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. 10,621,228
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2022-00222
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`IPR2022-00222
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 
`Overview of the ‘228 Patent ............................................................................ 2 
`Summary of References Identified by Petitioner ............................................ 5 
`A.  Okamura (Ex. 1005) .............................................................................. 6 
`1. 
`Okamura’s Description of the Related Art ................................. 6 
`2. 
`Okamura’s Cluster Maps .......................................................... 12 
`Belitz (Ex. 1006) ................................................................................. 25 
`B. 
`  The Board Should Exercise its Discretion to Deny Institution Pursuant to 35
`U.S.C. § 314(a) .............................................................................................. 27 
`A. 
`The First General Plastic Factor Favors Denial ................................. 30 
`B. 
`The Second General Plastic Factor Favors Denial ............................. 32 
`C. 
`The Third General Plastic Factor ....................................................... 36 
`D. 
`The Fourth General Plastic Factor Favors Denial .............................. 36 
`E. 
`The Fifth General Plastic Factor Favors Denial ................................. 37 
`F. 
`The Sixth and Seventh General Plastic Factors Favor Denial ........... 37 
`G. 
`The Eighth and Ninth Factors Are Neutral ......................................... 38 
`The Board Should Exercise its Discretion to Deny Institution Pursuant to 35
`U.S.C. § 314(a) in View of the Parallel Litigation ........................................ 39 
`A. 
`The Parallel Litigation ......................................................................... 40 
`B. 
`The First Fintiv Factor Is Neutral or Favors Denial ............................ 40 
`C. 
`The Second Fintiv Factor Is Neutral ................................................... 41 
`D. 
`The Third Fintiv Factor Favors Denial ............................................... 42 
`E. 
`The Fourth Fintiv Factor Is Neutral or Favors Denial ........................ 43 
`F. 
`The Fifth Fintiv Factor Favors Denial ................................................ 44 
`G. 
`The Sixth Fintiv Factor Favors Denial ................................................ 44 
`  Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................. 45 
`  Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 45 
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`2. 
`
`  Petitioner Has Not Established a Reasonable Likelihood of Success ........... 46 
`A.  Ground 1: Purported Obviousness over Okamura and Belitz ............. 46 
`1. 
`Limitations [1g]-[1k]: Okamura does not disclose the claimed
`“people view” ............................................................................ 46 
`Limitations [1a]-[1d]: “the map view including: an interactive
`map; a first location selectable thumbnail image at a first
`location on the interactive map; and a second location
`selectable thumbnail image at a second location on the
`interactive map” ........................................................................ 50 
`Alleged Photo Management Products ....................................... 66 
`3. 
`Dependent Claims ............................................................................... 67 
`B. 
`  The Petition Does Not Comply with 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ........................ 67 
`Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 68 
`
`
` 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Apple, Inc. v. ContentGuard Holdings, Inc.,
`
`IPR2015-00356, Paper 9 (PTAB June 26, 2015) ............................................... 68
`
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) ......................................passim
`
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 15 (PTAB May 13, 2020) ............................................. 40
`
`Application of Ratti,
`270 F.2d 810, 813 (CCPA 1959) ........................................................................ 58
`
`
`Callaway Golf Co. v. Acushnet Co.,
`
`576 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................................................... 67
`
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC
` Case IPR2014-0054, slip op. at 9 (PTAB Aug. 29, 2014) (Paper 12) ............... 67
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`
`136 S.Ct. 2131 (2016) ......................................................................................... 39
`
`Dolby Labs., Inc. v. Intertrust Techs. Corp.,
`IPR2020-01106, Paper 12 (PTAB Jan. 5, 2021) ................................................ 42
`
`
`General Plastic Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaishaat,
`
`IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017) ........................................passim
`
`In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ........................................................................... 65
`
`
`InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc’ns, Inc.,
`
`751 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 65
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`NHK Spring Co. v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc.,
`IPR2018-00752, Paper 8 (PTAB Sept. 12, 2018) ............................................... 39
`
`
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co.,
`868 F.3d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 45
`
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., v. Iron Oak Technologies, LLC,
