Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`U.S. Patent No. 10,423,658
`IPR2022-00221
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`Petitioner
`
`
`v.
`
`MEMORYWEB, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 10,423,658
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2022-00221
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`1. 
`2. 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`3. 
`
`4. 
`5. 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 1 
`Claims 3-5, 7, 9-10, and 12-15: “responsive to a click or tap …
`displaying” .................................................................................................. 1 
`Claim 5: displaying “a name associated with the [first/second] person” ... 7 
`Patent Owner’s construction is supported by the surrounding claim
`language ................................................................................................. 8 
`The specification confirms Patent Owner’s construction ..................... 9 
`Claim 13: “the displaying the album view including displaying: … a
`first album name … and … a second album name” ................................. 11 
`Claim 1: the “application view” and “map view” are distinct ................. 12 
`THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE NOT UNPATENTABLE ................ 13 
`Claims 7 and 10: Okamura does not disclose displaying the claimed
`“[first/second] person view” ..................................................................... 13 
`Claim 5: Okamura does not disclose “the displaying the people view”
`includes displaying items (i)-(iv) ............................................................. 18 
`Petitioner’s new obviousness theories are improper ........................... 18 
`Petitioner’s new obviousness arguments fail on the merits ................ 20 
`Claims 13-15: Okamura does not disclose displaying the claimed
`“album view” and “[first/second] album view” ....................................... 21 
`Claim 1: A POSITA would not combine Okamura and Belitz ................ 23 
`Petitioner’s first Okamura-Belitz combination ................................... 23 
`Belitz has the same disadvantages as Okamura’s “related art” ..... 23 
`Okamura and Belitz are not “functionally equivalent” .................. 25 
`Petitioner’s first and second combinations conflict with Belitz’s
`objectives ........................................................................................ 26 
`Petitioner’s second combination ......................................................... 28 
`Petitioner has not established transitioning between Okamura’s first
`and second embodiments .................................................................... 29 
`Petitioner’s third combination ............................................................. 30 
`Okamura does not disclose a distinct “application view” ................... 31 
`
`a. 
`b. 
`c. 
`
`i
`
`

`

`E. 
`F. 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claims 3-4: the “[first/second] map image” ............................................. 32 
`Claims 9 and 12: Okamura and Yee do not disclose “displaying a
`representation of all locations” ................................................................. 33 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Rec. Prods.,
`876 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .................................................................... 21, 25
`Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc.,
`805 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 21
`Genuine Enabling Tech. LLC v. Nintendo Co.,
`29 F.4th 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ............................................................................. 6
`Google LLC v. Ecofactor, Inc.,
`IPR2021-00054, Paper 35 (PTAB Apr. 18, 2022) ............................................... 1
`Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster LLC,
`938 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .............................................................. 16, 18, 22
`Homeland Housewares, LLC v. Whirlpool Corp.,
`865 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................ 1
`Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd.,
`821 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................... 16, 18
`InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc’ns, Inc.,
`751 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 31
`Microsoft Corp. v. FG SRC, LLC,
`860 F.App’x 708 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ........................................................................ 2
`
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................ 8
`Power Mosfet Techs., L.L.C. v. Siemens AG,
`378 F.3d 1396 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................ 4
`Predicate Logic, Inc. v. Distributive Software, Inc.,
`544 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 11
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`Starbucks Corp. et al v. Fall Line Patents, LLC,
`IPR2019-00610, Paper 42 (PTAB May 17, 2022) ............................................. 16
`TIP Sys., LLC v. Phillips & Brooks/Gladwin, Inc.,
`529 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ...................................................................... 6, 10
`TQ Delta, LLC v. CISCO Sys., Inc.,
`942 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .................................................................... 18, 23
`Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang,
`202 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .......................................................................... 26
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23 ......................................................................................... 15, 17, 21
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65 ............................................................................................... 16, 21
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`LISTING OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`Description
`
`WITHDRAWN
`
`Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication No. 2001-
`160058 and Certified English Translation (“Fujiwara”)
`
`WITHDRAWN
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,714,215 (“Flora”)
`
`Supplemental Declaration of Kevin Jakel, Unified Patents, LLC v.
