Demonstratives of Patent Owner
`Angel Technologies Group LLC
`
`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 IPR2023-00058
`
`1
`
`
`Angel Technologies Group LLC
`
`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 IPR2023-00058
`
`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)
`
`
`
`-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 IPR2023-00058
`
`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 IPR2023-00058
`
`3
`
`
`
`• 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 IPR2023-00058
`
`4
`
`
`
`’480: Robertson Must be Analogous Art for Petitioner’s Single Ground to Succeed
`
`invention.
`
`analogous art to the claimed
`
`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 IPR2023-00058
`
`5
`
`
`
`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)
`
`-00060: Sur-Reply at 3
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 6 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00058
`
`6
`
`
`
`’480: Robertson Is Not Analogous Art
`
`-00060: Resp. at 10; Sur-Reply at 3
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 7 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00058
`
`7
`
`
`
`-00060: Resp. at 3, 13; Sur-Reply at 4
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 8 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00058
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`*******************************************************
`
`-00060: Resp. at 4, 13; Sur-Reply at 4-5
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 9 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00058
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`***********
`
`-00060: Ex. 1001 at Fig. 4
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 10 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00058
`
`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: Ex. 1003 at ¶ 45
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 11 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00058
`
`11
`
`
`
`’480: Petitioner’s Shifting Positions Fail to Account for the Invention
`
`Reply
`
`Dr. Bederson
`Reply
`
`-00060: Sur-Reply at 5-6
`
`
`
`**********
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`-00060: Ex. 1039 at ¶ 23
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 12 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00058
`
`12
`
`
`
`’480: Petitioner’s Shifting Positions Fail to Account for the Invention
`
`
`
`*******************
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 13 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00058
`
`13
`
`-00060: Sur-Reply at 5-6
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`
`
`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 IPR2023-00058
`
`14
`
`
`
`’480: The Field of Endeavor Is Not “Networked and Web-based Media Applications”
`
`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 IPR2023-00058
`
`15
`
`
`
`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 IPR2023-00058
`
`16
`
`
`
`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 IPR2023-00058
`
`17
`
`
`
`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 IPR2023-00058
`
`18
`
`
`
`Snap Field of Endeavor
`
`’480 Patent Disclosure
`
`In re Offenhartz
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 19 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00058
`
`19
`
`-00060: Sur-Reply at 8
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`
`
`“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 IPR2023-00058
`
`20
`
`
`
`’480: Robertson’s Field of Endeavor is Contact Management Systems
`
`-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 IPR2023-00058
`
`21
`
`
`
`’480: Robertson’s Embodiments are Contact Management Systems
`
`
`
`******************************************************
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 22 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00058
`
`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
`
`
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 23 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00058
`
`23
`
`
`
`’480: Robertson’s Embodiments are Text-Based GUIs
`
`
`
`**********
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 24 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00058
`
`24
`
`-00060: Resp. at 14; Sur-Reply at 7
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`
`
`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 IPR2023-00058
`
`25
`
`
`
`’480: Robertson Is Not in the Same Field of Endeavor
`
`Dr. Bederson
`Reply
`
`-00060: Sur-Reply at 7
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`-00060: Exhibit 1039 at ¶ 31
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 26 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00058
`
`26
`
`
`
`’480: Robertson Is Not in the Same Field of Endeavor
`
`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 IPR2023-00058
`
`27
`
`
`
`’480: No Credible Argument that Robertson Discloses or Suggests Images
`
`Dr. Bederson
`
`-00060: Resp. at 6; Sur-Reply at 9
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`-00060: Ex. 1003 at ¶ 69
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 28 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00058
`
`28
`
`
`
`*****
`
`*****
`
`
`
`*****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
`
`*****
`
`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 IPR2023-00058
`
`29
`
`
`
`’480: Reasonable Pertinence Requires that the Problems Must be 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 IPR2023-00058
`
`30
`
`
`
`’480: Reasonable Pertinence Requires that the Problems Must be Compared
`