`IPR2018-01554, Paper No. 9 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2019) ......................................... 30
`
`
`Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.,
`IPR2020-01019, Paper No. 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) ........................................ 41
`
`
`
`Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels,
`812 F.3d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 55
`
`
`TQ Delta, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.,
`942 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .......................................................................... 65
`
`
`Valve Corp. v. Elec. Scripting Prods., Inc.,
`
`IPR2019-00062, -00063, -00084, Paper 11 (PTAB Apr. 2, 2019) .............. 29, 37
`
`Valve Corp. v. Elec. Scripting Products, Inc.,
`
`IPR2019-00064, Paper 10 (May 1, 2019) ........................................................... 29
`
`
`Federal Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 312 .................................................................................................. 50, 67
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ................................................................................... 1, 27, 30, 39
`35 U.S.C. § 314(b) ................................................................................................... 41
`35 U.S.C. § 316(b) ................................................................................................... 29
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(3) .................................................................................................. 67
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ........................................................................................ 67, 68
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107 ..................................................................................................... 1
`37 CLFLR. § 42.107 ooo eseesseesecsseesseesseeeseeeseeeseeeeaeecseeesaeesaesaeseseseseeeseeeeeeseaeeeaeeeseees 1
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`LISTING OF EXHIBITS
`Description
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`Declaration of Professor Glenn Reinman, Ph.D.
`
`Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication No. 2001-
`160058 and Certified English Translation (“Fujiwara”)
`
`Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication No. 2007-
`323544 and Certified English Translation (“Takakura”)
`
`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-
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`cv-411 (W.D. Tex.) (Nov. 24, 2021)
`
`2014
`
`2015
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`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)
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`MemoryWeb, LLC (“Patent Owner”) submits this preliminary response under
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107 to the Petition for Inter Partes Review (“Petition”) of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 10,621,228 (“the ‘228 patent”), filed by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`
`(“Petitioner” or “Samsung”).
`
`
`
`Introduction
`Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board deny institution. First, the
`
`Board should exercise its discretion to deny institution pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §
`
`314(a) in view of earlier petitions directed to the ‘228 patent filed by Unified Patents,
`
`LLC (“Unified”) and Apple Inc. (“Apple”). Petitioner used these prior petitions as
`
`a roadmap, as evidenced by fact that Petitioner relies on the same primary reference
`
`as in Unified’s petition and the same secondary reference as in Apple’s petition.
`
`Second, the Board should exercise its discretion to deny institution pursuant
`
`to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) in light of co-pending litigation between Petitioner and Patent
`
`Owner in the Western District of Texas involving the ‘228 patent. This litigation is
`
`set for trial around the time of a final written decision, and claim construction will
`
`be fully briefed and argued before an institution decision. On balance, the factors
`
`set forth in the Board’s precedential Fintiv decision weigh in favor of denying
`
`discretion.
`
`Third, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on
`
`the merits. For example, Petitioner fails to demonstrate that Okamura discloses the
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`claimed “people view.” As another example, Petitioner offers multiple potential
`
`combinations of Okamura and Belitz with respect to the claimed map view, but each
`
`of these combinations runs contrary to basic principles under which Okamura
`
`operates and includes aspects that are discredited by Okamura, Belitz, or both. These
`
`circumstances would have strongly discouraged a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`from making any of Petitioner’s proposed combinations.
`
` Overview of the ‘228 Patent
`The ’228 patent is directed to methods for intuitively organizing and
`
`displaying digital files, such as digital photographs and videos. Ex. 2001, ¶28. To
`
`this end, the ‘228 patent discloses methods “allow[ing] people to organize, view,
`
`preserve these files with all the memory details captured, connected and vivified via
`
`an interactive interface.” Ex. 1001, 1:61-65.
`
`For example, referring to FIG. 41 (reproduced below), the ‘228 patent
`
`discloses a map view including “an interactive map.” Ex. 1001, 29:41-45; Ex. 2001,
`
`¶29.
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG. 41
`
`
`
`In the map view, “individual or groups of Digital Files are illustrated as photo
`
`thumbnails (see indicators 0874 and 0875)) on the map.” Ex. 1001, 29:48-55; Ex.
