Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 39
`Entered: June 12, 2023
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MEMORYWEB, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`______________
`
`IPR2022-00221
`Patent 10,423,658 B2
`______________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held Virtually: May 9, 2023
`______________
`
`
`
`
`Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
`KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 39
`Entered: June 12, 2023
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MEMORYWEB, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`______________
`
`IPR2022-00221
`Patent 10,423,658 B2
`______________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held Virtually: May 9, 2023
`______________
`
`
`
`
`Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
`KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00221
`Patent 10,423,658 B2
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`JEREMY MONALDO
`W. KARL RENNER
`HYUN JIN IN
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`1000 Maine Ave SW
`Washington, D.C. 20024
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`JENNIFER HAYES
`Nixon Peabody LLP
`One California Plaza
`300 S. Grand Ave, #4100
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`
`ANGELO CHRISTOPHER
`Nixon Peabody LLP
`70 West Madison St, Suite 5200
`Chicago, IL 60602
`
`
`
`ALSO PRESENT, OBSERVING:
`
`
`JONG CHOI
`Samsung Electronics Co., LTD
`
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday, May 9,
`2023, commencing at 1:00 p.m., via video teleconference.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00221
`Patent 10,423,658 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE BROWNE: Good afternoon, everybody. This is Judge
`Browne, and we are here for oral argument in IPR2022-00221. With me are
`Judges Beamer and Trock, and before we begin, I have a few housekeeping
`items. This is a video conference. We ask that you identify yourself before
`speaking, and if you are referring to a demonstrative, please state the number
`of the Slide that you are referring to. There is a court reporter in attendance.
`We request that counsel remain for a few minutes after the arguments are
`submitted in case the court reporter has questions.
`Each party has 60 minutes of argument time. Patent Owner’s
`counsel also includes a LEAP practitioner, so patent owner will be given an
`additional 15 minutes of time. Please indicate how much time you would
`like to reserve for rebuttal after making your appearance, and also as a
`reminder -- oh, wait, sorry that’s for a different case. So, let’s begin. We’re
`on the record, and please let me know who is here for Petitioner.
`MR. MONALDO: Good afternoon, Your Honor, this is Jeremy
`Monaldo representing Petitioner, Samsung. I’m joined here by Karl Renner
`and Hyun Jin In, and we have Jong Choi from Samsung on the public line.
`JUDGE BROWNE: Great. Do you know how much time you
`would like to reserve for your rebuttal?
`MR. MONALDO: Sure, Your Honor, we’d like to reserve 30
`minutes.
`JUDGE BROWNE: All right. And then who is here for Patent
`
`Owner?
`
`MS. HAYES: Good afternoon, Your Honor. It’s Jennifer Hayes
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00221
`Patent 10,423,658 B2
`
`from Nixon Peabody for Patent Owner, and with me today is Angelo
`Christopher, and Angelo is the LEAP practitioner for Patent Owner.
`JUDGE BROWNE: Okay. As you know, Angelo can speak as
`much or as little as you would like, and also, you are welcome to advise him
`when he is speaking. Do you know at this point how much rebuttal time you
`would like, or do you want to wait until you begin your case?
`MS. HAYES: We’d like to reserve 20 minutes for rebuttal.
`JUDGE BROWNE: Okay. Great. I will make every effort to let
`you know when your time is nearly up, but please also try to keep track of
`your time. We’ll begin with Petitioner, and Mr. Monaldo, you can begin
`when you’re ready.
`MR. MONALDO: Thank you, Your Honors. So, I’ll direct you to
`Slide 2 of our demonstratives. On Slide 2 you’ll see that we offer a table of
`contents that will allow you to quickly identify content in our Slides that is
`relevant to the various issues involved in this proceeding. These issues
`should look familiar as we previously discussed the first, third, and fourth
`issues in the oral hearing for MemoryWeb’s related to 228 patent.
`The second issue relates to display of an application view which is
`unique to this proceeding. It’s something we have not previously discussed.
`Without background, unless there are any questions on the outset, I’ll move
`to Slide 12 to briefly discuss the first issue which relates to the combination
`of Okamura and Belitz. So, given the limited time we have together today,
`and the fact that we already discussed Okamura and Belitz references in a
`prior hearing, I simply wanted to briefly touch on the combination to explain
`how we offered multiple theories for how the combination comes together,
`and to ensure that I answer any questions that Your Honors might have on
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00221
`Patent 10,423,658 B2
`
`the combination.
