Patent Owner’s Response
`U.S. Patent No. 10,423,658
`IPR2022-00221
`
`
`Paper No.
`
`
`
`
`
`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 RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`A. 
`B. 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`I. 
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`OVERVIEW OF THE ‘658 PATENT ............................................................ 1 
`II. 
`SUMMARY OF PETITIONER’S REFERENCES ........................................ 7 
`III. 
`A.  Okamura ..................................................................................................... 7 
`1. 
`Okamura’s Cluster Maps ....................................................................... 7 
`2. 
`Okamura’s Index Screens Embodiment ................................................ 8 
`3. 
`Okamura’s Fig. 41 Embodiment ........................................................... 9 
`Belitz ......................................................................................................... 11 
`B. 
`Yee ............................................................................................................ 11 
`C. 
`IV.  LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART ................................................................. 13 
`V. 
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 13 
`Claim 1: “application view” ..................................................................... 13 
`Claims 3-5, 7, 9, 10, and 12-15: “responsive to a click or tap . . .
`displaying” ................................................................................................ 17 
`Claim 5: “the displaying the people view including displaying: … a
`name associated with the first person … and … a name associated
`with the second person” ............................................................................ 25 
`Claim 13: “the displaying the album view including displaying: … a
`first album name … and … a second album name” ................................. 29 
`VI.  PETITIONER FAILED TO MEET ITS BURDEN ...................................... 30 
`A. 
`Limitations [1b]-[1g]: “… the displaying the map including displaying
`… a [first/second] location selectable thumbnail image at a
`[first/second] location on the interactive map” ........................................ 30 
`Petitioner’s First Proposed Okamura-Belitz Combination ................. 31 
`Petitioner’s First Combination Replaces Okamura’s Cluster Maps
`with Thumbnails ............................................................................. 31 
`A POSITA Would Not Have Been Motivated to Replace
`Okamura’s Cluster Maps with Images That Are Not Maps .......... 33 
`Petitioner’s First Combination is Analogous to “Related Art”
`Discredited by Okamura ................................................................ 38 
`Petitioner’s First Combination Also Conflicts with Belitz’s
`
`1. 
`
`a. 
`
`b. 
`
`c. 
`
`d. 
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`2. 
`3. 
`4. 
`
`B. 
`C. 
`
`e. 
`
`f. 
`
`a. 
`b. 
`
`Objectives ....................................................................................... 44 
`Petitioner’s Alleged “Motivations” Lack Merit ............................. 45 
`i.  Belitz’s Thumbnails Reduce the Ability to Provide a View of
`“What Location Is Associated with What” ............................... 45 
`ii.  Okamura Already Allows a User to “Preview Pictures” ............... 48 
`iii. Thumbnail Images Are Not “Functionally Equivalent” or “Known
`and Predictable Alternative[s]” To Cluster Maps. .................... 49 
`Petitioner Has Also Failed to Establish That the First Combination
`Would Be Used with Okamura’s FACE Index Screen .................. 52 
`Petitioner’s Second Proposed Okamura-Belitz Combination ............. 54 
`Petitioner’s Third Proposed Okamura-Belitz Combination ................ 58 
`Alleged Photo Management Products ................................................. 60 
`Limitation 1[a]: “displaying an application view” ................................... 61 
`Dependent Claims 2-15 (Grounds 1-5) .................................................... 62 
`Claims 3-4 ........................................................................................... 63 
`Claim 5 ................................................................................................ 64 
`Claims 7 and 10 ................................................................................... 69 
`Claims 9 and 12 ................................................................................... 75 
`Alleged obviousness based on Okamura ....................................... 77 
`Alleged obviousness based on Okamura and Yee ......................... 81 
`Claim 13 .............................................................................................. 85 
`5. 
`Claims 14-15 ....................................................................................... 89 
`6. 
`VII.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 90 
`
`
`1. 
`2. 
`3. 
`4. 
