Filed on behalf of: Meta Platforms, Inc.
`
`Filed: November 17, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`META PLATFORMS, INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ANGEL TECHNOLOGIES GROUP LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`__________________
`Case No. IPR2023-00057
`U.S. Patent No. 8,954,432
`__________________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. BENJAMIN B. BEDERSON
` IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00057
`Exhibit 1039 - cover
`
`
`
`Filed: November 17, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`META PLATFORMS, INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ANGEL TECHNOLOGIES GROUP LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`__________________
`Case No. IPR2023-00057
`U.S. Patent No. 8,954,432
`__________________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. BENJAMIN B. BEDERSON
` IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00057
`Exhibit 1039 - cover
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 1
`
`GROUND 1: SHARPE ALONE OR IN VIEW OF THE
`KNOWLEDGE OF A POSA RENDERS OBVIOUS CLAIMS 1, 3,
`6-8 .......................................................................................................... 3
`
`Sharpe Alone or in View of the Knowledge of a POSA Teaches
`the “User Unique Identifier” (6[e], 7[a]) ............................................... 3
`
`Sharpe Alone or in View of the Knowledge of a POSA Teaches
`Requests for Image Data (8[a], 1[d], 1[e], 1[h], 1[i]) ........................... 5
`
`Sharpe Alone or in View of the Knowledge of a POSA Teaches
`a “List of Pictured Users” (8[b], 1[m]) ............................................... 11
`
`III.
`
`GROUND 2: SHARPE IN VIEW OF EINTRACHT RENDERS
`OBVIOUS CLAIMS 1-8 ..................................................................... 18
`
`A. A POSA Would Have Been Motivated to Combine Sharpe
`With Eintracht ..................................................................................... 18
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Sharpe in View of Eintracht Teaches Requests for Image Data
`Under PO’s Interpretation (8[a], 1[d], 1[e], 1[h], 1[i]) ....................... 19
`
`Sharpe in View of Eintracht Teaches “Coordinates” (Claims 2,
`4) .......................................................................................................... 20
`
`Sharpe in View of Eintracht Teaches the Claimed Email
`Notification (Claim 5) ......................................................................... 25
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION .................................................................................. 26
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00057
`Exhibit 1039 - i of 26
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00057 (USP 8,954,432)
`
`
`
`
`
` Decl. ISO Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`I, Dr. Benjamin B. Bederson, do hereby declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I am making this declaration at the request of Meta Platforms, Inc.
`
`(“Petitioner”) in IPR2023-00057, the Inter Partes Review of claims 1-8 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,954,432 (“the ’432 patent”). I am also making separate declarations at
`
`the request of Petitioner in IPR2023-00058, the Inter Partes Review of claims 1-26
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,291 (“the ’291 patent”); IPR2023-00059, the Inter Partes
`
`Review of claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 10,417,275 (“the ’275 patent”); and
`
`IPR2023-00060, the Inter Partes Review of claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 10,628,480 (“the ’480 patent”).
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated for my work in this matter at my standard
`
`hourly rate. I am also being reimbursed for reasonable and customary expenses
`
`associated with my work and testimony. My compensation is not contingent on the
`
`outcome of this matter or the specifics of my testimony.
`
`3.
`
`I previously submitted a declaration in this proceeding as Exhibit 1003,
`
`which I will refer to as my original declaration (“Bederson Decl.”). My original
`
`declaration set forth my background, credentials, and curriculum vitae.
`
`4.
`
`I submit this declaration in reply to arguments advanced by Patent
`
`Owner Angel Technologies Group LLC (“Patent Owner”) in its Patent Owner
`
`Response (“POR”) and in the Declaration of Dr. Eli Saber in Support of Patent
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00057
`Exhibit 1039 - Page 1 of 26
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00057 (USP 8,954,432)
`
`
`
` Decl. ISO Petitioner’s Reply
`
`Owner Response (“Saber Decl.”), submitted in this proceeding as Paper 24 and
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2021, respectively.
