U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`IPR2021-01413
`
`
`
`Paper No.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC
`Petitioner
`v.
`
`MEMORYWEB, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2021-01413
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1039
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORY WEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 1 of 39
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`IPR2021-01413
`
`
`I. 
`II. 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`The Reply is Improper ..................................................................................... 1 
`Claim Construction .......................................................................................... 2 
`A.  Limitations [1b], [1d], [1e] and claim 3 .......................................................... 2 
`B.  Limitations [1n], [1p] / claim 5 ....................................................................... 5 
`III. 
`Petitioner Has Failed to Meet Its Burden Under Grounds 1 - 4 ...................... 9 
`A.  Limitation [1c]: “the map view including: (i) an interactive map” ................. 9 
`B.  Limitation [1d] the “map view including . . . [first/second] location
`selectable thumbnail image[s]” ..................................................................... 10 
`1.  Okamura Disparages Features Relevant to Flora ..................................... 10 
`2.  Okamura’s Stated “Preference” Is Relevant Even if Okamura Does Not
`Teach Away .............................................................................................. 13 
`3.  Petitioner’s Reliance on Okamura Figs. 27A-B and Fig. 41 is
`Misplaced .................................................................................................. 14 
`C.  Limitations [1b], [1d] and [1e]: “responsive to a first input, causing a
`map view to be displayed” ............................................................................. 17 
`D.  Limitations [1g] and [1j]: “[a first/second location view including] a
`first/second location name associated with the first/second location” .......... 18 
`1.  Okamura and Flora (Ground 1) ................................................................ 18 
`2.  Okamura, Flora, and Gilley (Ground 2) / Okamura, Flora, Wagner, and
`Gilley (Ground 4) ..................................................................................... 19 
`E.  Limitations [1n] and [1p]: “the people view including: . . . a first name …
`[and] … a second name” ............................................................................... 20 
`1.  Okamura and Flora (Ground 1) ................................................................ 20 
`2.  Okamura, Flora, and Gilley (Ground 3) / Okamura, Flora, Wagner, and
`Gilley (Ground 4) ..................................................................................... 20 
`F.  Claim 3: “the first indication feature is connected to the first location
`selectable thumbnail image” .......................................................................... 20 
`G.  Claim 5: “the map view further includes a first indication feature” and
`“second indication feature” ........................................................................... 22 
`IV.  Samsung and Apple are Unnamed RPIs ........................................................ 23 
`
`i
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1039
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORY WEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 2 of 39
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`IPR2021-01413
`
`
`A.  Apple and Samsung Desire Review of the ‘228 Patent and Benefit from
`Unified’s Petition ........................................................................................... 24 
`B.  Unified Filed This IPR at the Behest of Paid Members Apple and
`Samsung ......................................................................................................... 25 
`C.  The Board Cannot Disregard the Statutory Requirement to Name
`all RPIs ........................................................................................................... 27 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1039
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORY WEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 3 of 39
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`IPR2021-01413
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`Am. Calcar, Inc. v. Am. Honda Motor Co.,
`651 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .................................................................... 3, 5, 8
`Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd.,
`839 F.3d 1034 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 13
`Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. RPX Corp.,
`897 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .............................................................. 23, 24, 25
`Bausch & Lomb, Inc. v. Barnes-Hind/Hydrocurve, Inc.,
`796 F.2d 443 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ...................................................................... 21, 22
`Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd.,
`821 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...................................................................... 2, 19
`InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc'ns, Inc.,
`751 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 15
`Lumentum Holdings, Inc. v. Capella Photonics, Inc.,
`IPR2015-00739, Paper 38 (PTAB Mar. 4, 2016) ............................................... 27
`Micron Tech., Inc. v. N. Star Innovations, Inc.,
`No. IPR2018-00989, 2019 WL 5423610 (PTAB Oct. 22, 2019) ......................... 4
`Microsoft Corp. v. FG SRC, LLC
`860 F. App'x 708 (Fed. Cir. 2021) .................................................................... 3, 4
`NetApp, Inc. v. Proven Networks, LLC,
`IPR2020-01436, Paper 33 (Apr. 07, 2022) ......................................................... 18
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................ 8
`Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc.,
`882 F.3d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .................................................................... 13, 14
`
`iii
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1039
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORY WEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 4 of 39
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`IPR2021-01413
`
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. Semiconductor Components Indus., LLC,
`No. IPR2018-00180, 2019 WL 2237863 (PTAB May 23, 2019) .................... 4, 5
`RPX Corp. v. Applications in Internet Time, LLC,
`IPR2015-01750, Paper 128, 24-25 (PTAB Oct. 2, 2020) ...................... 24, 25, 26
`Sandisk Corp. v. Memorex Prods.,
`415 F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................ 6
`Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Cont'l Auto. Sys.,
`853 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................ 6
`Federal Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 312 ........................................................................................................ 27
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) .................................................................................................. 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1039
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORY WEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 5 of 39
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1039
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORY WEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 6 of 39
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1039
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORY WEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 7 of 39
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1039
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORY WEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 8 of 39
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1039
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORY WEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 9 of 39
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`IPR2021-01413
`
`
`MemoryWeb, LLC (“Patent Owner”) submits this sur-reply in response to the
`
`Reply filed by Unified Patents, LLC (“Petitioner” or “Unified”).
