1
`
`Before Hon. Miriam L. Quinn, Gregg I. Anderson, Robert L. Kinder
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 8,209,634
`Case Nos. IPR2019-00925
`
`Facebook, Inc., Instagram, LLC, and Whatsapp, Inc.
`
`(Petitioners)
`
`BlackBerry Limited (Patent Owner)
`
`v.
`
`Patent Owner’s Oral Hearing Demonstratives
`
`1
`
`BLACKBERRY 2019
`FACEBOOK V. BLACKBERRY
`IPR2019-00925
`
`
`
`Before Hon. Miriam L. Quinn, Gregg I. Anderson, Robert L. Kinder
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 8,209,634
`Case Nos. IPR2019-00925
`
`Facebook, Inc., Instagram, LLC, and Whatsapp, Inc.
`
`(Petitioners)
`
`BlackBerry Limited (Patent Owner)
`
`v.
`
`Patent Owner’s Oral Hearing Demonstratives
`
`1
`
`BLACKBERRY 2019
`FACEBOOK V. BLACKBERRY
`IPR2019-00925
`
`
`
`2
`
`•Ground 2 –Ording, Abiko, Crumlish, Dvorak, and McPherson . . . . . . . . 31
`•Further Modifications to Abiko’sE-mail program -Element 1[c]. . . . . . . 22
`senders of new messages -Element 1[c]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
`
`•Modification of Ording’sicon to display a count of the number of distinct
`
`Element 1[a] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
`•Modification to Ording’scomputer to store “the e-mail program of Abiko” -
`
`•Prior Art Deficiencies
`•Defects in Petitioner’s Obviousness Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
`•The ’634 Patent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
`
`Table Of Contents
`
`2
`
`
`
`3
`
`3
`
`The ’634 Patent
`
`Background
`
`3
`
`
`
`4
`
`EX1001, Claim 1
`
`Notice of Allowance:
`
`19
`EX2013, ¶¶16-
`SuratiDec.,
`EX1113, 826; 2d
`Response, 5;
`
`The ’634 Patent
`
`4
`
`
`
`5
`
`5
`
`Defects in Petitioner’s Obviousness
`
`Theory
`
`Prior Art Deficiencies
`
`5
`
`
`
`6
`
`¶¶41-43
`1; 2d SuratiDec., EX2013,
`Response, 14-15; Sur-Reply,
`
`of modification
`Petitioner’s obviousness theory involves multiple layers
`
`6
`
`
`
`7
`
`7
`
`store “the e-mail program of Abiko” -
`Modification to Ording’scomputer to
`
`Element 1[a]
`
`Prior Art Deficiencies
`
`7
`
`
`
`Response, 14-15; Sur-Reply, 1; 2d SuratiDec., EX2013, ¶¶41-438
`
`“by processing only the messages in the new message folder.” (Pet., 44).
`menu—in addition to the newly added “New mail folder”—that is generated
`5)modifying Abiko’se-mail program by creating a sender information
`mentioned in Crumlish(Pet., 44).
`by adding a “New mail folder” and a “Main mail folder” in “the same way”
`4)modifying Abiko’se-mail program “to separately store new messages”
`Proposed additional modifications to resulting system:
`senders of new messages (Pet., 39-41 (element 1[c]).
`3)modifying Ording’sicon to display a count of the number of distinct
`(element 1[a]).
`that it is launched using an icon on Ording’suserbar600 (Pet., 33-34
`2)modifying Ording’scomputer to store “the e-mail program of Abiko” so
`capabilities of the mobile terminal in Abiko” (Pet., 31 (preamble).
`1)modifying Ording’scomputer to have “wireless communications
`Proposed modifications to Ording’scomputer based on Abiko:
`
`Petitioner’s third layer of modification is deficient
`
`8
`
`
`
`9
`
`Sur-Reply, 1
`
`there must be some reason to select a species from the genus.” (emphasis added)).
`generic disclosure and a common utility to that in the claims and other prior art references—
`after KSR, to support a determination of obviousness that a reference includes a broad
`KnaufInsulation, Inc.v. Rockwool Int’l A/S, 788 Fed. Appx. 728, 733: “It is not enough, even
`
`Response, 18; 2d SuratiDec., EX2013, ¶45
`
`Petition, 34
`
`Patent Owner’s Response:
`
`Petitioner’s case-in-chief:
`
`hardware to store “the e-mail program of Abiko”
`No articulated motivation for modifying Ording’scomputer
`
`9
`
`
`
`10
`
`Response, 22; 2d SuratiDec., EX2013, ¶48; Sur-Reply, 12
`decision, and thus reversed the Board’s finding of obviousness.
