`Angel Technologies Group LLC
`
`Case Nos.: IPR2023-00057, -00058, -00059, -00060
`USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`Oral Hearing: February 13, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEDEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEDEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 1 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`1
`
`
`
`The Challenged ’432, ’291, ’275, and ’480 Patents
`
`’432 Patent
`(-00057)
`
`’291 Patent
`(CON of ’432) (-00058)
`
`’275 Patent
`(CON of ’291) (-00059)
`
`’480 Patent
`(CON of ’275) (-00060)
`
`-00057: Ex. 1001 at Cover00057 E 1001 t C00057 E 1001 C
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-00058: Ex. 1001 at Cover00058 E 1001 C
`
`
`
`-00059: Ex. 1001 at Cover
`
`
`
`-00060: Ex. 1001 at Cover 00060 E 1001 C
`
`
`
`-00057: Pet. at 1; -00058: Pet. at 1; -00059: Pet. at 1; -00060: Pet. at 1
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 2 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`2
`
`
`
`’480 Patent (IPR2023-00060): Single Instituted Ground
`
`Ground 1
`
`Claims 1-30 are obvious over Robertson in view of Lloyd-Jones
`
`-00060: Instit. Dec. at 2, 6, 8
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 3 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`3
`
`
`
`’480 Patent (IPR2023-00060): Disputed Issues
`
`• Robertson is not analogous art
`• Robertson/Lloyd-Jones does not disclose or suggest the
`claimed “associating input” (limitations 3[b]/30[b])
`• Robertson/Lloyd-Jones does not disclose or suggest the
`claimed “prompt” to the “viewing user” (limitations
`1[g]/2[c]/3[c], 1[h]/2[d]/3[d]/30[d])
`• Petitioner fails to establish motivation to combine
`• Petitioner fails to establish reasonable expectation of success
`• Petitioner’s analysis of the dependent claims fails
`
`-00060 Resp. at 9-16; Sur-Reply at 3-12
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 4 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`4
`
`
`
`’480: Robertson Must be Analogous Art for Petitioner’s Single Ground to Succeed
`
`In order for a reference to be proper for use in an
`obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the
`reference must be analogous art to the claimed
`invention.
`
`In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
`
`-00060: Resp. at 10
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 5 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`5
`
`
`
`’480: Analogous Art vs. Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`Analogous Art: Scope of the Art
`Is the reference from the same field of endeavor
`as the claimed invention?
`Is the reference reasonably similar to the
`problem the inventor faced?
`
`•
`
`•
`
`POSITA: Skill Level/Technical Sophistication
`• The educational level of the inventor
`• Types of problems encountered in the art
`• Prior art solutions to those problems
`• Rapidity with which inventions are made
`• Sophistication of the technology
`• Educational level for active workers in the field
`
`“Thus, we attempt to more closely
`approximate the reality of the circumstances
`surrounding the making of an invention by
`only presuming knowledge by the inventor of
`prior art in the field of his endeavor and in
`analogous arts.”
`In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036 (C.C.P.A. 1979)
`
`“In a given case, every factor may not be
`present, and one or more factors may
`predominate. ”
`In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
`
`-00060: Sur-Reply at 3
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 6 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`6
`
`
`
`’480: Robertson Is Not Analogous Art
`
`The field of endeavor is determined “by reference
`to explanations of the invention’s subject matter
`in the patent application, including embodiments,
`function, and structure of the claimed invention.”