`MemoryWeb, LLC, IPR2021-01413 (Dec. 30, 2021) (redacted
`version)
`
`3 Questions for Unified Patents CEO Post-Oil States (Part II)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review, Apple Inc. v. MemoryWeb, LLC,
`IPR2022-00031, Paper 1 (PTAB Oct. 30, 2021)
`
`Brief of Amicus Curiae Unified Patents Inc. in Cuozzo Speed
`Technologies, LLC v. Michelle K. Lee et al.
`
`Unified Patents September 3, 2021 Press Release regarding
`MemoryWeb IPR
`
`Unified Patents September 9, 2021 email regarding MemoryWeb
`IPR
`
`Unified Patent’s website link (FAQs)
`(https://www.unifiedpatents.com/faq)
`
`Case Readiness Status Report, MemoryWeb, LLC v. Samsung
`Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,
`Case No. 21-cv-411 (W.D. Tex.) (Sept. 3, 2021)
`
`Amended Complaint, MemoryWeb, LLC v. Samsung Electronics
`Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Case No. 21-
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`cv-411 (W.D. Tex.) (Nov. 24, 2021)
`
`2014
`
`2015
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`2021
`
`2022
`
`2023
`
`2024
`
`2025
`
`Excerpts from Defendant Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc.’s Initial Invalidity
`Contentions, MemoryWeb, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Case No. 21-cv-411
`(W.D. Tex.) (Jan. 31, 2022)
`
`Joint Motion for Entry of Agreed Scheduling Order, MemoryWeb,
`LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics
`America, Inc., Case No. 21-cv-411 (W.D. Tex.) (Oct. 1, 2021)
`
`MV3 Partners LLC v. Roku Inc., 6:18-cv-00308, (W.D. Texas)
`D.I. 83
`
`IAM, “The last thing anyone should think about WDTX is that it
`is patent plaintiff friendly, says Albright” (Apr. 7, 2020)
`
`Excerpt from Jennifer Tidwell, Designing Interfaces, O’Reilly (1st
`Ed. 2005)
`
`Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication No. 2007-
`323544 and Certified English Translation (“Takakura”)
`
`Demonstrative exhibit from August 26, 2022 Greenspun
`deposition
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`Transcript of Deposition of Philip Greenspun, Ph.D, August 26,
`2022
`
`Declaration of Professor Glenn Reinman, Ph.D.
`
`Transcript of Deposition of Philip Greenspun, Ph.D, October 21,
`2022
`
`Cambridge English Dictionary, definition of “responsive”
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`2026
`
`2027
`
`2028
`
`2029
`
`2030
`
`2031
`
`2032
`
`2033
`
`Description
`
`Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, definition of
`“responsive”
`
`Wilbert O. Galitz, “The Essential Guide to User Interface Design:
`An Introduction to GUI Design Principles and Techniques,”
`Wiley Publishing, Inc. (3rd Ed.) (2007)
`
`Declaration of Matthew A. Werber
`
`Declaration of Angelo J. Christopher
`
`Second Declaration of Dr. Philip Greenspun, IPR2022-00222
`
`Transcript of January 19, 2023 Deposition of Dr. Philip
`Greenspun, IPR2022-00222
`
`Declaration of Dr. Philip Greenspun, IPR2022-00222
`
`Transcript of March 27, 2023 Deposition of Philip G. Greenspun,
`Ph.D
`
`vii
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00221
`Patent No. 10,423,658
`
`I.
`
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`While the Petition and Patent Owner Response (“POR”) argued that the
`
`
`
` Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`claims should be afforded their plain and ordinary meaning, the parties’ disputes
`
`concerning the scope of the terms below, particularly in view of the Reply, require
`
`the Board to construe these terms. Petition, 11-12; POR, 13; Reply, 1-11; Homeland
`
`Housewares, LLC v. Whirlpool Corp., 865 F.3d 1372, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (the
`
`Board “must resolve” material claim construction disputes); Google LLC v.