`
`I.
`
`The Reply is Improper
`Petitioner improperly introduces several new arguments and evidence,
`
`including a second Dr. Bederson declaration, to improperly attempt to fill gaps in
`
`the Petition:
`
`[1c]: Petitioner, citing several paragraphs of Dr. Bederson’s new declaration,
`
`now claims it would have been obvious that Okamura’s cluster map matrix forms a
`
`map. Reply, 3 (citing EX1038, ¶32-37 which itself cites new dictionary definitions
`
`of map). The Petition provided no obviousness analysis based on Okamura alone.
`
`Petition, 19-20.
`
`[1d]: The Reply relies on Okamura’s scalable maps (e.g. Figs. 27A-27B, Fig.
`
`41) and claims the Petition did the same. Reply, 5-9, n. 5 (citing EX1038, ¶¶53-57).
`
`However, the Petition relied on Flora’s (not Okamura’s) scalable map for this claim
`
`element. Petition, 21, 25-26.
`
`[1g] and [1j]: The Reply relies on Flora’s discussion of a location’s “entire
`
`description” in relation to the claimed first/second location name. Reply, 18 (citing
`
`EX1038, ¶65, quoting EX1005, 7:45-51). However, the Petition did not rely on this
`
`evidence. Petition, 34-35.
`
`1
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1039
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORY WEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 10 of 39
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`IPR2021-01413
`
`
`[1b], [1d] and [1e]: The Reply relies on a modification of how Flora displays
`
`icons 58, 59 on its geographic map 46. Reply, 17-18 (citing EX1038, ¶64). This
`
`modification was not in the Petition. Petition, 22-27; infra §III.C.
`
`Claim 3: The Reply relies on modifying how Okamura displays “information
`
`418” (first indication feature). Reply, 21 (citing EX1038, ¶72). This modification
`
`was not in the Petition. Petition, 62-67; infra §III.F.
`
`Claim 5: The Reply relies on modifying Okamura to display two pieces of
`
`“information 418” (first/second indication features) in the same view. Reply, 21-22
`
`(citing EX1038, ¶73-74). This modification was not in the Petition. Petition, 67-68;
`
`infra §III.G.
`
`Because the Reply presents multiple new issues, the entire Reply is improper
`
`and need not be considered. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); Trial Practice Guide, 73-75;
`
`Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369–70 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2016) (the Board need not parse the reply brief to determine which, if any, parts
`
`of that brief are responsive and which are improper).
`
`II. Claim Construction
`A. Limitations [1b], [1d], [1e] and claim 3
`The dispute over limitations [1b], [1d], [1e] and claim 3 boils down to the
`
`language of limitation [1b] — specifically, whether the phrase “responsive to a first
`
`input, causing a map view to be displayed on an interface” encompasses a scenario
`
`2
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1039
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORY WEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 11 of 39
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`IPR2021-01413
`
`where a separate intervening input (that is not the “first input”) is necessary for the
`
`map view to be displayed. Reply, 1-3; EX1001, 35:33-39.1 It does not. The express
`
`language of [1b] requires that the map view must be “caus[ed]” by and “responsive
`
`to” the first input, rather than a separate intervening input. POR, 27-28.