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`ACTV, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co.,
`346 F.3d 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .......................................................................... 14
`
`
`Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.,
`796 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 68
`
`
`Am. Calcar, Inc. v. Am. Honda Motor Co.,
`651 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .................................................................... 19, 25
`
`
`Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Prod. Inc.,
`876 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .............................................................. 42, 44, 68
`
`
`Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Group, LP,
`616 F.3d 1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ................................................................ 14
`
`
`Callaway Golf Co. v. Acushnet Co.,
`576 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................................................... 62
`
`
`Dayco Prod., Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc.,
`
`258 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .......................................................................... 28
`
`Ex Parte Interval Licensing,
` Appeal No. 2014-002901, 2014 WL 2387821 (PTAB May 29,
`2014) ................................................................................................................... 20
`
`
`Fujitsu Ltd. v. Belkin Int’l, Inc.,
`10-CV-03972-LHK, 2012 WL 4497966 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 28, 2012) .................. 20
`
`
`Google Inc. v. Singular Computing LLC,
`IPR2021-00155, Paper 62 (PTAB May 23, 2022) ....................................... 33, 47
`
`
`Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd.,
`821 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 66
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc’ns, Inc.,
`751 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ........................................................ 42, 44, 51, 53
`
`
`In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................ 53
`
`
`Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
`688 F.3d. 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................... 48, 49
`
`
`Medgraph, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc.,
`843 F.3d 942 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................... 26, 28, 29, 30
`
`
`Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V. v. Warner Chilcott Co., LLC,
`
`711 F. App’x 633 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ..................................................................... 43
`
`Micron Tech., Inc. v. N. Star Innovations, Inc.,
` No. IPR2018-00989, Paper 35 (PTAB Oct. 22, 2019) ....................................... 20
`
`Plas-Pak Indus., Inc. v. Sulzer Mixpac AG,
`600 F.App’x 755 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ...................................................................... 51
`
`
`Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc.,
`882 F.3d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .............................................................. 42, 43, 47
`
`
`Integrations, Inc. v. Semiconductor Components Indus., LLC,
`
`IPR2018-00180, Paper 33 (PTAB May 23, 2019) ............................................. 20
`
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc.,
`711 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 50
`
`
`Progressive Semiconductor Sols. LLC v. Qualcomm Techs., Inc.,
` No. 8:13-CV-01535-ODW, 2014 WL 4385938 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 4,
`2014) ................................................................................................................... 19
`
`
`Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`24 F.4th 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ........................................................................... 67
`
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., v. MemoryWeb, LLC,
`
`IPR2022-00222, Paper 12 (PTAB June 13, 2022) ............................................. 26
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`SIPCO, LLC v. Emerson Elec. Co.,
`794 F. App’x 946 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................................................... 14, 28
`
`
`TQ Delta, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.,
`942 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .............................................................. 53, 79, 90
`
`
`Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels,
`812 F.3d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................... 33, 43
`
`
`Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc.,
`595 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................... 27
`
`
`Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Cont’l Auto. Sys.,
`853 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`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-
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`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”
`
`vii
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`2026
`
`2027
`
`2028
`
`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
`
`viii
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00221
`
`I.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner has not shown any challenged claim is unpatentable in relation to
`
`any ground raised in the Petition.
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘658 PATENT
`As the ‘658 patent explains, digital photography/video was experiencing
`
`“explosive growth” at the time of invention. EX1001, 1:35-42, 12:58-62. The
`
`inventors recognized that existing technology failed to provide a way to easily
`
`organize, view, and display their exploding number of digital photos and videos. Id.,
`
`1:45-51, 13:1-7. While entities such as Facebook, Flickr, and Shutterfly provided
`
`certain functionality, those solutions lacked the ability to easily organize and
`
`navigate digital files. Id., 1:50-56, 13:6-12. Accordingly, the ‘658 patent discloses
`
`and claims methods of organizing and displaying digital files “allow[ing] people to
`
`organize, view, preserve and share these files with all the memory details captured,
`
`connected and vivified via an interactive interface.” Id., 1:56-60, 13:12-16. 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.” EX1001, 2:51-55, 13:19-23; EX2023, ¶35.1
`
`
`1 Pursuant to p. 51 of the Trial Practice Guide, Patent Owner withdraws its reliance
`
`on the Declaration of Professor Glenn Reinman (EX2001) submitted with the
`
`preliminary response.