`declaration” from a petitioner cannot provide substantial evidence support for an obviousness
`TQ Delta, LLC v. Cisco Sys., 942 F.3d 1352, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 2019): An “ipse dixit
`
`Chatterjee Dec., EX1102, ¶80
`
`Petition, 34
`
`Dr. Chatterjee:
`
`declaration
`Copied into
`
`Petition:
`
`hardware to store “the e-mail program of Abiko”
`No articulated motivation for modifying Ording’scomputer
`
`10
`
`
`
`11
`
`Sur-Reply, 8; EX2017, 30:21-32:10
`
`Dr. Chatterjee was asked about element 1[a] during cross-examination.
`
`hardware to store “the e-mail program of Abiko”
`No articulated motivation for modifying Ording’scomputer
`
`11
`
`
`
`12
`
`petition,” and “an IPR petitioner may not raise in reply‘an entirely new rationale’”) (emphasis added). Sur-Reply, 5
`Henny Penny (Fed. Cir. 2019): confirming it was proper for the Board to “hold[] [Petitioner] to the obviousness theory in its
`
`Petition, p. 45 –Element 1[c]
`
`Petition, p. 43 –Element 1[c]
`
`Reply Theory (p. 3, 8-9)
`
`Petition, p. 31 -Preamble
`
`providing motivation for the modification of Element 1[a].Reply, 3.
`The Reply attempts to recast “other disclosures in the Petition” as
`hardware to store “the e-mail program of Abiko”
`No articulated motivation for modifying Ording’scomputer
`
`12
`
`
`
`13
`
`Sur-Reply, 2-3, 4
`
`storing/executing Abiko’sparticular species of “e-mail program.”
`unburden Petitioner from articulating motivation for distinct modifications of
`
`A mere showing of motivation to provide “wireless capabilities” does not
`2018)
`
`-Stingray Digital Group Inc. v. Music Choice, IPR2017-01191, Paper 38 (PTAB Oct. 11,
`
`In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2000)
`In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1343-44 (Fed. Cir. 2002)
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-Cutsforthv. Motivepower, 636 Fed. Appx. 575, 577-79 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`-Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc., 882 F.3d 1056, 1069 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
`Authority:
`
`Reply, 5.
`feature-by-feature basis.
`motivations to combine on a
`The law “does not” require
`Petitioner’s legal error:
`
`hardware to store “the e-mail program of Abiko”
`No articulated motivation for modifying Ording’scomputer
`
`13
`
`
`
`14
`
`Sur-Reply, 4
`
`storing/executing Abiko’sparticular species of “e-mail program.”
`unburden Petitioner from articulating motivation for distinct modifications of
`
`A mere showing of motivation to provide “wireless capabilities” does not
`
`(emphasis added)
`PersonalWebTechs., LLC v. Apple, Inc., 848 F.3d 987, 993-94 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`
`combined. And that is not enough.”
`presented with the two references, would have understood that they could be
`“But that reasoning seems to say no more than that a skilled artisan, once
`Authority:
`
`Reply, 5
`
`hardware to store “the e-mail program of Abiko”
`No articulated motivation for modifying Ording’scomputer
`
`legal error:
`Petitioner’s
`
`14
`
`
`
`15
`
`genus.”Sur-Reply, 11
`claims and other prior art references—there must be some reason to select a species from the
`obviousness that a reference includes a broad generic disclosure and a common utility to that in the
`KnaufInsulation (Fed. Cir. 2019): “It is not enough, even after KSR, to support a determination of
`
`Microsoft Exchange
`
`automatically display messages by sender.” Reply, 8-9
`Reply Alleges: “Abikoprovided specific advantages, including . . . the ability to
`modify Ording’scomputer to store “the e-mail program of Abiko”
`Petitioner’s belated theory still fails to articulate a motivation to
`
`Apple Mail
`
`15
`
`
`
`16
`
`16
`
`count of the number of distinct senders of
`Modification of Ording’sicon to display a
`
`new messages -Element 1[c]
`
`Prior Art Deficiencies
`
`16
`
`
`
`Response, 14-15; Sur-Reply, 1; 2d SuratiDec., EX2013, ¶¶41-4317
`
`“by processing only the messages in the new message folder.” (Pet., 44).