`
`Authority in the Response (not addressed by Petitioner) establishes that
`
`“responsive to” imparts a “cause-and-effect” relationship, whereby a second event
`
`occurs “automatically” in relation to a first event without “requiring further user
`
`interaction”:
`
`“In response to” connotes that the second event occur in reaction
`to the first event. The language of the claim itself suggests that when
`a vehicle condition is detected, the processing element identifies a
`provider automatically as opposed to requiring further user
`interaction.
`
`Am. Calcar, Inc. v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 651 F.3d 1318, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
`
`POR, 27. The Federal Circuit more recently determined that the phrase “selecting
`
`content of an internet site in response to the data elements” did not encompass
`
`“selection of web site content . . . in response to [a] separate event.” Microsoft
`
`Corp. v. FG SRC, LLC 860 F. App'x 708, 714 (Fed. Cir. 2021). While the claim did
`
`
`1 Unless otherwise stated, all emphasis shown in case and evidence cites is added.
`
`3
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1039
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORY WEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 12 of 39
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`IPR2021-01413
`
`not “expressly recite that the selecting of web site content is performed
`
`immediately,” the Court nevertheless reasoned that:
`
`The requirement that the content selection is in response to the
`transmission of the data elements implies that the selection of web
`site content is triggered by the transmission of data and that both steps
`are performed as part of a single transaction . . . .
`
`Id.
`
`The Board has construed “in response to” or “responsive to” language
`
`similarly. See, e.g., Micron Tech., Inc. v. N. Star Innovations, Inc., No. IPR2018-
`
`00989, 2019 WL 5423610, at *14 (PTAB Oct. 22, 2019) (finding that “[t]he phrase
`
`‘in response to’ connotes a cause-and-effect relationship”) (citing Am. Calcar, 651
`
`F.3d at 1340); see also Power Integrations, Inc. v. Semiconductor Components
`
`Indus., LLC, No. IPR2018-00180, 2019 WL 2237863, at *8 (PTAB May 23, 2019)
`
`(collecting cases holding that “in response to” defines a causal relationship).
`
`Dr. Bederson’s declaration and deposition
`
`testimony only highlight
`
`deficiencies in Petitioner’s logic. Dr. Bederson opined that the claim language
`
`“encompasses having intervening input(s) between a first input necessary for
`
`displaying the map view.” EX1038, ¶15. Yet, critically, Dr. Bederson declined to
`
`opine on the scenario actually at issue here —where an intervening input (that is not
`
`the first input) is necessary for displaying the map view. EX2046, 47:4-50:1 (“I don't
`
`think I have an opinion about that”). In other words, Dr. Bederson opined on a
`
`4
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1039
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORY WEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 13 of 39
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`IPR2021-01413
`
`scenario where the intervening input is simply present, rather than a scenario where
`
`the intervening input is “necessary” -- which is the scenario at issue here. Id.
`
`Dr. Bederson also declined to share any opinions regarding the meaning of
`
`“responsive to” to a POSITA because he “did not perform a separate analysis of the
`
`term ‘responsive to.’” EX2046, 49:12 – 50:11.
`
`The POR did not rely on the specification as “limiting.” Reply, 1. Instead the
`
`POR noted that Fig. 41 and its corresponding written description “discloses an
`
`exemplary embodiment consistent” with the claim language. POR, 28. Further,
`
`neither Petitioner nor Dr. Bederson have identified any embodiments requiring an
`
`intervening input after the “first input.” See e.g. Am. Calcar, 651 F.3d at 1340
`
`(noting that “the specification fails to disclose any embodiment that requires any
`
`type of user interaction prior to identification of a service provider”).
`
`The Reply adds no discussion of dependent claim 3 beyond its discussion of
`
`limitation [1b] of independent claim 1. Reply, 1-2; EX2046 65:3-18. These
`
`arguments fail for the same reasons discussed above and in the Response. POR 30-
`
`31; EX1001, 36:17-19.
