`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Paper 67
`Entered: April 5, 2023
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`MEMORYWEB, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2021-01413
`Patent 10,621,228 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
`KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2037
`Apple, Inc. v. MemoryWeb, LLC - IPR 2022-00031
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01413
`Patent 10,621,228 B2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`We have authority to hear this inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
`This Final Written Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37
`C.F.R. § 42.73. For the reasons discussed below, we determine that
`Petitioner, Unified Patents, LLC (“Unified”), has shown by a preponderance
`of the evidence that claims 1–7 (the “challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No.
`10,621,228 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’228 Patent”) are unpatentable. See 35
`U.S.C. § 316(e) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d) (2019).
`A. Procedural History
`The Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.” or “Petition”) requested inter partes
`review of the challenged claims of the ’228 Patent. Patent Owner,
`MemoryWeb, LLC, filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 8 (“Prelim.
`Resp.”). With our authorization, Petitioner filed a Preliminary Reply (Paper
`11), and Patent Owner filed a Preliminary Sur-reply (Paper 12). Based upon
`the record at that time, we instituted inter partes review on all challenged
`claims on the grounds presented in the Petition. Paper 15 (“Institution
`Decision” or “Dec.”).
`After institution, Patent Owner filed a Response (Paper 23, “PO
`Resp.”), Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 29, “Pet. Reply”), Patent Owner
`filed a Sur-reply (Paper 35, “PO Sur-reply”), and with our authorization,
`Petitioner filed a Sur-sur-reply (Paper 42, “Pet. Sur-sur-reply”).
`Petitioner filed a Motion to Exclude certain evidence (Paper 44).
`Patent Owner opposed the motion (Paper 45).
`On December 16, 2022, an oral hearing was held. The hearing
`comprised a confidential session and a public session. A transcript of the
`
`2
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2037
`Apple, Inc. v. MemoryWeb, LLC - IPR 2022-00031
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01413
`Patent 10,621,228 B2
`hearing was made a part of this record. Paper 52 (confidential session),
`Paper 53 (public session).
`B. Real Party-in-Interest
`In the Petition, Petitioner stated that “[p]ursuant to 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.8(b)(1), Unified Patents, LLC . . . certifies that Unified is the real party-
`in-interest and certifies that no other party exercised control or could
`exercise control over Unified’s participation in this proceeding, filing this
`petition, or conduct in any ensuing trial.” Pet. 1.
`In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner argued that “Apple and
`Samsung1 should have been [named] as RPIs [(real parties in interest)] in
`this proceeding, and the failure to identify Apple and Samsung is a basis for
`the Board to deny institution.” Prelim. Resp. 28; see also id. at 22–28.
`As noted above, we authorized additional preliminary briefing to
`allow the parties to address RPI issue, as well as other issues. Ex. 1020. In
`its Preliminary Reply, Petitioner argued that “Patent Owner’s (PO’s) RPI
`arguments should be rejected as inappropriate or, at best, premature. As is
`the case here, the Board need not address whether a party is an unnamed RPI
`where no time bar or estoppel provisions under 35 U.S.C. § 315 are
`implicated.” Paper 11, 1 (citing SharkNinja Operating LLC v. iRobot Corp.,
`IPR2020-00734, Paper 11 at 18 (PTAB, Oct. 6, 2020) (precedential)
`
`
`1 We infer from the record that Patent Owner is referring to Samsung
`Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Samsung”) and Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) based on the
`petitions filed by these companies challenging the ’228 patent. See Sec. C,
`below.
`
`3
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2037
`Apple, Inc. v. MemoryWeb, LLC - IPR 2022-00031
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01413
`Patent 10,621,228 B2
`(“SharkNinja”); Unified Patents, LLC v. Fat Statz, LLC, IPR2020-01665,
`Paper 19 at 2–3 (PTAB, Apr. 16, 2021).