`
`2001, ¶30. The geographic map is interactive in that the user can, for example,
`
`“narrow the map view by either using the Zoom in/Zoom out bar (0876) on the left
`
`or simply selecting the map.” Ex. 1001, 29:52-55, FIG. 41; Ex. 2001, ¶30.
`
`The ‘228 patent also discloses that in the map view (FIG. 41), “the user can
`
`select the thumbnail to see all the Digital Files with the same location (as seen FIG.
`
`34 (indicator 1630)).” Ex. 1001, 29:48-55; Ex. 2001, ¶31.
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG. 34
`
`
`
`In the “Single Location Application View” shown in FIG. 34, “a single location
`
`(1630) is illustrated,” which includes “[t]he individual location name” and
`
`“[t]humbnails of each Digital File within the specification collection.” Ex. 1001,
`
`24:22-28; Ex. 2001, ¶32. Thus, the map view and location view allow users to
`
`efficiently and intuitively locate and display digital files associated with a particular
`
`location. Id.
`
`The ‘228 patent additionally discloses a people view for organizing digital
`
`files. Ex. 2001, ¶33. For example, referring to FIG. 32, a people view 1400 is shown
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`including for “each person, a thumbnail of their face along with their name is
`
`depicted.” Ex. 1001, 22:59-23:4.
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG. 32
`
`
`
`The “Single People Profile Application View” includes, among other things, a
`
`person’s name 1431, a profile photo 1440, and photos 1452 associated with that
`
`person. Id., 23:12-49; Ex. 2001, ¶34.
`
` Summary of References Identified by Petitioner
`Petitioner relies on two references: Okamura (Ex. 1005) and Belitz (Ex.
`
`1006). Each reference is discussed below.
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`A. Okamura (Ex. 1005)
`Okamura is generally directed to “an information processing apparatus which
`
`displays contents such as image files.” Ex. 1005, ¶[0002]; Ex. 2001, ¶42.
`
`1. Okamura’s Description of the Related Art
`In its “Description of the Related Art” section, Okamura explains that prior
`
`systems that incorporated a large map view made it difficult to associate the
`
`relationship between the locations at which images were taken. Ex. 1005, ¶¶[0003]-
`
`[0006]. In particular, Okamura explains that in prior systems, images could be
`
`associated “with positional information on the position where the image is captured.”
`
`Id., ¶[0004]; Ex. 2001, ¶42. In these systems, “the generated positions of the
`
`contents identified by their positional information are displayed in association with
`
`the contents.” Id. Okamura describes two examples of such systems. See Ex. 1005,
`
`¶¶[0005]-[0006]; Ex. 2001, ¶42
`
`First, Okamura
`
`identifies Japanese Unexamined Patent Application
`
`Publication No. 2001-160058 (“Fujiwara,” Ex. 2002) as an exemplary “apparatus
`
`which arranges thumbnail icons of images side by side in time series . . . [and]
`
`displays position icons indicating the shooting locations of these images in a map
`
`window.” Ex. 1005, ¶[0005]; Ex. 2001, ¶43. This system is configured so that when
`
`a user clicks a thumbnail icon, “a position icon indicating the shooting location of
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`an image corresponding to the clicked thumbnail icon is displayed at the center of
`
`the map window.” Id.
`
`Okamura refers specifically to FIG. 12 of Fujiwara. Id. Fujiwara shows
`
`location icons 181-184 displayed on map window 152 and a thumbnail icon 163
`
`corresponding to the highlighted location icon 181. Ex. 2002, ¶[0071]; Ex. 2001,
`
`¶44.
`
`Ex. 2002, FIG. 12
`
`
`
`Fujiwara explains that when one of the location icons 181-184 is selected, a
`
`latitude/longitude associated with the selected icon is used to query a database to
`
`obtain images to display in the film window 151. Ex. 2002, ¶¶[0074]-[0077]; Ex.
`
`2001, ¶45. Thus, “the relationship between location on a map and photographic
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`image data can be represented in an easy-to-understand manner” and “makes it
`
`possible to easily retrieve image data . . . using the location as a key.” Ex. 2002,
`
`¶[0085]; Ex. 2001, ¶45.
