Paper No.
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`
`v.
`
`MEMORYWEB, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2022-00031
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`OVERVIEW OF THE ‘228 PATENT ............................................................ 1 
`A. 
`The ‘228 Patent “Views” ....................................................................... 2 
`A. 
`The Claimed Methods Provide Easy Navigation of These
`Views ..................................................................................................... 6 
`SUMMARY OF PETITIONER’S REFERENCES ........................................ 7 
`A.  A3UM (Ex. 1005).................................................................................. 7 
`1. 
`The Browser/Viewer ................................................................... 8 
`2. 
`The Toolbar ................................................................................. 9 
`3. 
`The Inspector Panes .................................................................. 10 
`4. 
`Places and Faces Views ............................................................ 10 
`5. 
`The Apple Human Interface Guidelines ................................... 13 
`Belitz (Ex. 1006) ................................................................................. 14 
`B. 
`  LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART ................................................................. 15 
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 15 
`  PETITIONER HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT THE CHALLENGED
`CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE .............................................................. 15 
`A. 
`Petitioner Has Not Established That A3UM Qualifies as Prior
`Art ........................................................................................................ 15 
`1. 
`Petitioner Has Not Established that the Website Version of
`A3UM was Publicly Accessible to a POSITA ......................... 16 
`Petitioner Has Not Established That Ex. 1005 Accurately
`Represents What Was Shown on the Aperture 3 User Manual
`Page Before June 2010 .............................................................. 23 
`Petitioner’s “Evidence” of Sales Fails to Establish Public
`Accessibility .............................................................................. 26 
`Petitioner’s Reliance on the Aperture 3 Installation DVD Falls
`Short .......................................................................................... 27 
`Aperture 3 Installed on a Mac Computer is Not a Printed
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`B. 
`C. 
`
`Publication ................................................................................ 38 
`6.  Mr. Birdsell’s Testimony Lacks Credibility ............................. 41 
`Other Non-Prior Art ............................................................................ 43 
`Petitioner Failed to Meet its Burden for Claim 1 ................................ 45 
`1. 
`Petitioner failed to show that A3UM discloses or renders
`obvious a “third/[fourth] set of digital files including digital
`photographs and videos” ........................................................... 45 
`Petitioner failed to meet its burden to show a POSITA would
`combine A3UM and Belitz ....................................................... 52 
`Petitioner Failed to Meet its Burden for Dependent Claims 8-9 ........ 60 
`D. 
`Petitioner Failed to Meet its Burden for Dependent Claim 15 ........... 64 
`E. 
`  CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 70 
`
`
`2. 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc.,
`908 F.3d 765, 772 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................................ Passim
`
`
`Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Prod. Inc.,
`
`876 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 51
`
`Arctic Cat Inc. v. Polaris Indus., Inc.,
`795 F. App'x 827 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ...................................................................... 55
`
`
`B/E Aerospace, Inc. v. C & D Zodiac, Inc.,
`709 F.App’x 687 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ...................................................................... 26
`
`
`Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc.,
`
`815 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 17
`
`Capsugel Belgium NV v. Innercap Techs., Inc.,
`
`IPR2013-00331, Paper 9 (PTAB Dec. 9, 2013) ................................................. 41
`
`Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`847 F. App'x 869 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ...................................................................... 21
`
`
`Checkpoint Sys., Inc. v. All-Tag Sec.; S.A.,
`412 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 42
`
`
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.,
`
`IPR2018-01436, Paper 40 (PTAB Jan. 23, 2020) ........................................ 36, 37
`
`Electronic Frontier Foundation v. Personal Audio, LLC,
`IPR2014-00070, Paper 21 (PTAB Apr. 18, 2014) ................................. 23, 24, 25
`
`
`Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Pharms. Int’l GmbH,
`
`8 F.4th 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ............................................................................. 43
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Ex Parte Stuart A. Nelson,
` No. 2020-004978, 2020 WL 8186425 (PTAB Dec. 31, 2020)) ......................... 41
`
`GoPro, Inc. v. Contour IP Holding LLC,