`
`Ecofactor, Inc., IPR2021-00054, Paper 35 at 10 (PTAB Apr. 18, 2022) (construing
`
`terms despite parties’ statements that no constructions were needed).
`
`A. Claims 3-5, 7, 9-10, and 12-15: “responsive to a click or tap …
`displaying”
`As established in the POR, the phrase “responsive to” requires a direct cause-
`
`effect relationship between two events. POR, 17-25. In reply, Petitioner argues that
`
`“the term ‘responsive to’ merely requires that the second event happen ‘subsequent
`
`to’ the first event.” Reply, 4; EX1047, ¶7. 1 But as Dr. Greenspun admitted,
`
`“responsive to” does not mean “subsequent to”:
`
`Q. Is it your opinion that the phrase “responsive to” in the
`claims of the ‘658 patent means subsequent to?
`
`
`
`1 Unless otherwise stated, all emphasis shown in case cites and evidence cites is
`
`added.
`
`1
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00221
`Patent No. 10,423,658
`
`
`
`
` Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`A. Well, that’s not what I said. There has to be, you know,
`as well a user interaction and software action perhaps. So
`it’s not simply subsequent to in the same sense that you
`might say, you know, subsequent to my trip to the grocery
`store, it started to rain.
`
`Q. Does the phrase “responsive to” then require a
`cause/effect relationship between the first event and the
`second event?
`
`A. Yes, I think at least the first event has to cause
`something to change in the software that makes the
`second event possible.
`
`EX2033, 17:11-25;2 see also EX2024, 92:3-13, 205:9-207:13, 81:7-20. Indeed, it is
`
`well-settled that the plain meaning of “responsive to” or “in response to” requires a
`
`direct cause-effect relationship. EX2025, 1; EX2026, 3: EX2033, 25:24-26:22,
`
`29:14-30:4; EX2023, ¶128; POR, 19-20; see also Microsoft Corp. v. FG SRC, LLC,
`
`860 F.App’x 708, 714 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (phrase “in response to” construed to require
`
`claimed seps “are performed as part of a single transaction”).
`
`
`2 References to Exhibits 2029-2031 in this transcript correspond to Exhibits 2030-
`
`2032, respectively.
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00221
`Patent No. 10,423,658
`
`
`
`The parties’ dispute is whether “responsive to” requires a direct cause-effect
`
`
`
` Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`relationship between two events, as Patent Owner proposes, or if it also encompasses
`
`an indirect cause-effect relationship that allows an infinite number of intervening
`
`events, as Petitioner proposes. Petitioner’s “indirect” construction is overbroad and
`
`leads to absurd results. For instance, Dr. Greenspun agreed that displaying the
`
`“people view” in FIG. 32 of the ‘658 patent would be “responsive to” an initial login
`
`operation and even turning on the computer. EX2033, 32:19-33:14, 34:16-35:11,
`
`35:25-37:24. Under Petitioner’s construction, there is seemingly no limit on what
`
`displaying the views claimed in the ‘658 patent could be considered “responsive to.”
`
`
`
`The surrounding claim language refutes Petitioner’s construction. Claim 5
`
`specifies that the direct cause creating the effect of “displaying a people view” is “a
`
`click or tap of the people selectable element” in the application view. EX2033, 39:4-
`
`42:15; EX2023, ¶130. Claims 7 and 10 require that “displaying a [first/second]
`
`person view” is “responsive to a click or tap the [first/second] person selectable
`
`thumbnail” in the people view. EX2023, ¶¶147-149. Petitioner’s construction,
`
`however, allows the display of a particular view to be considered “responsive to”
`
`nearly any selection in any prior view, and even unrelated actions like turning on a
`
`computer. EX2033, 32:19-33:14, 34:16-35:11, 35:25-37:24. Such an interpretation
`
`flies in the face of the surrounding claim language and renders the requirement that
`
`specific events in specific views cause a desired view to be displayed effectively
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00221
`Patent No. 10,423,658
`
`meaningless. Power Mosfet Techs., L.L.C. v. Siemens AG, 378 F.3d 1396, 1410 (Fed.