`menu—in addition to the newly added “New mail folder”—that is generated
`5)modifying Abiko’se-mail program by creating a sender information
`mentioned in Crumlish(Pet., 44).
`by adding a “New mail folder” and a “Main mail folder” in “the same way”
`4)modifying Abiko’se-mail program “to separately store new messages”
`Proposed additional modifications to resulting system:
`senders of new messages (Pet., 39-41 (element 1[c]).
`3)modifying Ording’sicon to display a count of the number of distinct
`(element 1[a]).
`that it is launched using an icon on Ording’suserbar600 (Pet., 33-34
`2)modifying Ording’scomputer to store “the e-mail program of Abiko” so
`capabilities of the mobile terminal in Abiko” (Pet., 31 (preamble).
`1)modifying Ording’scomputer to have “wireless communications
`Proposed modifications to Ording’scomputer based on Abiko:
`
`Petitioner’s third layer of modification is deficient
`
`17
`
`
`
`18
`
`Sur-Reply, 12-14; 2d SuratiDec., EX2013, ¶55
`
`Sur-Reply, 12; EX2017, 76:18-78:4
`
`Sur-Reply, 12; 2d SuratiDec., EX2013, ¶55
`
`Dr. Chatterjee:
`
`NOT DISPUTED IN THE REPLY
`
`Petitioner’s third layer of modification is deficient
`
`Dr. Surati:
`
`18
`
`
`
`19
`
`Sur-Reply, 12; EX1109, [0099]
`
`NOT DISPUTED IN THE REPLY
`
`EX2013, ¶56
`Sur-Reply, 12; 2d SuratiDec.,
`
`Abiko:
`
`Petition, 47
`
`Dr. Surati:
`
`error:
`Petitioner’s
`
`Petitioner’s third layer of modification is deficient
`
`19
`
`
`
`20
`
`requires the latter.”
`concern what is feasible, not what is, on balance, desirable. Motivation to combine
`Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2000): “Trade-offs often
`Sur-Reply, 14-15; EX1111, 18; Response, 33; 2d SuratiDec., EX2013, ¶57
`
`The Petition failed to meet its burden
`
`stated preferences, thus reducing to an assertion the proposed modifications were
`Petitioner’s analysis ignores “tradeoffs” without properly analyzing the prior art’s
`
`feasible—mere combinability.
`
`Dvorak
`
`Petitioner’s third layer of modification is deficient
`
`20
`
`
`
`21
`
`Response, 8-9, 45; 2d SuratiDec., EX2013, ¶35
`
`Abiko’sSolution:
`
`Response, 6-7; EX1109, [0005]
`
`Problem described by Abiko:
`
`Petitioner’s third layer of modification is deficient
`
`21
`
`
`
`22
`
`Response, 25-27
`components for combination in the manner claimed.”
`artisan, with no knowledge of the claimed invention, would have selected these
`In re Kotzab(Fed. Cir. 2000): “particular findings must be made as to the reason the skilled
`
`Petition, 46-47
`
`Petition:
`
`Petitioner’s third layer of modification is deficient
`
`22
`
`
`
`23
`
`23
`
`Further Modifications to Abiko’sE-mail
`
`program -Element 1[c]
`
`Prior Art Deficiencies
`
`23
`
`
`
`Response, 14-15; Sur-Reply, 1; 2d SuratiDec., EX2013, ¶¶41-4324
`
`“by processing only the messages in the new message folder.” (Pet., 44).
`menu—in addition to the newly added “New mail folder”—that is generated
`5)modifying Abiko’se-mail program by creating a sender information
`mentioned in Crumlish(Pet., 44).
`by adding a “New mail folder” and a “Main mail folder” in “the same way”
`4)modifying Abiko’se-mail program “to separately store new messages”
`Proposed additional modifications to resulting system:
`senders of new messages (Pet., 39-41 (element 1[c]).
`3)modifying Ording’sicon to display a count of the number of distinct
`(element 1[a]).
`that it is launched using an icon on Ording’suserbar600 (Pet., 33-34
`2)modifying Ording’scomputer to store “the e-mail program of Abiko” so
`capabilities of the mobile terminal in Abiko” (Pet., 31 (preamble).