`908 F.3d 690 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................................................ 21
`
`
`In re Cronyn,
`
`890 F.2d 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1989) .......................................................................... 29
`
`Instradent USA, Inc. v. Nobel Biocare Services AG,
`IPR2015-01786, Paper 106 (PTAB Feb. 15, 2017) ...................................... 16, 38
`
`
`Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
`
`688 F.3d. 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ......................................................................... 57
`
`Linear Tech. Corp. v. Impala Linear Corp.,
`379 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 42
`
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Icon Health Fitness Inc.,
`IPR2017-01363, Paper 33 (PTAB Nov. 28, 2018) ............................................. 19
`
`
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co.,
`868 F.3d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 15
`
`
`Ohio Willow Wood v. Alps South,
`735 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 42
`
`
`
`Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc.,
`
`882 F.3d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .......................................................................... 56
`
`Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`24 F.4th 1367, 2022 WL 288013 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ............................................. 43
`
`
`Salesforce.com, Inc. v. WSOU Investments, LLC,
`
`IPR2022-00428, Paper 10 (PTAB July 13, 2022) .............................................. 20
`
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Infobridge Pte. Ltd.,
`929 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .................................................................. Passim
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Stryker Corp. v. Karl Storz Endoscopy-Am., Inc.,
`IPR2015-00677, Paper 15 (PTAB Sept. 2, 2015) ............................................... 44
`
`
`Supercell Oy v. GREE, Inc.,
`IPR2021-00501, Paper 7 (PTAB Aug. 17, 2021) ............................................... 41
`
`
`Yeda Research & Dev. Co. v. Mylan Pharm. Inc.,
`906 F.3d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ......................................................................... 43
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00031
`
`
`
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`LISTING OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`
`2001
`
`WITHDRAWN
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`Hyunmo Kang et al., Capture, Annotated, Browse, Find, Share:
`Novel Interfaces for Personal Photo Management, International
`Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 23(3), 315-37 (2007)
`(“Kang”)
`
`Jaffe et al., Generating Summaries and Visualization for Large
`Collections of Geo-Referenced Photographs, Proceedings of the
`8th ACM SIGMM International Workshop on Multimedia
`Information Retrieval, MIR 2006, October 26-27, 2006 (“Jaffe”)
`
`Allan Hoffman, Create Great iPhone Photos: Apps, Tips, Tricks,
`and Effects, No Starch Press, Inc. (Copyright 2011)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0171763 (“Bhatt”)
`
`Feb. 8, 2022 eBay Order Confirmation for “Apple Aperture 3
`Upgrade for Mac Brand New Photography”
`
`Apple Inc. Aperture Software License Agreement
`
`Declaration of John Leone, Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Centripetal
`Networks, Inc., IPR2018-01436, Ex. 1005 (July 20, 2018)
`
`Aperture 3 User Manual,
`http://documentation.apple.com/aperture/usermanual (Archive.org:
`July 26, 2010)
`
`Aperture 3 User Manual,
`http://documentation.apple.com/aperture/usermanual (Archive.org:
`Feb. 17, 2010)
`
`2011
`
`RESERVED
`
`i
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00031
`
`
`
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`Description
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`2014
`
`2015
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`2021
`
`2022
`
`2023
`
`2024
`
`2025
`
`2026
`
`RESERVED
`
`Apple, Inc., www.apple.com, (Archive.org: Mar. 12, 2010)
`
`Devin Coldewey, Review: Aperture 3, CrunchGear
`(https://techcrunch.com/2010/03/19/review-aperture-3/) (last
`accessed Feb. 2, 2022)
`
`Hilary Greenbaum, Who Made Google’s Map Pin?, The New York
`Times, (Apr. 18, 2011)
`
`Google Developers, Customizing a Google Map: Custom Markers
`(last accessed Feb. 17, 2022)
`
`KML4Earth, Google Earth/Maps Public Icons,
`http://kml4earth.appspot.com:80/icons.html (Archive.org May 27,
`2012)
`
`Declaration of Angelo J. Christopher
`
`RESERVED
`
`RESERVED
`
`Apple, Inc., “Apple Human Interface Guidelines” (Aug. 20, 2009)
`
`Wilbert O. Galitz, “The Essential Guide to User Interface Design:
`An Introduction to GUI Design Principles and Techniques,” Wiley
`Publishing, Inc. (3rd Ed.) (2007)
`
`Transcript of Deposition of Dr. Loren Terveen (Vol. I)
`
`Transcript of Deposition of Dr. Loren Terveen (Vol. II)
`
`Declaration of Rajeev Surati, Ph.D
`
`Transcript of Deposition of Matthew Birdsell
`
`ii
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00031
`
`
`
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`2027
`
`2028
`
`2029
`
`2030
`
`2031
`
`2032
`
`2033
`
`Description
`
`Affidavit of Nathaniel E Frank-White
`
`RESERVED
`
`RESERVED
`
`RESERVED
`
`RESERVED
`
`eBay Receipt (August 15, 2022)
`
`Jennifer Tidwell, Designing Interfaces, O’Reilly (1st Ed. 2005)
`
`iii
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00031
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner has not shown any challenged claim is unpatentable.