`
`B.
`Limitations [1n], [1p] / claim 5
`The relevant language of claim 1 requires displaying a “people view … the
`
`people view including: . . . (ii) a first name . . . and (iv) a second name.” EX1001,
`
`5
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1039
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORY WEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 14 of 39
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`IPR2021-01413
`
`35:63-36:11. Petitioner and Dr. Bederson, however, argue that claim 1 instead
`
`encompasses first and second names displayed “at different times in a people view.”
`
`Reply, 2-3; EX1038, ¶20.
`
`Claim 1 does not state that the people view includes a first name “or” second
`
`name, or that the people view may optionally include the first name without the
`
`second name. Instead, the claim language expressly defines the elements of the
`
`claimed “people view” being “displayed” per limitation [1l] by reciting the
`
`transitional word “including” along with the conjunction “and.” EX2023, 73;
`
`EX1001, 35:61-36:11 (“display[ing] … the people view including: . . . (ii) a first
`
`name . . . and (iv) a second name”).
`
`“As a patent law term of art, ‘includes’ means ‘comprising.’” Sandisk Corp.
`
`v. Memorex Prods., 415 F.3d 1278, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Thus, a claim reciting a
`
`widget comprising / including “A and B” requires a “widget containing A and B ….”
`
`Id. Thus, the phrase “people view including: . . . (ii) a first name . . . and a second
`
`name” means exactly what it says —a view that includes both first and second
`
`names. EX1001, 35:63-36:11.
`
`Further, requiring only a portion of the people view at different times would
`
`impermissibly render the language of limitations [1n] and [1p] expressly defining
`
`the elements of the people view, “void, meaningless, or superfluous.” Wasica Fin.
`
`6
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1039
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORY WEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 15 of 39
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`IPR2021-01413
`
`GmbH v. Cont'l Auto. Sys., 853 F.3d 1272, 1288 n.10 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Indeed, Dr.
`
`Bederson agreed limitations [1n] and [1p] refer to the same “people view” including
`
`both first and second names. EX2046, 69:10 – 70:4.
`
`Including the first name and second name at separate times would also conflict
`
`with the “responsive” relationship between the “second input” and “causing” the
`
`display of the “people view.” EX1001, 35:61-36:11. Claim 1 recites a (i) a single
`
`“second input” and (ii) “causing” the display of the “people view” (that includes a
`
`first name and second name) “responsive to” that same “second input”; EX1001,
`
`35:61-36:112. In fact, Dr. Bederson agreed “claim limitation [1n] and [1p] are …
`
`two elements of a whole claim including a people view, which has to be displayed
`
`and responsive to a second input.” EX2046, 72:21-73:9.
`
`The Response did not rely on the specification as “limiting.” Reply, 2. Instead,
`
`the POR noted that Fig. 32 and its corresponding written description “discloses an
`
`exemplary embodiment consistent with the express words recited in the claim.”
`
`POR, 28-29, 32. Further, as Dr. Bederson acknowledged, the specification does not
`
`
`2 Dr. Bederson refused to identify a POSITA’s understanding of “causing.” EX2046,
`
`58:4-59:6, 61:15-64:3.
`
`7
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1039
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORY WEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 16 of 39
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`IPR2021-01413
`
`provide any people view examples that display only a “first name” without a “second
`
`name.” EX2046, 105:13-106:6; see e.g., Am. Calcar, 651 F.3d at 1340.
`
`Finally, Petitioner contends that a reference, US Pub. No. 2008/0126958 to
`
`Louie (“Louie”) (EX1037), corroborates that the first and second names may be
`
`displayed at different times. Reply, 2-3. However, Louie has no relationship to the
`
`‘228 patent and is “extrinsic evidence” of little relevance because the express words
`
`of limitations [1n] and [1p] are clear. EX2046, 92:6-18, 93:2-5. Phillips v. AWH
`
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Petitioner’s reliance on Louie is also a
`
`non-sequitur. That a computer programmer can develop a user interface displaying
`
`text at “different times” is irrelevant to claim language requiring a “first name . . .