`
`5.
`
`In addition to the materials I reviewed in preparing my original
`
`declaration and the materials cited in this supplemental declaration, I have also
`
`reviewed the following in preparing this supplemental declaration:
`
`a. Paper 24, Patent Owner Response in IPR2023-00057,
`
`b. Paper 24, Patent Owner Response in IPR2023-00058,
`
`c. Paper 25, Patent Owner Response in IPR2023-00059,
`
`d. Paper 24, Patent Owner Response in IPR2023-00060,
`
`e. Ex. 2021, Declaration of Dr. Eli Saber in IPR2023-00057,
`
`f. Ex. 2021, Declaration of Dr. Eli Saber in IPR2023-00058,
`
`g. Ex. 2021, Declaration of Dr. Eli Saber in IPR2023-00059,
`
`h. Ex. 2022, Declaration of Dr. Eli Saber in IPR2023-00060,
`
`i. Ex. 2019, Transcript of July 20, 2023 Deposition of Dr. Benjamin B.
`
`Bederson in IPR2023-00057, -00058, and -00059,
`
`j. Ex. 2021, Transcript of July 21, 2023 Deposition of Dr. Benjamin B.
`
`Bederson in IPR2023-00060,
`
`k. Ex. 1040, Transcript of October 20, 2023 Deposition of Dr. Eli Saber,
`
`and
`
`l. Ex. 1041, Transcript of October 23, 2023 Deposition of Dr. Eli Saber.
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00057
`Exhibit 1039 - Page 2 of 26
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00057 (USP 8,954,432)
`
`
`
` Decl. ISO Petitioner’s Reply
`
`II. GROUND 1: SHARPE ALONE OR IN VIEW OF THE KNOWLEDGE
`OF A POSA RENDERS OBVIOUS CLAIMS 1, 3, 6-8
`
`
`
`6.
`
`In my original declaration, I explained why claims 1, 3, and 6-8 of the
`
`’432 patent would have been obvious over Sharpe alone or in view of the knowledge
`
`of a POSA. I understand from counsel that Patent Owner and Dr. Saber disagreed
`
`with some of my conclusions. Counsel has asked me to address some of those
`
`disagreements, and I do so in the following paragraphs.
`
`A.
`
`Sharpe Alone or in View of the Knowledge of a POSA Teaches the
`“User Unique Identifier” (6[e], 7[a])
`
`7.
`
`As I explained in my original declaration, “a POSA would have
`
`understood that Sharpe’s username would be a primary key suitable to distinctly
`
`specify a relationship between a particular user and a particular image” in Sharpe’s
`
`database system. E.g., Bederson Decl. ¶ 307. While a POSA would have understood
`
`that there are other available design options, a username would have been an obvious
`
`design choice in view of Sharpe’s disclosure and a POSA’s knowledge that
`
`“[u]sernames are often used as primary keys in database schemas.” See id.
`
`8.
`
`Patent Owner and Dr. Saber misunderstand my analysis when they
`
`conclude that my opinion is that “Sharpe’s system must use the user name … as a
`
`unique identifier or ‘primary key.’” E.g., Saber Decl. ¶ 80.1 That is not my opinion.
`
`
`1 All emphasis added unless otherwise indicated.
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00057
`Exhibit 1039 - Page 3 of 26
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00057 (USP 8,954,432)
`
`
`
` Decl. ISO Petitioner’s Reply
`
`As I explained in my original declaration, a POSA would have understood that “a
`
`
`
`username is one such unique identifier,” and “the most obvious design choice for
`
`the Sharpe system given that each user already required a username to log on to the
`
`system.” Bederson Decl. ¶ 307.
`
`9.