`Based upon the preliminary record at that time, we instituted inter
`partes review on all the challenged claims on the grounds presented in the
`Petition, but declined to determine whether Apple and Samsung were real
`parties in interest. Dec. 15. We declined to decide the real party in interest
`question at that time partly because determining whether a non-party is an
`RPI is a highly fact-dependent question and the case was still in its
`preliminary stage without a fully developed factual record. Moreover, we
`determined that we need not address the RPI issue at that time because there
`was no allegation that Apple or Samsung were subject to a time bar or
`estoppel that would preclude this proceeding. Accordingly, under the
`Board’s precedential decision in SharkNinja, IPR2020-00734, Paper 11 at
`18, we declined to decide the RPI issue at that time. See Paper 15, 11–14.
`After institution, Patent Owner raised the RPI issue again, arguing in
`its Response that
`the Board should terminate this proceeding because Petitioner
`has failed to name all real parties-in-interest (“RPIs”), including
`at least Samsung and Apple. Alternatively, the Board should find
`that Apple and Samsung are estopped from challenging the
`validity of claims 1–7 of the ‘228 patent in related proceedings:
`Apple Inc. v. MemoryWeb, LLC, IPR2022-00031 (the “Apple
`IPR”) and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., v. MemoryWeb, LLC,
`IPR2022-00222 (the “Samsung IPR”) (collectively, the “Related
`IPRs”).
`PO Resp. 14–15.
`
`
`4
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2037
`Apple, Inc. v. MemoryWeb, LLC - IPR 2022-00031
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01413
`Patent 10,621,228 B2
`Given that we now had a fully-developed factual record before us,
`including probative evidence on the RPI issue that was not available to us at
`the institution phase of this case, 2 and the parties have been able to argue
`this issue before the Board during a confidential session of the hearing in
`this proceeding (see Paper 52), we were able to fully address the real party in
`interest issue raised by Patent Owner in its Response. Accordingly, based
`upon the complete evidentiary record and the parties’ arguments, we issued
`an Order on March 8, 2023, (Paper 56) identifying Apple and Samsung as
`RPIs in this proceeding and instructing Petitioner to “update its Mandatory
`Notices by March 10, 2023, identifying all Real Parties in Interest consistent
`with this Order pursuant to its obligations under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1).”
`See Paper 56, 34.
`C. Related Matters
`According to the parties, the ’228 patent was asserted in the following
`district court proceedings: MemoryWeb, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co.,
`Ltd. et al., Case No. 6:21-cv-00411 (W.D. Tex.); MemoryWeb, LLC v. Apple
`Inc., Case No. 6:21-cv-00531 (W.D. Tex.); and MyHeritage (USA), Inc. et.
`al. v. MemoryWeb, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-02666 (N.D. Ill.). Pet. 1–2;
`Paper 4, 2; Paper 7, 2; Paper 9, 2–3.
`Patent Owner also identifies U.S. Patent No. 9,098,531 (“the ’531
`patent”), U.S. Patent No. 10,423,658 (“the ’658 patent”), U.S. Patent No.
`9,552,376 (“the ’376 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 11,017,020 (“the ’020
`
`2 Since institution, the parties supplemented the record with Exhibits 1030–
`1043 and 2027–2047, which included the deposition transcript of the CEO
`of Unified (Ex. 2036), as well as other relevant evidence on this issue.
`5
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2037
`Apple, Inc. v. MemoryWeb, LLC - IPR 2022-00031
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01413
`Patent 10,621,228 B2
`patent”), U.S. Patent No. 11,163,823 (“the ’823 patent”), pending U.S.
`Patent Application 17/381,047, and pending U.S. Patent Application
`17/459,933 as related to the ’228 patent. Paper 7, 2; Paper 9, 2–3.
`Patent Owner additionally indicates the following inter partes
`proceedings as related matters: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., v.
`MemoryWeb, LLC, IPR2022-00222 (PTAB) challenging the ’228 patent;
`Apple Inc. v. MemoryWeb, LLC, IPR2022-00031 (PTAB) challenging the
`’228 patent; Apple Inc. v. MemoryWeb, LLC, IPR2022-00111 (PTAB)
`challenging the ’020 patent; Apple Inc. v. MemoryWeb, LLC, PGR2022-
`00006 (PTAB) challenging the ’020 patent; Apple Inc. v. MemoryWeb, LLC,
`IPR2022-00033 (PTAB) challenging the ’658 patent; and Apple Inc. v.