`
` Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`
`
`Cir. 2004) (constructions rendering terms superfluous are disfavored).
`
`
`
`Contrary to Petitioner’s assertions, Patent Owner’s construction does not
`
`exclude any relevant embodiments in the specification. Reply, 3-8; EX2033, 18:17-
`
`25. As to claim 5, the specification describes the people view 1400 in FIG. 32 as
`
`being displayed responsive to “selecting ‘People’ (1401).” EX1001, 22:43-55;
`
`EX2023, ¶134; EX1046, 63:7-64:5.
`
`EX1001, FIG. 32 (excerpted and annotated)
`
`As to claims 7 and 10, the specification describes selecting one the thumbnails in the
`
`people view to display a person view. EX1001, 22:63-23:10, 23:18-20; EX2023,
`
`
`
`¶¶147-154.
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00221
`Patent No. 10,423,658
`
`
`
`
` Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`EX1001, FIG. 32 (annotated)
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s assertion that displaying FIG. 32’s people view “entails … the
`
`additional selection of a desired display order via a drop-down list (1402)” is
`
`meritless. Reply, 4. The ‘658 patent never suggests interacting with drop-down list
`
`1402 is required to view more than one thumbnail/name pair. EX1001, 22:59-67;
`
`EX2033, 23:11-24:8; EX2022, 49:9-50:15; EX2023, ¶135. As Prof. Reinman
`
`explained, the sorting function does not change the fact that “the display of the
`
`people view [1400] was responsive to [selecting] 1401.” EX1046, 73:21-74:17; see
`
`also id., 60:11-61:19, 62:16-63:5, 71:18-22; EX1045, 36:7-37:9, 44:19-45:14.
`
`Petitioner’s argument that selecting “an ‘Items Per Page’ button” is another
`
`“require[d] additional, intermediate user action[]” to display the people view 1400
`
`is equally meritless. Reply, 6. The Items Per Page options increase the number of
`
`displayed items to be greater than 20, but nothing in the ‘658 patent suggests such a
`
`selection is required. EX1001, FIG. 32, 22:55-57; EX2033, 59:23-60:24. Similarly,
`
`the “arrows that display additional thumbnails” in FIG. 6 do not support Petitioner’s
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00221
`Patent No. 10,423,658
`
`construction because there are already nineteen more thumbnail/name pairs than
`
` Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`
`
`required in claim 5. EX2033, 40:4-15; EX1001, FIG. 6.
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s reliance on FIG. 13 is inapposite because FIG. 13 is a “chart” or
`
`“table” view—not a “thumbnail” view—and is not displayed responsive to a click
`
`or tap of a people selectable element as required in claim 5. EX1001, 3:20-21;
`
`EX2033, 38:21-39:13, 40:13-24, 42:16-43:10. Even if Petitioner’s characterizations
`
`of the “+” symbol in FIG. 13 were correct, “an alternative embodiment disclosed in
`
`the [patent] … does not outweigh the language of the claim.” TIP Sys., LLC v.
`
`Phillips & Brooks/Gladwin, Inc., 529 F.3d 1364, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2008). And while
`
`Petitioner relies on FIGS. 3-4 (Reply, 6-7) as support for its overbroad construction
`
`for claims 14-15, Petitioner ignores FIG. 33, which Patent Owner cited as support
`
`for its construction (POR, 23-24).
`
`
`
`In sum, Petitioner’s construction, which it admits is designed to capture the
`
`“mouseovers” in Okamura, is not supported by any intrinsic evidence. Reply, 4
`
`(quoting EX2024, 108:20-109:12). Okamura—which never uses the words
`
`“responsive” or “response”—cannot be used to distort the plain meaning of
`
`“responsive to” as informed by the ‘658 patent’s specification—which is silent on
`
`mouseovers. Genuine Enabling Tech. LLC v. Nintendo Co., 29 F.4th 1365, 1373
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2022) (“expert testimony may not be used to diverge significantly from
`
`the intrinsic record”).