`
`Indeed, Patent Owner and Dr. Saber appear to agree with my opinion
`
`that a POSA would have recognized that Sharpe’s username is one option to
`
`implement a primary key in Sharpe’s system. For example, Dr. Saber does not
`
`appear to dispute that the username can be a primary key, and instead argues that the
`
`username “does not need to be” the primary key, and that “another possible way” to
`
`implement Sharpe’s system is to assign an internal unique identifier to a user. Saber
`
`Decl. ¶¶ 80-82.
`
`10. To the extent that Patent Owner and Dr. Saber dispute that a username
`
`can be used as a primary key in Sharpe’s system, it was known in the art to utilize
`
`usernames as primary keys in database schemas, as I explained in my original
`
`declaration. Bederson Decl. ¶ 307. For example, a 1996 paper2 describes a language
`
`and system for constructing web-based views of the contents of a database. Ex. 1042
`
`at 2. In describing the relationships in the database, the paper explains that they
`
`
`2 Gilles Falquet, et al., Generating Hypertext Views on Databases, ACTES DU
`
`XIVÈME CONGRÈS INFORSID 269, 269-84 (1996) (Ex. 1042).
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00057
`Exhibit 1039 - Page 4 of 26
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00057 (USP 8,954,432)
`
`
`
` Decl. ISO Petitioner’s Reply
`
`“usually possess a primary key which is composed of one or more attributes the
`
`
`
`values of which uniquely identify each tuple of the relation.” Id. at 4. The paper
`
`then provides the username as an example of a suitable primary key, explaining that
`
`“the attribute username is a primary key … since all users must have a different user
`
`name.” Id. This paper provides further confirmation that the username would have
`
`been an immediate and obvious user unique identifier to a POSA reviewing Sharpe’s
`
`disclosure.
`
`B.
`
`Sharpe Alone or in View of the Knowledge of a POSA Teaches
`Requests for Image Data (8[a], 1[d], 1[e], 1[h], 1[i])
`
`11. As I explained in my original declaration, a POSA would have
`
`recognized that Sharpe’s image retrieval process includes a user request for image
`
`data “in order to load [the images] into the work space so that the user may associate
`
`information with the images.” See, e.g., Bederson Decl. ¶ 192. Importantly, “a
`
`POSA would have understood that the requested images would include those images
`
`uploaded by members of the group”—that is, “said image data.” Id.
`
`12. Patent Owner and Dr. Saber argue that “Sharpe’s retrieval process does
`
`not disclose the user requesting ‘said image data’ as claimed” because “Sharpe’s
`
`retrieval process finds any and all images matching the parameters inputted by the
`
`user.” E.g., Saber Decl. ¶ 89. According to Patent Owner and Dr. Saber, “Sharpe
`
`does not disclose a request for ‘said image data’ at all, because Sharpe’s user is not
`
`selecting a particular image.” E.g., id. ¶ 92. That is, because “multiple images may
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00057
`Exhibit 1039 - Page 5 of 26
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00057 (USP 8,954,432)
`
`
`
` Decl. ISO Petitioner’s Reply
`
`turn up,” Sharpe “isn’t selecting or requesting a specific digital media item.” Id.
`
`
`
`(emphasis original).
`
`13.
`
`In my opinion, Patent Owner and Dr. Saber misinterpret the claim
`
`language. The claims do not require that the request is exclusively for, or otherwise
`
`limited to, a single, specific image referenced earlier in the claim. Certainly, “a
`
`request for said image data” requires that the request include the image data that was
`
`recited earlier in the claim. But that “image data” is not limited to a single image,
`
`and even if it were, the claims do not exclude the possibility of retrieving other
`
`images in addition to the previously recited image data.
`
`14. To start, a POSA would understand that the recited “image data” can
`
`include one or more images. The term “data” itself is a plural noun, and the term
`
`“image data” can include the information required to describe a single image or
`
`multiple images. The ’432 patent confirms the POSA’s understanding when it states
`
`that the “[i]mages database 250 receives and stores information about photos (e.g.,
`
`image data) uploaded or otherwise made accessible to the network by users.” ’432
`
`patent at 7:8-10. That is, “image data” can include multiple photos.