`
`1
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00221
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`The ‘658 patent discloses a variety of views, including, for example, an
`
`“Uploads Application View.” EX1001, 3:58-62.
`
`EX1001, FIG. 35 (annotated)
`
`
`
`The Uploads Application View includes “Collections,” “People,” and “Locations”
`
`selectable elements that can be used to navigate to the map, people, and album views
`
`discussed below. EX2023, ¶36.
`
`Claim 1 of the ‘658 patent recites a “map view,” an example of which is shown
`
`in FIG. 41. EX1001, 29:25-41; EX2023, ¶37.
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00221
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`EX1001, FIG. 41 (annotated)
`
`
`
`The map view includes an interactive map and “individual or groups of Digital Files
`
`are illustrated as photo thumbnails . . . on the map,” which are labeled 0874 and
`
`0875. EX1001, 29:32-39; EX2023, ¶38. The thumbnails include “the number of
`
`Digital Files for that location.” EX1001, 29:39-41; EX2023, ¶38.
`
`From the “map view,” “the user can select the thumbnail to see all the Digital
`
`Files with the same location.” EX1001, 29:34-36; EX2023, ¶39. Below is an
`
`example of the “[first/second] location view” in claim 1.
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00221
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`
`EX1001, 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.” EX1001, 24:22-28; EX2023, ¶40.
`
`Navigating to this “location view” via the “map view” allows users to efficiently and
`
`intuitively locate and display digital files associated with a location. EX2023, ¶40.
`
`The ‘658 patent also discloses and claims a “people view” in claim 5. EX1001,
`
`6:20-26, 22:43-57; EX2023, ¶¶41, 43. As shown below, in FIG. 32, “each person, a
`
`thumbnail of their face along with their name is depicted.” EX1001, 22:43-57;
`
`EX2023, ¶43.
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00221
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`EX1001, FIG. 32 (excerpted and annotated)
`
`The ‘658 patent also discloses and claims a “[first/second] person view” in claims 7
`
`and 10, such as the one illustrated below. EX1001, 6:23-26, 22:63-23:20; EX2023,
`
`
`
`¶¶42, 44.
`
`EX1001, FIG. 32 (excerpted and annotated)
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00221
`
`This person view includes a person’s name 1431, a profile photo 1440, and photos
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`
`1452 associated with that person. EX1001, 22:63-23:20; EX2023, ¶44. Selecting 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.” EX1001, 5:64-6:1; EX2023,
`
`¶45.
`
`EX1001, FIG. 2 (annotated)
`
`
`
`The detail view shown above includes a digital photograph and a map image.
`
`EX2023, ¶45.
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00221
`
`III. SUMMARY OF PETITIONER’S REFERENCES
`Petitioner relies on five references: Okamura (EX1005), Belitz (EX1006),
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`
`Rasmussen (EX1007), Gossweiler (EX1038), and Yee (EX1041). Okamura, Belitz,
`
`and Yee are discussed below.
`
`A. Okamura
`Okamura is generally directed to “an information processing apparatus which
`
`displays contents such as image files.” EX1005, ¶[0002]; EX2023, ¶53.
`
`1. Okamura’s Cluster Maps
`Okamura describes generating “maps corresponding to individual clusters” --
`
`namely “cluster maps.” As the name implies, each cluster map in Okamura “is a
`
`map.” EX1005, ¶¶[0213], [0331]; EX2023, ¶¶67-68; EX2024, 48:8-15. For
`
`example, the embodiment of Okamura Fig. 41 (reproduced below) places multiple
`
`cluster maps on a “background map.” EX1005, ¶[0331]; EX2023, ¶68.
`
`EX1005, Fig. 41 (annotated)
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00221
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`To ensure the content “belonging to each cluster can be … easily grasped by
`
`the user,” Okamura discloses “changing the scale” of individual cluster maps so that
`
`multiple cluster maps presented in a single view are displayed with differing scales.