`MemoryWeb, LLC, IPR2022-00032 (PTAB) challenging the ’376 patent.
`Paper 7, 2; Paper 9, 2–3.
`D. The ’228 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ’228 patent is titled “Method and Apparatus for Managing Digital
`Files” and “relates generally to the management of digital files and, more
`particularly, to a computer-implemented system and method for managing
`and using digital files such as digital photographs.” Ex. 1001, code (54),
`1:21–24. The ’228 patent describes a need for “a medium that allows people
`to organize, view, preserve and share [digital] files with all the memory
`details captured, connected and vivified via an interactive interface” and
`“allow digital files, including documents, photos, videos and audio, to tell a
`full story now, and for generations to come.” Id. at 1:61–67. The ’228
`patent provides a solution in the form of “a computer-implemented method
`of associating digital tags with digital files” and “a web-based digital file
`
`6
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2037
`Apple, Inc. v. MemoryWeb, LLC - IPR 2022-00031
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01413
`Patent 10,621,228 B2
`storage system [that] comprises a digital file repository for storing and
`retrieving digital files.” Id. at 2:3–6, 2:21–25, 2:40–45.
`The ’228 patent describes details of an “Application” (also called the
`“MemoryWeb Application”), which is an online program that can (i) import,
`associate and embed digital tags to digital files, (ii) view, sort, annotate, and
`share digital files from various Application Views, and (iii) store the digital
`files through an interactive storage system through a user relationship table.
`Id. at 8:63–9:16. The ’228 patent explains that the Application may be
`accessible “over various user interfaces” including those of “smart phones
`(e.g., iPhones), Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs) and Tablets (e.g.,
`iPads).” Id. at 9:18–22. The Application provides views (i.e., “Application
`Views”) that utilize the Application’s ability to associate digital tags to
`digital files and display them in customized views such as Uploads,
`Collections, Slideshow, Location, Timeline, Family Tree, People Profile,
`and Recipes. Id. at 9:23–28. The views enable a user to display the user’s
`digital media files and their tagged attributes. Id. at 5:57–60. The views
`include, inter alia: a location view that “identifies within an interactive map
`([e.g.,] Google map . . .), where digital files were taken or originated . . .
`[and] can also provide additional outputs such as a journey route that
`identifies the specific locations for an event or trip that can be customized by
`users”; a people view that “shows thumbnail photos of all the people in the
`system that can be clicked in for a people profile view”; and a people profile
`view that “shows a profile picture of an individual, their birth/death
`information, family relationships, overview (comments) on the person, as
`well as links to other views that contain that individual in the system.” Id. at
`
`7
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2037
`Apple, Inc. v. MemoryWeb, LLC - IPR 2022-00031
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01413
`Patent 10,621,228 B2
`6:13–30. Some views provided by the ’228 patent’s Application are shown
`in Figures 32 and 34, reproduced below. Id. at 3:62–66, 28:22–24.
`Figure 32 illustrates a People Application View (at indicator 1400)
`and a People Profile Application View (at indicator 1430). Id. at 18:37–40,
`22:59–61.
`
`
`
`
`
`In Figure 32, above, People Application View 1400 is used to display
`all the people that were created within a user’s Application. Id. at 22:60–
`23:11. This view can be seen by selecting “People” (illustrated at menu item
`1401) from any of the Application Views within the Application, which then
`provides a list of people in various sort orders. Id. For each person, a
`thumbnail of their face along with their name is depicted, as shown in Figure
`
`8
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2037
`Apple, Inc. v. MemoryWeb, LLC - IPR 2022-00031
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01413
`Patent 10,621,228 B2
`32, where Jon Smith (item 1403) and JC Jon Smith (item 1404) along with
`some other people are illustrated. Id. Also, at the top of every Application
`View within the Application, the user can select to apply filters (Apply
`Filters at item 1451). Id. In the People Profile Application View in Figure
`32, a single profile (item 1430) is illustrated. Id. at 23:12–49. The profile
`shows: the individual’s name (displayed at the top of the page, at 1431)
`along with their nicknames (at 1433); when they were born (at 1434); their
`family members (at 1435, 1436, 1437); their biography (at 1438); and a
`profile photo (at 1439). Id. For each person, the system can allow the user
`to quickly see all the tags that are associated to a person. Id.