`I’ll start with Slide 14 to provide a brief overview of the relevant
`portion of Okamura. As shown on Slide 14, Okamura describes an
`interactive map, and on that map displays clusters to depict locations on the
`map where images have been taken. A user is able to select a cluster and
`proceed the images that are associated with the location of the selected
`cluster. As shown on the lower portion of Slide 14, Okamura describes that
`these clusters are displayed on the map as thumbnail images.
`Moving to Slide 15, you can see the first theory or the combination
`of Okamura and Belitz at the upper left part of Slide 15, you have Figures
`4A and 4B of Belitz which show an interactive map that is similar to the
`interactive map of Okamura that we just discussed. As you can see on Slide
`15, on the Belitz interactive map, Belitz displays thumbnails of images taken
`at different locations on the map. The concept is very similar to Okamura,
`but instead of using thumbnails of clusters, as described in Okamura, Belitz
`uses thumbnails of images taken at the different locations. In the first theory
`of the combination, the Belitz image thumbnails are simply used to replace
`the Okamura cluster thumbnails on the Okamura interactive map. A simple
`substitution of one note thumbnail for another. Unless there are any
`questions on the first theory for our combination, I’d like to move to Slide
`16 to discuss the second theory.
`JUDGE BROWNE: No. I think that we must have gotten an
`artifact from someone. I don’t believe there are any questions.
`MR. MONALDO: Okay. Thank you, Your Honors. As shown on
`Slide 16, there are our second theory for the combination. Instead of
`replacing Okamura’s cluster thumbnails with Belitz’s image thumbnails, the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00221
`Patent 10,423,658 B2
`
`second theory simply replaced Okamura’s map with Belitz’s map.
`On the upper left portion of Slide 16 you can see this obvious
`modification that replaces the map showing Okamura’s figure 41 with
`Belitz’s map on the upper right portion of Slide 16 you can see another
`obvious modification of replacing the cluster map display area, shown in
`Okamura’s figure 18 with Belitz’s map. Each of these modifications would
`have been an obvious way to use Belitz’s known map within Okamura’s
`known photo management system. And each of these modifications merely
`involves a simple substitution of one known map for another. So, unless
`there are any questions on the combination of Okamura and Belitz, at this
`point move to Slide 23 to discuss the second issue related to Okamura’s
`disclosure of the claimed application view.
`So as mentioned at the outset, the second issue involving the
`application view is not something we previously discussed. It involves
`unique claim language found in MemoryWeb’s ’658 patent. You can see
`this claim language on Slide 24. As shown on Slide 24, the first step in the
`method of claim one broadly recites displaying an application view on a
`video display device, including a displaying a plurality of selectable
`elements. Now there is no dispute that Okamura displays a view, including
`the required plurality of selectable elements. The dispute, instead, focuses
`on whether Okamura displays a plurality of selectable elements in a view
`that is distinct from all other claim views, and whether distinct view is
`actually required by the claims.
`You can see this on Slide 25 where we present MemoryWeb’s
`proposed construction of application view. As shown on Slide 25,
`MemoryWeb contends that you should take the turn application view and
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00221
`Patent 10,423,658 B2
`
`rewrite it as an application view that is distinct from the other claimed
`views. But as it just discussed, the language of claim one is broad, and
`nothing in the claim requires the type of distinctness that MemoryWeb is
`attempting to import into the claim language.
`In fact, nothing in the specification requires the type of distinctness
`that MemoryWeb is seeking to add to the claims. You can see this on Slide
`27 where we present several different excerpts of the disclosure from the
`’658 patent. So, if you’re looking at Slide 27, the ’658 patent repeatedly
`describes the existence of multiple application views, and generally uses the
`term application view to generically refer to any of its more specific views.
`At the top of Slide 27 you see this in the expert that refers to, “any of the
`Application Views.” In the middle of Slide 27 you see the search in a quote,
`“every Application View.” And at the bottom of Slide 27 you see the search
`in a quote, “any Application View.” With this treatment, the ’658 patent is
`clear that the term Application View is not used to refer to a distinct view.
`Instead, it is used to generically refer to any of the various views included in
`the application.
