Petition also
`
`explained how the Abiko email system was adaptable to small-screen wireless
`
`devices, a further benefit known to persons of ordinary skill in the art. (Petition at
`
`30-33, 71-72; Ex. 1102, ¶¶165-166.)
`
`Patent Owner appears to argue that the law on obviousness required Petitioner
`
`to articulate a separate motivation to combine directed specifically to the decision to
`
`combine the specific email program of Abiko with Ording. Putting aside the fact
`
`that such a motivation was apparent from the Petition (as explained below), Patent
`
`Owner cites no authority for such a granular an inflexible approach to obviousness.
`
`See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1200 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he question is whether
`
`there is something in the prior art as a whole to suggest the desirability, and thus the
`
`obviousness, of making the combination….”) (quoting In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309,
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00925
`U.S. Patent No. 8,209,634
`
`1311 (Fed. Cir. 1992)) (underlining added). A motivation to combine the teachings
`
`of Ording and Abiko was provided by the benefit of adapting Abiko’s wireless
`
`capabilities, the sufficiency of which is not challenged by Patent Owner.
`
`The Petition also explained that Ording expressly discloses that an “e-mail
`
`application” may be presented in its userbar 600, and both sides’ experts agree, that
`
`could be any email application. (Petition at 28-29; Chatterjee Reply, Ex. 1129, ¶10;
`
`Surati Depo., Ex. 1130, 90:24-91:10.) It would not have required any leap of logic
`
`or inventiveness for a skilled artisan, already armed with Ording and Abiko and the
`
`indisputably compelling justification to combine described above, to consult Abiko
`
`for a suitable email application for use with the userbar of Ording.
`
`And even if the law required motivations to combine on a feature-by-feature
`
`basis (which it does not), the Petition identified a specific benefit of Abiko’s email
`
`program – its “sender-centric” approach that makes it easier to organize messages
`
`based on their senders. (Petition at 46-47; Ex. 1102, ¶¶48, 105.) As the Petition
`
`explained, “Abiko recognized that for many users, it is more important to organize
`
`and present messages based on their senders.” (Petition at 46 (underlining added)
`
`(citing Abiko, Ex. 1109, ¶¶0002, 0004-0006, 0008, 0017, 0098-99); Ex. 1102, ¶105.)
`
`This observation not only supports the motivation to combine with respect to
`
`“numeric character” and “count” limitations discussed below, but also explains why
`
`a skilled artisan would have selected Abiko’s email program in the first instance.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00925
`U.S. Patent No. 8,209,634
`
`The Petition cited and quoted passages from Abiko explaining that “a user who
`
`wishes, for example, to create a list of all received mail messages from a particular
`
`sender must search through numerous messages one by one by means of a manual
`
`input operation.” (Abiko, Ex. 1109, ¶0005.) “Some received messages required are
`
`therefore likely to be overlooked and many operations are needed to find the
`
`messages.” (Id.) Abiko addresses this problem through a “sender-centric” approach
`
`of automatically organizing received messages based on their respective senders.
`
`(Petition at 39-40, 46; Abiko, Ex. 1109, e.g., ¶¶0006, 0017 (“The listing of the sender
`
`identification information in a prescribed order in the menu information improves
`
`ease-of-use because
`
`it permits
`
`the user
`
`to readily find required sender
`
`information.”).) Patent Owner does not contest the benefits of this feature or attempt
`
`to identify other conventional email clients or applications that offered it.
`
`Petitioner did not simply “pluck” Abiko out of a “sea of references,” as Patent
`
`Owner argues. (Response at 20-21.) Petitioner articulated compelling reasons that
`
`a skilled artisan would have selected Abiko and chosen to combine its teachings with
`
`Ording. Patent Owner’s arguments to the contrary should be rejected.
`
`
`
`The Apple Macintosh’s commercial embodiment
`irrelevant to the instituted grounds and obviousness.