`
`15. The surrounding claim
`
`language also confirms
`
`the POSA’s
`
`understanding. For example, claims 1 and 6 each recite “obtaining image data from
`
`at least one uploading user,” which contemplates that the “image data” may be
`
`uploaded by multiple users. ’432 patent at 16:32-33, 18:7-9. If image data were
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00057
`Exhibit 1039 - Page 6 of 26
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00057 (USP 8,954,432)
`
`
`
` Decl. ISO Petitioner’s Reply
`
`limited to a single image, it is unclear how multiple users could upload that single
`
`
`
`image. The claims further recite that “a” unique image identifier is assigned to the
`
`image data, but I am informed by counsel that, as a matter of patent law, “a” can
`
`mean “one or more.” Accordingly, a POSA would understand that if “image data”
`
`includes one or more images, then one or more unique image identifiers would be
`
`assigned to the one or more images in the image data.
`
`16. The POSA’s understanding of the claims is further confirmed by the
`
`specification’s description of an embodiment that retrieves multiple images with
`
`varying numbers of tagged individuals. See ’432 patent at 15:46-16:4, Fig. 10.
`
`Figure 10 is “a flow chart describing the process for generating a set of search results
`
`in response to a request.” Id. at 15:46-47. At step 1000 of Figure 10, the “client
`
`sends a request for images (or a list of images) wherein a specified user, or several
`
`users, have been identified.” Id. at 15:49-51. Thus, a request may include multiple
`
`images, and may also specify multiple users. Indeed, the ’432 patent elaborates that
`
`“[w]hen the request is sent, if more than one user is selected, the resulting page may
`
`list only images of the selected users together or, alternatively, any image containing
`
`one of the selected users.” Id. at 15:65-16:1. In this way, the ’432 patent confirms
`
`that—just as in Sharpe—a user may search for several tagged users simultaneously,
`
`and the results of the user’s request may include multiple images with varying
`
`numbers of tagged users. Patent Owner and Dr. Saber’s interpretation—which
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00057
`Exhibit 1039 - Page 7 of 26
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00057 (USP 8,954,432)
`
`
`
` Decl. ISO Petitioner’s Reply
`
`limits the recited request to a single, specific image—would exclude this
`
`
`
`embodiment.
`
`17. Even if “said image data” were limited to a single, specific image, as
`
`Patent Owner and Dr. Saber contend, Sharpe still teaches that. As an initial matter,
`
`the claims of the ’432 patent are “comprising” claims. See, e.g., ’432 patent at
`
`16:25-27 (“In a multi-user computer network, a method … comprising:”). I
`
`understand from counsel that “comprising” claims are open-ended and do not
`
`preclude doing additional things beyond what is recited. Thus, a POSA would
`
`understand that the claims of the ’432 patent do not preclude requesting additional
`
`images beyond the “said image data” recited, even under Patent Owner and Dr.
`
`Saber’s narrow interpretation.
`
`18. Sharpe, furthermore, also teaches a request for a single, specific image.
`
`Sharpe explains that the user can use multiple parameters to narrowly focus a search
`
`to “reveal[] a smaller number of items.” Ex. 1005 at 3:29-44. Sharpe further
`
`explains that its system can be used to retrieve a “specific photograph” by “searching
`
`on the event or the person.” Id. at 2:21-24. Thus, a POSA would understand that
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00057
`Exhibit 1039 - Page 8 of 26
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00057 (USP 8,954,432)
`
`
`
` Decl. ISO Petitioner’s Reply
`
`Sharpe teaches a request for a single, specific image via its narrowly focused search
`
`
`
`that returns a single result.3
`
`19. Patent Owner and Dr. Saber also dispute that Sharpe teaches a request
`
`to identify users that includes an image identification. E.g., Saber Decl. ¶ 100. In
`
`particular, they contend that a request to retrieve a trail is not a “request to identify
`
`users.” Id. They do not explain their reasoning, but in any event their conclusion is
`
`incorrect.