`
` OVERVIEW OF THE ‘228 PATENT
`As the ‘228 patent explains, digital photography/video was experiencing
`
`“explosive growth” at the time of invention. Ex. 1001, 1:40-47, 13:3-10. The
`
`inventors recognized that existing technology failed to provide people with a way to
`
`easily organize, view, and display their exploding number of digital photos and
`
`videos. Id., 1:61-65, 13:24-30. While entities such as Facebook, Flickr, and
`
`Shutterfly provided certain functionality, those solutions lacked the ability to easily
`
`organize and navigate through these digital files. Id., 1:50-56, 13:13-19.
`
`Accordingly, the ‘228 patent discloses and claims methods of organizing and
`
`displaying digital files “allow[ing] people to organize, view, preserve and share
`
`these files with all the memory details captured, connected and vivified via an
`
`interactive interface”; i.e., create an easy way to navigate a web of memories. Id.,
`
`1:61-65, 13:24-30. As such, the claimed methods “save[] a user significant time,
`
`provide[] significant information with minimal screen space, and provide[] an
`
`appealing and customizable interface that will enhance the user experience.” Id.,
`
`2:55-59, 13:31-35; Ex. 2025, ¶¶62-63.
`
`1
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00031
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`A. The ‘228 Patent “Views”
`The ‘228 patent discloses and claims a “map view,” such as the example
`
`shown in FIG. 41. Ex. 1001, 29:41-64, 32:14-18; Ex. 2025, ¶54.1
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG. 41 (annotated)
`
`
`
`In the map view, “individual or groups of Digital Files are illustrated as photo
`
`thumbnails (see indicators 0874 and 0875)) on the map.” Ex. 1001, 29:48-55; Ex.
`
`
`1 Pursuant to p. 51 of the Trial Practice Guide, Patent Owner withdraws its reliance
`
`on the Declaration of Rajeev Surati, Ph.D (Ex. 2001) submitted with the preliminary
`
`response.
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00031
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`2025, ¶54. The geographic map is interactive in that the user can, for example,
`
`“narrow the map view by either using the Zoom in/Zoom out bar (0876) on the left
`
`or simply selecting the map.” Ex. 1001, 29:52-55; Ex. 2025, ¶54.
`
`From the “map view,” the ‘228 patent discloses that “the user can select the
`
`thumbnail to see all the Digital Files with the same location.” Ex. 1001, 29:50-52.
`
`FIG. 34 is an example of the “[first/second] location view” in claim 1. Ex. 2025,
`
`¶56.
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG. 34 (excerpted and annotated)
`
`
`
`This “location view” includes “[t]he individual location name” and “[t]humbnails of
`
`each Digital File within the specific collection.” Ex. 1001, 24:37-41. Navigating to
`
`this “location view” via the “map view” allows users to efficiently and intuitively
`
`locate and display digital files associated with a location. Ex. 2025, ¶57.
`
`The ‘228 patent also discloses and claims a “people view,” such as the
`
`example shown in FIG. 6. Ex. 2025, ¶58.
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00031
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG. 6 (annotated)
`
`
`
`The exemplary people view of FIG. 6 includes “thumbnail photos of all the people
`
`in the system that can be clicked in [sic] for a people profile view.” Ex. 1001, 6:20-
`
`26; Ex. 2025, ¶58.
`
`According to the ‘228 patent, selecting a thumbnail associated with a person
`
`in the “people view” causes a “person view” to be displayed, such as the view shown
`
`in FIG. 7. Ex. 1001, 6:24-30; Ex. 2025, ¶59.
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00031
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, FIGS. 6-7 (annotated)
`
`The exemplary view in FIG. 7 includes, among other things, a “profile picture of an
`
`individual” and additional text and images. Ex. 1001, 6:26-30; Ex. 2025, ¶59. This
`
`view also includes “links to other views that contain that individual in the system.”