`You can see this again on Slide 28, where each of the people and
`location views in the ’658 patent are explicitly presented as Application
`Views. Look at the highlighted text on Slide 28. Each view is explicitly and
`consistently referred to as an example of an application view. There’s
`simply no reason to exclude these examples from the broad claim language
`that simply refers to an application view without any claim language that
`would suggest distinctness from other views claimed or described in the
`specification. On Slide 29 is the testimony from our expert, Dr. Greenspun
`addressing the application view claim language.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00221
`Patent 10,423,658 B2
`
`
`As Dr. Greenspun explained in the expert shown on Slide 29, a
`particular view can qualify as both the generic application view, as well as
`the more specific location application view. There’s simply no requirement
`that the generically claimed application view must be completely distinct
`from the other views. Unless there are any questions on the appropriate
`construction of the claim application view, I’d like to briefly discuss two
`obviousness theories that address MemoryWeb’s proposed construction of
`application view.
`So, hearing no questions on the construction, although we certainly
`disagree with MemoryWeb’s construction for the reason we just discussed,
`we have two different theories that demonstrate obviousness of even
`MemoryWeb’s proposed narrow construction. The first theory is depicted
`on Slide 30 of our demonstratives. On Slide 30, yellow highlighting has
`been added to each of the figures to identify the map view portion of the
`interface. The highlighted portion of the interface is what we see as the map
`view. You could see on the version of Okamura’s figure 19, presented on
`the left side of Slide 30, the white portion of the interface and circles the
`map view highlighted in yellow. Now that white portion of the interface
`includes the plurality of selectable elements, the event face and place tabs,
`and represents an application view portion of the interface that is separate
`from the map view and allows the user to switch between the location people
`and album views in the highlighted portion of the interface.
`With this structure, even if MemoryWeb is correct that the
`application view requires some level of distinctness from the map location
`and album views, which we do not agree with, but even if they are correct,
`the white portion of the interface shown at the left side of Slide 30 represents
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00221
`Patent 10,423,658 B2
`
`a distinct application view.
`Recall the claim language. The claims only require application
`view to include the plurality of selectable elements in the white portion of
`the interface is a distinct part of the interface that provides a view that
`includes the plurality of selectable elements.
`Now, we asked Dr. Greenspun to assess Okamura’s disclosure
`relative to the disclosure at ’658 patent, and you can see Dr. Greenspun’s
`testimony on Slide 31. As shown on Slide 31, Dr. Greenspun’s included that
`Okamura is very similar and essentially parallel to what is shown in the ’658
`patent. In both documents you have multiple tabs that allow a user to switch
`between different content shown in a content portion of the display. The
`tabs persist while the content changes based on the user’s selection of the
`tabs. Very similar.
`So even if MemoryWeb is correct that some level of distinctness is
`required between the application view and the various other views, that
`distinctness should be satisfied by the separate tab area that exists within
`both the ’658 patent, and Okamura. Unless there are any questions on that
`first backup obviousness theory for the application view, I’ll turn to Slide 32
`to discuss our second backup obviousness theory.
`So as shown on Slide 32, even if the claimed application view
`required a fourth tab, in addition to the location people and album tabs
`shown in Okamura’s figure 18 and 19, a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would have found it obvious to have it obvious to add additional tab. As
`shown in the expert of Dr. Greenspun’s testimony provided on Slide 32, it
`would have been obvious to add additional tabs to Okamura’s index screen.
`It certainly was not invented for MemoryWeb to add a fourth generic tab to
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00221
`Patent 10,423,658 B2
`
`these three specific tabs already disclosed in Okamura.
`MemoryWeb contends that the fact that they have a fourth tab
`related to uploads somehow distinguishes and makes patentable its claims
`over Okamura’s disclosure. But as we can see through Dr. Greenspun’s
`testimony, adding addition tab would have been obvious. As one example,
`Dr. Greenspun explained how it would have been obvious to add a fourth tab
`corresponding to the distinct map view presented in Okamura’s figure 41.
`This addition would allow a user to select a toggle between the different map
`views already disclosed in Okamura, and more quickly find the user’s
`preferred view for evaluating location-based photographs. With this
`additional tab, Okamura’s interface would be identical to what MemoryWeb
`contends the claimed application view requires.
`Now with that, I’ll pause for any questions on the application view
`issue in case Your Honors have any questions. If there are none, I will then
`move to Slide 34 of our demonstratives and briefly discuss the third issue
`related to the responsive to limitations. As mentioned earlier, this issue is
`very similar to an issue we previously discussed in relation to claim one of
`MemoryWeb’s 228 patent. The difference in this proceeding is that the
`responsive to claim language is not only in dependent claims and it relates to
`several different claimed views.