`
`and a second name” in the same “people view.” Reply, 2-3; EX1001, 35:63-36:11.
`
`Petitioner and Dr. Bederson rely on the same arguments for the first / second
`
`indication features of claim 5. Reply, 2; EX2046, 27-30. These arguments fail for
`
`the same reasons discussed above and in the Response. POR, 28-29, 32. Thus, the
`
`“map view” of claim 5 must include a “first indication feature” and a “second
`
`indication feature” in the same view. Id.
`
`8
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1039
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORY WEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 17 of 39
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`IPR2021-01413
`
`III. Petitioner Has Failed to Meet Its Burden Under Grounds 1 - 4
`A. Limitation [1c]: “the map view including: (i) an interactive map”
`Petitioner argues that the 15 cluster maps of Okamura Fig. 18 form a map
`
`“because the arrangement provides information about particular geographic areas.”
`
`Reply, 3 (citing Dr. Bederson’s second declaration, EX1038, ¶¶32-37).
`
`Dr. Bederson’s new opinions on this element are not credible3. Dr. Bederson’s
`
`second declaration belatedly and improperly presents several new opinions on this
`
`limitation. See EX1038, ¶¶32-37; supra, §I. The newly cited dictionary definitions
`
`do not support Dr. Bederson’s opinions. Further, when asked hypothetically whether
`
`a can of three tennis balls is a tennis ball, Dr. Bederson could not answer. EX2046,
`
`37:9 - 32:2. This hypothetical is analogous to whether fifteen maps are a map. They
`
`are not. The individual cluster maps are not arranged relative to one another in a
`
`geographic manner; the clusters are arranged in an organized grid. EX2038, ¶64, 97.
`
`
`3 The Reply and Dr. Bederson argue that Dr. Bederson performed an element-by-
`
`element analysis of the prior art but he testified otherwise in his first deposition.
`
`Compare Reply, n3; EX1038, ¶31 with EX2035, 80:19-81:16; see also EX2046,
`
`168:3 - 169:13. Dr. Bederson was also unable to opine whether a thumbnail image
`
`in Flora’s Fig. 3 (showing a building) is a map. EX2046, 149:24-159:17; EX1005,
`
`Fig. 3
`
`9
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1039
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORY WEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 18 of 39
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`IPR2021-01413
`
`This does not, however, make them geographically organized such that they form a
`
`map. Id. This matrix organization distorts the geographic information such that they
`
`would not form a map. Id.
`
`B.
`
`Limitation [1d] the “map view including . . . [first/second] location
`selectable thumbnail image[s]”
`1. Okamura Disparages Features Relevant to Flora
`Petitioner disputes that Okamura’s disparagement of “related art” references
`
`Fujiwara (EX2005) and Takakura (EX2040) is relevant to Flora. Reply, 10-15. As
`
`previously explained, the embodiments of Fujiwara and Takakura present a scaling
`
`issue because the disclosed views present a single map having the same scale
`
`everywhere on the map (north-south-east-west):
`
`
`
`POR, 37-50; EX2005 (Fig. 12), EX2040 (Figs. 1, 7); EX2038, ¶¶50-64, 106-115;
`
`EX2046, 131:9 – 15.
`
`Okamura explains the disadvantages associated with this arrangement.
`
`EX1004, 0004 - 0010 (citing EX2005, EX2040). According to Okamura, when a
`
`map is scaled to show the countries of the world:
`
`10
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1039
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORY WEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 19 of 39
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`IPR2021-01413
`
`
`[M]arks indicating the generated positions of the images taken in Tokyo
`and its vicinity … are displayed at substantially the same position
`on the map, which may make it difficult to grasp the geographical
`correspondence between the images taken in Tokyo and its vicinity.
`
`EX1004, 0009; EX2038, ¶¶50-64, 106-115. Fujiwara Fig. 12 and Takakura Fig. 1
`
`(both reproduced above) show this noted disadvantage. Because each view presents
`
`only one map scaled to show a large geographic area, marks near each other appear
`
`in the “same position.” Id.