`In Figure 32, the system illustrates that there are four photos (1452)
`associated with that person and illustrates thumbnails of each of the four
`photos (1446). Id. These thumbnails can be selected and then the user will
`be taken to the slideshow view for that digital file. Id. If the user selects
`Locations (1443), all of the locations that the specific person has been
`tagged within will be displayed. Id. If the user selects Family Relationships
`(1444), the people that the user is associated with will be displayed in a
`family chart or tree. Id. If the user selects any of the Application Dot-Tags
`such as the individual’s mother Jane Smith (Doe) (1449), the application
`will take the user to an individual people profile view of Jane Smith (Doe).
`Id. An Application Dot-Tag is a structure that enables navigation of the data
`in the Application, helps the user organize their digital files with key
`components of related information such as people, date of file, location, and
`collection, and indicates the manner in which a Digital Tag is displayed
`within the Application using pill-shaped indicators that can reside near a
`
`9
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2037
`Apple, Inc. v. MemoryWeb, LLC - IPR 2022-00031
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01413
`Patent 10,621,228 B2
`file’s image or overlaid on the file’s image. Id. at 9:40–67. The ’228 patent
`explains that the “Application Dot-Tag is more than just text” because
`“Memory-Web Application Dot-Tags act as mini search engines that allow
`the user to see how many matching files there are to that MemoryWeb Tag
`and if selected will take the user to the corresponding Application View to
`illustrate the linked search results of that Application Dot-Tag.” Id.
`Figure 34 of the ’228 patent, reproduced below, illustrates Location
`Views. Id. at 21:36–38, 24:16–17.
`
`Figure 34, above, shows Location Application View 1600 that
`displays all the locations that were created within the user’s Application; for
`each location, a thumbnail of a digital file from that location (e.g., Wrigley
`Field 1601); a view of a single location (1630), with the individual location
`
`
`
`10
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2037
`Apple, Inc. v. MemoryWeb, LLC - IPR 2022-00031
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01413
`Patent 10,621,228 B2
`name displayed at the top of the page (1632); thumbnails of each digital file
`within the specific collection, such as a photo (1633) taken at Wrigley Field
`(1634) that is associated with the location Wrigley Field. Id. at 24:16–54.
`The ’228 patent provides that “the Application can interact with a Third
`Party Geographical Mapping System to pull maps that correspond to the
`exact location of Digital Files that have a location tag.” Id. at 32:10–13.
`Figure 41 of the ’228 patent, reproduced below, is a screenshot of an
`Application Dot-Tag Filter in a Location Application View. Id. at 4:7–8.
`
`
`Figure 41, above, illustrates filtering results for an Application Dot-
`Tag filter in a Location Application View (at item 0870), providing a world
`map view that illustrates all the locations that are associated with one or
`
`
`
`11
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2037
`Apple, Inc. v. MemoryWeb, LLC - IPR 2022-00031
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01413
`Patent 10,621,228 B2
`more digital files for a user. Id. at 29:41–64, 32:15–18. As shown in Figure
`41, digital files are displayed within an interactive map (e.g., a Google map).
`Id. at 29:40–64. Individual or groups of digital files are illustrated as photo
`thumbnails (at indicators 0874 and 0875) on the map, and the user can select
`the thumbnail to see all the digital files with the same location, or the user
`can use the interactive map and narrow the map view by using a zoom
`in/zoom out bar (0876) or by selecting the map. Id. If an advanced filter is
`applied in the Locations Application View, a filter (e.g., of “JC Smith” at
`item 0872) is illustrated, and only the digital files that contain the person JC
`Smith are illustrated with their geographic location on the map. Id.
`E. Challenged Claims
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–7 of the ’228 patent. Pet. 2, 4. Claim 1
`is independent. Claim 1 is illustrative and is set out below.