`
`20. As I explained in my original declaration, Sharpe’s trail request is a
`
`request to identify users that includes an image identifier. Bederson Decl. ¶¶ 194-
`
`95. Sharpe’s trail request is a “request to identify users” because the user can
`
`continue to tag additional individuals after retrieving the photos of a trail. Sharpe
`
`uses the same UI (Figure 4) for both retrieval and archival. See, e.g., Bederson Decl.
`
`¶¶ 185-95, 334-45. A user of Sharpe’s system first retrieves images into the work
`
`space 51 of Figure 4 in order to tag and archive those images. Id. ¶¶ 188-92. Sharpe
`
`explains that trail items are identified and displayed as part of Sharpe’s retrieval
`
`process. Ex. 1005 at 9:20-27, Fig. 7 (steps 93-94). Sharpe’s system can display trail
`
`items automatically, or the user can be notified through the user interface that a trail
`
`
`3 Eintracht also teaches a request for a single, specific image, as I discuss below for
`
`Ground 2. Infra ¶¶ 35-36.
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00057
`Exhibit 1039 - Page 9 of 26
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00057 (USP 8,954,432)
`
`
`
` Decl. ISO Petitioner’s Reply
`
`is available for further display. Id. Once presented in the work space 51 of Figure 4,
`
`
`
`the user can further annotate the trail items, just as the user can for non-trail items.
`
`See Bederson Decl. ¶¶ 202-05 (describing annotation of retrieved images using
`
`controls of Figure 4). Such functionality is consistent with Sharpe’s teachings that
`
`“members of the private group work together” to identify individuals in stored
`
`images, and that “the archive can gradually be built up over time” through repeated
`
`tagging activities. Ex. 1005 at 5:4-18, 8:37-41. Thus, a POSA would have
`
`understood that, following the retrieval of a trail, the photos of a trail are available
`
`for additional tagging (e.g., identification of users) using the archival controls of
`
`Figure 4.
`
`21. Patent Owner and Dr. Saber further dispute that Sharpe teaches a
`
`request that includes a username. E.g., Saber Decl. ¶ 101. In particular, they contend
`
`that Sharpe’s drop-down box 55 in Figure 4 includes personal names, not usernames.
`
`Id. They do not explain how the use of personal names in Sharpe’s user interface
`
`precludes the use of usernames in Sharpe’s request, but regardless, I disagree with
`
`their conclusion.
`
`22. As I explained in my original declaration, a POSA would have
`
`understood that Sharpe’s request includes a username to identify the requesting user
`
`and retrieve images corresponding to the user’s group. E.g., Bederson Decl. ¶ 193.
`
`Patent Owner and Dr. Saber do not address my analysis directly, but they appear to
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00057
`Exhibit 1039 - Page 10 of 26
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00057 (USP 8,954,432)
`
`
`
` Decl. ISO Petitioner’s Reply
`
`be improperly importing limitations into the claims. Claim limitation 1[d] only
`
`
`
`requires that the request include the user identification of the first tagging user. ’432
`
`patent at 16:38-41. Claim limitation 1[d] does not include any requirements for the
`
`user interface used to form the request. In any event, it was well within a POSA’s
`
`skill to implement a user interface that displays personal names (which may be more
`
`recognizable, but may not be unique) while forming a request that utilizes the
`
`corresponding username (which is unique).
`
`C.
`
`Sharpe Alone or in View of the Knowledge of a POSA Teaches a
`“List of Pictured Users” (8[b], 1[m])
`
`23. As explained in my original declaration, Sharpe alone or in view of the
`
`knowledge of a POSA teaches the claimed “list of pictured users” through Sharpe’s
`
`drop down box 55 in Figure 4. E.g., Bederson Decl. ¶¶ 241-48. In particular, a
`
`POSA would have understood that Sharpe’s drop down box 55 would be updated to
`
`reflect the current set of users identified in the current set of retrieved images
`
`throughout Sharpe’s repeated retrieval process. Id.