`1)modifying Ording’scomputer to have “wireless communications
`Proposed modifications to Ording’scomputer based on Abiko:
`
`Petitioner’s fourth and fifth layers of modifications are deficient
`
`24
`
`
`
`25
`
`At most, Petitioner requires the Board to speculate “how the combination[] was
`
`supposed to work” with respect to read/unread messages.
`
`PersonalWeb, 848 F.3d 987 at 994.
`
`Sur-Reply, 21
`
`2d SuratiDec., EX2013, ¶73
`Response, 49; Sur-Reply, 21;
`
`NOT DISPUTED IN THE REPLY
`
`Dr. Surati:
`
`from multiple errors
`Petitioner’s further modifications to Abiko'se-mail program suffer
`
`25
`
`
`
`26
`
`Response, 47; EX2013, ¶71
`
`NOT DISPUTED IN THE REPLY
`
`Dr. Surati:
`
`Petition, 42
`
`from multiple errors
`Petitioner’s further modifications to Abiko'se-mail program suffer
`
`error:
`Petitioner’s
`
`26
`
`
`
`27
`
`Sur-Reply, 16-17;2d Surati Dec., EX2013, ¶¶61-62
`Apple, 839 F.3d 1034, 1051 n.15 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`
`“[S]tatementsregarding users preferring other forms of switches are relevant.”
`reference.” Polaris, 882 F.3d at 1069 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
`a skilled artisan would be motivated to combine that reference with another
`“[S]tatementsregarding preferences are relevant to a finding regarding whether
`
`-
`
`-
`
`Authority:
`
`Reply, 15
`
`from multiple errors
`Petitioner’s further modifications to Abiko'se-mail program suffer
`
`legal error:
`Petitioner’s
`
`27
`
`
`
`28
`
`Response, 38; 2d SuratiDec., EX2013, ¶62
`
`from multiple errors
`Petitioner’s further modifications to Abiko'se-mail program suffer
`
`Dr. Surati:
`
`28
`
`
`
`29
`
`Sur-Reply, 18-19
`
`F.3d at 1069 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (emphasis added)
`would be motivated to combine that reference with another reference.” Polaris, 882
`regarding preferences are relevant to a finding regarding whether a skilled artisan
`Authority: “[E]venif a reference is not found to teach away, its statements
`
`EX2013, ¶63
`Response, 40;
`
`Dr. Surati:
`
`Crumlish:
`
`from multiple errors
`Petitioner’s further modifications to Abiko'se-mail program suffer
`
`29
`
`
`
`30
`
`Sur-Reply, 23
`were employed as a mosaic to recreate a facsimile of the claimed invention.”
`were used as a frame, and individual, naked parts of separate prior art references
`W.L. Gore & Assocs. (Fed. Cir. 1983): reversing obviousness finding where “claims
`
`44 –element 1[c]).
`“New mail folder”—that is generated “by processing only the messages in the new message folder.” (Pet.,
`5)modify Abiko’se-mail program by creating a sender information menu—in addition to the newly added
`“Main mail folder” in “the same way” mentioned in Crumlish(Pet., 44 –element 1[c]).
`4)modify Abiko’se-mail program “to separately store new messages” by adding a “New mail folder” and a
`element 1[c]).
`3)modify Ording’sicon to display a count of the number of distinct senders of new messages (Pet., 39-41 –
`
`Response, 5; EX1113, 826
`
`from multiple errors
`Petitioner’s further modifications to Abiko'se-mail program suffer
`
`Notice of Allowance:
`
`30
`
`
`
`31
`
`Response, 55; EX1109, [0122]
`
`Response, 54-55; EX2013, ¶77
`
`from multiple errors
`Petitioner’s further modifications to Abiko'se-mail program suffer
`
`Dr. Surati:
`
`31
`
`
`
`32
`
`32
`
`Ground 2 –Ording, Abiko, Crumlish,
`
`Dvorak, and McPherson
`
`Prior Art Deficiencies
`
`32
`
`
`
`33
`
`NOT DISPUTED IN THE REPLY
`
`Sur-Reply, 24; EX2013, ¶83.
`
`Response, 61-62; EX2011, 174
`
`Dr. Surati:
`
`McPherson:
`
`Petitioner’s further modifications based on McPherson are deficient
`
`33
`
`
`
`34
`
`Response, 60; EX2013, ¶81.
`
`Response, 59; EX1112, 412
`
`Dr. Surati:
`
`McPherson:
`
`Petitioner’s further modifications based on McPherson are deficient
`
`34
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