`
`Second, Okamura identifies Japanese Unexamined Patent Application
`
`Publication No. 2007-323544 (“Takakura,” Ex. 2003) as an exemplary system
`
`displaying thumbnail images and “markers at positions on a map corresponding to
`
`the shooting locations of these images,” and also “displays these images and markers
`
`in association with each other.” Ex. 1005, ¶[0006]; Ex. 2001, ¶46. According to
`
`Okamura, in this system, “when a click operation on a marker displayed on the map
`
`is performed by the user, an image associated with the clicked marker is displayed
`
`on the map as a pop-up.” Id.
`
`Okamura refers specifically to FIG. 7 of Takakura. Id. Takakura illustrates a
`
`map 223 and “a marker 202 displayed at the location that corresponds to a location
`
`set in the attribute information for an image on the map.” Ex. 2003, ¶¶[0085]-[0086];
`
`Ex. 2001, ¶47.
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex. 2003, FIG. 7 (annotated)
`
`
`
`“An image 203 corresponding to a photograph taken by the user pops up when each
`
`marker is selected.” Ex. 2003, ¶[0064]; Ex. 2001, ¶48. The image 203 includes
`
`“Image” and “Information” tags. Ex. 2003, ¶[0065]; Ex. 2001, ¶48. Image data or
`
`a thumbnail image is displayed in the “Image” tag.” Id. “Date and time information
`
`indicating when the image was taken, latitude and longitude information indicating
`
`where the image was taken, and file path information original image data are
`
`displayed” in the “Information Tag.” Id.
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`FIG. 1 of Takakura is similar to FIG. 7 and includes a marker 12 “placed at a
`
`location indicating, for example, one of the destinations visited by the user on a map
`
`10.” Ex. 2003, ¶[0005]; Ex. 2001, ¶49.
`
`Ex. 2003, FIG. 1 (annotated)
`
`
`
`When the marker 12 is selected, “an image 11 corresponding to a photograph taken
`
`by the user is displayed.” Id.
`
`In addressing the problems with these prior systems, Okamura explains that
`
`the art (e.g., Fujiwara and Takakura) shows “images representing contents, and
`
`marks indicating the generated positions of these contents are displayed relatively
`
`far apart from each other,” making “it difficult to intuitively grasp the geographical
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`correspondence between individual contents.” Ex. 1005, ¶[0008]; Ex. 2001, ¶50.
`
`Okamura illustrates this issue in the related art with two hypotheticals.
`
`As a first example, Okamura supposes that a person living in Tokyo will likely
`
`have “relatively many images of Tokyo and its vicinity” but “relatively few images
`
`of other regions (for example, United States or United Kingdom visited by the person
`
`on a trip).” Ex. 1005, ¶[0009]; Ex. 2001, ¶51. This is problematic because “it is
`
`necessary to display the map at a scale sufficiently large to show the countries of the
`
`world” to convey “correspondence between images taken in Tokyo and its vicinity
`
`and images taken in other regions.” Id. At this scale, “images taken in Tokyo and
`
`its vicinity . . . are displayed at substantially the same position on the map, which
`
`may make it difficult to grasp the geographical correspondence between the images
`
`taken in Tokyo and its vicinity.” Id.
`
`As a second example, Okamura explains that “when the map is displayed at a
`
`scale sufficiently small to show regions in the vicinity of Tokyo” the relative
`
`positions of the images taken in Tokyo and its vicinity “can be grasped.” Ex. 1005,
`
`¶[0010]; Ex. 2001, ¶52. However, the ability to zoom in does not achieve Okamura’s
`
`objectives because at this scale, “it is not possible to display the generated positions
`
`of images taken in other regions . . . on the map.” Id.
`
`As shown below, Takakura illustrates the two hypotheticals posed in
`
`Okamura.
