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. 10,423,658
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2022-00033
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01413
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`OVERVIEW OF THE ‘658 PATENT ............................................................ 1 
`A. 
`The ‘658 Patent “Views” ....................................................................... 2 
`B. 
`The Claimed Methods Provide Easy Navigation of These
`Views ..................................................................................................... 6 
`SUMMARY OF PETITIONER’S REFERENCES ........................................ 6 
`A.  A3UM .................................................................................................... 6 
`1. 
`The Browser/Viewer ................................................................... 7 
`2. 
`The Toolbar ................................................................................. 8 
`3. 
`The Inspector Panes .................................................................... 8 
`4. 
`Places and Faces Views .............................................................. 9 
`5. 
`The Apple Human Interface Guidelines ................................... 12 
`Belitz .................................................................................................... 13 
`B. 
`Rasmussen ........................................................................................... 13 
`C. 
`  LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART ................................................................. 14 
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 15 
`A. 
`Claim 1: “application view” ................................................................ 15 
`B. 
`Claims 3-4, 7, and 10: “responsive to . . . displaying” ........................ 19 
`C. 
`Claims 8 and 11: “[first/second]-person-location selectable
`element” ............................................................................................... 24 
`  PETITIONER HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT ANY CHALLENGED
`CLAIM IS UNPATENTABLE ..................................................................... 27 
`A. 
`Petitioner Has Not Established That A3UM Qualifies as Prior
`Art ........................................................................................................ 28 
`1. 
`Petitioner Has Not Established that the Website Version of
`A3UM was Publicly Accessible to a POSITA ......................... 29 
`Petitioner Has Not Established That Ex. 1005 Accurately
`Represents What Was Shown on the Aperture 3 User Manual
`
`2. 
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`B. 
`C. 
`
`Page Before June 2010 .............................................................. 35 
`Petitioner’s “Evidence” of Sales Fails to Establish Public
`Accessibility .............................................................................. 38 
`Petitioner’s Reliance on the Aperture 3 Installation DVD Falls
`Short .......................................................................................... 39 
`Aperture 3 Installed on a Mac Computer is Not a Printed
`Publication ................................................................................ 50 
`6.  Mr. Birdsell’s Testimony Lacks Credibility ............................. 53 
`Other Non-Prior Art ............................................................................ 55 
`Ground 1: A3UM and Belitz Do Not Render Obvious Claims 1-
`2 and 5-15 ............................................................................................ 56 
`1. 
`Claim 1: Petitioner failed to identify an “application view”
`distinct from the other claimed views ....................................... 56 
`Claim 1: Petitioner failed to meet its burden to show a POSITA
`would modify A3UM with Belitz ............................................. 57 
`Claim 5: A3UM does not disclose that Faces applies to videos
` ................................................................................................... 65 
`Claims 8 and 11: A3UM does not disclose a “[first/second]-
`person-location selectable element” ......................................... 71 
`D.  Ground 2: A3UM, Belitz, and Rasmussen Do Not Render
`Obvious Claims 3-4 ............................................................................. 79 
`1. 
`Petitioner failed to address all of the claim limitations ............ 80 
`2. 
`Dr. Terveen’s assertions regarding A3UM’s Places view are
`wrong......................................................................................... 80 
`The alleged “[first/second] map image” in A3UM is not
`displayed “responsive to” a click or tap of a scaled replica ..... 82 
`  CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 86 
`
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`3. 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc.,
`908 F.3d 765 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .....................................................................passim
`
`
`ACTV, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co.,
`
`346 F.3d 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .......................................................................... 16
`
`Am. Calcar, Inc. v. Am. Honda Motor Co.,
`651 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 21
`
`
`Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Prod. Inc.,
`876 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 70
`
`
`Arctic Cat Inc. v. Polaris Indus., Inc.,
`795 F. App'x 827 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ...................................................................... 60
`
`
`B/E Aerospace, Inc. v. C & D Zodiac, Inc.,
`709 F.App’x 687 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ...................................................................... 38
`
`
`Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG,
`
`IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) ............................................... 15
`
`Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc.,
`
`815 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 29
`
`Callaway Golf Co. v. Acushnet Co.,
`
`576 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ..............................................................................