`Moving to Slide 35, you can see the general structure of the
`language we’re talking about that is found in dependent claims 3 to 5, 7, 9,
`10, and 12 to 15. Each of the claims includes a first part that recites
`“responsive to a click or tap,” then each of these claims includes a second
`part, displaying, displaying something, a view. As we discussed in the 228
`patent oral hearing, MemoryWeb contends that this claim language should
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00221
`Patent 10,423,658 B2
`
`be modified in two ways that each require you to read terms into the claim.
`First, MemoryWeb asks you to change the first page of the limitation from
`responsive to a click or tap, to responsive to a single click or tap.
`In MemoryWeb’s view a combination of related inputs cannot
`satisfy the responsive to requirement because in their view the claim requires
`the view to be displayed directly from a single click or tap. But the claims
`do not use the term single, and MemoryWeb’s argument requires you to add
`it.
`
`And this is not the only modification that MemoryWeb proposes.
`The second modification comes at the second part of the limitation.
`MemoryWeb proposes adjusting this language to read displaying everything
`in the view. According to MemoryWeb, it’s not sufficient to display a view,
`you must display everything that is included in the view as a result of a
`single click or tap. But these additional terms, single and everything, are
`absent from the claim language.
`So, for MemoryWeb to be successful, Your Honors would have to
`make two separate modifications to the claim language. You would need to
`add single before click or tap, and you would need to add everything after
`displaying. That would be improper and inconsistent with examples
`described in the ’658 patent. You can see a relevant example on Slide 43.
`So, on Slide 43 of our demonstratives, you can see an example of how
`people view is displayed in the ’658 patent.
`As shown on 43, to generate the people view a user first selects the
`people tab 1401 that is highlighted in red, and then uses a drop-down menu,
`1402 that is highlighted in purple, to specify the order of the people shown
`in the people view. After receiving these two inputs, the people view shown
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00221
`Patent 10,423,658 B2
`
`on Slide 43 is displayed. Two inputs to arrive at the displayed people view.
`Because this example uses two inputs, it is inconsistent with MemoryWeb’s
`proposed addition of the terms single to the claims and confirms that
`MemoryWeb’s proposed construction is overly narrow.
`Moving to Slide 44, your testimony from MemoryWeb’s expert,
`Dr. Reinman, that he provided during his deposition. As shown on Slide 44,
`Dr. Reinman offered testimony that contracts with MemoryWeb’s
`interpretation that everything in a view must be displayed responsive to a
`single click or tap. As you can see, we asked Dr. Reinman about a situation
`where screen real estate limited the number of images that could be
`displayed within a view. As you can, Dr. Reinman confirmed that
`undisplayed images are part of a view display responsive to a click or tap.
`Look at the green highlighted testimony. “...they are still part of the view.”
`This testimony by MemoryWeb’s own expert directly refutes Memory
`Web’s contention that everything in a view must be displayed responsive to
`a single click or tap. Now these are not only my words, they are the words
`from MemoryWeb’s own expert, undisplayed images are still part of the
`view.
`
`Now moving to Slide 45, we see again another example of view
`describing the ’658 patent that allows for additional input. In the example
`shown on Slide 45, we highlight in red items per page controls provided the
`lower right side of the view. These controls confirm that the display of the
`view need not display everything included in the view at one time. As
`shown on Slide 45, the view is limited to a display of 20 people.
`Consider an example where the user has images of 30 people. In
`this example the view would include all 30 people, but the display would
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00221
`Patent 10,423,658 B2
`
`only present 20 of them. The extra 10 people would be initially hidden from
`view and only revealed when the user provides additional input to add the
`gain to the second page of the view. So, in this example you can see that the
`’658 patent does not require everything in the view to be displayed directly
`from a single input. Instead it contemplates display of a limited set of
`information with additional information being revealed for additional user
`input, just like Okamura. And as Dr. Reinman confirmed during deposition,
`the undisplayed images are still part of the view.
`Now Slide 46, here’s yet another example. On Slide 46, you see
`figure 13 from the 658 patent which is a people view again, and includes all
`the names of individuals that are in the system. But clearly all names are not
`displayed in figure 13. On the left-hand side you have plus/minus controls
`that give the user the option to reveal or hide certain names within the view.
`On the righthand side of the view you have a scroll bar that allows the user
`to browse through the view to reveal different portions that are initially
`hidden from display.