`The commercial embodiment of the userbar 600 in Ording appears to have
`
`is
`
`been an Apple user interface feature known as the “Dock,” which was part of the
`
`Apple Macintosh operating system as of at least December 2003. (Ex. 2014, p.5.)
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00925
`U.S. Patent No. 8,209,634
`
`Patent Owner argues that a skilled artisan would not have been motivated to combine
`
`Ording with Abiko because Ording deals with an Apple Macintosh computer, and
`
`those computers already had an available email client known as Apple Mail.
`
`(Response at 20.) This argument is unpersuasive for several reasons.
`
`First, there is no basis for Patent Owner to conflate the disclosures of the
`
`Ording patent with Ording’s commercial embodiment. Ording itself states that its
`
`user interface techniques are not limited to the Apple Macintosh or any other specific
`
`computing platform, but “can be used in combination with any system having a
`
`processor and a display.” (Ording, Ex. 1103, 6:19-23.) If anything, the fact that the
`
`Apple Macintosh already implemented a user interface feature corresponding to the
`
`userbar 600 of Ording actually undermines Patent Owner’s argument. This is
`
`because a person of ordinary skill in the art seeking to implement the user interface
`
`techniques in Ording would likely not have chosen the Apple Macintosh as the
`
`platform on which to do so because such an implementation would have been
`
`redundant of the existing Macintosh user interface. (Ex. 1129, ¶11.)
`
`Second, the inferential leaps on which Patent Owner’s argument relies
`
`become even more attenuated with respect to the “Apple Mail” email client. Patent
`
`Owner’s expert acknowledged that nothing in Ording even mentions Apple Mail, let
`
`alone suggests that Ording’s techniques were limited to that specific email
`
`application. (Surati Depo., Ex. 1130, 90:24-91:7.) He acknowledged that the user
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00925
`U.S. Patent No. 8,209,634
`
`interface teachings in Ording could have been applied to other any email application,
`
`and that Ording was “trying to patent concepts in a more general way.” (Id., 91:2-
`
`10, 92:8-19.) A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that any
`
`suitable email system could have been represented in userbar 600 of Ording,
`
`including the one in Abiko. (Ex. 1129, ¶10.) A skilled artisan would thus have
`
`found the availability of “Apple Mail” on Apple Macintosh systems irrelevant to the
`
`motivation to combine the userbar 600 of Ording with the teachings of Abiko.
`
`Third, there is no basis for Patent Owner’s apparent suggestion that the
`
`availability of Apple Mail for the Apple Macintosh would have eclipsed the need for
`
`any other email client. It is undisputed that numerous other email programs existed
`
`as of December 2003 – Patent Owner’s own expert identified nine of them. (Surati
`
`Depo., Ex. 1130, at 93:19-95:3, 83:18-84:8; Ex. 1129, ¶12.) It is also undisputed
`
`that computer users in December 2003 frequently had multiple different messaging
`
`applications on their computers. (Ex. 1129, ¶12; Surati Depo., Ex. 1130, at 86:14-
`
`23.) Thus, even if one assumes that a skilled artisan would have chosen the Apple
`
`Macintosh as the computing platform on which to implement Ording, and that same
`
`skilled artisan already had Apple Mail installed on her computer, that would not have
`
`discouraged use of other email applications such as the one in Abiko. As explained
`
`above, Abiko provided specific advantages, including wireless communication and
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00925
`U.S. Patent No. 8,209,634
`
`the ability to automatically display messages by sender. Patent Owner does not
`
`claim that Apple Mail provided those features.
`
`B.
`
`The IPR Petition provided a compelling motivation to adapt the
`application icon numeric character in Ording to report the number
`of distinct senders of messages.
`With respect to the so-called third “modification,” Patent Owner argues that
`
`the Petition did not articulate a sufficient motivation to modify the “numeric
`
`character” described in Ording, which presents a numeric character representing the
`
`number of new email messages, to instead present the number of senders.