`
`In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
`
`-00060: Resp. at 10; Sur-Reply at 3
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 7 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`7
`
`
`
`’480: The ’480 Patent “Field of the Invention”
`
`-00060: Resp. at 3, 13; Sur-Reply at 4
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`-00060: Ex. 1001 at 1:19-26
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 8 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`8
`
`
`
`’480: All Embodiments of the ’480 Patent are Systems with Images
`
`
`
`
`
`*******************************************************
`
`-00060: Resp. at 4, 13; Sur-Reply at 4-5
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`-00060: Ex. 1001 at Fig. 2
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 9 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`9
`
`
`
`’480: All Embodiments of the ’480 Patent are Systems with Images
`
`
`
`***********
`
`-00060: Ex. 1001 at Fig. 4
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 10 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`10
`
`-00060: Resp. at 4, 13; Sur-Reply at 4-5
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`
`
`’480: Petitioner’s Initial Positions Confirm the Inventor’s Field of Endeavor
`
`Petition
`
`**********
`
`*****
`
`Dr. Bederson
`
`-00060: Sur-Reply at 5-6
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`
`
`-00060: Pet. at 1 -
`
`-00060: Ex. 1003 at ¶ 45
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 11 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`11
`
`
`
`’480: Petitioner’s Shifting Positions Fail to Account for the Invention
`
`Reply
`
`Dr. Bederson
`Reply
`
`-00060: Sur-Reply at 5-6
`
`
`
`**********
`
`
`
`-00060: Reply at 4-
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`-00060: Ex. 1039 at ¶ 23
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 12 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`12
`
`
`
`’480: Petitioner’s Shifting Positions Fail to Account for the Invention
`
`
`
`*******************
`
`-00060: Ex. 1001 at Fig. 1
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 13 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`13
`
`-00060: Sur-Reply at 5-6
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`
`
`’480: Petitioner’s Proposed Field of Endeavor Is Overly Broad
`
`The Board must:
`• consider “the full disclosure”
`• reference the “function and structure of the
`invention”
`
`In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
`
`-00060: Resp. at 10; Sur-Reply at 3
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 14 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`14
`
`
`
`’480: The Field of Endeavor Is Not “Networked and Web-based Media Applications”
`
`“Although the challenged patents cover electrical connections
`between tubular portions of a device, those connections are
`all within the context of an artificial tree. The Board thus did
`not err in defining the field of endeavor as ‘artificial trees with
`decorative lighting.’”
`
`Polygroup Ltd. MCO v. Willis Elec. Co., Ltd., 759 F. App’x 934, 942 (Fed. Cir. 2019)
`
`-00060: Sur-Reply at 4-5
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 15 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`15
`
`
`
`’480: No Decision Disregards the Field of Endeavor Identified by the Inventor
`
`Ex Parte Offenhartz: Field of endeavor is “configuration of software applications”
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Specification, titled “Dynamic Generated Web UI for
`Configuration”
`
`Spec. ¶ 17 (“Users can be able to configure their
`application with a utility which is designed to be easy to
`use and informative.”)
`
`Such configuration includes information that is used to set
`up applications (Spec. ¶ 13)
`
`-00060: Sur-Reply at 8
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 16 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`16
`
`
`
`’480: No Decision Disregards the Field of Endeavor Identified by the Inventor
`
`In re Mettke: Field of endeavor is “pay-for-use public communication terminals”
`
`-00060: Sur-Reply at 8
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 17 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`17
`
`
`
`’480: No Decision Disregards the Field of Endeavor Identified by the Inventor
`
`Snap v. Vaporstream: Field of endeavor is “handling electronic messages”
`
`-00060: Sur-Reply at 8
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 18 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`18
`
`
`
`’480: No Decision Disregards the Field of Endeavor Identified by the Inventor
`
`Snap Field of Endeavor
`
`’480 Patent Disclosure
`
`In re Offenhartz
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 19 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`19
`
`-00060: Sur-Reply at 8
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`
`
`’480: Robertson Is Not In the Same Field of Endeavor
`
`“When determining whether a prior art reference
`meets the ‘same field of endeavor’ test for the
`analogous art, the primary focus is on what the
`reference discloses.”