`With these features, figure 13 confirms that everything in the view
`is not displayed from a single input. This example clearly demonstrates that
`additional inputs are completely acceptable and allow the user to reveal
`information that is in the view, but initially hidden from display. With these
`examples, the specification of 658 patent is inconsistent with MemoryWeb’s
`construction, and there is simply no basis in the record to make the
`modifications to the claim language that MemoryWeb has proposed. No
`reason to add single, and no reason to add everything. Unless Your Honors
`had any questions on these examples on specification, I’d like to briefly
`move us to the language of (INDISCERNIBLE) in claim seven, and discuss
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00221
`Patent 10,423,658 B2
`
`how it reinforces why MemoryWeb’s proposed construction is incorrect.
`Now you can see the language of dependent claim seven on Slide
`47. As shown on Slide 47, claim 7 recites, “responsive to a click,” the first
`part of the general limitation we’ve been discussing, and then recites,
`“displaying a first-person view...,” the second part of the general limitation.
`Claim 7 goes further to indicate that two things are displayed in the first-
`person view. The name associated with the first person, and a scale replica
`of each of the digital photographs and videos in a third set of digital
`photographs.
`As we discussed, MemoryWeb is attempting to read this claim
`language to add the term single to the claim click or tap, and to add the term
`everything to the claimed view. But if you carefully consider the language
`in claim 7, the problem with MemoryWeb’s proposed construction becomes
`even clearer. As shown on Slide 47, the information in the first-person view
`includes a scaled replica of each, each of the digital photographs and videos
`in the third set of digital photographs. With this limitation, the ability to
`display everything in the first-person view to display a scaled replica of each
`of the digital photographs and videos, necessarily depends on the number of
`digital photographs and videos that are included in the third set.
`So, if you have a large number of photographs, it’s simply
`impossible to display replicas of all of them on the same interface at the
`same time. The 658 patent recognizes this, and repeatedly describes the use
`of interface controls, such as arrows, plus/minus buttons, those sorts of
`controls that allow the user to reveal representations of digital photographs
`that are part of a view, but initially hidden from display due to the number of
`photographs. This functionality of the 658 patent confirms that everything
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00221
`Patent 10,423,658 B2
`
`in a view need not be displayed at one time, and additional inputs are
`permitted to reveal additional information, replicas of additional digital
`photographs that are still part of the view. Now, similar language is found in
`claims 10, 14, and 15, and compels a conclusion that MemoryWeb’s
`proposed construction is incorrect.
`Now, unless Your Honors have any questions on the responsive to
`limitations and the third issue in our demonstratives, I’ll turn to the final
`issue in our demonstratives on Slide 50. So, may as I had mentioned earlier,
`this issue again is very similar to an issue we previously discussed in relation
`to claim 1 of MemoryWeb’s 228 patent. The difference here is that the first
`and second names claim language is found in dependent claims 5 and 13 and
`relate to both people and albums. To cite these differences, the issue and the
`claim language is very similar. You can see this on Slide 51. As shown at
`the left side as Slide 51, claim 5 recites a people view, that includes a name
`associated with the first person, and a name associated with the second
`person. As shown at the right side of Slide 51, claim 13 similarly recites an
`album view that includes a first name associated with the first album, and a
`second name associated with the second album. There is similar language
`involving album names instead of person names.
`Looking to Slide 52, you can see a more people view. On the
`version of Okamura’s figure 21 shown on Slide 52, you’ll see that first
`person highlighted at the left side, and that there’s a second person
`highlighted at the right side. As we previously discussed, Okamura
`describes that the name of a person can be the information displayed
`adjacent to the thumbnail. So, with for instance, second persons, Okamura’s
`interface includes first and second names, which are revealed as a user
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00221
`Patent 10,423,658 B2
`
`interacts with the people view interface shown in figure 1. The description
`for albums is similar in Okamura. It follows the same structure.
`Now MemoryWeb contends that although Okamura displays first
`and second names is deficient because it does not display the first and
`second names simultaneously, or at the same time. But as we previously
`discussed, the claims simply do not recite simultaneously or at the same
`time, and it would be improper to import these limitations into that. In fact,
`on Slide 54 you can see testimony from Dr. Greenspun addressing this very
`issue.