`
`Patent Owner spends a considerable portion of its arguments parsing words
`
`and phrases in the IPR Petition that explained that a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art “might” have found the combination preferable. (Response at 25-27.) But Patent
`
`Owner has misinterpreted this language from the Petition, which merely
`
`acknowledges that email users have different preferences in how to treat incoming
`
`email messages. The Petition explained that a numeric character representing the
`
`number of distinct senders would have alleviated a number of known drawbacks of
`
`a raw new message count, including duplicate messages from the same sender or a
`
`sudden spike in the number of distinct senders from one day to the next. (Petition at
`
`47-48.) But the Petition candidly acknowledged that “there is no ‘one size fits all’
`
`approach for organizing electronic messages and notifying users of new (unread)
`
`messages,” and as such, “[f]or certain categories of users, a more ‘sender-centric’
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00925
`U.S. Patent No. 8,209,634
`
`approach to received messages might be preferable.” (Petition at 48 (emphasis
`
`added); Ex. 1102, ¶110). It would have been obvious that in any user interface
`
`decision, there may be tradeoffs, advantages, and disadvantages such that a
`
`particular design decision might be preferred by some category of users, but not
`
`others. The existence of such tradeoffs presents no obstacle to a finding of
`
`obviousness. See In re Fulton, supra, 391 F.3d at 1200 (“Thus, a finding that the
`
`prior art as a whole suggests the desirability of a particular combination need not be
`
`supported by a finding that the prior art suggests that the combination claimed by
`
`the patent applicant is the preferred, or most desirable, combination.”).
`
`Page 31 of the Patent Owner Response reproduces the sender table from
`
`Figure 8 from Abiko, which shows four (4) listed items followed by two sets of
`
`“dots” indicating the presence of additional (and unshown) items. (Response at 30-
`
`31.) Patent Owner’s reliance on these dots is unavailing. A person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would have understood that they merely signify the presence of additional
`
`numbered items in the list. Abiko explains that each entry in the sender table in
`
`Figure 8 (and the corresponding screen display in Figure 10(b)) is sorted and ranked
`
`through a numbering scheme that starts at “1” and sequentially increases. (Abiko,
`
`Ex. 1109, ¶¶0116, 0121, Ex. 1129, ¶16.) Patent Owner’s expert acknowledged at
`
`his deposition that if the sender table in Figure 8 contained items beyond the four
`
`specifically listed, the sequential numbering scheme would continue such that the
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00925
`U.S. Patent No. 8,209,634
`
`additional items would have been numbered “5,” “6,” etc., through the total number
`
`of items. (Surati Depo., Ex. 1130, 98:6-11, 99:1-19; Ex. 1129, ¶16.) As the Board
`
`recognized in its Institution Decision, “a person of ordinary skill in the art would use
`
`the highest number in the ‘No’ column of that table as representing the number of
`
`senders tabulated in the sender table.” (Decision at 22.)
`
`Patent Owner also argues that the purpose of the sender list in Abiko is to
`
`identify individual senders and facilitate their selection from the list, rather than
`
`provide a total number of distinct senders. (Response at 30, 54-55.) But Patent
`
`Owner does not dispute that, in creating that sender list, Abiko calculates that
`
`number and displays that number with the sender list. (Petition at 39-40.)
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments about the purpose of the sender list in Abiko only
`
`further reinforce the motivations to combine. One of the key features of Abiko is its
`
`ability to organize and display messages based on their senders. (Petition at 46
`
`(citing Abiko, Ex. 1109, ¶¶0004-0006).) This is apparent from Figure 10(b):
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00925
`U.S. Patent No. 8,209,634
`
`(Petition at 39 (yellow annotation in Petition).) The Petition explained that, in this
`
`example, the sender list shows four distinct senders who collectively sent 37
`
`messages. (Id. at 19-21, 36-37, 41.) As the Petition further explained, it “would
`
`have been obvious that the number of senders who sent unread messages might be
`
`more valuable to certain users than a simple count of new messages.” (Id. at 46-47.)