`
`Okamura adds that when the map is displayed at a scale “sufficiently small to
`
`show regions in the vicinity of Tokyo … it is not possible to display the generated
`
`positions of images taken in other regions.” Id., 0010. Takakura Fig. 7 (also
`
`reproduced above) shows this noted disadvantage. Because the view presents only
`
`one map scaled to show only a small geographic area, it does not display “other
`
`regions.” Id.
`
`Okamura solves this problem by displaying multiple cluster maps in the same
`
`view (see e.g. Okamura Fig. 18) and “changing the scale” of those individual cluster
`
`maps to ensure the contents for “each cluster can be … easily grasped by the user.”
`
`POR 41-45; EX2038, ¶¶50-64, 106-133; EX1004, 0215-0219, 0410; EX2046,
`
`145:15-22.
`
`Okamura’s disparagement of Fujiwara and Takakura is certainly relevant to
`
`Flora because Flora has the same scaling issues. Petitioner’s proposed combination
`
`11
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1039
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORY WEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 20 of 39
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`IPR2021-01413
`
`replaces Okamura’s matrix of individual cluster maps (providing individualized
`
`maps of varying scales showing locations in Japan and Hawaii) with a single map
`
`from Flora with icons that are not maps. Petition, 22; EX1004, 0331, 0213; EX2046,
`
`150:5 – 25. And, while Flora’s map can be scaled up or down, at any given time, the
`
`user is nevertheless presented with a single map having the same scale throughout –
`
`precisely what Okamura disparages. POR 41-45; EX2038, ¶¶111-113.
`
`The Response illustrates the scaling issue:
`
`
`
`Id. Under the proposed combination, thumbnail images at multiple locations in Japan
`
`and Hawaii are “are displayed at substantially the same position on the map” making
`
`it “difficult to grasp the geographical correspondence.” Id.; EX1004, 0010.
`
`The Reply claims that Okamura disparaged the related art’s display of icons
`
`“side by side” and placement of “markers” on a map rather than placement of
`
`12
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1039
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORY WEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 21 of 39
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`IPR2021-01413
`
`thumbnail images on a map. Reply, 10-15. However, as discussed immediately
`
`above, placing thumbnail images (rather than markers) on the map presents the same
`
`scaling issues Okamura disparages, and Dr. Bederson was unable to offer any
`
`opinion to the contrary. EX2046, 142:12 – 143:22. Further, Okamura’s discussion
`
`of the related art’s “side by side” arrangements and map “markers,” is tangential to
`
`Okamura’s primary concern —namely the scaling issues discussed above. EX1004,
`
`0009-0010; EX2038, ¶¶50-64, 106-115. Further, this disparagement is relevant to
`
`whether a POSITA would have been motivated to combine references. Infra,
`
`§III.B.2.
`
`2. Okamura’s Stated “Preference” Is Relevant Even
`Okamura Does Not Teach Away
`Like the Institution Decision, the Reply acknowledges Okamura, at the very
`
`if
`
`least, expresses a “preference” for using multiple cluster maps rather than a single
`
`map. ID, 55; Reply, 4. This preference is relevant even if Okamura is not found to
`
`teach away. POR, 47-49; Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc., 882 F.3d 1056, 1070
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2018); Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 839 F.3d 1034, 1051 n.15
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2016) (preferences are relevant).
`
`Rather than disputing whether stated preferences are relevant, Petitioner
`
`mischaracterizes the law by focusing on a purported absence of a so-called
`
`“‘definable acceptable’ way” in Okamura. Reply, 4 (citing Arctic Cat, Inc. v. Polaris
`
`13
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1039
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORY WEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 22 of 39
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`IPR2021-01413
`
`Industries, Inc., IPR2014-01427, Paper 73, 9 (Decision on Remand) (PTAB, March
`
`4, 2019). The reference to a so-called “definable acceptable” way in Arctic Cat
`
`concerned whether there was a teaching away argument. Id. In re Gurley (cited by
`
`Petitioner) also sought to determine if there was a teaching away. 27 F.3d 551, 552-
`
`553 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Reply, 5.
`
`Petitioner’s failure to address Okamura’s preferences, even absent a teaching
`
`away, in the motivation to combine analysis confirms Petitioner has not met its
`
`burden. Polaris, 882 F.3d at 1069.
