Patent Owner’s Response
`U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`IPR2022-00222
`
`
`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 RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`1. 
`
`a. 
`
`b. 
`
`I. 
`II. 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 
`Overview of the ‘228 Patent ............................................................................ 1 
`The ‘228 patent ........................................................................................... 1 
`A. 
`Relevant Prosecution History ..................................................................... 4 
`B. 
`Summary of References Identified by Petitioner ............................................ 5 
`III. 
`A.  Okamura (EX1005) .................................................................................... 5 
`1. 
`Okamura’s “Related Art” Discussion ................................................... 5 
`2. 
`Okamura’s Cluster Maps ....................................................................... 6 
`3. 
`Okamura’s First And Second Embodiments ......................................... 7 
`Belitz (EX1006) .......................................................................................... 9 
`B. 
`IV.  Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................. 10 
`V. 
`Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 10 
`Limitations [1g] and [1i]: “responsive to a second input … causing a
`people view to be displayed … the people view including: . . . a first
`name” ........................................................................................................ 11 
`Limitations [1g], [1i] and [1k]: “the people view including: . . . a first
`name … [and] … a second name” ............................................................ 14 
`Claim 18: “first person view … including a representation of each
`digital file in the third set of digital files” ................................................ 17 
`VI.  Petitioner Has Not Carried Its Burden On Obviousness ............................... 19 
`A. 
`Limitations [1g] and [1i]: “responsive to a second input … causing a
`people view to be displayed … the people view including: . . . a first
`name” ........................................................................................................ 20 
`Limitations [1g], [1i] and [1k]: Okamura Does Not Disclose a “people
`view” that includes a “first name” and “second name” ........................... 25 
`Limitations [1c]-[1d]: “a [first/second] location selectable thumbnail
`image at a [first/second] location on the interactive map” ....................... 28 
`Petitioner’s First Proposed Okamura-Belitz Combination ................. 28 
`Petitioner’s First Combination Replaces Okamura’s Cluster Maps
`With Thumbnail Images ................................................................. 29 
`A POSITA Would Not Have Been Motivated to Replace
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`c. 
`
`e. 
`
`f. 
`
`d. 
`
`Okamura’s Cluster Maps with Images That Are Not Maps .......... 31 
`Petitioner’s First Combination is Analogous to “Related Art”
`Discredited by Okamura ................................................................ 35 
`Petitioner’s First Combination Also Conflicts with Belitz’s
`Objectives ....................................................................................... 42 
`Petitioner’s Alleged “Motivations” Lack Merit ............................. 43 
`i.  Belitz’s Thumbnails Reduce the Ability to Provide a View of
`“What Location Is Associated With What” .............................. 43 
`ii.  Okamura Already Allows a User to “Preview Pictures” ............... 46 
`iii. Thumbnail Images Are Not “Functionally Equivalent” or “Known
`and Predictable Alternative[s]” To Cluster Maps. .................... 46 
`Petitioner Has Also Failed to Establish That the First Combination
`Would Be Used with Okamura’s FACE Index Screen .................. 50 
`Petitioner’s Second Proposed Okamura-Belitz Combination ............. 52 
`2. 
`Petitioner’s Third Proposed Okamura-Belitz Combination ................ 57 
`3. 
`Alleged Photo Management Products ................................................. 59 
`4. 
`D.  Dependent Claims .................................................................................... 60 
`1. 
`Claim 18: “first person view … including a representation of each
`digital file in the third set of digital files” ........................................... 61 
`Claim 19 .............................................................................................. 63 
`2. 