`
`Id., 6:29-30; Ex. 2025, ¶59.
`
`FIG. 32 illustrates another example of the claimed “people view.” Ex. 1001,
`
`22:52-62; Ex. 2025, ¶60. As shown below, for “each person, a thumbnail of their
`
`face along with their name is depicted.” Ex. 1001, 23:1-2.
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG. 32 (excerpted and annotated)
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00031
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`FIG. 32 also illustrates an example of the claimed “[first/second] person
`
`view,” which includes among other things, a person’s name 1431, a profile photo
`
`1440, and photos 1452 associated with that person. Ex. 1001, 23:12-26; Ex. 2025,
`
`¶61. One feature in this person view is that the selectable element 1443, which will
`
`show “all of the Locations that specific person has been tagged within.” Ex. 1001,
`
`23:33-35; Ex. 2025, ¶61.
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG. 32 (excerpted and annotated)
`
`
`
`A. The Claimed Methods Provide Easy Navigation of These Views
`The claimed methods of the ‘228 patent allow a user to easily create and
`
`navigate an interconnected web of these growing numbers of digital files, i.e., their
`
`memories. Ex. 2025, ¶62.
`
`The claims require arranging the views in a particular manner with each view
`
`having particular selectable elements. Id., ¶63. The claims then take the user through
`
`the methods, flowing through the various views by selecting intuitive identifying
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00031
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`elements, allowing the user to see only the desired useful information, e.g.,
`
`photo/video files of particular people in the user’s web of memories, particular
`
`locations where digital files were taken, and/or the numbers of those photos
`
`associated with people and/or locations. Id. The claimed flow of views and methods
`
`provide the ease of navigation and organization previously lacking in the prior art as
`
`discussed below. Id.
`
` SUMMARY OF PETITIONER’S REFERENCES
`Petitioner primarily relies on two references: A3UM (Ex. 1005) and Belitz
`
`(Ex. 1006). Each is discussed below.
`
`A. A3UM (Ex. 1005)
`A3UM is a compilation of HTML files relating to Aperture 3, a photo editing
`
`and management tool designed for professional photographers. Ex. 1005; Petition,
`
`13; Ex. 2025, ¶72.
`
`According to A3UM, “[w]hen you first open Aperture, you see the following
`
`areas” shown in the screenshot below. Ex. 1005, 6; Ex. 2025, ¶73.
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00031
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`Ex. 1005, 6 (annotated)
`
`
`
`This screen includes a toolbar, tabs for the library, metadata, and adjustments
`
`inspectors, and a projects view. Id.
`
`1.
`The Browser/Viewer
`A3UM illustrates a split view arrangement where a series of images are shown
`
`in a Browser (along the bottom portion of the screen) with another larger image in a
`
`Viewer (above the Browser). Ex. 1005, 15; Ex. 2025, ¶74.
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00031
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`Ex. 1005, 46
`
`
`
`2.
`The Toolbar
`“The toolbar is a collection of buttons and tools located at the top of the
`
`Aperture main window” that is shown “by default.” Ex. 1005, 64; Ex. 2025, ¶80.
`
`Ex. 1005, 64-65
`
`
`
`In certain circumstances, selecting the Faces button causes a Faces view to be
`
`displayed, while selecting the Places button causes a Places view to be displayed.
`
`Ex. 1005, 65; Ex. 2025, ¶¶81-84. Both of these views are discussed below.
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00031
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`3.
`The Inspector Panes
`The Inspector pane includes tabs to switch between the Library, Metadata,
`
`and Adjustments inspectors. Ex. 1005, 54; Ex. 2025, ¶85.
`
`Ex. 1005, 54
`
`
`
`The Library inspector “provides a number of ways to view items in the library,”
`
`including the Faces and Places views. Ex. 1005, 55; Ex. 2025, ¶86. The Metadata
`
`inspector “displays an image’s caption text, keywords, version number, filename,
`
`and file size.” Ex. 1005, 58; Ex. 2025, ¶87.
`
`4.
`Places and Faces Views
`As set forth below, A3UM describes various views associated with both faces
`
`and places. The various views interplay with each other in different manners, causing
`
`different views and content to be displayed. For instance, only certain Places views
`
`will be displayed in connection with selected Faces views and vice-versa. Similarly,
`
`not all views can be accessed from each of the other views, such that screenshots
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00031
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`from disparate sections of A3UM may not be related to, or even accessible from,
`
`other screenshots disclosed in A3UM.