`
`3.
`
`Petitioner’s Reliance on Okamura Figs. 27A-B and Fig. 41 is
`Misplaced
`Petitioner also points to alleged similarities between the “related art”
`
`references and Okamura Figs. 27A-B. Reply, 5-9. The “screen 480” of Figs. 27A-B
`
`“is a modification of the index screen” of Fig. 18. EX1004, 0276. In other words,
`
`Okamura identifies Fig. 18 and Figs. 27A-B as alternative arrangements.
`
`EX1004, Figs. 18, 27A.
`
`14
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1039
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORY WEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 23 of 39
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`IPR2021-01413
`
`
`The Petition, however, does not propose modifying the alternative
`
`arrangement of Figs. 27A-B by combining it with Flora. Petition, 22-27. Instead, the
`
`Petition proposes to modify the cluster map display area 414 of Okamura Fig. 18
`
`and its matrix of 15 individual cluster maps. Id.
`
`Even if the Board were to consider Figs. 27A-B (which it should not), Figs.
`
`27A-B do not prove a POSITA “would have been motivated” to modify Fig. 18 by
`
`turning to Flora —particularly in view of Okamura’s stated preference for presenting
`
`multiple cluster maps of different scales in the same view. POR 41-45; EX2038,
`
`¶¶106-133; InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc'ns, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1352 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2014). The alternative arrangement of Figs. 27A-B presents only a single
`
`“cluster map,” corresponding to an individually “selected” cluster, and has the same
`
`scaling issues discussed above. Id.; EX1004, 0277-0278. Okamura’s disclosure of
`
`this alternative arrangement does not change Okamura’s preference for the Fig. 18
`
`arrangement. Id.
`
`Petitioner’s discussion of Okamura Fig. 41 and the ability to change the scale
`
`of the map also misses the mark.
`
`15
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1039
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORY WEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 24 of 39
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`IPR2021-01413
`
`
`
`
`Reply, 8-9, n. 5; EX1004, Fig. 41. The Response did not argue that the scaling issues
`
`Okamura sought to address were merely caused by the “ability to zoom” in isolation.
`
`Reply, 9; POR, 40. Instead, the Response argued that presenting a map at a zoomed-
`
`in scale made it “not possible to display … other regions . . . on the map.” See e.g.
`
`POR, 40 (quoting EX1004, 0010); EX2038, ¶¶57-58, 64. Okamura resolved these
`
`issues by presenting multiple “‘maps corresponding to individual clusters’” where
`
`the “‘scale … is changed’” from cluster map to cluster map. POR 41-45; EX2038,
`
`¶¶106-133; EX1004, 0215.
`
`Okamura’s Fig. 41 reinforces this point by placing multiple individual cluster
`
`maps of varying scales on a “background map” that may use a different scale than
`
`the cluster maps. POR, 44-47; EX2038, ¶¶121-127; EX1004, Figs. 41, Figs. 44a-
`
`44b, 0215-0219, 0407-0411. The use of cluster maps in Okamuara Fig. 41 provides
`
`16
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1039
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORY WEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 25 of 39
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`IPR2021-01413
`
`the same benefits Petitioner’s combination would eliminate by replacing multiple
`
`cluster maps with a single map (along with thumbnails that are not maps). Id.
`
`C. Limitations [1b], [1d] and [1e]: “responsive to a first input, causing
`a map view to be displayed”
`The Response explained that the alleged “map view” that includes Flora’s
`
`icons 58 and 59 (first / second thumbnail images) would not be displayed in response
`
`to Okamura’s PLACE tab 413 (first input), as required by the express language of
`
`limitations [1b], [1d] and [1e]. Supra, §II.A; POR, 52-54. In particular, Flora teaches
`
`that Flora’s icons 58, 59 are presented only after a necessary intervening “user
`
`input” that is not Okamura’s PLACE tab 413 (first input). POR, 52-54 (citing
`
`EX1005, 6:67-7:8).
`
`Rather than disputing that an intervening input is necessary for the display of
`
`Flora’s icons, Petitioner instead argues that “th