`VII.  Samsung Should Be Estopped Under 35 U.S.C. §315(e)(1) From
`Maintaining This IPR Challenge ................................................................... 64 
`VIII.  Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 66 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Am. Calcar, Inc. v. Am. Honda Motor Co.,
`651 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .............................................................. 12, 13, 17
`Apotex Inc. v. Wyeth LLC,
`IPR2015-00873, slip op. (Sept. 16, 2015) .......................................................... 65
`Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Prod. Inc.,
`876 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ........................................................ 25, 28, 40, 42
`Cal. Inst. of Tech. v. Broadcom Ltd.,
`25 F.4th 976 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ............................................................................. 65
`Callaway Golf Co. v. Acushnet Co.,
`576 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................................................... 60
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC,
`Case IPR2014-0054, slip op. (PTAB Aug. 29, 2014) ........................................ 60
`Colas Solutions, Inc. v. Blacklidge Emulsions, Inc.,
`759 Fed.Appx. 986 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ................................................................... 22
`Fujitsu Ltd. v. Belkin Int'l, Inc.,
`2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142102 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 28, 2012) ................................ 12
`General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha,
`IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (Sep. 6, 2017) ........................................................... 65
`Google Inc. v. Singular Computing LLC,
`IPR2021-00155 ....................................................................................... 31, 33, 44
`Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd.,
`821 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .............................................................. 22, 27, 63
`InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc’ns, Inc.,
`751 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................... 42, 51
`Intuitive Surgical, Inc. v. Ethicon LLC,
`No. IPR2018-01248, Paper 34, 10-18 (PTAB Feb. 6, 2020) ............................. 64
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................ 52
`KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc.,
`223 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .......................................................................... 15
`Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
`688 F.3d. 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ......................................................................... 46
`Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Google LLC,
`948 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .............................................................. 23, 27, 63
`In re Magnum Oil Tools International, Ltd.,
`829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .............................................................. 23, 24, 25
`Microsoft Corp. v. FG SRC, LLC,
`860 F. App'x 708 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ...................................................................... 12
`NetApp, Inc. v. Proven Networks, LLC,
`IPR2020-01436, Paper 33 (Apr. 07, 2022) ......................................................... 23
`Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC v. Int'l Bus. Machines Corp.,
`No. CV 13-2072 (KAJ), 2017 WL 1045912 (D. Del. Feb. 22,
`2017), aff'd, 721 F. App'x 994 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ................................................. 66
`Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc.,
`882 F.3d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .............................................................. 40, 41, 44
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc.,
`711 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 48
`Praxair Distribution, Inc. v. Ino Therapeutics LLC,
`No. IPR2016-00781, Paper 10, 7 (PTAB Aug. 25, 2016) .................................. 65
`Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`24 F.4th 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ............................................................... 22, 27, 63
`Sandisk Corp. v. Memorex Prods.,
`415 F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .................................................................... 14, 15
`Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC v. Intellectual Pixels Limited,
`IPR2021-00237, Paper 38, 25 (Jun. 8, 2022) ..................................................... 23
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`TQ Delta, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.,
`942 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .......................................................................... 52
`Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels,
`812 F.3d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................... 31, 41
`Unified Patents, LLC v. MemoryWeb, LLC,
`IPR2021-01413 ................................................................................................... 64
`Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Cont'l Auto. Sys.,
`853 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .................................................................... 16, 17
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. §315(e)(1) ................................................................................................ 64
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`2001 Withdrawn
`
`LISTING OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`
`2002
`
`Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication No. 2001-
`160058 and Certified English Translation (“Fujiwara”)
`
`2003 Withdrawn
`
`2004
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,714,215 (“Flora”)
`
`2005
`
`Supplemental Declaration of Kevin Jakel, Unified Patents, LLC v.
`MemoryWeb, LLC, IPR2021-01413 (Dec. 30, 2021) (redacted version)
`
`2006
`
`3 Questions for Unified Patents CEO Post-Oil States (Part II)
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`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
`
`2010
`
`Unified Patents September 9, 2021 email regarding MemoryWeb IPR
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`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-cv-411
`(W.D. Tex.) (Nov. 24, 2021)
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`2014
`
`2015
`
`Description
`
`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)
`
`2016
`
`MV3 Partners LLC v. Roku Inc., 6:18-cv-00308, (W.D. Texas) D.I. 83
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`IAM, “The last thing anyone should think about WDTX is that it is
`patent plaintiff friendly, says Albright” (Apr. 7, 2020)
`
`Pages from The Way Back Machine The Wayback Machine-
`https://web.archive.org/web/20000510141416/http://www.photo.net:80
`
`2019
`
`Cluster Map, Thumbnail, First Combination Comparison
`
`2020
`
`2021
`
`2022
`
`Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication No. 2007-
`323544 and Certified English Translation (“Takakura”)
`
`Patent Owner Response, Unified Patents, LLC v. MemoryWeb, LLC,
`IPR2021-01413, Paper 30 (Redacted Version)
`
`Transcript of the deposition of Dr. Philip Greenspun dated August 26,
`2022
`
`2023
`
`Declaration of Professor Glenn Reinman, Ph.D
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`IPR2022-00222
`
`
`MemoryWeb, LLC (“Patent Owner”) submits this response 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”).