`
`Airbus S.A.S. v. Firepass Corp., 941 F.3d 1374, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2019)
`
`-00060: Resp. at 10-11
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 20 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`20
`
`
`
`’480: Robertson’s Field of Endeavor is Contact Management Systems
`
`
`
`-00060: Ex. 1012 at 1:16-20 00060 1012 1 16 20
`
`
`
`
`
`-00060: Resp. at 6, 14; Sur-Reply at 6-7
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 21 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`21
`
`
`
`’480: Robertson’s Embodiments are Contact Management Systems
`
`
`
`******************************************************
`
`-00060: Ex. 1012 at Fig. 6
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 22 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`22
`
`-00060: Resp. at 7, 14; Sur-Reply at 6-7
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`
`
`’480: Robertson’s Embodiments are Contact Management Systems
`
`-00060: Resp. at 14; Sur-Reply at 6-7
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`
`
`-00060: Ex. 1012 at 4:10-16 00060 E 1012 t 4 10 16
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 23 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`23
`
`
`
`’480: Robertson’s Embodiments are Text-Based GUIs
`
`
`
`**********
`
`-00060: Ex. 1012 at Fig. 8
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 24 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`24
`
`-00060: Resp. at 14; Sur-Reply at 7
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`
`
`’480: Robertson Is Not in the Same Field Simply Because It Relates to Computers
`
`“The [cited prior] art is not in the same field of endeavor
`as the claimed subject matter merely because it relates to
`memories. It involves memory circuits in which modules of
`varying sizes may be added or replaced; in contrast, the
`subject patents teach compact modular memories.”
`
`Wang Labs., Inc. v. Toshiba Corp., 993 F.2d 858, 864 (Fed. Cir. 1993)
`
`-00060: Resp. at 11; Sur-Reply at 8
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 25 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`25
`
`
`
`’480: Robertson Is Not in the Same Field of Endeavor
`
`Reply
`
`Dr. Bederson
`Reply
`
`-00060: Sur-Reply at 7
`
`
`
`-00060: Reply at 8 -
`
`-00060: Exhibit 1039 at ¶ 31
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 26 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`26
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`
`
`’480: Robertson Is Not in the Same Field of Endeavor
`
`“A reference is analogous prior art when (1) it is from the
`same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem
`addressed, or (2) if it is not from the same field of the
`inventor’s endeavor, it is reasonably pertinent to the
`particular problem with which the inventor is involved.”
`
`In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (emphasis added)
`
`-00060: Resp. at 10; Sur-Reply at 7
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 27 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`27
`
`
`
`’480: No Credible Argument that Robertson Discloses or Suggests Images
`
`Petition
`
`Dr. Bederson
`
`-00060: Resp. at 6; Sur-Reply at 9
`
`
`
`-00060: Pet. at 1900060 9
`
`
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`-00060: Ex. 1003 at ¶ 69
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 28 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`28
`
`
`
`’480: Robertson and the ’480 Patent are in Different Fields of Endeavor
`
`*****
`
`*****
`
`
`
`*****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
`
`*****
`
`Vizio, Inc. v. Nichia Corp., IPR2017-00558, 2017 WL 2901318, at *6 (PTAB July 7, 2017)
`
`-00060: Sur-Reply at 7-8
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 29 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`29
`
`
`
`’480: Reasonable Pertinence Requires that the Problems Must be Compared
`
`“[W]hen addressing whether a reference is analogous art
`with respect to a claimed invention under a reasonable-
`pertinence theory, the problems to which both relate
`must be identified and compared.”
`
`Donner Tech., LLC v. Pro Stage Gear, LLC, 979 F.3d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (emphasis added)
`
`-00060: Resp. at 12; Sur-Reply at 10
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 30 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`30
`
`
`
`’480: Reasonable Pertinence Requires that the Problems Must be Compared
`
`“Thus, the purposes of both the invention and the prior
`art are important in determining whether the reference is
`reasonably pertinent to the problem the invention
`attempts to solve.”
`
`In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992)
`
`-00060: Resp. at 16; Sur-Reply at 10
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 31 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`31
`
`
`
`’480: Petitioner Improperly Conflates the ’480 Problem with the Solution
`
`Petition
`
`*****
`
`-00060: Sur-Reply at 11
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`-00060: Reply at 10-11
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 32 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`32
`
`
`
`’480: Petitioner Improperly Conflates the ’480 Problem with the Solution
`
`Ex. 1046
`(Complaint)
`
`-00060: Sur-Reply at 11
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`-00060: Ex. 1046 at ¶¶ 36, 47
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 33 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`33
`
`
`
`’480: Petitioner Improperly Conflates the ’480 Problem with the Solution
`
`Reply
`
`-00060: Sur-Reply at 11-12
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`-00060: Reply at 10
`
`-00060: Ex. 1001 at 9:44-48
`
`-00060: Ex. 1001 at 11:17-19
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 34 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`
`
`3434
`
`
`
`’480: Petitioner Improperly Conflates the ’480 Problem with the Solution
`
`Smith & Nephew v. Hologic: No claim of reasonable pertinence based on similar solution
`
`v
`
`-00060: Sur-Reply at 11
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 35 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`35
`
`
`
`’480: Robertson Is Not Reasonably Pertinent to the ’480 Patent’s Problem
`
`’480 Patent’s Problem
`
`Robertson’s Problem
`
`(cid:57) Identifying objects in images and
`storing associations for sharing
`and searching
`
`× Providing a contact management
`system that links individual users based
`on group affiliations and providing
`notifications when information for a
`particular user has changed
`
`-00060: Resp. at 14-16; Sur-Reply at 11-12
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 36 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`36
`
`
`
`’480: Robertson Is Directed to an Entirely Different Problem
`
`“The reasonably-pertinent analysis ultimately rests on the
`extent to which the reference of interest and the claimed
`invention relate to a similar problem or purpose.”