`-00060: Resp. at 16; Sur-Reply at 10
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992)
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 31 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00058
`
`31
`
`
`
`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 IPR2023-00058
`
`32
`
`
`
`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 IPR2023-00058
`
`33
`
`
`
`-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 IPR2023-00058
`
`3434
`
`-00060: Sur-Reply at 11-12
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`
`
`’480: Petitioner Improperly Conflates the ’480 Problem with the Solution
`
`v
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 35 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00058
`
`35
`
`-00060: Sur-Reply at 11
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`
`
`’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 IPR2023-00058
`
`36
`
`
`
`’480: Robertson Is Directed to an Entirely Different Problem
`
`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 IPR2023-00058
`
`37
`
`
`
`• 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 IPR2023-00058
`
`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: 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 IPR2023-00058
`
`39
`
`
`
`’480: Robertson Does Not Disclose Limitations 3[b]/30[b]
`
`-00060: Resp. at 17-19; Sur-Reply at 13-14
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 40 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00058
`
`40
`
`
`
`’480: Robertson Does Not Disclose Limitations 3[b]/30[b]
`
`-00060: Resp. at 17-19; Sur-Reply at 13-14
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 41 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00058
`
`41
`
`
`
`’480: Robertson 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: 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 IPR2023-00058
`
`42
`
`
`
`’480: Robertson/Lloyd-Jones Does Not Disclose or Suggest Limitations 3[b]/30[b]
`
`-00060: Resp. at 17-19; Sur-Reply at 13-14
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 43 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00058
`
`43
`
`
`
`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 IPR2023-00058
`
`44
`
`
`
`’480: Lloyd-Jones Discloses Associating Metadata with Image, Not a “First User”
`
`-00060: Ex. 1013 at ¶ [0029]
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 45 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00058
`
`45
`
`-00060: Resp. at 7-8; Sur-Reply at 13-14
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`
`
`’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 IPR2023-00058
`
`46
`
`
`
`*****
`
`-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 IPR2023-00058
`
`
`
`
`
`’480: The Combination Does Not Disclose or Suggest Limitations 3[b]/30[b]
`
`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 IPR2023-00058
`
`48
`
`
`
`• 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 IPR2023-00058
`
`49
`
`
`
`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 IPR2023-00058
`
`50
`
`
`
`“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 IPR2023-00058
`
`51
`
`
`
`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 IPR2023-00058
`
`52
`
`-00060: Ex. 1001 at Claim 3 (annotated)00060 E 1001 Cl i 3 ( d)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“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 IPR2023-00058
`
`53
`
`
`
`Petition
`
`-00060: Sur-Reply at 16
`
`-00060: Pet. at 14-15
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 54 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00058
`
`54
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`
`
`’480: The Combination Does Not Disclose the Claimed “Prompt” or “Viewing User”
`
`
`
`*********************************************************************
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 55 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00058
`
`55
`
`-00060: Sur-Reply at 16
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`
`
`’480: The Combination Does Not Disclose the Claimed “Prompt” or “Viewing User”
`
`-00060: Sur-Reply at 16
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 56 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00058
`
`56
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`*******************************
`
`-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 IPR2023-00058
`
`57
`
`
`
`’480: Lloyd-Jones Does Not Disclose the Claimed “Prompt”
`
`-00060: Resp. at 21
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`-00060: Ex. 2021 at 49:11-50:5
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 58 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00058
`
`58
`
`
`
`’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 IPR2023-00058
`
`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 IPR2023-00058
`
`60
`
`-00060: Resp. at 19-23; Sur-Reply at 14-18
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`************************************
`
`
`
`****************
`
`-00060: Ex. 1012 at 11:14-20
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 61 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00058
`
`61
`
`-00060: Resp. at 22-23; Sur-Reply at 17
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`
`
`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 IPR2023-00058
`
`62
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`**********************************************************************
`
`-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 IPR2023-00058
`
`63
`
`
`
`’480: Petitioner Cannot Resort to “Creativity” or “Common Sense”
`
`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 IPR2023-00058