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`The Board should find that Petitioner has not shown that any of claims 1-19
`
`are unpatentable because Petitioner has not carried its burden of proving obviousness
`
`by a preponderance of the evidence.
`
`II. Overview of the ‘228 Patent
`A. The ‘228 patent
`The ’228 patent is directed to methods for intuitively organizing and
`
`displaying digital files, such as digital photographs and videos. EX2023, ¶35.1 For
`
`example, referring to FIG. 41 (reproduced below), the ‘228 patent discloses a map
`
`view including “an interactive map”:
`
`
`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
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`IPR2022-00222
`
`
`EX1001, Fig. 41, 29:41-45; EX2023, ¶36.
`
`
`
`In the map view, “individual or groups of Digital Files are illustrated as photo
`
`thumbnails (see indicators 0874 and 0875)) on the map.” EX1001, 29:48-55;
`
`EX2023, ¶37. 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.” EX1001, 29:52-55, Fig. 41; EX2023, ¶37.
`
`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 in
`
`Fig. 34 (indicator 1630)).” EX1001, 29:48-55; EX2023, ¶38.
`
`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”:
`
`2
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`IPR2022-00222
`
`
`
`
`EX1001, Fig. 34, 24:22-28; EX2023, ¶39. 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. EX2023, ¶40. For example, the top of Fig. 32 shows a people view 1400 that
`
`includes “a thumbnail of [each person’s] face along with their name”:
`
`3
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`IPR2022-00222
`
`
`
`
`EX1001, Fig. 32, 22:59-23:4; EX2023, ¶40. The “Single People Profile Application
`
`View” at the bottom of Fig. 32 includes, among other things, a person’s name 1431,
`
`a profile photo 1440, and photos 1452 associated with that person. Id., 23:12-49;
`
`EX2023, ¶41.
`
`B. Relevant Prosecution History
`The ‘228 patent was filed as U.S. Application No. 16/578,238, which is a
`
`continuation of U.S. Application No. 16/536,300 (now U.S. Patent No. 11,163,823),
`
`which is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 15/375,927 (now U.S. Patent No.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`IPR2022-00222
`
`10,423,658), which in turn is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 14/193,426
`
`(“the ‘426 application”) (now U.S. Patent No. 9,552,376). EX1001, cover.
`
`During an examiner-initiated telephone interview, claim amendments to place
`
`the application in condition for allowance were discussed. Ex. 1002, 32-45. An
`
`Office Action entering claim amendments via an examiner’s amendment and
`
`allowing the amended claims was mailed on December 2, 2019. Id.
`
`III. Summary of References Identified by Petitioner
`Petitioner relies on two references: Okamura (EX1005) and Belitz (EX1006).
`
`Each reference is discussed below.
`
`A. Okamura (EX1005)
`Okamura is generally directed to “an information processing apparatus which
`
`displays contents such as image files.” EX1005, 0002; EX2023, ¶50.
`
`1. Okamura’s “Related Art” Discussion
`Okamura identifies disadvantages associated with “Related Art” references,
`
`which rely on views presenting a single map having the same scale throughout the
`
`entire map. EX1005, 0004-0010
`
`(citing EX2002
`
`(“Fujiwara”), EX2020
`
`(“Takakura”); EX2023, ¶51. According to Okamura, when it is necessary to display
`
`such a map at a scale sufficiently large to show the countries of the world:
`
`[M]arks indicating the generated positions of the 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
`
`5
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`IPR2022-00222
`
`
`correspondence between the images taken in Tokyo and its vicinity.
`
`EX1005, 0009; EX2023, ¶51.2 Okamura adds that when the map is displayed at a
`
`scale “sufficiently small to show regions in the vicinity of Tokyo”:
`
`it is not possible to display the generated positions of images taken in
`other regions (for example, the United States or United Kingdom) on
`the map, making it difficult to grasp the generated positions of
`individual images.
`
`
`Id. 0010; EX2023, ¶52.
`
`
`2. Okamura’s Cluster Maps
`To address these problems, Okamura recommends generating “maps
`
`corresponding to individual clusters” -- namely “cluster maps.” Okamura discloses
`
`that a cluster map “is a map” and “can be used as a map” and discloses displaying
`
`multiple “cluster maps” in a single view. EX1005, 0213, 0331.