`
`Capsugel Belgium NV v. Innercap Techs., Inc.,
`
`IPR2013-00331, Paper 9 (PTAB Dec. 9, 2013) ................................................. 53
`
`Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`847 F. App'x 869 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ...................................................................... 33
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Checkpoint Sys., Inc. v. All-Tag Sec.; S.A.,
`412 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 54
`
`
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC,
`IPR2014-0054, Paper 22 (PTAB Aug. 29, 2014) ............................................... 80
`
`
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.,
`
`IPR2018-01436, Paper 40 (PTAB Jan. 23, 2020) .............................................. 48
`
`Electronic Frontier Foundation v. Personal Audio, LLC,
`IPR2014-00070, Paper 21 (PTAB Apr. 18, 2014) ................................. 35, 36, 37
`
`
`Ex Parte Interval Licensing,
` Appeal No. 2014-002901, 2014 WL 2387821 (PTAB May 29, 2014) .............. 21
`
`Ex Parte Stuart A. Nelson,
` No. 2020-004978, 2020 WL 8186425 (PTAB Dec. 31, 2020)) ......................... 53
`
`Fujitsu Ltd. v. Belkin Int’l, Inc.,
` No. 10-CV-03972-LHK, 2012 WL 4497966 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2012) .......... 21
`
`Gillette Co. v. Energizer Holdings, Inc.,
`
`405 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 27
`
`In re Cronyn,
`
`890 F.2d 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1989) .......................................................................... 41
`
`Instradent USA, Inc. v. Nobel Biocare Services AG,
`IPR2015-01786, Paper 106 (PTAB Feb. 15, 2017) ...................................... 28, 50
`
`
`Intel Corp. v. VLSSI Tech. LLC,
` No. IPR2018-01040, 2020 WL 719058 (PTAB Feb. 12, 2020) ......................... 27
`
`Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd.,
`
`821 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 80
`
`Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`688 F.3d. 1342, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................... 63
`
`
`
`Linear Tech. Corp. v. Impala Linear Corp.,
`379 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 54
`
`
`Micron Tech., Inc. v. N. Star Innovations, Inc.,
` No. IPR2018-00989, 2019 WL 5423610 (PTAB Oct. 22, 2019) ....................... 21
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Icon Health Fitness Inc.,
`IPR2017-01363, Paper 33 (PTAB Nov. 28, 2018) ............................................. 31
`
`
`Ohio Willow Wood v. Alps South,
`735 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 54
`
`
`
`Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc.,
`
`882 F.3d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .......................................................................... 61
`
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. Semiconductor Components Indus., LLC,
` No. IPR2018-00180, 2019 WL 2237863 (PTAB May 23, 2019) ................ 21, 22
`
`Progressive Semiconductor Sols. LLC v. Qualcomm Techs., Inc.,
` No. 8:13-CV-01535-ODW, 2014 WL 4385938 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 4, 2014) ........ 21
`
`Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`24 F.4th 1367, 2022 WL 288013 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ............................................. 55
`
`
`Salesforce.com, Inc. v. WSOU Investments, LLC,
`
`IPR2022-00428, Paper 10 (PTAB July 13, 2022) ........................................ 32, 33
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Infobridge Pte. Ltd.,
`929 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .........................................................passim
`
`
`SIPCO, LLC v. Emerson Elec. Co.,
`794 F. App’x 946 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ................................................................ 16
`
`Sprint Commc’ns Co. L.P. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns LLC,
`No. 11-2684-JWL, 2014 WL 5089402 (D. Kan. Oct. 9, 2014) .................... 21
`
`Stryker Corp. v. Karl Storz Endoscopy-Am., Inc.,
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00677, Paper 15 (PTAB Sept. 2, 2015) ............................................... 55
`
`
`
`Supercell Oy v. GREE, Inc.,
`IPR2021-00501, Paper 7 (PTAB Aug. 17, 2021) ............................................... 53