`
`Indeed, in the context of Abiko and its overriding purpose of organizing email by
`
`sender, the total message count (e.g. “37”) would have been less significant to a user
`
`of such the Abiko system. The number of distinct senders would obviously have
`
`been more the relevant metric to present on userbar 600 of Ording, as that number
`
`would have corresponded exactly to the number of senders that the Abiko email
`
`program would display on the sender list. “A person of ordinary skill in the art is
`
`also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex
`
`Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007).
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s attack on the Dvorak reference (Ex. 1111) also fails. Patent
`
`Owner cannot dispute that Dvorak expressly identifies, as “the biggest headache
`
`with general Internet mail,” the fear of non-receipt that causes senders to “send
`
`multiple copies” of the same message to the same user. (Ex. 1111 at 018 (emphasis
`
`added); Petition at 47.) Patent Owner also cannot dispute that this “biggest
`
`headache” would have made a raw count of unread messages far less useful because
`
`of the possibility that many of those unread messages are duplicates from the same
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00925
`U.S. Patent No. 8,209,634
`
`senders. (Petition at 47-48.) The fact that Dvorak identifies other problems with
`
`email (such as the “mail storm” problem) does not undermine the suggestions and
`
`motivations affirmatively provided. The existence of different challenging in
`
`handling email messages merely confirms the existence of tradeoffs that a skilled
`
`artisan would have weighed in considering potential approaches. (Ex. 1129, ¶18.)
`
`Patent Owner also points to Dvorak’s statement that “I see no easy cure for
`
`this situation except discipline.” (Response at 33 (quoting Ex. 1111 at 018).) But
`
`Patent Owner does not explain how this statement would have discouraged a skilled
`
`artisan from implementing the “cure” in Abiko, particularly considering the fact that
`
`Abiko was filed three years after Dvorak’s publication.
`
`C. The IPR Petition provided a compelling motivation to adapt Abiko
`to process only new (unread) messages.
`The so-called fourth and fifth “modifications” identified by Patent Owner
`
`concern a feature so trivial that it is surprising that Patent Owner devotes nearly 18
`
`pages of its Response to it. (Response at 34-51.) Patent Owner does not claim that
`
`the ’634 patent invented the ability of an email system to identify new (unread)
`
`messages and separate them from older messages. Patent Owner instead attempts to
`
`undermine the instituted combinations by distorting statements in Crumlish and
`
`Abiko that do not address, let alone discourage, those combinations.
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00925
`U.S. Patent No. 8,209,634
`
`
`Crumlish
`Patent Owner cites portions of Crumlish in which the author states that “I keep
`
`my mail around until I’ve replied to it,” and advising users not to “create a new
`
`mailbox when an existing mailbox will suffice….” (Response at 36-37 & 37 n.6
`
`(quoting Crumlish, Ex. 1110 at 049 & Ex. 2015 at 18); Ex. 2013, ¶¶61-62.) Patent
`
`Owner appears to argue that those statements would have discouraged a skilled
`
`artisan from adopting the approach of Pegasus Mail in which new messages are
`
`stored in a “New mail folder” separate from the folder holding old messages.
`
`But those statements have nothing to do with the proposed combination,
`
`which cites Crumlish’s description of Pegasus Mail to show an email program that
`
`automatically places new messages in a separate folder to distinguish them from old
`
`messages. (Petition at 43-44.) The statements cited by Patent Owner instead advise
`
`users to avoid creating too many new user-created mailboxes for manual filing of
`
`messages. (Ex. 2015 at 18.) For example, the passage of Crumlish cited by Patent
`
`Owner explains that different email programs “offer different commands for creating
`
`mailboxes and transferring messages into them, but the principles are more or less
`
`the same as those used for real-life filing.” (Ex. 2015 at 18 (underlining added).)