`
`24. Patent Owner and Dr. Saber contend that Sharpe’s drop down box 55
`
`must always be the same, regardless of what images are currently displayed in the
`
`work space 51 of Figure 4. See, e.g., Saber Decl. ¶ 94 (“[T]he group members shown
`
`in the drop down list would be the same regardless of what media item is being
`
`shown.”). Patent Owner and Dr. Saber insist that the “drop down list is not a list of
`
`people pictured in the image; rather, it is a list of people in the group.” E.g., id.
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00057
`Exhibit 1039 - Page 11 of 26
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00057 (USP 8,954,432)
`
`
`
` Decl. ISO Petitioner’s Reply
`
`They offer no explanation or evidence as to why Sharpe’s drop down list cannot
`
`
`
`serve both purposes of (1) identifying all individuals of the group, and (2) identifying
`
`the subset of individuals pictured in the currently selected images. See id.
`
`25.
`
`In my opinion, Patent Owner and Dr. Saber fail to properly consider the
`
`knowledge of a POSA. As I previously testified, Sharpe’s figures, including
`
`Figure 4, are simplified illustrations that do not comprehensively disclose all the user
`
`interface capabilities of Sharpe’s system, much less all the user interface design
`
`options available to a POSA implementing Sharpe’s system. Ex. 2019 at 44:14-
`
`45:13. For example, Sharpe explains that Figure 4 omits a second date entry field
`
`“to allow the entry of both the start and end dates of a time period” for a retrieval.
`
`Ex. 1005 at 7:3-6. Sharpe also omits a “medium type” retrieval parameter from
`
`Figure 4, and “[a]ny suitable means can be used.” Id. at 9:4-10.
`
`26. A POSA, furthermore, would have been aware of multiple user
`
`interface paradigms to implement this functionality. User interface elements that
`
`displayed a full set of options (e.g., all users in a group) along with a selected subset
`
`of options (e.g., tagged users from that group) were known in the art. For example,
`
`by the early 1990s, Apple systems included drop-down menus that would place a
`
`check mark next to menu items that were currently selected, as illustrated below.
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00057
`Exhibit 1039 - Page 12 of 26
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00057 (USP 8,954,432)
`
`
`
`
`
` Decl. ISO Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1043 at 79; see also id. at 81 (similar menu).4 In the above example, which
`
`originates from a Mac OS text editor application, the menus list all formatting
`
`options available for text. The check marks indicate the formatting applied to the
`
`currently selected text. (Based on the check marks, the current text is aligned left,
`
`single spaced, and plain.) If the user were to change the properties or select a
`
`different section of text, the check marks would change to reflect the current
`
`properties.
`
`27. Using a Mac OS 8.1 emulator, I confirmed that a Mac OS text editor
`
`application would dynamically update the checkmarks in the menu based on the
`
`currently selected text. For example, if the selected text is bolded, then the menu
`
`includes a check mark next to the “Bold” property:
`
`
`4 APPLE COMPUTER, INC., MACINTOSH HUMAN INTERFACE GUIDELINES (1992)
`
`(Ex. 1043).
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00057
`Exhibit 1039 - Page 13 of 26
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00057 (USP 8,954,432)
`
`
`
`
`
` Decl. ISO Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`But if the selected text is both bolded and italicized, then the menu includes a check
`
`mark next to both the “Bold” and “Italic” properties:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00057
`Exhibit 1039 - Page 14 of 26
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00057 (USP 8,954,432)
`
`
`
` Decl. ISO Petitioner’s Reply
`
`In this way, the Mac OS menu system demonstrates a POSA’s understanding of that
`
`
`
`the same UI element can indicate both a full set of options (e.g., all text formatting
`
`options) along with a selected subset of selected options (e.g., the currently applied
`
`formatting).