`
`
`2 Unless otherwise stated, all emphasis shown in case cites and evidence cites is
`
`
`
`added.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`IPR2022-00222
`
`EX1005, Fig. 41 (annotated); EX2023, 53. For example, the embodiment of
`
`Okamura Fig. 41 (reproduced above) places multiple cluster maps on a “background
`
`map.” EX1005, 0331; EX2023, ¶54.
`
`To ensure the contents “belonging to each cluster can be … easily grasped by
`
`the user,” Okamura discloses “changing the scale” of individual cluster maps such
`
`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, ¶55. Further, the scale of a cluster map
`
`may vary relative to the scale of a background map:
`
`Id., Figs. 44a-44b, 0407-0411; EX2023, ¶56.
`
`
`
`3. Okamura’s First And Second Embodiments
`Okamura’s first embodiment relies on three “index screens” -- namely, the
`
`PLACE, EVENT and FACE index screens 410, 420, 430:
`
`7
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`IPR2022-00222
`
`
`
`EX1005, Figs. 18, 20, 21 (annotated); EX2023, ¶57. A user selects tabs 413, 411 or
`
`
`
`412 (highlighted above) to respectively cause the PLACE, EVENT or FACE index
`
`screens to display. EX1005, Figs. 18, 20, 21, ¶¶0234-0237, 0244, 0246; EX2023,
`
`¶58.
`
`Okamura’s second embodiment incorporates Fig. 41 (among others) and
`
`places cluster maps on a “background map” to allow users to “grasp the geographical
`
`relationship between individual cluster maps.”
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`IPR2022-00222
`
`EX1005, FIG. 41, ¶0331, 0358; EX2023, ¶59. The cluster maps in the second
`
`embodiment are substantially the same as those in the first embodiment. EX1005,
`
`FIG. 41, ¶0313, 0312; EX2023, ¶60.
`
`B.
`
`Belitz (EX1006)
`Belitz describes a user interface for displaying a map and at least one marked
`
`location on the map using a graphical object. EX1006, Abstract, Figs. 4a-4b;
`
`EX2023, ¶61. Examples of this user interface are shown in Figs. 4a-4b of Belitz:
`
`
`Id. As shown in Figs. 4a-b, Belitz discloses placing graphical objects 410a, 410b,
`
`410c, and 410d (also referred to as “thumbnail[s]”) on the map 409. Id., Figs. 4a-b,
`
`0011, 0062; EX2023, ¶62.
`
`Belitz explains that a controller can determine “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.” Id.; EX2023, ¶64.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`IPR2022-00222
`
`For example, the graphical objects 410a, 410b, 410c, and 410d shown in Fig. 4b
`
`would overlap if shown at the zoom level of the map 409 in Fig. 4a, so they are
`
`stacked together in Fig. 4a as group graphical object 410. Id. at ¶ 55; EX2023, ¶64-
`
`65.
`
`IV. Level of Ordinary 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, 2 (citing EX1003, 27). For purposes of this response, Patent
`
`Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of skill.
`
`V. Claim Construction
`Petitioner declined to offer any claim construction discussion. Petition, 1.
`
`While Patent Owner does not believe claim construction is required because the
`
`plain and ordinary meanings of relevant terms are clear, Patent Owner briefly
`
`addresses the limitations below in the event the Board determines claim construction
`
`is needed.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`IPR2022-00222
`
`
`A. Limitations [1g] and [1i]: “responsive to a second input …
`causing a people view to be displayed … the people view
`including: . . . a first name”
`The plain and ordinary meaning of limitations [1g] and [1i] require that the
`
`“people view” displayed in response to the “second input” must “includ[e]” a “first
`
`name.” EX2023, ¶¶67-70. The relevant language of claim 1 states:
`
`[g] responsive to a second input that is subsequent to the first input,
`causing a people view to be displayed on the interface, the people
`view including: . . . [i] (ii) a first name associated with the first person,
`the first name being displayed adjacent to the first person selectable
`thumbnail image . . . .
`
`
`EX1001, 35:61-36:11. The express language reproduced above recites: (1) “a second
`
`input” and, in response to that “second input” (2) “causing a people view to be
`
`displayed … including” a “first name.” Id.; EX2023, ¶67.
`
`Dr. Greenspun does not disagree. When deposed, he acknowledged that a
`
`“computer programmer” would understand the words of these claim limitations to
`
`mean “a user does something maybe with a mouse or a finger gesture on a touch
`
`screen and that subsequent to that you know the software within the application
`
`displays the people view.” EX2022, 42:21-44:22, 51:9-52:13.