`
`EX1005, Figs. 14, 18, 41, ¶¶[0215]-[0219], [0410] (“the scale of each cluster map
`
`varies … from cluster to cluster”); EX2023, ¶69. The scale of a cluster map may
`
`vary relative to the scale of a background map, as shown below. EX1005, ¶¶[0407]-
`
`[0411]; EX2023, ¶69.
`
`
`
`EX1005, Figs. 44a-44b (annotated)
`
`2. Okamura’s Index Screens Embodiment
`Okamura’s first embodiment is directed to “generating cluster information on
`
`the basis of positional information (hereinafter, the “index screens embodiment”).
`
`EX1005, ¶¶[0088], [0312]; EX2023, ¶¶71-77. In particular, the index screens
`
`embodiment includes PLACE, EVENT and FACE index screens 410, 420, 430.
`
`EX2023, ¶¶78-84.
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00221
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`
`EX1005, Figs. 18, 20, 21 (annotated)
`
`
`
`A user selects tabs 413, 411 or 412 (highlighted above) to respectively cause the
`
`PLACE, EVENT or FACE index screens to display. EX1005, ¶¶[0234]-[0237],
`
`[0244], [0246]; EX2023, ¶79. FIG. 17 illustrates transitioning between an index
`
`screen 401 (FIGS. 18-21) and a content playback screen 402 (FIGS. 22-27B).
`
`EX1005, FIG. 17, ¶¶[0232]-[0234]; EX2023, ¶85.
`
`3. Okamura’s Fig. 41 Embodiment
`Okamura’s second embodiment (“the Fig. 41 embodiment”) displays cluster
`
`maps “placed in such a way that the geographic correspondence between the cluster
`
`maps can be grasped intuitively.” EX1005, ¶[0312]; EX2023, ¶86. The Fig. 41
`
`embodiment involves determining “optimal placement of individual cluster maps on
`
`a map … to avoid overlapping of cluster maps in regions where the cluster maps are
`
`densely concentrated, without changing the size of the cluster maps.” EX1005,
`
`¶¶[0326]-[0329], [0331]; EX2023, ¶¶89-91. Okamura describes a detailed process
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00221
`
`for positioning cluster maps on a background map at an appropriate scale. EX1005,
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`
`¶¶[0314], [0317], [0338]-[0353], [0405]-[0417]; EX2023, ¶¶92-93.
`
`In the Fig. 41 embodiment, cluster maps are placed on a “background map”
`
`aid users in “grasp[ing] the geographical relationship between individual cluster
`
`maps.” EX1005, ¶¶[0331], [0354], [0358]; EX2023, ¶¶94-95.
`
`EX1005, Fig. 41
`
`
`
`The Fig. 41 embodiment’s cluster maps are substantially the same as in the index
`
`screens embodiment, but they are positioned relative to each other on the
`
`background map to aid the user in understanding their relative geographic positions.
`
`Id. The Fig. 41 embodiment also includes transitioning between a map view screen
`
`(FIG. 41) and a play view screen. EX1005, FIG. 49, ¶¶[0429]-[0438]; EX2023,
`
`¶¶97-98.
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00221
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`B.
`Belitz
`Belitz is directed to displaying “special locations” on a map. EX1006, ¶¶2, 4,
`
`19, 71; EX2023, ¶99. Figs. 4(a)–(b) are exemplary screenshots of the user interface:
`
`EX1006, Figs. 4a-4b
`
`To avoid undesirable clutter, Belitz determines “whether two graphical
`
`
`
`objects 410 would overlap when rendered on the display 403 and if so the two
`
`graphical objects are stacked or grouped into one graphical object 410.” EX1006,
`
`¶[0054]; EX2023, ¶¶101-103. For example, the graphical objects 410a, 410b, 410c,
`
`and 410d shown in Fig. 4b are stacked together as one group - graphical object 410
`
`in Fig. 4a. EX1006, ¶55; EX2023, ¶102.