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Ex. 2003, FIGS. 1 and 7 (annotated); Ex. 2001, ¶53
`
`On one hand, FIG. 1 of Takakura shows the map 10 at a larger scale showing
`
`multiple continents with markers in or around northeast Europe, the Mediterranean,
`
`and Japan. Ex. 2003, FIGS. 1 and 7; Ex. 2001, ¶54. On the other hand, FIG. 7 is
`
`displayed at a smaller scale that shows three markers at three different locations in
`
`the Tokyo area. Id. But, at this scale, no other locations are visible (e.g., Europe).
`
`Id.
`
`2. Okamura’s Cluster Maps
`Okamura explains that “when displaying images representing contents with
`
`positions on a map, it is important to be able to easily grasp the correspondence
`
`between a plurality of contents on the map, and each individual content.” Ex. 1005,
`
`¶[0011]; Ex. 2001, ¶55. To this end, Okamura describes “grouping (classifying)
`
`together a plurality of pieces of data within a short distance from each other in a data
`
`set.” Ex. 1005. ¶[0139]; Ex. 2001, ¶55. This data can include “image contents such
`
`as still image files” and the “distance” refers to the distance between geographical
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`positions associated with the images. Id. In Okamura, a cluster “is a unit in which
`
`contents are grouped together by clustering.” Id.
`
`The Petitioner relies on “two different embodiments” in Okamura. Petition,
`
`22. Both embodiments are discussed below.
`
`a. Okamura’s First Embodiment
`Okamura’s first embodiment is generally directed to “generating cluster
`
`information on the basis of positional information.” Ex. 1005, ¶[0088]; see also id.,
`
`¶[0312] (“The first embodiment . . . is directed to . . . the case of displaying cluster
`
`maps together with contents,” for example, “in a matrix fashion”); Ex. 2001, ¶57.
`
`Referring to FIG. 1, an information processing apparatus 100 includes, inter
`
`alia, content storing section 210, map information storing section 220, address
`
`information storing section 230, cluster information storing section 240, face cluster
`
`generating section 140, and cluster information generating section 170. Ex. 1005,
`
`FIG. 1, ¶[0091]; Ex. 2001, ¶58.
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex. 1005, FIG. 1
`
`
`
`The content storing section 210 stores image files, which can include
`
`“positional information such as latitude and longitude.” Ex. 1005, ¶[0109]. The
`
`map information storing section 220 stores map data. Id., ¶[0093]. The address
`
`information storing section 230 stores information that allows the cluster
`
`information generating section 170 to determine address information based on the
`
`positional information associated with individual contents. See id., ¶¶[0111]-[0127].
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`The tree generating section 120 “generates binary tree structured data on the
`
`basis of attribute information (positional information).” Ex. 1005, ¶[0097]. In
`
`particular, the tree generating section 120 calculates the distance between individual
`
`content items based on the respective positional information. Id., ¶¶[0140]-[0148],
`
`[0152]-[0153]. As shown in FIG. 8, the tree generating section 120 groups contents
`
`#1 to #14 into various clusters 321-332 based on the calculated distances. Id.,
`
`¶¶[0151]-[0155], FIG. 8.
`
`Okamura also describes generating “maps corresponding to individual
`
`clusters.” Ex. 1005, ¶[0213]; Ex. 2001, ¶61. For example, “on the basis of positional
`
`information associated with each of [the] an area corresponding to the cluster can be
`
`identified, and a map covering this identified area can be used as a map (cluster map)
`
`corresponding to the cluster.” Id. In these cluster maps, “the position corresponding
`
`to each cluster can be grasped from a map corresponding to each cluster.” Id.,
`
`¶[0215]. The “scale of a map representing each cluster” can be changed so that “the
`
`shooting area or the like of each of [the] contents belonging to each cluster can also
`
`be easily grasped by the user.” Id.
`
`FIG. 14 illustrates a table used by the cluster information generating section
`
`170 to generate clusters. Ex. 1005, FIG. 14, ¶[0216]. Each map cluster circle has a
`
`cluster diameter 171 that corresponds to a map scale 172. Id., ¶¶[0217]-[0221].
`
`Specifically, the cluster information generating section 170 identifies a map scale
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`172 from FIG. 14 based on positional information, then identifies the corresponding
`
`cluster diameter 171. Id., ¶[0220]. Then, the cluster information generating section
`
`170 “identifies the center position of the cluster and extracts from the map
`
`information storing section 220 a map covering the predetermined area from the
`
`center position,” forming the cluster map 247. Id., ¶[0221].