`1. [1a-preamble] A method comprising:
`[1b] responsive to a first input, causing a map view to be
`displayed on an interface, [1c] the map view including:
`(i) an interactive map;
`[1d] (ii) a first location selectable thumbnail image at a first
`location on the interactive map; and
`[1e] (iii) a second location selectable thumbnail image at a
`second location on the interactive map;
`[1f] responsive to an input that is indicative of a selection of the
`first location selectable thumbnail image, causing a first location
`view to be displayed on the interface, [1g] the first location view
`including (i) a first location name associated with the first
`location and (ii) a representation of at least a portion of one
`digital file in a first set of digital files, [1h] each of the digital
`files in the first set of digital files being produced from outputs
`
`12
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2037
`Apple, Inc. v. MemoryWeb, LLC - IPR 2022-00031
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01413
`Patent 10,621,228 B2
`of one or more digital imaging devices, the first set of digital files
`including digital files associated with the first location;
`[1i] responsive to an input that is indicative of a selection of the
`second location selectable thumbnail image, causing a second
`location view to be displayed on the interface, [1j] the second
`location view including (i) a second location name associated
`with the second location and (ii) a representation of at least a
`portion of one digital file in a second set of digital files, [1k] each
`of the digital files in the second set of digital files being produced
`from outputs of the one or more digital imaging devices, the
`second set of digital files including digital files associated with
`the second location; and
`[1l] responsive to a second input that is subsequent to the first
`input, causing a people view to be displayed on the interface,
`[1m] the people view including:
`(i) a first person selectable thumbnail image including a
`representation of a face of a first person, the first person
`being associated with a third set of digital files including
`digital photographs and videos;
`[1n] (ii) a first name associated with the first person, the first
`name being displayed adjacent to the first person selectable
`thumbnail image;
`[1o] (iii) a second person selectable thumbnail image
`including a representation of a face of a second person, the
`second person being associated with a fourth set of digital
`files including digital photographs and videos; and
`[1p] (iv) a second name associated with the second person,
`the second name being displayed adjacent to the second
`person selectable thumbnail image.
`Ex. 1001, 35:32–36:11 (with brackets noting Petitioner’s labels, see Pet. 13–
`60).
`
`13
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2037
`Apple, Inc. v. MemoryWeb, LLC - IPR 2022-00031
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01413
`Patent 10,621,228 B2
`F. Evidence
`Reference or Declaration
`U.S. Patent Application Publication
`No. 2011/0122153 A1 (“Okamura”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,714,215 B1
`(“Flora”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication
`No. 2011/0163971 A1 (“Wagner”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication
`No. 2010/0172551 A1 (“Gilley”)
`Declaration of Benjamin Bederson,
`Ph.D.
`Reply Declaration of Benjamin
`Bederson, Ph.D.
`First Declaration of Professor Glenn
`Reinman
`Second Declaration of Professor
`Glenn Reinman
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date
`May 26, 2011
`
`Exhibit No.
`Ex. 1004
`
`March 30, 2004
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`July 7, 2011
`
`July 8, 2010
`
`Sept. 3, 2021
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`Ex. 1002
`
`Aug. 29, 2022
`
`Ex. 1038
`
`Dec. 17, 2021
`
`Ex. 2001
`
`June 6, 2022
`
`Ex. 2038
`
`14
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2037
`Apple, Inc. v. MemoryWeb, LLC - IPR 2022-00031
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01413
`Patent 10,621,228 B2
`G. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Claim(s) Challenged 35 U.S.C. §3
`1–7
`103(a)
`1-7
`103(a)
`1–7
`103(a)
`1–7
`103(a)
`
`Reference(s)
`Okamura, Flora
`Okamura, Flora, Wagner
`Okamura, Flora, Gilley
`Okamura, Flora, Wagner, Gilley
`
`Pet. 4.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Principles of Law: Obviousness
`A claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the
`differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art
`are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a
`person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of
`obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations,
`including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of skill in
`the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness, i.e., secondary
`
`
`3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011) (“AIA”), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. The ’228 patent claims priority
`to Patent Application No. 13/157,214, providing an effective filing date of
`June 9, 2011. See Ex. 1001, code (63). Because this priority date is before
`the effective date of the applicable AIA amendments (March 16, 2013), we
`use the pre-AIA version of 35 U.S.C. § 103 in this proceeding.