`
`28. By 1988, Microsoft’s Presentation Manager5 application had a similar
`
`user interface for identifying the currently selected viewing properties. Based on the
`
`placement of the check marks, file names are listed, and the items are sorted by file
`
`name. Other, unselected options include displaying file details and icons, and
`
`sorting by file type:
`
`
`5 Brad A. Myers, “All the Widgets,” Technical Video Program of the SIGCHI’90
`
`Conference, Seattle, WA, April 1-4, 1990. SIGGRAPH Video Review, Issue 57,
`
`available at https://vimeo.com/61556918 (Microsoft Presentation Manager begins
`
`at 30:41, and the “View” menu is presented at 31:36).
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00057
`Exhibit 1039 - Page 15 of 26
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00057 (USP 8,954,432)
`
`
`
`
`
` Decl. ISO Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`
`
`29. Other user interface design options, including property sheets, were
`
`known to a POSA at the time of the purported invention of the ’432 patent. Property
`
`sheets would list all available properties while using shading or other indications to
`
`dynamically reflect the properties of a current selection in another portion of the user
`
`interface. Property sheets were available in the Xerox Star system at least by 1990.6
`
`The following image illustrates a property sheet from the Xerox Star system. The
`
`shaded portions of the property sheet reflect the properties of the currently selected
`
`text in the corresponding document:
`
`
`6 See “All the Widgets,” supra, at 1:22:33.
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00057
`Exhibit 1039 - Page 16 of 26
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00057 (USP 8,954,432)
`
`
`
`
`
` Decl. ISO Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`
`
`30. Thus, showing a list of pictured users using Sharpe’s drop-down box 55
`
`would have been a simple matter of design choice to a POSA implementing Sharpe’s
`
`system. A POSA would have known of the menus with check marks included in
`
`prior art Apple and Microsoft systems, and could have implemented that design
`
`option by placing check marks in Sharpe’s drop-down box 55 to reflect the
`
`individuals in the currently displayed images in Sharpe’s work space 51. Or, a
`
`POSA could have implemented Sharpe’s drop-down box 55 using the principles of
`
`property sheets from the Xerox prior art system, using shading to indicate the
`
`individuals identified in the currently displayed images in Sharpe’s work space 51.
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00057
`Exhibit 1039 - Page 17 of 26
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00057 (USP 8,954,432)
`
`
`
`
`
` Decl. ISO Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`III. GROUND 2: SHARPE IN VIEW OF EINTRACHT RENDERS
`OBVIOUS CLAIMS 1-8
`
`31.
`
`In my original declaration, I explained why claims 1-8 of the
`
`’432 patent would also have been obvious over Sharpe in view of Eintracht. I
`
`understand from counsel that Patent Owner and Dr. Saber disagreed with some of
`
`my conclusions. Counsel has asked me to address some of those disagreements, and
`
`I do so in the following paragraphs.
`
`A. A POSA Would Have Been Motivated to Combine Sharpe With
`Eintracht
`
`32. As I previously explained, a POSA would have been motivated to
`
`combine the teachings of Sharpe and Eintracht with a strong expectation of success.
`
`Bederson Decl. ¶¶ 143-49. Patent Owner and Dr. Saber assert that Sharpe and
`
`Eintracht are “fundamentally different systems with different goals.” E.g., Saber
`
`Decl. ¶¶ 108-10. For example, Dr. Saber opines that “Eintracht is not related to
`
`archival and retrieving of digital media items, nor is Sharpe related to collaborative
`
`document annotation.” Id. ¶ 110. I disagree.
`
`33. A POSA would have recognized that Sharpe and Eintracht disclose
`
`overlapping systems and goals. Eintracht’s collaborative system operates on “a
`
`variety of document types,” including digital media items—indeed, the primary
`
`example in the specification is the annotation of an image. See, e.g., Ex. 1006 at
`
`6:55-7:23, Figs. 1A, 1B, 1C, 2. Sharpe similarly contemplates collaborative work
`
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00057
`Exhibit 1039 - Page 18 of 26
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00057 (USP 8,954,432)
`
`
`
` Decl. ISO Petitioner’s Reply
`
`with documents and images, including the application of its system in a business
`
`
`
`context—with archival and retrieval of “digital media items” relating to a meeting,
`
`such as e-mails, letters, and presentations. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 at 3:45-56. Thus,
`
`Sharpe and Eintracht overlap because they both expressly contemplate collaborative
`
`work involving the annotation of digital media items.