`
`The separate new mail folder in Pegasus Mail does not serve this same purpose of a
`
`manually-created mailbox for facilitating archiving of old messages – it instead
`
`automatically and temporarily stores new incoming messages. (Ex. 1129, ¶20.)
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00925
`U.S. Patent No. 8,209,634
`
`If anything, a skilled artisan would have found the technique in Pegasus Mail
`
`complementary to Crumlish’s advice. (Id., ¶21.) Crumlish explains that in Pegasus
`
`Mail, after the new message has been read, it is automatically moved from the New
`
`Mail folder to the Main mail folder. (Crumlish, Ex. 1110, 063.) Accordingly, after
`
`an email message has been read and automatically moved to the Main mail folder,
`
`the user could file that message away in an appropriate mailbox in accordance with
`
`Crumlish’s advice on managing mailboxes, or whatever organizational scheme the
`
`user deems best. (Ex. 1129, ¶21.) Crumlish’s advice could not have discouraged a
`
`skilled artisan from using the Pegasus Mail technique of automatically and
`
`temporarily storing new mail in a separate folder because the automatic storage
`
`would not interfere with any subsequent manual filing by the user. (Id.)
`
`Moreover, Crumlish’s statements would have been regarded as mere
`
`subjective opinions, with which a skilled artisan would have felt free to agree or
`
`disagree. (Id., ¶22.) Patent Owner’s expert acknowledged that he personally does
`
`not follow Crumlish’s advice to “keep my mail around until I’ve replied to it.” (Ex.
`
`1110 at 049; Surati Depo., Ex. 1130, at 95:10-20.) Both sides’ experts agree that in
`
`the 2003 timeframe, email users employed various approaches for reviewing and
`
`organizing email messages, and for deciding whether to retain or delete them. (Ex.
`
`1129, ¶22; Ex. 1130 at 95:21-97:18.) A skilled artisan would have regarded
`
`Crumlish’s comments as merely identifying the author’s personal preferences.
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00925
`U.S. Patent No. 8,209,634
`
`Patent Owner next points to a disclosure in Crumlish that unread email
`
`“typically appears with some indicator that it’s new, such as the Subject line
`
`appearing in bold, or a bullet or checkmark appearing next to the new
`
`messages.” (Response at 40 (quoting Ex. 1110 at 048) (boldface added by Patent
`
`Owner); Ex. 2013, ¶63.) Patent Owner appears to suggest that these user interface
`
`indicators would have discouraged a skilled artisan from using the new folder
`
`technique of Pegasus Mail, but this argument is unpersuasive.
`
`Federal Circuit law is clear that the “mere disclosure of alternative designs
`
`does not teach away.” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting
`
`In re Fulton, supra, 391 F.3d at 1201). Patent Owner does not explain how the mere
`
`disclosure of displaying new messages with boldface type, bullets, or checkmarks
`
`would have discouraged a skilled artisan from using the separate folder technique of
`
`Pegasus Mail. Not only does Crumlish provide no such discouragement, it identifies
`
`the boldface type, bullets, and checkmarks as mere examples of how to visually
`
`differentiate new from old messages. (Ex. 1110 at 048 (“Unread (usually new) mail
`
`typically appears with some indicator that it’s new, such as the Subject line
`
`appearing in bold, or a bullet or checkmark appearing next to new messages.”)
`
`(underlining added).) Pegasus Mail itself also provides “some indicator that [the
`
`email] is new,” id., by placing the new email in a separate folder that the user can
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00925
`U.S. Patent No. 8,209,634
`
`review in the new mail window. (Id. at 064-065, Fig. 2.15).) Patent Owner does not
`
`point to anything in Crumlish discouraging this approach.
`
`
`Abiko
`Patent Owner recycles its pre-institution argument that Abiko discloses only
`
`the ability to process all received email messages, and thus cannot be properly
`
`adapted to process only new or unread messages (either alone or in combination with
`
`Crumlish). But this argument cannot be squared with express disclosures of Abiko.