`
`a.
`Places
`A3UM also describes a “Places View,” where “[i]mages organized by
`
`location using the Places feature are represented by pins on the Places view map at
`
`the locations where the images were taken.” Ex. 1005, 81; Ex. 2025, ¶89. This view
`
`can be accessed “by select[ing] Places in the Library inspector” or (2) by “select[ing]
`
`an item in the Library inspector, then click[ing] the Places button in the toolbar.”
`
`Ex. 1005, 81; Ex. 2025, ¶90. A screenshot of a “Places” view is shown below.
`
`Ex. 1005, 30
`
`
`
`The Browser described above can be displayed with the map in Places view
`
`in a split view, as shown below. Selecting an image in the Browser causes a location
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00031
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`label to appear above the corresponding graphical pin on the map. Ex. 1005, 435-
`
`36; Ex. 2025, ¶91.
`
`Ex. 1005, 436 (annotated)
`
`
`
`b.
`Faces
`A3UM also describes a “Faces” feature, where “the face detection and face
`
`recognition technology included in Aperture” identifies and tracks “people through
`
`all the images in your library.” Ex. 1005, 28; Ex. 2025, ¶92. The “[p]eople to whom
`
`you’ve assigned names are represented by snapshots in Faces view.” Ex. 1005, 28;
`
`Ex. 2025, ¶¶92-96. An example of a Faces view is shown below.
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00031
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`Ex. 1005, 419
`
`
`
`5.
`The Apple Human Interface Guidelines
`In or around August 2009, Petitioner published a document entitled “Apple
`
`Human Interface Guidelines” on its website (hereinafter, the “Apple HI
`
`Guidelines”). Ex. 2021; Ex. 2027. The Apple HI Guidelines pertain to Mac OS X,
`
`which is the operating system Aperture 3 runs on. Ex. 2021, 19 (“This document is
`
`the primary user interface documentation for Mac OS X”); Ex. 1003, ¶76 (“I
`
`installed Aperture 3 using a Mac laptop operating Mac OS X Software Version
`
`10.6.3”); Ex. 2023, 23:19-24:16, 26:4-13.
`
`A POSITA designing a human interface or, more specifically, considering
`
`modifying the Aperture 3 interface which runs on Mac OS X, would have considered
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00031
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`and followed these Apple HI Guidelines absent a compelling reason to deviate from
`
`them. Ex. 2025, ¶¶97-98; Ex. 2023, 26:18-27:21, 38:3-43:20. As detailed herein, at
`
`least one of Dr. Terveen’s proposed modifications to A3UM is contrary to the Apple
`
`HI Guidelines. Dr. Terveen admitted that he was aware such guidelines existed but
`
`did not consider them in forming his opinions. Ex. 2023, 20:10-22:19, 23:6-18.
`
`B.
`Belitz (Ex. 1006)
`Belitz is directed to a user interface for displaying “special locations” on a
`
`map. Ex. 1006 at Title, ¶¶2, 4, 19, 71; Ex. 2025, ¶¶115-16. Belitz states that “it
`
`would be useful to be able to present a user with an overview of associated images
`
`to special locations which enables [the] user to clearly see the associations. Ex. 1006,
`
`¶4. Figs. 4(a)–(b) are screenshots of a device. Id., ¶36.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1006, Figs. 4a-b
`
`The screenshots above have a graphical object 410 that indicates a location 408 on
`
`the map 409. Ex. 1006 at ¶ 51.
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00031
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Patent No. 10,621,228
`
` LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART
`Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”)
`
`“would have had (1) at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer
`
`engineering, or electrical engineering, and (2) at least one year of experience
`
`designing graphical user interfaces for applications such as photo management
`
`systems.” Petition, 9. For purposes of this proceeding, Patent Owner does not dispute
`
`Petitioner’s proposed level of skill.
`
` CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`For purposes of this Response, Patent Owner agrees that the claims can be
`
`afforded their plain and ordinary meaning and that no construction is necessary.
`
`Petition, 12-13; Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d
`
`1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
` PETITIONER HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT THE CHALLENGED
`CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`The Petition raises one challenge: purported obviousness over A3UM (Ex.
`
`1005) in view of Belitz (Ex. 1006). For the reasons discussed below, Petitioner failed
`
`to carry its burden.