`
`Further, courts construe the phrase “responsive to” as imparting a “cause-and-
`
`effect” relationship, whereby a second event occurs “automatically” in relation to a
`
`first event without “requiring further user interaction”:
`
`11
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`IPR2022-00222
`
`
`“In response to” connotes that the second event occur in reaction to the
`first event. The language of the claim itself suggests that when a vehicle
`condition is detected, the processing element identifies a provider
`automatically as opposed to requiring further user interaction.
`
`Am. Calcar, Inc. v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 651 F.3d 1318, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
`
`Fujitsu Ltd. v. Belkin Int'l, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142102, at *88 (N.D. Cal.
`
`Sep. 28, 2012) (“the Court agrees with Fujitsu that a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art, reading the '769 Patent in light of the intrinsic evidence, would construe the ‘in
`
`response to’ clause as connoting a cause-and-effect relationship rather than a straight
`
`temporal sequence”); Microsoft Corp. v. FG SRC, LLC, 860 F. App'x 708, 714 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2021) (“While claim 18 does not expressly recite that the selecting of web site
`
`content is performed immediately or for a current user, it does require that the
`
`selection is performed ‘in response to’ the transmission of the data elements to the
`
`server”).
`
`Also relevant to the inquiry, as Dr. Greenspun acknowledged, nothing in the
`
`‘228 specification contemplates requiring any user input beyond the “second input”
`
`to cause the display of the “people view” and “first name” caption. EX2022, 49:9-
`
`50:15; See e.g. Am. Calcar, 651 at 1340 (“the specification fails to disclose any
`
`embodiment that requires any type of user interaction prior to identification of a
`
`service provider”).
`
`12
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`IPR2022-00222
`
`
`Indeed, the ‘228 patent discloses an exemplary embodiment consistent with
`
`the express words recited in the claim. In particular, the specification states that
`
`“selecting ‘People’ (1401)” (second input) causes the People Application View of
`
`FIG 32 (people view) to be displayed.
`
`
`
`EX1001 at FIG. 32 (partial), 22:59-23:4l; EX2023, ¶¶68-70. The specification
`
`discloses that the People Application View of FIG 32 displayed in response to
`
`selecting “‘People’” 1401 (second input) includes the text “Jon Smith” (first name)
`
`and does not disclose that any further “user interaction” is needed. Id. See Am.
`
`Calcar, 651 F.3d at 1340 (noting that “the specification fails to disclose any
`
`embodiment that requires any type of user interaction prior to identification of a
`
`service provider”). Thus, the specification is consistent with the plain and ordinary
`
`meaning of the express words of the claim. For these reasons, the “people view”
`
`displayed in response to the “second input” must “includ[e]” a “first name.”
`
`13
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`IPR2022-00222
`
`
`B.
`
`Limitations [1g], [1i] and [1k]: “the people view including: . . . a
`first name … [and] … a second name”
`The plain and ordinary meaning of limitations [1g], [1i] and [1k] require that
`
`the “people view” must “includ[e]” both a “first name” and a “second name”
`
`displayed in the same view:
`
`[g] responsive to a second input … causing a people view to be
`displayed on the interface, the people view including: . . . [i] (ii) a first
`name . . . and [k] (iv) a second name . . . .
`
`
`EX1001, 35:61-36:11; EX2023, ¶¶71-79.
`
`In the Institution Decision, and without the benefit of the claim construction
`
`analysis set forth herein, the Board questioned whether claim 1 requires
`
`“simultaneous” inclusion of the first and second names. Paper 12, 28. However,
`
`claim 1 does not state that the people view includes a first name “or” second name.
`
`Instead, the claim language expressly defines the elements of the claimed “people
`
`view” by reciting the transitional word “including” along with the conjunction
`
`“and.” EX2023, 73; EX1001, 35:61-36:11 (“the people view including: . . . [i] (ii)
`
`a first name . . . and [k] (iv) a second name”). “As a patent law term of art,
`
`‘includes’ means ‘comprising.’” Sandisk Corp. v. Memorex Prods., 415 F.3d 1278,
`
`1284 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Thus, a claim reciting a widget comprising / including “A and
`
`B” requires a “widget containing A and B ….” Id. Further, the article “a” in the
`
`phrases “a first name” and “a second name” requires “at least one” first name and
`
`14
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`IPR2022-00222
`
`“at least one” second name. KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351,
`
`1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“the claim limitation ‘a,’ without more, requires at least
`
`one”).