`
`
`Workspot, Inc. v. Citrix Systems, Inc.,
`IPR2019-01002, Paper 39 (PTAB Nov. 17, 2020) ....................................... 56, 57
`
`
`Yeda Research & Dev. Co. v. Mylan Pharm. Inc.,
`906 F.3d 1031, 1041 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ......................................................... 55, 63
`
`
`Federal Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 312 ........................................................................................................ 80
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) ............................................................................................. 80
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`LISTING OF EXHIBITS
`Description
`
`2001
`
`WITHDRAWN
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`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”)
`
`RESERVED
`
`RESERVED
`
`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)
`
`RESERVED
`
`RESERVED
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`2013
`
`2014
`
`2015
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`2021
`
`2022
`
`2023
`
`2024
`
`2025
`
`2026
`
`2027
`
`2028
`
`Description
`
`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
`
`Affidavit of Nathaniel E Frank-White
`
`Cambridge English Dictionary, definition of “responsive”
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`2029
`
`2030
`
`2031
`
`2032
`
`2033
`
`Description
`
`Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, definition of
`“responsive”
`
`RESERVED
`
`RESERVED
`
`eBay Receipt (August 15, 2022)
`
`Jennifer Tidwell, Designing Interfaces, O’Reilly (1st Ed. 2005)
`
`iii
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00033
`
`
`
`Patent No. 10,423,658
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner has not shown any challenged claim is unpatentable.
`
` OVERVIEW OF THE ‘658 PATENT
`As the ‘658 patent explains, digital photography/video was experiencing
`
`“explosive growth” at the time of invention. Ex. 1001, 1:35-42, 12:58-62. 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., 1:45-51, 13:1-7. Accordingly, the ‘658 patent solved the problem and discloses
`
`and claims methods of organizing and displaying digital files “allow[ing] people to
`
`organize, view, preserve these files with all the memory details captured, connected
`
`and vivified via an interactive interface”; i.e. create an easy to navigate web of
`
`memories. Id., 1:56-60, 13:12-16. 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., 2:51-55, 13:19-23.
`
`1
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00033
`
`
`
`Patent No. 10,423,658
`
`A. The ‘658 Patent “Views”
`Claim 1 of the ‘658 patent recites a “map view,” an example of which is shown
`
`in FIG. 41. Ex. 1001, 29:25-41. Ex. 2025, ¶541.
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG. 41 (annotated)
`
`
`
`The map view includes an interactive map and “individual or groups of Digital Files
`
`are illustrated as photo thumbnails (see indicators 0874 and 0875)) on the map.”
`
`
`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
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00033
`
`
`
`Patent No. 10,423,658
`
`Ex. 1001, 29:32-39; Ex. 2025, ¶54. The thumbnails include “the number of Digital
`
`Files for that location.” Ex. 1001, 29:39-41; Ex. 2025, ¶54. The geographic map is
`
`interactive in that the user can, for example, zoom in or out. Ex. 1001, 29:37-39,
`
`FIG. 41; Ex. 2025, ¶54.
`
`From this “map view,” the ‘658 patent discloses that “the user can select the
`
`thumbnail to see all the Digital Files with the same location.” Ex. 1001, 29:34-36;
`
`Ex. 2025, ¶56. This is an example of the “[first/second] location view” in claim 1.
`
`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, 24:22-28; Ex. 2025, ¶57.
`
`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.
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00033
`
`
`
`Patent No. 10,423,658
`
`The ‘658 patent also discloses and claims a “people view” in claim 5. Ex.
`
`1001, 22:52-62; Ex. 2025, ¶58. As shown below, for “each person, a thumbnail of
`
`their face along with their name is depicted.” Id.
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG. 32 (excerpted and annotated)
`
`
`
`The ‘658 patent also discloses and claims a “[first/second] person view, such
`
`as the one illustrated in FIG. 32. Ex. 2025, ¶60.