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00221
`Patent No. 10,423,658
`
`
`
`
` Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`B. Claim 5: displaying “a name associated with the [first/second]
`person”
`Patent Owner’s construction requires that “the displaying the people view
`
`include[es] displaying” each of: “(i) a first person selectable thumbnail,” “(ii) a
`
`[first] name,” “(iii) a second person selectable thumbnail,” and “(iv) a [second]
`
`name” responsive to a click or tap of the people selectable element. POR, 25-28.3
`
`While claim 5 does not contain the word “simultaneously,” Dr. Greenspun agreed
`
`that (1) the claim requires “the simultaneous display of the first person selectable
`
`thumbnail image and the name associated with the first person” and (2) “the name
`
`associated with the second person needs to be displayed simultaneously with the
`
`second person selectable thumbnail image.” EX2033, 46:17-48:12; see also POR,
`
`26-27; EX2023, ¶132. The remaining dispute is whether the “people view” requires
`
`displaying at least two pairs of thumbnails and names simultaneously, as Patent
`
`Owner proposes, or only one thumbnail/name pair to be displayed at a time, as
`
`Petitioner proposes.
`
`
`3 Petitioner mischaracterizes Patent Owner’s construction as requiring “both names
`
`to be visible together to the user at all times.” Reply, 8. Items (i)-(iv) need only be
`
`displayed together responsive to the click/tap of the people selectable element.
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00221
`Patent No. 10,423,658
`
`
`1.
`
`Patent Owner’s construction
`surrounding claim language
`Patent Owner’s construction is supported by “the surrounding words of the
`
`
`
` Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`is
`
`supported by
`
`the
`
`claim” in at least three ways. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2005). First, by contrast to the “[first/second] person view” in claims 7 and 10 that
`
`each relate to one person, the “people view” in claim 5 relates to multiple people.
`
`EX2033, 44:10-17. If claim 5 were construed as broadly as Petitioner proposes, the
`
`“people view” would only need to show information for one person at any given
`
`time and would effectively be a “person view,” thereby collapsing the distinction
`
`between “people” and a “person.” Id.
`
`Second, claim 5 requires that each of items (i)-(iv) is displayed “responsive
`
`to a click or tap of the people selectable element.” EX2023, ¶¶130, 135. Petitioner’s
`
`argument “[t]he claim language does not state that everything associated with the
`
`view is displayed responsive to the click or tap” is wrong because the claim specifies
`
`(1) “displaying a people view” responsive to the click or tap and (2) “the displaying
`
`the people view includes displaying” items (i)-(iv). Reply, 9.4 This means that
`
`displaying each of items (i)-(iv) must occur responsive to the click or tap of the
`
`
`4 In this regard, claim 5 of the ‘658 patent differs from the “people view” in claim 1
`
`of the ‘228 patent.
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00221
`Patent No. 10,423,658
`
`people selectable element. EX2033, 56:8-57:5. In other words, the claim specifies a
`
` Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`
`
`specific interaction (click/tap of the people selectable element) in a specific view
`
`(the application view) causes a specific view (the people view) and information
`
`(items (i)-(iv)) to be displayed.
`
`Third, claim 6 requires that the “[first/second] person selectable thumbnail
`
`image[s]” are displayed “in an alphabetical order based on the names.” EX1001,
`
`36:50-55. Logically, two items must be displayed simultaneously to display them in
`
`alphabetical order. If each thumbnail and associated name must be displayed
`
`simultaneously as Dr. Greenspun agreed (EX2033, 46:17-48:12) and each thumbnail
`
`is displayed simultaneously, then all thumbnails and names would be displayed
`
`simultaneously, as Patent Owner’s construction requires.
`
`2.
`The specification confirms Patent Owner’s construction
`The specification is consistent with Patent Owner’s construction: FIG. 32
`
`shows four thumbnails and names simultaneously. EX1001, FIG. 32, 22:44-55;
`
`EX2023, ¶¶133-135; Reply, 8 (admitting FIG. 32 shows “both a first name and a
`
`second name at the same time”).