`
`Donner Tech., LLC v. Pro Stage Gear, LLC, 979 F.3d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
`
`-00060: Sur-Reply at 10-12
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 37 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`37
`
`
`
`’480 Patent (IPR2023-00060): Disputed Issues
`
`• Robertson is not analogous art
`• Robertson/Lloyd-Jones does not disclose or suggest the
`claimed “associating input” (limitations 3[b]/30[b])
`• Robertson/Lloyd-Jones does not disclose or suggest the
`claimed “prompt” to the “viewing user” (limitations
`1[g]/2[c]/3[c], 1[h]/2[d]/3[d]/30[d])
`• Petitioner fails to establish motivation to combine
`• Petitioner fails to establish reasonable expectation of success
`• Petitioner’s analysis of the dependent claims fails
`
`-00060: Resp. at 17-19; Sur-Reply at 13-14
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 38 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`38
`
`
`
`’480: Robertson/Lloyd-Jones Does Not Disclose or Suggest Limitations 3[b]/30[b]
`Claim 3
`
`Limitation
`3[b]
`
`• “associating input”
`1. “indicating an association between the first user
`and an item of digital media”
`2. “received separately from the naming input”
`
`
`
`-00060: Ex. 1001 at Claim 300060 E 1001 t Cl i 3
`
`
`
`
`
`-00060: Resp. at 17-19; Sur-Reply at 13-14
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 39 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`39
`
`
`
`’480: Robertson Does Not Disclose Limitations 3[b]/30[b]
`
`Petition
`
`-00060: Resp. at 17-19; Sur-Reply at 13-14
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`-00060: Pet. at 32
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 40 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`40
`
`
`
`’480: Robertson Does Not Disclose Limitations 3[b]/30[b]
`
`Petition
`
`-00060: Resp. at 17-19; Sur-Reply at 13-14
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`-00060: Pet. at 33
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 41 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`41
`
`
`
`’480: Robertson Does Not Disclose or Suggest Limitations 3[b]/30[b]
`Claim 3
`
`Limitation
`3[b]
`
`-00060: Ex. 1001 at Claim 3
`
`• “associating input”
`1. “indicating an association between the first user
`and an item of digital media”
`2. “received separately from the naming input”
`
`-00060: Resp. at 17-19; Sur-Reply at 13-14
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 42 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`42
`
`
`
`’480: Robertson/Lloyd-Jones Does Not Disclose or Suggest Limitations 3[b]/30[b]
`
`Petition
`
`-00060: Resp. at 17-19; Sur-Reply at 13-14
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`-00060: Pet. at 34 00060: Pet at 34
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 43 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`43
`
`
`
`’480: Robertson/Lloyd-Jones Does Not Disclose or Suggest Limitations 3[b]/30[b]
`
`Petition
`
`-00060: Resp. at 17-19; Sur-Reply at 13-14
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`-00060: Pet. at 35
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 44 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`44
`
`
`
`’480: Lloyd-Jones Discloses Associating Metadata with Image, Not a “First User”
`
`-00060: Resp. at 7-8; Sur-Reply at 13-14
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`-00060: Ex. 1013 at Fig. 1
`
`-00060: Ex. 1013 at ¶ [0029]
`
`-00060: Ex. 1013 at ¶ [0029]
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 45 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`45
`
`
`
`’480: Lloyd-Jones Discloses Associating Metadata with Image, Not a “First User”
`
`-00060: Resp. at 7-8; Sur-Reply at 13-14
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`-00060: Ex. 1013 at Fig. 1
`
`-00060: Ex. 1013 at ¶ [0031]
`
`-00060: Ex. 1013 at ¶ [0031]
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 46 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`46
`
`
`
`’480: The Combination Does Not Disclose or Suggest Limitations 3[b]/30[b]
`
`*****
`
`-00060: Resp. at 17-19; Sur-Reply at 13-14
`
`
`Amazon Web Services, Inc. v. Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, IPR2019-00103, Paper 22, at 16 (PTAB May 10, 2019)W b S i I S i t R i M h k T ib IPR2019 00103 P 22 t 16 (PTAB
`
`
`
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 47 of 124
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`47