`
`C. Yee
`Yee describes “a system that allows a user to traverse digital records based on
`
`multiple dimensional attributes,” such as People, Place, Entity, or Event. EX1041,
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00221
`
`¶¶[0001], [0026]; EX2023, ¶108. Yee identifies three attribute types: (1) “a focal
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`
`attribute, the value of which is fixed”; (2) “a sliding attribute, the value of which can
`
`be changed dynamically by the user”; and (3) annotated attributes. EX1041, ¶[0028];
`
`EX2023, ¶¶108-109.
`
`FIG. 1 illustrates a world map 102, a timeline 104, a focal attribute field 108,
`
`a sliding indicator 112, and a strip of photographs 106. EX1041, ¶[0044]; EX2023,
`
`¶110.
`
`EX1041, FIG. 1
`
`
`
`In Fig. 1, a person named “Bob” is selected as the focal attribute. EX1041, ¶[0045];
`
`EX2023, ¶¶111-112. After moving sliding indicator 112 to the year 2006 (the sliding
`
`attribute), the system “displays all the photographs associated with Bob and the year
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00221
`
`2006 in thumbnail strip 106.” Id. The world map 102 includes markers near Hong
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`
`Kong, San Francisco, and Philadelphia (the annotated attribute). Id.
`
`IV. LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART
`Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”)
`
`“would have had (1) a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering,
`
`electrical engineering, or a related field, and (2) at least one year of experience
`
`designing graphical user interfaces for applications such as photo organization
`
`systems.” Petition, 12. For purposes of this response, Patent Owner does not dispute
`
`Petitioner’s proposed level of skill.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Petitioner did not propose any claim constructions. Petition, 1. Patent Owner
`
`agrees that the claims should be afforded their plain and ordinary meaning, but offers
`
`a discussion of that meaning for 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 other
`
`claimed views
`
`
`
`The claim language dictates that the “application view” is separate and distinct
`
`relative to: (i) the map view and first/second location views in claim 1; (ii) the people
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00221
`
`view in claim 5; (iii) the first/second person views in claims 7 and 10; (iv) the album
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`
`view in claim 13; and (vi) the first/second album views in claims 14 and 15. EX2023,
`
`¶¶115-118.
`
`Where, as here, “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 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 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.” Logically, 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. EX2023, ¶116. The same is true in claims 5 and 13, where
`
`the application view includes selectable elements for navigating to a people view
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00221
`
`and an album view, respectively. Like the “application view” and “map view,” the
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`
`“people view” and “album view” logically cannot be the same “view” as the
`
`“application view.” Id., ¶¶117-118.
`
`This construction is consistent with the specification. EX2023, ¶¶119-123.
`
`The ‘658 patent discloses a variety of views, including “People Application Views,”
`
`“Collection Application Views,” “Location Application Views,” and “Uploads
`
`Application Views.” EX1001, 3:58-62; EX2023, ¶119. Examples of the claimed
`
`“map view” and “[first/second] location view” are shown below. EX2023, ¶119.
`
`EX1001, 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. EX2023, ¶120.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00221
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`EX1001, FIG. 32 (annotated)
`
`
`
`Examples of the claimed “album view” (claim 13) and “[first/second] album view”
`
`(claims 14-15) are shown below. EX2023, ¶121.
`
`EX1001, FIG. 33 (annotated)
`
`16
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00221
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`FIG. 35 illustrates an “Uploads Application View,” which is an example of an
`
`application view including a plurality of selectable elements that is distinct from the
`
`other views described above. EX1001, 3:61, 24:40-46; EX2023, ¶122; see also
`
`EX1001, 3:62 (describing “Recipe Application View”); EX2023, ¶123.
`
`EX1001, FIG. 35 (annotated)
`
`
`
`B. Claims 3-5, 7, 9, 10, and 12-15: “responsive to a click or tap . . .