`
`Abiko plainly states: “The received messages used to create the menu
`
`information including identifying senders may include all received messages or only
`
`received messages that satisfy prescribed conditions.” (Abiko, ¶0011 (underlining
`
`added).) The “menu information” in this statement includes “‘Sender selection by
`
`mail volume menu’ information” that is used to create the sender volume screen
`
`shown in Figure 10(b) of Abiko and reproduced above. (Id., ¶0121; Ex. 1129, ¶29.)
`
`The fact that sender information in Abiko can be based on “only received messages
`
`that satisfy prescribed conditions” (Abiko, Ex. 1109, ¶0011) fatally undermines
`
`Patent Owner’s repeated arguments that the sender information displayed in Figure
`
`10(b) must always reflect all received messages.
`
`As the Petition explained and the Board noted, one of those “prescribed
`
`conditions” could have identified unread messages. (Decision at 22 (citing Petition
`
`at 42 and Ex. 1102, ¶¶95-96); Ex. 1129, ¶30.) The Petition provided compelling
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00925
`U.S. Patent No. 8,209,634
`
`motivations to adapt Abiko (alone or in combination with Crumlish), which Patent
`
`Owner does not dispute. (Petition, e.g., at 42 (explaining that “new messages
`
`generally hold more immediate importance to the user because their contents are
`
`unknown.”), 45 (explaining that “new or unread messages are often of more
`
`immediate concern to the user because they have not been reviewed or processed,
`
`and may require further action.”); Ex. 1102, ¶¶96, 103.)
`
`Patent Owner also contends that the Petition did not explain “‘how’ the
`
`proposed combination would operate with respect to read/unread messages.”
`
`(Response at 49.) Petitioner contends that limiting the sender information to unread
`
`messages “would have prevented the user from fully identifying the actual volume
`
`of messages from those senders correlated to both read and unread messages.” (Id.)
`
`This argument is again refuted by ¶0011 of Abiko, which plainly contemplates
`
`that sender information can be based on “only received messages that satisfy
`
`prescribed conditions.” (Ex. 1111, ¶0011.) The fact that certain embodiments in
`
`Abiko may process all received messages does not suggest that Abiko’s invention is
`
`operable or useful only in that situation. The express statement in ¶0011 of Abiko
`
`confirms that the purposes and objectives of Abiko’s invention can be realized by
`
`processing fewer than all received messages.
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`II.
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00925
`U.S. Patent No. 8,209,634
`
`PATENT OWNER’S ARGUMENTS IMPROPERLY ATTACK THE
`PRIOR ART REFERENCES INDIVIDUALLY AND IGNORE THE
`INSTITUTED OBVIOUSNESS COMBINATIONS
`The Federal Circuit has consistently held that “[a] finding of obviousness…
`
`cannot be overcome ‘by attacking references individually where the rejection is
`
`based upon the teachings of a combination of references.’” Bradium Techs. LLC v.
`
`Iancu, 923 F.3d 1032, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d
`
`1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). But this is precisely what Part VIII of the Patent
`
`Owner Response does in arguing that no single prior art reference in this proceeding
`
`discloses the complete claim step of “visually modifying at least one displayed
`
`icon… to include a numeric character representing a count of the plurality of
`
`different messaging correspondents for which one or more of the electronic
`
`messages have been received and remain unread.”
`
`It is true that no single prior art reference discloses the entire “visually
`
`modifying” step, but this is irrelevant as the combination of references in this
`
`proceeding discloses every aspect of that step. Patent Owner does not dispute that
`
`Ording expressly discloses the vast majority of the “visually modifying” step, except
`
`that the numeric character in Ording represents the number of new messages rather
`
`than the number of distinct senders. (Petition at 37-38; Ording, Ex. 1003, 9:21-23
`
`(“For example,