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`
`
`
`
`’480: The Combination Does Not Disclose or Suggest Limitations 3[b]/30[b]
`Claim 3
`
`Limitation
`3[b]
`
`
`
`
`
`• “associating input”
`1. “indicating an association between the first user
`and an item of digital media”
`2. “received separately from the naming input”
`
`-00060: Ex. 1001 at Claim 300060 E 1001 t Cl i 3
`
`
`
`-00060: Resp. at 17-19; Sur-Reply at 13-14
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 48 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`48
`
`
`
`’480 Patent (IPR2023-00060): Disputed Issues
`
`• Robertson is not analogous art
`• Robertson/Lloyd-Jones does not disclose or suggest the
`claimed “associating input” (limitations 3[b]/30[b])
`• Robertson/Lloyd-Jones does not disclose or suggest the
`claimed “prompt” to the “viewing user” (limitations
`1[g]/2[c]/3[c], 1[h]/2[d]/3[d]/30[d])
`• Petitioner fails to establish motivation to combine
`• Petitioner fails to establish reasonable expectation of success
`• Petitioner’s analysis of the dependent claims fails
`
`-00060: Resp. at 19-23 ; Sur-Reply at 14-18
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 49 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`49
`
`
`
`’480: Exemplary Claim 3 of the ’480 Patent
`
`c
`
`
`
`
`
`-00060: Ex. 1001 at Claim 3 (annotated)00060 E 1001 Cl i 3 ( d)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-00060: Resp. at 19-23; Sur-Reply at 14-18
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 50 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`50
`
`
`
`’480: The “First User” and “Viewing User” of the Claims
`
`“First User” (Pictured User)
`• Provides the naming input
`• Associated with an item of digital media, e.g., tagged
`in a photo
`“Viewing User”
`• Viewing the display data with the tagged photo
`• Prompted to add an association with the first user,
`e.g., add pictured user as a contact
`
`-00060: Resp. at 19-23; Sur-Reply at 14-18
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 51 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`51
`
`
`
`’480: Exemplary Claim 3 of the ’480 Patent
`
`Limitation
`3[c]
`
`Limitation
`3[c][3]
`Limitation
`3[d]
`
`-00060: Resp. at 19-23; Sur-Reply at 14-18
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 52 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`52
`
`-00060: Ex. 1001 at Claim 3 (annotated)00060 E 1001 Cl i 3 ( d)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`’480: The “Display Data” with the “Element Configured to Provide a Prompt”
`
`“Element Configured to Provide a Prompt”
`• Graphical display of display data that includes the
`association between the first user and item of digital
`media with an element configured to prompt the
`viewing user to add an association
`
`-00060: Resp. at 19-23; Sur-Reply at 14-18
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 53 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`53
`
`
`
`’480: The Combination Does Not Disclose the Claimed “Prompt” or “Viewing User”
`
`Petition
`
`-00060: Sur-Reply at 16
`
`-00060: Pet. at 14-15
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 54 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`54
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`
`
`’480: The Combination Does Not Disclose the Claimed “Prompt” or “Viewing User”
`
`
`
`*********************************************************************
`
`-00060: Ex. 1001 at 9:38-48
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 55 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`55
`
`-00060: Sur-Reply at 16
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`
`
`’480: The Combination Does Not Disclose the Claimed “Prompt” or “Viewing User”
`
`Petition
`
`-00060: Sur-Reply at 16
`
`-00060: Pet. at 1
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 56 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`56
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`
`
`’480: Lloyd-Jones Does Not Disclose the Claimed “Viewing User”
`
`
`
`
`
`*******************************
`
`-00060: Resp. at 19-23; Sur-Reply at 14-18
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`-00060: Ex. 1013 at Fig. 5
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 57 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`57
`
`
`
`’480: Lloyd-Jones Does Not Disclose the Claimed “Prompt”
`
`Q. Does Lloyd-Jones disclose a prompt to add a
`contact from an image?