`
`As shown on Slide 54, Dr. Greenspun confirmed that nothing in
`the claim of specification required all names to be displayed simultaneously,
`or at the same time. As we discussed, this is consistent with the examples of
`the 658 patent that do not require simultaneous display of everything
`included in the view. We also have testimony from Dr. Reinman on this
`issue, which you saw on Slide 55. As shown on the left side of Slide 55, Dr.
`Reinman admitted that the use of the word simultaneous does not occur in
`the claims, but that he believes it is implied.
`But Dr. Reinman does not provide explanation for why he believes
`the simultaneous requirement is applied. On the right side of Slide 55 you
`can see additional questioning of Dr. Reinman where we probed further on
`this issue, and asked Dr. Reinman hypothetical where a name was
`momentarily hidden from view. Despite this hypothetical being similar to
`the Okamura solution, Dr. Reinman offered a non-answer explaining that
`this was not something he’s formed an opinion on, and would need to
`discover more about why it’s hidden from view.
`JUDGE TROCK: Counsel, this is Judge Trock.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00221
`Patent 10,423,658 B2
`
`
`MR. MONALDO: Yes.
`JUDGE TROCK: Back to your Slide 52 where you have the figure
`21 of Okamura on the left and the testimony of Dr. Greenspun on the right.
`It’s paragraph 162. He’s citing to Okamura explaining that piece of
`information could be related to the thumbnail image. For example, such as
`the name of a person. Does Okamura have a figure in which they show the
`names of the individuals in a person view, or it only comes up in the text?
`MR. MONALDO: Yes, it only comes up in the text, Your Honor.
`So, in Okamura what is shown adjacent to thumbnail in figure 21 is the
`number 28, the numeral 28. And what that’s indicating is that there are 28
`images associated with that person represented by the face 419. What
`Okamura describes in his text; it says that there’s other types of information
`you could display instead of that number 28. And the other types of
`information it describes explicitly would be the name of the person. So
`instead of seeing 28, you see the person’s name adjacent to the thumbnail.
`JUDGE TROCK: All right. Thank you.
`JUDGE BROWNE: Mr. Monaldo, I just wanted to let you know
`that you have about a minute and a half left until you get into your rebuttal
`time.
`
`MR. MONALDO: All right. Thank you, Your Honor. So, I’ll just
`move us back to I guess Slide 55 where we were talking about the additional
`testimony from Dr. Reinman, and where he answered that he would need to
`discover more about why a name is hidden from view to provide an opinion
`on it. But that interpretation is really irrelevant to the analysis. Claim
`language cannot be interpreted on why something is temporary, or why it is
`not. The claim language either allows it to be hidden or it doesn’t. And as
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00221
`Patent 10,423,658 B2
`
`we discussed, the examples in the 658 patent clearly allow for information
`and view to be temporarily hidden. Now in light of these examples, and
`because the claim does not use the term simultaneous, MemoryWeb’s
`argument for simultaneous display should be rejected. So, unless Your
`Honors have any questions on the simultaneous construction, I’ll just briefly
`turn to a few Slides we have on backup obviousness positions that we have
`on these issues.
`So, Slide 58 shows you our first backup obviousness argument that
`addresses MemoryWeb’s narrow constructions. And although we disagree
`with MemoryWeb’s constructions for the reasons we discussed today, the
`features that MemoryWeb produce into the claims and contends to be
`missing from Okamura, would have been obvious to a person who is skilled
`in the art. In any event, as shown on Slide 58, the petition in Dr.
`Greenspun’s original declaration explained that it would have been obvious
`for a person of skill to display names next to faces to avoid confusion
`regarding which face belongs to whom.
`Now as Dr. Greenspun testified, these exceedingly obvious
`features can be found throughout the prior art. To support this position, Dr.
`Greenspun provided corroborating references that demonstrate that
`displaying names with thumbnails all of the time was known prior to the 658
`patent. You can see this on Slide 59. On one side of Slide 59 you have the
`Ex. reference which demonstrates that before the 658 patent, iPhoto
`displayed a people view with names displayed adjacent to thumbnails all the
`time. On the right side of Slide 59 you have the (INDISCERNIBLE)
`reference, which is a patent publication that similarly demonstrates that it
`was known to display a people view with names displayed adjacent to
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00221
`Patent 10,423,658 B2
`
`thumbnails.
`These references corroborate Dr. Greenspun’s testimony and
`demonstrate that display names adjacent to thumbnails would have been
`within the general knowledge of a person of skill. Certainly, MemoryWeb
`did not invent displaying names adjacent t
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