`
`A.
`Petitioner Has Not Established That A3UM Qualifies as Prior Art
`Petitioner relies on A3UM as a “printed publication” reference and alleges
`
`that it was publicly available (1) through the Aperture 3 product user manual
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00031
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`webpage of the Apple.com website, and (2) on the installation DVD for the Aperture
`
`3 retail product. Pet., 13-14; Ex.1020, ¶8.
`
`Petitioner, however, has failed to establish that A3UM qualifies as printed
`
`publication prior art under Section 102 by a preponderance of the evidence. See
`
`Instradent USA, Inc. v. Nobel Biocare Services AG, IPR2015-01786, Paper 106 at
`
`33 (PTAB Feb. 15, 2017). First, Petitioner’s reliance on the Aperture 3 user manual
`
`webpage fails because Petitioner has not demonstrated that the webpage met the
`
`requisite threshold for public accessibility applied by the Federal Circuit and the
`
`Board. Further, even if Petitioner sufficiently demonstrated public accessibility,
`
`Petitioner has nevertheless failed to credibly establish that the version of A3UM
`
`submitted to the Board (Ex. 1005) accurately represents what a visitor to the user
`
`manual webpage would have seen before June 2010.
`
`Petitioner’s alternative reliance on A3UM’s alleged presence on the Aperture
`
`3 installation DVD also fails because the A3UM HTML file set on the Aperture 3
`
`installation DVD was “hidden” or “invisible,” and therefore not publicly accessible.
`
`Finally, access to A3UM through the installed Aperture 3 application on a computer
`
`does not constitute a printed publication.
`
`1.
`
`Petitioner Has Not Established that the Website Version of
`A3UM was Publicly Accessible to a POSITA
`The Board based its Institution Decision on Petitioner’s assertion that the
`
`website version of A3UM set forth in Ex. 1005 was available at the Aperture 3
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00031
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`product user manual webpage of the Apple.com website. ID, p. 36. Petitioner’s
`
`reliance on the Aperture 3 product user manual webpage fails because Petitioner has
`
`not demonstrated that the alleged contents of the webpage met the requisite threshold
`
`for public accessibility applied by the Federal Circuit and the Board.
`
`Public accessibility is the “touchstone” in determining printed publication
`
`status. Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`The mere presence of a reference on a webpage is insufficient to establish public
`
`accessibility. Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 908 F.3d 765, 772
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2018); Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Infobridge Pte. Ltd., 929 F.3d 1363, 1369
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2019). Instead, a patent challenger must show that “persons interested and
`
`ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art, exercising reasonable diligence, can
`
`locate” the reference. Acceleration Bay, 908 F.3d at 772. That a person could have
`
`theoretically
`
`located a reference on
`
`the Internet demonstrates “technical
`
`accessibility” but not “public accessibility.” Id. at 773. Thus, the key inquiry relevant
`
`to A3UM is whether a POSITA—here an interested and experienced graphical user
`
`interface designer—would have found the Aperture 3 user manual page (where
`
`A3UM was allegedly available) by exercising reasonable diligence. Acceleration
`
`Bay, 908 F.3d at 772; see also Ex. 1003, ¶42. Petitioner has failed to establish that
`
`such a POSITA would. Instead, the evidence shows that: (1) a POSITA exercising
`
`reasonable diligence would not have known to search for Aperture 3 or A3UM, and
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00031
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`(2) a POSITA exercising reasonable diligence would not have found the website
`
`version of A3UM on Apple.com.
`
`a.
`
`An Interested POSITA Exercising Reasonable
`Diligence Would Not Have Known to Look for A3UM
`Petitioner claims a POSITA in 2010 “would have known to visit
`
`www.Apple.com for information about Aperture 3 and could have readily located
`
`A3UM on the Apple.com website.” Pet., 17 (citing Ex. 1003, ¶¶99-102). Petitioner
`
`relies on Dr. Terveen opining that Apple was “well-known” in 2010 and that a person
`
`“interested in learning about Apple software” would have visited www.Apple.com
`
`and then allegedly proceeded to the Aperture 3 user manual page. Ex, 1003, ¶100.
`
`But this is the wrong inquiry. The issue is not whether a POSITA interested in Apple
`
`software would have visited Apple.com and A3UM—that pre-supposes a POSITA
`
`would have known of Apple.com and/or Aperture 3’s relevance. Instead, here,
`
`Petitioner was required to establish a POSITA would have known to navigate to
`
`Apple.com and then look for the Aperture 3 user manual page in search of A3UM.