`15
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2037
`Apple, Inc. v. MemoryWeb, LLC - IPR 2022-00031
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01413
`Patent 10,621,228 B2
`considerations. 4 See Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1,
`17–18 (1966).
`The Supreme Court has made clear that we apply “an expansive and
`flexible approach” to the question of obviousness. KSR, 550 U.S. at 415.
`Whether a patent claiming the combination of prior art elements would have
`been obvious is determined by whether the improvement is more than the
`predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
`Id. at 417. Reaching this conclusion, however, requires more than a mere
`showing that the prior art includes separate references covering each
`separate limitation in a claim under examination. Unigene Labs., Inc. v.
`Apotex, Inc., 655 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Rather, obviousness
`requires the additional showing that a person of ordinary skill would have
`selected and combined those prior art elements in the normal course of
`research and development to yield the claimed invention. Id.
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill
`In determining whether an invention would have been obvious at the
`time it was made, we consider the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art
`at the time of the invention. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17
`(1966). “The importance of resolving the level of ordinary skill in the art
`lies in the necessity of maintaining objectivity in the obviousness inquiry.”
`Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
`
`
`4 The current record does not present or address any evidence of
`nonobviousness.
`
`16
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2037
`Apple, Inc. v. MemoryWeb, LLC - IPR 2022-00031
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01413
`Patent 10,621,228 B2
`Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would
`have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical
`engineering, or a related field, and at least two years of academic or industry
`experience in software development related to content management systems
`and user interfaces,” and that “[m]ore education can supplement practical
`experience and vice-versa.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 23).
`Patent Owner does not provide a description of a person of ordinary
`skill in the art but “does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of skill.” PO
`Resp. 26.
`Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill is generally
`consistent with the subject matter of the ’228 Patent, with the exception of
`the qualifier “at least,” which creates a vagueness that may extend the level
`to that reflecting an expert. Based on the record presented, including our
`review of the ’228 patent and the types of problems and solutions described
`in the ’228 patent and the cited prior art, we determine that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art is a person with a bachelor’s degree in computer
`science, electrical engineering, or a related field, with two years of academic
`or industry experience in software development related to content
`management systems and user interfaces.
`C. Claim Construction
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b), we apply the claim construction
`standard as set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir.
`2005) (en banc). Under Phillips, claim terms are generally given their
`ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one with
`ordinary skill in the art in the context of the specification, the prosecution
`
`17
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2037
`Apple, Inc. v. MemoryWeb, LLC - IPR 2022-00031
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01413
`Patent 10,621,228 B2
`history, other claims, and even extrinsic evidence including expert and
`inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises, although extrinsic
`evidence is less significant than the intrinsic record. Phillips, 415 F.3d at
`1312–17. Usually, the specification is dispositive, and it is the single best
`guide to the meaning of a disputed term. Id. at 1315.
`Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then only
`to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v.
`Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir.
`2017) (in the context of an inter partes review, applying Vivid Techs., Inc. v.
`Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
`Petitioner asserts that “no terms of the ’228 patent warrant
`construction beyond their ordinary and customary meaning.” Pet. 8.
`Patent Owner “does not believe claim construction is required because
`the plain and ordinary meaning of the claims is clear.” PO Resp. 26.
`For purposes of this Decision, we agree with the parties that no claim
`terms require express construction. See Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803
`(holding that only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and
`“only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”). To the extent that
`the meaning of any claim term is addressed, we use its ordinary and
`customary meaning as discussed in our analysis below.