`
`FIG. 18 illustrates “a listing of marks (cluster maps) . . . displayed in a 3 x 5
`
`matrix fashion.” Ex. 1005, ¶[0237]; see also id., ¶¶[0240]-[0241]; Ex. 2001, ¶64.
`
`Ex. 1005, FIG. 18
`
`
`
`As shown in FIG. 19, placing the mouse over the cluster map 417 causes the color
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`to change, and “pieces of information 418 related to the cluster map 417 are
`
`displayed.” Id., ¶[0240].
`
`The cluster map arrangement in FIG. 18 illustrates how Okamura addresses
`
`the scaling problems in the related art: many of the cluster maps are associated with
`
`the Tokyo vicinity (annotated yellow below), while at least one cluster map is
`
`associated with Waikiki, Hawaii (annotated blue below). Ex. 2001, ¶65
`
`
`
`Ex. 1005, FIG. 18 (excerpted and annotated); Ex. 2001, ¶65
`
`If this information were conveyed according to the related art (e.g., Takakura), the
`
`map would need to be displayed “at a scale sufficiently large to show the countries
`
`of the world” (or at least Japan and the United States), obscuring the geographical
`
`differences in the Tokyo vicinity. Ex. 1005, ¶[0009]; Ex. 2001, ¶66. Conversely, if
`
`the map were displayed at a smaller scale to focus on the Tokyo vicinity, other
`
`regions (e.g., Hawaii) would be excluded. Ex. 1005, ¶[0010]; Ex. 2001, ¶66.
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`Okamura addresses this issue by generating cluster maps and displaying them in an
`
`array as shown in FIG. 18. Ex. 2001, ¶66.
`
`Okamura’s first embodiment also describes clustering content based on faces
`
`in images. In FIG. 21, face cluster image display area 431 includes images of faces
`
`arranged in a 3x5 matrix. Ex. 1005, ¶[0246]; Ex. 2001, ¶67.
`
`Ex. 1005, FIG. 21
`
`
`
`Okamura explains “when the mouse is placed over a thumbnail image 432 by a user
`
`operation on the index screen shown in FIG. 21, the color of the thumbnail image
`
`432 changes, and pieces of information 433 related to the thumbnail image 432 are
`
`displayed.” Ex. 1005, ¶247; Ex. 2001, ¶68.
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`
`FIG. 17 shows how to transition between the index screen 401 (FIGS. 18-21)
`
`and a content playback screen 402 (FIGS. 22-27B) in the first embodiment. Ex.
`
`1005, FIG. 17, ¶¶[0232]-[0234].
`
`b. Okamura’s Second Embodiment
`In the second embodiment, Okamura explains that when cluster maps are
`
`displayed in a matrix as shown in FIG. 18, “there is a fear that it may not be possible
`
`to intuitively grasp the geographical correspondence between cluster maps.” Ex.
`
`1005, ¶[[0312]. Okamura suggests that the cluster maps can “be placed at their
`
`corresponding positions on a map,” but even then, “there is a fear that not all the
`
`cluster maps can be displayed unless map of an area corresponding to the cluster
`
`maps is displayed.” Id.; Ex. 2001, ¶70.
`
`To this point, Okamura states that “it is conceivable to display a world map
`
`so that it is possible to get a bird’s eye view of the entire world.” Id. Even then,
`
`Okamura suggests “there is a fear that the cluster maps overlap each other” when
`
`presented this way. Ex. 1005, ¶[0312]. The second embodiment seeks to display
`
`the cluster maps so that they are “placed in such a way that the geographic
`
`correspondence between the cluster maps can be grasped intuitively.” Id.; Ex. 2001,
`
`¶70.