`
`Acceleration Bay, 908 F.3d at 772
`
`Even if an unspecified group of consumers knew of Aperture 3 during the
`
`relevant timeframe, there is no evidence those consumers were POSITAs or that an
`
`interested POSITA would have known of Aperture 3 or had any motivation to look
`
`for it. The “Aperture” product name is not descriptive of photo management
`
`technology and Petitioner has not offered evidence that a POSITA would have
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00031
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`identified Aperture 3 by querying common terms, such as “photo,” using an Internet
`
`search engine.2 Notably, Dr. Terveen—a proffered technical expert and self-
`
`proclaimed POSITA—readily conceded that he had never even heard of Aperture 3
`
`at the relevant time despite otherwise being familiar with “quite a few systems that
`
`did photo management.” Ex. 2023, 49:4-50:11, 51:9-20, 52:2-4. His first and only
`
`knowledge of Aperture 3 and A3UM was when it was provided to him by
`
`Petitioner’s counsel in 2021—more than 10 years later. Id. All told, Petitioner offers
`
`no evidence a POSITA would have known of or sought information regarding
`
`Aperture 3. See, e.g., Nautilus, Inc. v. Icon Health Fitness Inc., IPR2017-01363,
`
`Paper 33 at 18 (PTAB Nov. 28, 2018) (noting a lack of evidence that a POSITA
`
`“knew of” the relevant product).
`
`b.
`
`A POSITA Exercising Reasonable Diligence Would
`Not Find the Website Version of A3UM on Apple.com
`Even if a POSITA navigated to Apple.com, Petitioner has nevertheless failed
`
`to establish that a POSITA exercising reasonable diligence would have actually
`
`found the Aperture 3 user manual page. According to Petitioner and its witnesses,
`
`
`2 Mr. Birdsell testified that it would not have been common to navigate to A3UM on
`
`the Apple website; rather, the common use case was for a user to conduct an internet
`
`search. Ex. 2026, 67:13-20. However, a user would have needed to know to search
`
`for “Aperture 3,” as discussed herein.
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00031
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`the Aperture 3 user manual page could be found only after executing several steps
`
`such as knowing to search for ‘Aperture’ or ‘Aperture 3’ in the search box or by
`
`navigating through a number of links on Apple.com. Ex. 1020, ¶18; Ex. 2026, 67:21-
`
`69:11; Ex. 1003, ¶101.3
`
`As discussed above, ‘Aperture’ or ‘Aperture 3’ would not be common search
`
`terms to a POSITA, and there is no evidence on the record that searching Apple.com
`
`for other terms that would be common, like “photo,” for example, would have
`
`yielded any Aperture-related results. The Board in Salesforce.com, Inc. v. WSOU
`
`Investments, LLC found that a petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood
`
`of public accessibility because there was no evidence showing that a POSITA
`
`exercising reasonable diligence could have located the reference using common
`
`search terms. IPR2022-00428, Paper 10 at 13-14 (PTAB July 13, 2022). The Board
`
`explained that without evidence showing “meaningful indexing,” petitioner
`
`demonstrated “technical accessibility,” at best. Id. at 14. Here, while Dr. Terveen
`
`identifies Apple as being a “well-known technology company,” (Ex. 1003, ¶100)
`
`there is no evidence that Aperture 3 was well known or that ‘Aperture’ or ‘Aperture
`
`
`3 While users could have theoretically navigated to the product manual page,
`
`analytics evidence tracking the number of users who did so is unavailable and not in
`
`evidence. Ex. 2026, 69:20-23.
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00031
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`3’ would constitute common search terms. Petitioner fails to offer evidence of
`
`common search terms at the time or that a POSITA exercising reasonable diligence
`
`using such common search terms would have located A3UM on Apple.com. Thus,
`
`Petitioner’s proffered evidence, even if taken as true, demonstrates only technical
`
`accessibility, at best. Acceleration Bay, 908 F.3d at 772.
`
`Petitioner identifies only a single path through the Apple.com website to
`
`locate the user manual page. However, Mr. Birdsell testified that the reference to
`
`Aperture 3 only existed on the Apple.com homepage for only a matter of “weeks”
`
`leaving only a