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00221
`Patent No. 10,423,658
`
`
`
`
` Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`
`
`EX1001, FIG. 32 (excerpted and annotated)
`
`Dr. Greenspun’s testimony that items (i)-(iv) in claim 5 “can’t all be displayed at the
`
`same time on any kind of real-world screen” is not credible at least in view of FIGS.
`
`32 and 6. EX2033, 58:24-59:9.
`
`Nothing Petitioner cites from the specification indicates that only one name
`
`would be displayed in any example of the claimed people view. Reply, 8-11. As
`
`discussed above, neither a selection in the “Sort By” nor the “Items Per Page”
`
`options in FIG. 32 is required to display at least two names in the people view 1400.
`
`Supra, §I.A. The same is true for FIG. 6, where twenty-one names and thumbnails
`
`are shown. Id. And, as discussed above, FIG. 13 is an alternative “chart” that does
`
`not correspond to the claimed people view. Id.; TIP Sys., 529 F.3d at 1373.
`
`Petitioner’s criticism of Prof. Reinman not opining on a scenario where one
`
`of the names becomes “momentarily hidden from view” after initially displaying
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00221
`Patent No. 10,423,658
`
`both names and thumbnails is misplaced. Reply, 8-9 (citing EX1040, 57:24-58:14).
`
` Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`
`
`Extraneous steps like “momentarily” hiding one name after initially satisfying all
`
`“people view” requirements are irrelevant. Predicate Logic, Inc. v. Distributive
`
`Software, Inc., 544 F.3d 1298, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Petitioner’s suggestion that
`
`Prof. Reinman “could not point to a single instance in the specification or figures of
`
`the ‘658 patent” to support his opinions is a gross mischaracterization. Reply, 9.
`
`Tellingly, Petitioner does not include a citation to this purported testimony. Id. Dr.
`
`Greenspun’s second declaration contained a citation for the same assertion, but the
`
`cited testimony pertains to the same irrelevant hypothetical and does not support Dr.
`
`Greenspun’s characterization of Prof. Reinman’s testimony. EX1047, ¶12 (citing
`
`EX1045, 57:24-58:14); EX2033, 156:11-158:20.
`
`C. Claim 13: “the displaying the album view including displaying:
`… a first album name … and … a second album name”
`Like claim 5, claim 13 requires that both album names are displayed
`
`simultaneously. POR, 29-30; EX2023, ¶157. This is consistent with FIG. 33, which
`
`Petitioner did not respond to. EX1001, 23:40-47; EX2023, ¶¶158-159; Reply, 11.
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00221
`Patent No. 10,423,658
`
`
`
`
` Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`
`
`EX1001, FIG. 33 (excerpted and annotated)
`
`Petitioner’s construction should be rejected for at least the same reasons discussed
`
`above claim 5. Reply, 11; Supra, §§I.B, I.C.
`
`D. Claim 1: the “application view” and “map view” are distinct
`The “application view” cannot be the same view as, for example, the claimed
`
`“map view.” POR, 13-17; Reply, 2-3. The claim language creates a presumption that
`
`the “application view” is different than the other views and requires navigating from
`
`the “application view” to other views, logically foreclosing them from being the
`
`same. POR, 13-15. Consistent with the plain claim language, Dr. Greenspun
`
`admitted that the “application view” and “map view” are different views, and that
`
`the “map view” is displayed subsequent to the “application view,” contradicting his
`
`second declaration. EX2033, 61:15-62:15; EX2024, 39:19-40:2; EX1047, ¶5.
`
`To distract from its flawed construction, Petitioner suggests Prof. Reinman
`
`agreed that “a particular view can ‘qualify as both’ an application view and a location
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00221
`Patent No. 10,423,658
`
`view” in the claims. Reply, 3. This is another mischaracterization: Prof. Reinman
`
` Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`
`
`unambiguously explained that the claims require an “application view” distinct from
`
`the other views. EX1046, 18:5-8, 42:3-12; EX2033, 156:11-158:20; EX2023,
`
`¶¶115-123.