`
`FIG. 34 of Okamura is a block diagram for an information processing
`
`apparatus 600 according to the second embodiment. Ex. 1005, ¶[0313], FIG. 34;
`
`19
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex. 2001, ¶71. The information processing apparatus 600 includes content storing
`
`section 210, map information storing section 220, and cluster information storing
`
`section 240, which are “substantially the same” as the components with the same
`
`reference numbers in FIG. 1 for the information processing apparatus 100 of the first
`
`embodiment. Ex. 1005, ¶[0313]; Ex. 2001, ¶71. Okamura states that “it is assumed
`
`that cluster information generated by the cluster information generating section 170
`
`shown in FIG. 1 is stored in the cluster information string section 240.” Id. The
`
`face cluster generating section 140 of the first embodiment shown in FIG. 1 is not
`
`included in the information processing apparatus 600 of the second embodiment
`
`shown in FIG. 34. Cf. Ex. 1005 at FIG. 1 and FIG. 34.
`
`In FIG. 35, Okamura shows a case where a map 760 is displayed at a scale
`
`showing Tokyo and Kyoto with cluster maps displayed. Ex. 1005, ¶[0324]; Ex.
`
`2001, ¶73. For these clusters, the “center positions are located within relatively
`
`narrow ranges in Tokyo and Kyoto” and thus “the generated cluster maps are
`
`displayed in an overlaid manner.” Id. The scale of the map 760 makes “it difficult
`
`to grasp individual cluster maps in regions where the cluster maps are densely
`
`concentrated.” Ex. 1005, ¶[0325]. Okamura stresses the necessity of having the
`
`cluster maps be “somewhat large for the user to recognize these cluster maps” and
`
`discredits making the cluster maps smaller because this makes them “hard to see,
`
`making it difficult to grasp the details of the cluster maps.” Id.; Ex. 2001, ¶73.
`
`20
`
`

`

`
`
`Okamura’s second embodiment attempts to address these issues by
`
`determining the “optimal placement of individual cluster maps on a map which
`
`makes it possible to avoid overlapping of cluster maps in regions where the cluster
`
`maps are densely concentrated, without changing the size of the cluster maps.” Ex.
`
`1005 at ¶[0326]; Ex. 2001, ¶74. Okamura specifies three placement criteria:
`
`(1) For cluster maps overlapping each other on the background map, their
`
`center positions are to be spaced apart by some interval;
`
`(2) The positional relationship between cluster maps is to be maintained. This
`
`positional relationship includes, for example, the distances between the cluster
`
`maps, and their orientations; and
`
`(3) When cluster maps overlap each other, the order (precedence) in which
`
`individual cluster maps are overlaid at the upper side are determined in
`
`accordance with a predetermined condition.
`
`Ex. 1005, ¶¶[326-329].
`
`In the second embodiment, Okamura reiterates that “a cluster map is a map
`
`related to a location where contents belonging to the corresponding cluster are
`
`generated.” Ex. 1005 at ¶[0331]. Okamura explains that “if the cluster maps are
`
`spaced too far apart, it may become no longer possible to recognize where on the
`
`background map the cluster maps correspond to in the first place.” Id. Okamura
`
`21
`
`

`

`
`
`states that “it is important to minimize overlaps while still allowing the geographical
`
`correspondence to be recognized.” Id.
`
`Okamura describes a process to coordinate-transform cluster maps using a
`
`non-linear zoom processing section 640. Ex. 1005, ¶¶[0317], [0338-0353], FIGS.
`
`38-39; Ex. 2001, ¶76. Relative to FIG. 35, the cluster maps in FIG. 40 are coordinate
`
`transformed such that “the individual cluster maps belonging to the cluster map
`
`groups 761 and 762 shown in FIG. 35 can be placed in such a way that these cluster
`
`maps are scattered apart from each other, thereby forming new cluster map groups
`
`771 and 772.” Ex. 1005, ¶[0352]. Okamura explains that “by placing cluster maps
`
`in the manner as shown in FIG. 40, for example, cluster maps displayed in an
`
`overlaid manner can be scattered apart from each other” and “[t]herefore, even those
`
`cluster maps which are not visible in their entirety become partially visible, thereby
`
`making it possible to recognize cluster maps placed on the map.” Id.
`
`Ex. 1005 at FIGS. 35 and 40
`
`22
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`“The background map generating section