`
`A. … So I don't think I have a specific
`opinion about whether Lloyd-Jones itself
`discloses adding a prompt to add a contact
`from an image.
`
`-00060: Ex. 2021 at 49:11-50:5
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 58 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`58
`
`Dr. Bederson
`
`-00060: Resp. at 21
`
`
`
`’480: Robertson Does Not Disclose the Claimed “Prompt” or “Viewing User”
`
`
`
`**********
`
`-00060: Ex. 1012 at Fig. 8
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 59 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`59
`
`-00060: Resp. at 19-23; Sur-Reply at 14-18
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`
`
`’480: Robertson Does Not Disclose the Claimed “Prompt” or “Viewing User”
`
`
`
`*******************************************************************************************************************************************************
`
`-00060: Ex. 1012 at Fig. 11
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 60 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`60
`
`-00060: Resp. at 19-23; Sur-Reply at 14-18
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`
`
`’480: Robertson Does Not Disclose the Claimed “Prompt” or “Viewing User”
`
`
`
`************************************
`
`
`
`****************
`
`-00060: Ex. 1012 at 6:65-67
`
`-00060: Ex. 1012 at 11:14-20
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 61 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`61
`
`-00060: Resp. at 22-23; Sur-Reply at 17
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`
`
`’480: The Combination Does Not Disclose the Claimed “Prompt” or “Viewing User”
`
`Petition
`
`
`
`*********************************
`
`-00060: Resp. at 19-23; Sur-Reply at 14-18
`
`No “first user”
`
`No “prompt” to add an
`association with “first user”
`from image
`
`No “viewing user”
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 62 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`62
`
`
`
`’480: The Combination Does Not Disclose the Claimed “Prompt” or “Viewing User”
`
`Reply
`
`-00060: Sur-Reply at 18
`
`
`
`
`
`**********************************************************************
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`-00060: Reply at 17
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 63 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`63
`
`
`
`’480: Petitioner Cannot Resort to “Creativity” or “Common Sense”
`
`“[W]e conclude that while ‘common sense’ can be invoked,
`even potentially to supply a limitation missing from the prior
`art, it must still be supported by evidence and a reasoned
`explanation.”
`
`Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc., 832 F.3d 1355, 1366-67 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`
`-00060: Resp. at 23; Sur-Reply at 18
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 64 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`64
`
`
`
`’480: Petitioner Cannot Resort to “Creativity” or “Common Sense”
`
`“The Board’s invocation of ‘ordinary creativity’ is no
`different from the reference to ‘common sense’ that
`we considered in Arendi.”
`DSS Tech. Mgmt., Inc. v. Apple Inc., 885 F.3d 1367, 1374-75 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
`
`-00060: Sur-Reply at 18
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 65 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`65
`
`
`
`’480: Petitioner Cannot Resort to “Creativity” or “Common Sense”
`
`“In cases in which ‘common sense’ is used to supply a missing
`limitation, as distinct from a motivation to combine, moreover,
`our search for a reasoned basis for resort to common sense
`must be searching. And, this is particularly true where the
`missing limitation goes to the heart of an invention.”
`Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc., 832 F.3d 1355, 1366-67 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (emphasis added)
`
`-00060: Resp. at 23; Sur-Reply at 18
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 66 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`66
`
`
`
`’480: Petitioner Cannot Resort to “Creativity” or “Common Sense”
`
`DSS Tech. Management v. Apple: Rejected similarly conclusory expert testimony
`
`•
`
`•
`
`“Because the base and mobile stations have the same physical structure, this
`
`would have been no more than using a known technique to improve similar would have been no more than using a known technique
`devices in the same way”
`
`“It would have been obvious to a [person of ordinary skill in the art] to have
`the base station [in Natarajan] operate in an analogous manner”
`the base station [in Natarajan] operate in an analogous manner
`
`•
`
`“The RF systems of the base station and mobile stations in Natarajan have
`the same physical structure”
`the same physical structure
`*****
`• A person of skill in the art “applying the exact design disclosed in Natarajan
`to an application exactly as described in Natarajan,” where most users are
`likely to be inactive most of the time, “would have conceived a system in
`“would have conceived a system in
`which ... the transmitter and the receiver of the base station ... operate in
`which ... the transmitter and the receiver of the base station ... operate in
`‘low duty cycle RF bursts’”
`‘low duty cycle RF bursts’
`
`-00060: Sur-Reply at 18
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 67 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`67
`
`
`
`’480 Patent (IPR2023-00060): Disputed Issues
`
`• Robertson is not analogous art
`• Robertson/Lloyd-Jones does not disclose or suggest the
`claimed “associating input” (limitations 3[b]/30[b])
`• Robertson/Lloyd-Jones does not disclose or suggest the
`claimed “prompt” to the “viewing user” (limitations
`1[g]/2[c]/3[c], 1[h]/2[d]/3[d]/30[d])
`• Petitioner fails to establish motivation to combine
`• Petitioner fails to establish reasonable expectation of success
`• Petitioner’s analysis of the dependent claims fails
`
`-00060: Resp. at 24-30; Sur-Reply at 18-21
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 68 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`68
`
`
`
`’480: Petitioner Fails to Establish Motivation to Combine
`
`“[O]bviousness requires the additional showing that a
`person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention
`would have selected and combined those prior art
`elements in the normal course of research and
`development to yield the claimed invention.”
`
`Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 655 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (emphasis added)
`
`-00060: Resp. st 24
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 69 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`69
`
`
`
`’480: Petitioner Fails to Establish Motivation to Combine
`
`Petitioner’s analysis fails for many reasons, including:
`1. Petitioner’s analysis fails to focus on the claimed
`invention
`2. Petitioner fails to establish why a POSA would
`start with Robertson
`*****
`3. Petitioner fails to establish why a POSA would
`combine Lloyd-Jones with Robertson
`
`-00060: Resp. at 24-30; Sur-Reply ay 18-21
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 70 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`70
`
`
`
`’480: Petitioner Fails to Establish Motivation to Yield the Claimed Invention
`
`Petition
`
`-00060: Resp. at 24-30; Sur-Reply at 18-21
`
`
`
`
`
`***************
`
`-00060: Pet. at 24
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 71 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`71
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`
`
`’480: Petitioner Fails to Establish Motivation to Yield the Claimed Invention
`
`“The inquiry is not whether a relevant artisan would
`combine a first reference’s feature with a second
`reference’s feature to meet requirements of the first
`reference that are not requirements of the claims at
`issue.”
`
`Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 73 F.4th 950, 957 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (emphasis added)
`
`-00060: Resp. at 25-26; Sur-Reply at 19-20
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 72 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`72
`
`
`
`’480: Petitioner Fails to Establish Why a POSITA Would Start with Robertson
`
`Personal Web Techs. v. Apple: It is not enough to show that a POSITA, once presented with two
`references, would have understood they could be combined
`
`
`
`***************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
`
`-00060: Resp. at 27-29; Sur-Reply at 19-20
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 73 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`73
`
`
`
`’480: Petitioner Fails to Establish Why a POSITA Would Start with Robertson
`
`“The real question is whether that skilled artisan would have plucked one
`reference out of the sea of prior art (Phipps) and combined it with
`conventional coolant elements to address some need present in the field
`(the need for low–carbon monoxide emission marine gen-sets).”
`WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., 829 F.3d 1317, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (emphasis added)
`
`-00060: Resp. at 27-29; Sur-Reply at 18-21
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 74 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00057
`
`74
`
`
`
`’480: Petitioner’s Motivation to Combine Arguments Are Conclusory and Unsupported
`
`Petition
`
`-00060: Resp. at 25-30
`
`
`
`****************************