`
`II. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE NOT UNPATENTABLE
`Neither the Reply nor Dr. Greenspun’s second declaration overcome the
`
`deficiencies in the Petition. Notably, Dr. Greenspun’s second declaration did not
`
`even consider Prof. Reinman’s declaration (EX2023), leaving his opinions
`
`unrebutted. EX1047; EX2033, 12:3-21.
`
`A. Claims 7 and 10: Okamura does not disclose displaying the
`claimed “[first/second] person view”
`The Petition erroneously argued that Okamura discloses that a click/tap of
`
`thumbnail image 432 in FIG. 21 (the alleged people view) causes the content
`
`playback screen 460 in FIG. 24 to be displayed (the alleged [first/second] person
`
`view). POR, 69-75; Petition, 80-81; EX2023, ¶¶269-289.
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00221
`Patent No. 10,423,658
`
`
`
`
` Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`
`
`Petition, 81 (annotating EX1005, FIGS. 21, 24)
`
`Okamura does not disclose this. EX2033, 128:7-13, 128:18-23. Instead, Okamura
`
`discloses at least the following additional actions are required to reach FIG. 24:
`
`(1) select a cluster in FIG. 21 to display FIG. 22’s content playback screen
`
`440, which operates as a slideshow;
`
`(2) perform a “user operation” on a desired image within the FIG. 22 slide
`
`show to display FIG. 23’s content playback screen 450;
`
`(3) identify a face box 456-459 in content playback screen 450; and
`
`(4) select the identified face box to display FIG. 24’s content playback screen
`
`460.
`
`EX1005, ¶¶[0250]-[0261]; EX2033, 152:11-153:7; EX2023, ¶¶269-282.
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00221
`Patent No. 10,423,658
`
`
`
`
` Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`EX1005, FIGS. 21-24 (annotated)
`
`
`
`These steps are confirmed by the flow diagrams in FIGS. 32-33. POR, 73-75;
`
`EX2023, ¶¶283-287; EX2033, 129:9-25; Reply, 26-27.
`
`
`
`Petitioner argues that Okamura chose “not to show all the different ways in
`
`which a user can navigate from screen to screen.” Reply, 26. But nothing in
`
`Okamura suggests transitioning directly from FIG. 21 to FIG. 24: the only way to
`
`get to FIG. 24 is through FIGS. 22-23. EX2033, 152:11-153:7; EX2023, ¶¶269-282.
`
`What is more, in contrast to the claim language referring to the same “first person,”
`
`the person selected in FIG. 24 (alleged first person view) and the person selected via
`
`thumbnail 432 in FIG. 21 (alleged people view) are different.
`
`
`
`
`FIG. 24 (excerpted)
`
`
`FIG. 21 (excerpted)
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00221
`Patent No. 10,423,658
`
`Accordingly, Okamura does not disclose displaying a “[first/second] person view”
`
` Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`
`
`responsive to a click/tap of the “[first/second] person selectable thumbnail” in the
`
`people view. Reply, 26-27; POR, 72; supra, §I.A.
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s argument that the “intervening user actions do not eliminate the
`
`‘responsive to’ relationship” is predicated on its overbroad construction. Reply, 26;
`
`supra, §I.A. But even if, arguendo, the Board construes “responsive to” as not
`
`requiring a direct cause-effect relationship, the scenario described above in Okamura
`
`including multiple intervening views, decisions, and inputs does not meet any
`
`reasonable construction of “responsive to.” EX2023, ¶¶272-278. To find otherwise
`
`would render much of the claim language requiring a specific click/tap of a specific
`
`item in a specific view meaningless. Supra, §I.A.
`
`Petitioner also argues that it is “possible” to transition directly from FIG. 21
`
`to FIG. 24 “with a single mouse click depending on user preference.” Reply, 26-27.