`D. Relevant Prior Art
`1. Okamura (Ex. 1004)
`Okamura is titled “Information Processing Apparatus, Information
`Processing Method, and Program” and “relates to . . . an information
`processing apparatus which displays contents such as image files, an
`
`18
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2037
`Apple, Inc. v. MemoryWeb, LLC - IPR 2022-00031
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01413
`Patent 10,621,228 B2
`information processing method, and a program for causing a computer to
`execute the information processing method.” Ex. 1004, code (54), ¶ 2. The
`image files may be digital files, such as “image files recorded by an image
`capturing apparatus such as a digital still camera,” and Okamura’s
`information processing apparatus (i) calculates transformed coordinates for
`each of a plurality of superimposed images associated with coordinates in a
`background image, by transforming coordinates of other superimposed
`images with respect to one superimposed image as a reference image in such
`a way that coordinate intervals within a predetermined area with respect to
`the reference image become denser with increasing distance from the
`reference image toward the boundary, (ii) sets coordinates of the reference
`image on the basis of a mean value obtained by calculating a mean of the
`calculated coordinates of the other superimposed images with respect to the
`reference image, and (iii) displays the background image and the plurality of
`superimposed images on a display section in such a way that the reference
`image is placed at the set coordinates in the background image. Id. at code
`(57) (Abstract), ¶ 91.
`In Okamura, in accordance with an operational input for activating a
`content playback application, an index screen is displayed on a display. Id.
`¶ 233. An index screen is a display screen that displays a listing of clusters
`(including image files, such as still image files) from which to select a
`desired cluster. Id. ¶¶ 125, 233, 139 (“Clustering refers to grouping
`(classifying) together a plurality of pieces of data within a short distance
`from each other in a data set” where “[t]he distance between contents refers
`to the distance between the positions (such as geographical positions,
`
`19
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2037
`Apple, Inc. v. MemoryWeb, LLC - IPR 2022-00031
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01413
`Patent 10,621,228 B2
`positions along the temporal axis, or positions along the axis representing
`the similarity between faces) of two points corresponding to contents. A
`cluster is a unit in which contents are grouped together by clustering.”).
`Examples of displays of index screens are shown in Figures 18 to 21. Id.
`¶ 233. When a desired cluster is determined by a user operation on the index
`screen shown in each of Figures 18 to 21, a content playback screen is
`thereafter displayed. Id. ¶ 248.
`Figures 18 and 19 of Okamura, reproduced below, are examples of
`display of index screens that display cluster maps as index images. Id.
`¶¶ 38–39, 234.
`
`Figure 18 is an example of a display of an index screen. Id. ¶ 38.
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2037
`Apple, Inc. v. MemoryWeb, LLC - IPR 2022-00031
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01413
`Patent 10,621,228 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 19 is another example of a display of an index screen. Id. ¶ 39.
`As shown above in Figures 18 and 19, a cursor (mouse pointer) 419
`that moves with the movement of a mouse is displayed on the screen shown
`on the display. Id. ¶ 234. The cursor 419 is a mouse pointer used to point to
`an object of instruction or operation on the screen displayed on the display
`section 181. Id. As shown in Figure 18, an “EVENT” tab 411, a “FACE”
`tab 412, a “PLACE” tab 413, a cluster map display area 414, and left and
`right buttons 415 and 416 are provided on an index screen 410. Id. ¶ 235.
`“EVENT” tab 411, “FACE” tab 412, and “PLACE” tab 413 are tabs for
`displaying another index screen. Id. ¶ 236. In the cluster map display area
`414, a listing of marks (cluster maps) representing clusters is displayed. Id.
`¶ 237. For example, as shown in Figure 18, cluster maps of the same size
`are displayed in a 3×5 matrix fashion, for example. Id. ¶ 237.
`
`21
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2037
`Apple, Inc. v. MemoryWeb, LLC - IPR 2022-00031
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01413
`Patent 10,621,228 B2
`When the mouse is placed over a cluster map 417 by a user operation
`on index screen 410 shown in Figure 18, as shown in Figure 19, the color of
`the cluster map 417 is changed, and pieces of information 418 related to the
`cluster map 417 are displayed. Id. ¶ 240. For example, the entire cluster
`map 417 is changed to a conspicuous color (for example, grey) and
`displayed. Id. As the pieces of information 418 related to the cluster map
`417, for example, the number of contents “28” belonging to a cluster
`corresponding to the cluster map 417, and the cluster title “Mt. Fuji” of the
`cluster are displayed. Id. Also, as the pieces of information 418 related to
`the cluster map 417, for example, information on the latitude and longitude
`of the center position of the cluster corresponding to the cluster map 417,
`“Lat. 35°21’N, Long. 138°43’E,” is displayed. Id. As pieces of information
`418 related to clust