`displaying”
`Term/Phrase
`
`Construction
`
`Claims 3-4: “responsive to a click or
`
`requiring a cause-effect relationship
`
`tap of a first one of the displayed scaled
`
`between (i) a click or tap of a first one
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00221
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`Term/Phrase
`
`Construction
`
`replicas in the [first/second] location
`
`of the displayed scaled replicas in the
`
`view, displaying … a [first/second]
`
`[first/second] location view and (ii)
`
`map image …”
`
`displaying a [first/second] map image
`
`Claim 5: “responsive to a click or tap
`
`requiring a cause-effect relationship
`
`of the people selectable element,
`
`between (i) a click or tap of the people
`
`displaying a people view”
`
`selectable element and (ii) displaying a
`
`people view
`
`Claims 7 and 10: “responsive to a
`
`requiring a cause-effect relationship
`
`click or tap of the [first/second] person
`
`between (i) a click or tap of the
`
`selectable thumbnail image, displaying
`
`[first/second] person selectable
`
`a [first/second] person view”
`
`thumbnail image and (ii) displaying a
`
`[first/second] person view
`
`Claims 9 and 12: responsive to a click
`
`requiring a cause-effect relationship
`
`or tap of the [first/second]-person-
`
`between (i) a click or tap of the
`
`location selectable element, displaying
`
`[first/second]-person-location
`
`a representation of all locations having
`
`selectable element and (ii) displaying a
`
`a digital photograph or video
`
`representation of all locations having a
`
`associated with the [first/second]
`
`digital photograph or video associated
`
`person
`
`with the [first/second] person
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00221
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`Term/Phrase
`
`Construction
`
`Claim 13: responsive to a click or tap
`
`requiring a cause-effect relationship
`
`of the album selectable element,
`
`between (i) a click or tap of the album
`
`displaying an album view
`
`selectable element and (ii) displaying
`
`an album view
`
`Claims 14-15: responsive to a click or
`
`requiring a cause-effect relationship
`
`tap of the [first/second] album
`
`between (i) a click or tap of the
`
`selectable thumbnail image, displaying
`
`[first/second] album selectable
`
`a [first/second] album view
`
`thumbnail image and (ii) displaying a
`
`[first/second] album view
`
`
`
`In each of claims 3-5, 7, and 9-15, the plain and ordinary meaning of the
`
`phrase “responsive to a click or tap of … displaying” requires a cause-effect
`
`relationship between (i) a click or tap of a certain selectable element and (ii)
`
`displaying a certain view or content. EX2023, ¶¶126, 130, 147-149, 156, 164.
`
`Courts have consistently interpreted “responsive to” or “in response to” as
`
`requiring a cause-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); see also 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’
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00221
`
`conveys a stimulus and an effect”); Fujitsu Ltd. v. Belkin Int’l, Inc., No. 10-CV-
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`
`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 followed suit. See, e.g., Micron Tech., Inc. v. N. Star Innovations, Inc., No.
`
`IPR2018-00989, Paper 35 at 36 (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 relationship”); Power
`
`Integrations, Inc. v. Semiconductor Components Indus., LLC, No. IPR2018-00180,
`
`Paper 33 at 19-20 (PTAB May 23, 2019) (collecting cases holding that “in response
`
`to” defines a causal relationship).
`
`The specification confirms that the phrase “responsive to … displaying”
`
`requires causation. For claims 3-4—which recite “responsive to a click or tap of” a
`
`scaled replica “displaying … a [first/second] map image”—the specification
`
`discloses that from “any view” (e.g., a first/second location view), selecting an image
`
`causes a digital photograph and a map image to be displayed. EX1001, 2:64-65,
`
`5:64-6:1; EX2023, ¶¶126-127.
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00221
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`EX1001, FIG. 2 (annotated)
`
`
`
`There is a direct causal connection between selecting a scaled replica in a location
`
`view and causing the map image to be displayed. EX2023, ¶127.
`
`For claim 5, which recites “responsive to a click or tap of the people selectable
`
`element, displaying a people view,” the specification discloses that the “people
`
`view” in FIG. 32 is displayed “by selecting ‘People’ (1401) from any of the
`
`Application Views.” EX1001, 22:43-48; EX2023, ¶¶134-135.
`
`21
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00221
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`EX1001, FIG. 32 (excerpted and annotated)
`
`
`
`There is a direct causal connection between selecting the people selectable element
`
`and displaying the people view, including its thumbnails and names. EX2023, ¶134.
`
`For claims 7 and 10, which recite “responsive to a click or tap of the
`
`[first/secon