`
`This is not disclosed in Okamura. EX2033, 128:7-23. To the extent Petitioner is
`
`suggesting obviousness, it is improper for Petitioner to do so for the first time in the
`
`Reply. 37 C.F.R. § 42.23; Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster LLC, 938 F.3d 1324,
`
`1330 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (finding Board properly disregarded “new theory first raised
`
`in reply”); Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359,
`
`1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (identifying evidence and theories in the initial petitioner is “of
`
`the utmost importance”); Starbucks Corp. et al v. Fall Line Patents, LLC, IPR2019-
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00221
`Patent No. 10,423,658
`
`00610, Paper 42 at 35-36 (PTAB May 17, 2022) (finding obviousness argument in
`
` Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`
`
`reply was “too late” when petition “only argued” that reference “disclosed”
`
`limitation).
`
`Petitioner’s attempts to rewrite the record are unavailing. When asked during
`
`his first deposition to confirm he offered no opinions on modifying Okamura to
`
`transition directly from FIG. 21 to 24, Dr. Greenspun answered “I don’t know why
`
`I would have.” EX2033, 132:21-134:8; EX2024, 125:2-10. When deposed again,
`
`Dr. Greenspun claimed his first declaration offered an obviousness opinion by
`
`drawing an arrow between FIGS. 21 and 24. EX2033, 130:1-132:1.
`
`EX1003, ¶168
`
`
`
`Even if Dr. Greenspun’s post-hoc characterization of his annotations is accepted
`
`(which it should not), the mere drawing of an arrow is the epitome of conclusory
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00221
`Patent No. 10,423,658
`
`testimony and should be afforded no weight. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a); TQ Delta, LLC
`
` Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`
`
`v. CISCO Sys., Inc., 942 F.3d 1352, 1358-59 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
`
`B. Claim 5: Okamura does not disclose “the displaying the people
`view” includes displaying items (i)-(iv)
`Okamura does not disclose displaying any name responsive to a click or tap
`
`of the alleged people selectable element. POR, 64-65; supra, §I.A. Instead, a single
`
`name is only displayed upon placing “the mouse … over a thumbnail image 432”
`
`after FIG. 21 is already displayed. EX1005, ¶[0247]; EX2023, ¶263. And because
`
`the only way to display any name in FIG. 21 is to hover the mouse over a thumbnail,
`
`Okamura cannot display two names simultaneously as required in claim 5. POR, 66;
`
`EX2023, ¶¶264-265; supra, §I.B.
`
`1.
`Petitioner’s new obviousness theories are improper
`In reply, Petitioner argues that modifying the Okamura-Belitz combination to
`
`display names adjacent to the thumbnails “without additional mouse hovering” to
`
`“show all the names all of the time” was obvious. Reply, 24-25. These arguments
`
`were not in the Petition and cannot be raised for the first time in the Reply. Petition,
`
`70-75; 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); Henny Penny, 938 F.3d at 1330; Intelligent Bio-
`
`Systems, 821 F.3d at 1369. Petitioner’s attempts to explain how these arguments were
`
`previously made are not credible.
`
`Petitioner’s claim that Dr. Greenspun “previously” offered these obviousness
`
`opinions in his first declaration is simply not true. Reply, 24. In his first deposition,
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00221
`Patent No. 10,423,658
`
`Dr. Greenspun admitted that his first declaration did “not mention simultaneous
`
` Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`
`
`display of two names anywhere.” EX2024, 112:2-8, 106:12-20. Indeed, with respect
`
`to displaying names “all of the time,” the Reply only cites Dr. Greenspun’s
`
`deposition testimony from a different proceeding because his first declaration
`
`offered no such opinion. Reply, 25 (citing EX2022, 132:6-12); EX2033, 125:15-
`
`126:15; see also EX2031, 92:6-93:6.
`
`With respect to Petitioner’s new argument to eliminate Okamura’s mouse
`
`hovering, Petitioner cites one paragraph in Dr. Greenspun’s first declaration. Reply,
`
`24 (citing EX1003, ¶162). But paragr