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG. 32 (excerpted and annotated)
`
`
`
`This view includes among other things, a person’s name 1431, a profile photo 1440,
`
`and photos 1452 associated with that person. Ex. 1001, 22:63-23:20; Ex. 2025, ¶61.
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00033
`
`
`
`Patent No. 10,423,658
`
`One feature in this person view is the selectable element 1443, which will show “all
`
`of the Locations that specific person has been tagged within.” Id.
`
`The ‘658 patent also discloses that “from any view,” a digital file can be
`
`selected “to show an enlarged version of the digital media file with all the tags that
`
`are assigned to that digital file, as illustrated in FIG. 2.” Ex. 1001, 5:64-6:1; Ex.
`
`2025, ¶62.
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG. 2 (annotated)
`
`
`
`The view shown above includes a digital photograph and a map image. Ex. 2025,
`
`¶62.
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00033
`
`
`
`Patent No. 10,423,658
`
`B.
`The Claimed Methods Provide Easy Navigation of These Views
`The claimed methods of the ‘658 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, ¶¶53, 63.
`
`The claims require arranging the views in a particular manner with each view
`
`having particular selectable elements. Id., ¶64. The claims then require a particular
`
`flow through the views based on selection of identifying 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
`A. A3UM
`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, 73.
`
`According to A3UM, “[w]hen you first open Aperture, you see the following
`
`areas” shown in the screenshot below. Ex. 1005, 6; Ex. 2025, ¶74.
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00033
`
`
`
`Patent No. 10,423,658
`
`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, ¶¶75-80.
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00033
`
`
`
`Patent No. 10,423,658
`
`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, ¶81.
`
`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, ¶86. These views are discussed below.
`
`3.
`
`The Inspector Panes
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00033
`
`
`
`Patent No. 10,423,658
`
`The Inspector pane includes tabs to switch between the Library, Metadata,
`
`and Adjustments inspectors. Ex. 1005, 54; Ex. 2025, ¶86.
`
`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, ¶87. The Metadata
`
`inspector “displays an image’s caption text, keywords, version number, filename,
`
`and file size.” Ex. 1005, 58; Ex. 2025, ¶88.
`
`4.
`Places and Faces Views
`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 from
`
`disparate sections of A3UM may not be related to, or even accessible from, other
`
`screenshots in A3UM.
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00033
`
`
`
`Patent No. 10,423,658
`
`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, ¶90. This view
`
`can be accessed “by select[ing] Places in the Library inspector” (left of the Viewer
`
`and Browser) or (2) by “select[ing] an item in the Library inspector, then click[ing]
`
`the Places button in the toolbar” (above the Viewer/Places view). Ex. 1005, 81; Ex.
`
`2025, ¶91. 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
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00033
`
`
`
`Patent No. 10,423,658
`
`label to appear above the corresponding graphical pin on the map. Ex. 1005, 435-
`
`36; Ex. 2025, ¶¶93-94.
`
`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, ¶97. The “[p]eople to whom
`
`you’ve assigned names are represented by snapshots in Faces view.” Ex. 1005, 28;
`
`Ex. 2025, ¶98. An example of a Faces view is shown below.
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00033
`
`
`
`Patent No. 10,423,658
`
`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 (the “Apple Guidelines”). Ex. 2021; Ex.
`
`2027. The Apple 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 considering modifying Aperture
`
`3, would have considered and followed these Apple Guidelines absent a compelling
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00033
`
`
`
`Patent No. 10,423,658
`
`reason to deviate from them. Ex. 2025, ¶¶102-103; Ex. 2023, 26:18-27:21, 38:3-
`
`43:20. 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
`Belitz is directed to a user interface for displaying “special locations” on a
`
`map. Ex. 1006 at Title, ¶¶2, 4, 19, 71; Ex. 2025, ¶¶104-105. Figs. 4(a)–(b) are
`
`exemplary screenshots of the user interface:
`
`Ex. 1006, FIGS. 4a-b, ¶36
`
`
`
`C. Rasmussen
`Rasmussen is directed to a digital map including a “combined map scale and
`
`measuring tool.” Ex. 1025, 4:44-45. FIG. 2 illustrates a digital map and information
`
`window including “latitude/longitude and/or geocode information.”