`
`As Dr. Reinman explains, a software application can use fields or forms where
`
`certain text could be present or optionally left blank. EX2023, ¶74. Had Patent
`
`Owner chose to claim such an embodiment, Patent Owner could have drafted the
`
`claims broad enough to merely require first and second name fields, where either is
`
`optionally populated or left blank. However, that is not what claim 1 says. Claim 1
`
`states that the “people view” includes the names themselves: both the first name and
`
`second name. Id. Dr. Greenspun does not disagree. He testified that “the universe of
`
`things that are claimed seems to require, you know, two [thumbnail] images, and
`
`each one of them having a [name] caption.” EX2022, 51:9-52:13; 49:9-19 (referring
`
`to name text as a “caption”).
`
`The Institution Decision also theorized that the second name may be displayed
`
`“at some unspecified time” after the first name. Paper 12, 28. However, claim 1 does
`
`not contemplate optionally including only parts the claimed people view at different
`
`times. EX2023, ¶76. Instead, the claim language states “causing a people view to be
`
`displayed.” EX1001, 35:61-36:11. To interpret the claims to require the presence of
`
`only a portion of the people view at different times would impermissibly render the
`
`15
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`IPR2022-00222
`
`express language of limitations [1i] and [1k], expressly defining the people view,
`
`“void, meaningless, or superfluous.” Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Cont'l Auto. Sys., 853
`
`F.3d 1272, 1288 n.10 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (Construing ‘bit sequence’ to allow for an
`
`empty, zero-bit sequence would effectively remove the ‘first bit sequence,’ ‘second,
`
`or third bit sequence,’ and ‘fourth and final bit sequence’ limitations from the claim,
`
`as it would make them optional or potentially nonexistent).
`
`Including the first name and second name at separate times would also conflict
`
`with the causal relationship between the “second input” and “causing” the display
`
`of the “people view.” EX2023, ¶77. As discussed above, claim 1 recites a (i) a single
`
`“second input” and (ii) “causing” the display of the “people view” (that includes a
`
`first name and second name) “responsive to” that single input -- namely, the “second
`
`input”; EX1001, 35:61-36:11; EX2023, ¶77.
`
`When deposed, Dr. Greenspun acknowledged that the plain meaning of
`
`Limitations [1g], [1i] and [1k] supports the construction proffered here. EX2022,
`
`52:14-23 (“Q . . . [T]he plain words of the claims … refers to a second input, a people
`
`view, two images and two names, right? A Yes.”); 51:9-52:13 (the claim “seems to
`
`require, you know, two [thumbnail] images, and each one of them having a [name]
`
`caption”).
`
`16
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`IPR2022-00222
`
`
`Finally, the specification is consistent with Patent Owner’s plain and ordinary
`
`meaning construction. Fig. 32 provides an exemplary embodiment showing a people
`
`view 1400 that includes “a thumbnail of [each person’s] face along with their name.”
`
`
`
`EX1001 at Fig. 32 (partial), 22:59-23:4; EX2023, ¶¶78-79. The people view of Fig.
`
`32 (reproduced above) includes the text “Jon Smith” (first name) and “Jane Smith”
`
`(second name) in the same view. Id. Likewise, nowhere does the specification
`
`disclose an alternative people view displaying two thumbnails but only one name.
`
`See e.g. Am. Calcar, 651 at 1340. EX2022, 56:6-57:7. Thus, the specification is
`
`consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the words of the claim. Id.
`
`For these reasons, the “people view” must “includ[e]” both a “first name” and
`
`a “second name” displayed in the same view.
`
`C. Claim 18: “first person view … including a representation of
`each digital file in the third set of digital files”
`The plain and ordinary meaning of claim 18 requires (i) receiving an “input”
`
`from the “people view” of limitation [1h]; and (ii) in response to that input,
`
`17
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`IPR2022-00222
`
`displaying a “first person view” that “includ[es] … a representation of each digital
`
`file in the third set of digital files.” EX2023, ¶¶80-85. Limitation 1[h] and claim 18
`
`are reproduced below:
`
`18. [a] The method of claim 1, further comprising responsive to an
`input that is indic