`
`34. And, as I explained in my declaration, both Sharpe and Eintracht are
`
`also structurally similar, web-based, multi-user collaborative systems implemented
`
`on a server and accessible via the Internet. Bederson Decl. ¶¶ 148-49. Patent Owner
`
`and Dr. Saber do not acknowledge, much less dispute, my analysis regarding the
`
`structural similarity of Sharpe and Eintracht.
`
`B. Sharpe in View of Eintracht Teaches Requests for Image Data Under
`PO’s Interpretation (8[a], 1[d], 1[e], 1[h], 1[i])
`
`35. As noted above, Patent Owner and Dr. Saber argue that a request for
`
`“said image data” is exclusively for, or otherwise limited to, a request for a single,
`
`specific image. Supra ¶¶ 11-22. For all the reasons discussed above, I disagree. Id.
`
`And, as discussed above, Sharpe alone or in view of the knowledge of a POSA
`
`teaches the claimed request under their improper interpretation. Id. I add here that
`
`Sharpe in view of Eintracht also teaches the claimed request under the improper
`
`interpretation of Patent Owner and Dr. Saber.
`
`36. Like Sharpe, Eintracht similarly discloses a request for a single, specific
`
`image. For example, Eintracht discloses an “annotation session,” illustrated in
`
`
`
`- 19 -
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00057
`Exhibit 1039 - Page 19 of 26
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00057 (USP 8,954,432)
`
`
`
` Decl. ISO Petitioner’s Reply
`
`Figure 6, in which “[t]he client first issues a request to the server to view a particular
`
`
`
`document by selecting its corresponding document URL.” Ex. 1006 at 13:41-43,
`
`Fig. 6 (step 110). “[T]he server then responds by sending the document data, i.e.,
`
`image data in this example, to the client.” Id. at 13:56-58, Fig. 6 (step 118). Thus,
`
`a POSA would understand that Eintracht also teaches a request for a single, specific
`
`image as part of its annotation session.
`
`C. Sharpe in View of Eintracht Teaches “Coordinates” (Claims 2, 4)
`
`37. As I explained in my original declaration, Sharpe in view of Eintracht
`
`discloses the claimed “coordinates” of dependent claims 2 and 4. Bederson Decl.
`
`¶¶ 255-58, 268-69. Indeed, Eintracht expressly discloses an annotation located at
`
`specific (X, Y) coordinates, and the Applicant acknowledged that fact during
`
`prosecution of the ’432 patent. Id. ¶¶ 256-57.
`
`38. Patent Owner and Dr. Saber nevertheless dispute that Sharpe in view of
`
`Eintracht discloses the claimed “coordinates.” E.g., Saber Decl. ¶¶ 111-18. For
`
`example, Dr. Saber admits that Sharpe “discloses people depicted in images,” yet
`
`opines that a POSA would not have made the combination because “Eintracht does
`
`not disclose people depicted in images.” Id. ¶ 116-17. Dr. Saber explains that
`
`“Petitioner has proposed a primary reference (Sharpe) that discloses people, and a
`
`secondary reference (Eintracht) that discloses coordinates in an entirely different
`
`context.” Id. ¶ 117.
`
`
`
`- 20 -
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00057
`Exhibit 1039 - Page 20 of 26
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00057 (USP 8,954,432)
`
`
`
`
`
` Decl. ISO Petitioner’s Reply
`
`I disagree with Patent Owner and Dr. Saber’s analysis. They
`
`39.
`
`improperly view the teachings of Sharpe and Eintracht in i
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