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00033
`
`
`
`Patent No. 10,423,658
`
`Ex. 1025, FIG. 2; 10:26-27.
`
`
`
` 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.
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00033
`
`
`
`Patent No. 10,423,658
`
` CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Petitioner asserts that “the Board need not expressly construe the claims”
`
`because they are allegedly “unpatentable under any interpretation consistent with
`
`their plain and ordinary meaning.” Petition, 12. Patent Owner agrees that the claims
`
`should be afforded their plain and ordinary meaning, but offers a discussion of that
`
`meaning in connection with certain terms and phrases below in the event the Board
`
`determines that is necessary to resolve Petitioner’s patentability challenges.
`
`A. Claim 1: “application view”
`Claim Term/Phrase
`
`Construction
`
`application view
`
`application view that is distinct from the map view,
`
`the first location view, and the second location view
`
`
`
`The claim language dictates that the term “application view” is separate and
`
`distinct relative to the other claimed views, such as: (i) the map view and first/second
`
`location views in claim 1; (ii) the people view in claim 5; (iii) the first/second person
`
`views in claims 7 and 10; (iv) the album view claim 13; and (vi) the first/second
`
`album views claims 14 and 15. Ex. 2025, ¶¶124-144.
`
`The Federal Circuit has held that where “a claim lists elements separately, the
`
`clear implication of the claim language is that those elements are distinct
`
`component[s] of the patent invention.” Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare
`
`Group, LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citation and quotation marks
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00033
`
`
`
`Patent No. 10,423,658
`
`omitted); SIPCO, LLC v. Emerson Elec. Co., 794 F. App’x 946, 949 (Fed. Cir. 2019)
`
`(holding that “[b]ecause the patentee chose to use different terms to define the
`
`‘receiver address’ and the ‘scalable address,’ we presume that those two terms have
`
`different meanings”).
`
`This construction is reinforced by the surrounding claim language. See ACTV,
`
`Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., 346 F.3d 1082, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The “application
`
`view” includes a plurality of selectable elements, including a “location selectable
`
`element.” Claim 1 further recites “responsive to a click or tap of the location
`
`selectable element, displaying a map view.” Stated another way, claim 1 recites
`
`navigating to a “map view” by selecting the “location selectable element” in the
`
`“application view.” As a matter of logic, the “application view” and “map view”
`
`cannot be the same “view” because the “application view” includes an element that
`
`is selected to cause the “map view” to be displayed. Ex. 2025, ¶128. The same is
`
`true in claims 5 and 13, where the application view includes selectable elements for
`
`navigating to a people view and an album view, respectively. Like the “application
`
`view” and “map view,” the “people view” and “album view” logically cannot be the
`
`same “view” as the “application view.” Id.
`
`The specification also confirms this construction. The ‘658 patent discloses a
`
`variety of views, including “People Application Views,” “Collection Application
`
`Views,” “Location Application Views,” “Uploads Application Views,” and an
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00033
`
`
`
`Patent No. 10,423,658
`
`“Recipe Application View.” See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 3:58-62; Ex. 2025, ¶129. Examples
`
`of the claimed “map view” and “[first/second] location view” are shown below. Ex.
`
`2025, ¶129.
`
`Ex. 1001, FIGS. 41 and 33 (annotated)
`
`An example of the claimed “people view” (claim 5) and “[first/second] person view”
`
`(claims 7 and 10) are shown below. Ex. 2025, ¶130.
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00033
`
`
`
`Patent No. 10,423,658
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG. 32 (annotated)
`
`Examples of the claimed “album view” (claim 13) and “[first/second] album view”
`
`(claims 14-15) are shown below. Ex. 2025, ¶131.
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG. 33 (annotated)
`
`
`
`FIG. 35, which illustrates an “Uploads Application View,” is an example of
`
`an application view including a plurality of selectable elements (e.g., the “Locations”
`
`selectable element) that is distinct from the other views described above. Ex. 1001,
`
`3:61, 24:40-46; Ex. 2025, ¶132; see also Ex. 1001, 3:62 (describing “Recipe
`
`Application View”); Ex. 2025, ¶133.
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00033
`
`
`
`Patent No. 10,423,658
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG. 35 (annotated)
`
`
`
`These examples in the specification confirm that the claimed “application
`
`view” is distinct from the other views recited through the ‘658 patent claims. Ex.
`
`2025, ¶134. As detailed below, Petitioner erroneously interpreted the claims as not
`
`requiring a separate “application view.” Infra, §VI.C.1.
`
`B. Claims 3-4, 7, and 10: “responsive to . . . displaying”
`Claim Term/Phrase
`Construction
`
`“responsive to a click or tap of a first
`
`requiring a cause-effect relationship
`
`one of the displayed scaled replicas in
`
`between (i) a click or tap of a first one
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00033
`
`
`
`Patent No. 10,423,658
`
`the [first/second] location view,
`
`of the displayed scaled replicas in the
`
`displaying a first digital photograph
`
`[first/second] location view and (ii)
`
`associated with the first scaled replica
`
`displaying a first digital photograph
`
`in the [first/second] location view and a
`
`and a [first/second] map image
`
`[first/second] map image” (claims 3-4)
`
`“responsive to a click or tap of the
`
`requiring a cause-effect relationship
`
`[first/second] person selectable
`
`between (i) a click or tap of the
`
`thumbnail image, displaying a
`
`[first/second] a person selectable
`
`[first/second] person view” (claims 7,
`
`thumbnail image and (ii) displaying a
`
`10)
`
`
`
`[first/second] person view
`
`The plain and ordinary meaning of the phrase “responsive to . . . displaying”
`
`in claims 3-4 requires a cause-effect relationship between (i) a click or tap of a first
`
`one of the displayed scaled replicas in the [first/second] location view (the cause)
`
`and (ii) displaying a first digital photograph and a [first/second] map image. Ex.
`
`2025, ¶¶135-144. Similarly, the “responsive to . . . displaying” in claims 7 and 10
`
`requires a cause-effect relationship between (i) the click or tap of the first/second
`
`selectable thumbnail image (the cause) and (ii) displaying the first/second person
`
`view (the effect). Id.
`
`Courts have consistently interpreted “responsive to” or “in response to” in
`
`patent claims as requiring a cause-effect relationship. The Federal Circuit has
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00033
`
`
`
`Patent No. 10,423,658
`
`construed the phrase “in response to” as defining a “cause-and-effect relationship”
`
`between two events, where the second event occurs in reaction to the first event. Am.
`
`Calcar, Inc. v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 651 F.3d 1318, 1339-40 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
`
`District courts have also construed similar language to require causation. See, e.g.,
`
`Sprint Commc’ns Co. L.P. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns LLC, No. 11-2684-JWL,
`
`2014 WL 5089402, at *25 (D. Kan. Oct. 9, 2014) (declining to construe the phrase
`
`“in response to” because the plain meaning already includes “the concept of
`
`causation”); Progressive Semiconductor Sols. LLC v. Qualcomm Techs., Inc., No.
`
`8:13-CV-01535-ODW, 2014 WL 4385938, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 4, 2014) (holding
`
`that “[t]he plain meaning of ‘in response to’ conveys a stimulus and an effect”);
`
`Fujitsu Ltd. v. Belkin Int’l, Inc., No. 10-CV-03972-LHK, 2012 WL 4497966, at *28
`
`(N.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2012) (construing the phase “in response to” as “connoting a
`
`cause-and-effect relationship”).
`
`The Board has also 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”); Ex Parte Interval
`
`Licensing, Appeal No. 2014-002901, 2014 WL 2387821, at *6 (PTAB May 29,
`
`2014) (construing “in response to” as requiring a “causal r