`
`64
`
`
`
`“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 IPR2023-00058
`
`65
`
`
`
`’480: Petitioner Cannot Resort to “Creativity” or “Common Sense”
`
`-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 IPR2023-00058
`
`66
`
`
`
`’480: Petitioner Cannot Resort to “Creativity” or “Common Sense”
`
`*****
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 67 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00058
`
`67
`
`-00060: Sur-Reply at 18
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`
`
`• 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 IPR2023-00058
`
`68
`
`
`
`’480: Petitioner Fails to Establish Motivation to Combine
`
`-00060: Resp. st 24
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 69 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00058
`
`69
`
`
`
`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 IPR2023-00058
`
`70
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`***************
`
`-00060: Resp. at 24-30; Sur-Reply at 18-21
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`-00060: Pet. at 24
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 71 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00058
`
`71
`
`
`
`’480: Petitioner Fails to Establish Motivation to Yield the Claimed Invention
`
`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 IPR2023-00058
`
`72
`
`
`
`
`
`***************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
`
`-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 IPR2023-00058
`
`73
`
`
`
`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 IPR2023-00058
`
`74
`
`
`
`
`
`*********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
`
`
`
`***********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
`
`
`
`*********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
`
`-00060: Resp. at 25-30
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`-00060: Pet. at 25-26
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 75 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00058
`
`75
`
`
`
`’480: Petitioner Fails to Establish Why a POSITA Would Combine These References
`
`-00060: Resp. at 27
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`In re Van Os, 844 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 76 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00058
`
`76
`
`
`
`’480: Conclusory Expert Testimony is Inadequate to Support Obviousness
`
`-00060: Resp. at 29; Sur-Reply at 20
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 77 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00058
`
`77
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`******************************************************
`
`-00060: Resp. at 31; Sur-Reply at 19
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 78 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00058
`
`78
`
`
`
`’480: Petitioner Fails to Establish Why a POSITA Would Combine These References
`
`KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007)
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 79 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00058
`
`79
`
`-00060: Sur-Reply at 1-2
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`
`
`• 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 30-33; Sur-Reply at 21-22
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 80 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00058
`
`80
`
`
`
`ActiveVideo v. Verizon: Must explain how references are combined and would operate
`
`
`
`
`
`******************************************************************************************
`
`• No explanation by Dr. Bederson of how Robertson
`and Lloyd-Jones could be combined or how any
`specific combination would operate or read on the
`asserted claims
`
`• Dr. Bederson does not explain how to combine the
`tagging functionality of Lloyd-Jones with
`Robertson’s system
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 81 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00058
`
`81
`
`-00060: Resp. at 31, 33; Sur-Reply at 19
`
`
`
`
`
`**********
`
`-00060: Resp. at 30-33; Sur-Reply at 21-22
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`-00060: Ex. 1003 at ¶ 144
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 82 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00058
`
`82
`
`
`
`-00060: Resp. at 30-33; Sur-Reply at 21-22
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`
`
`***************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 83 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00058
`
`83
`
`
`
`• 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 33-35; Sur-Reply at 22-24
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 84 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00058
`
`84
`
`
`
`’432 Patent (IPR2023-00057): Instituted Grounds
`
`Ground 1
`
`Ground 2
`
`Ground 3
`
`Ground 4
`
`Claims 1, 3 and 6-8 are obvious over Sharpe in view of knowledge of
`POSITA
`Claims 1-8 are obvious over Sharpe and Eintracht in view of
`knowledge of POSITA
`Claim 3 is obvious over Sharpe and Carey in view of knowledge of
`POSITA
`Claim 3 is obvious over Sharpe, Eintracht and Carey in view of
`knowledge of POSITA
`
`-00057: Instit. Dec. at 2, 7, 27
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 85 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00058
`
`85
`
`
`
`’291 Patent (IPR2023-00058): Instituted Grounds
`
`Ground 1
`
`Ground 2
`
`Ground 3
`
`Ground 4
`
`Claims 1, 5 and 10-26 are obvious over Sharpe in view of knowledge
`of POSITA
`Claims 1-26 are obvious over Sharpe and Eintracht in view of
`knowledge of POSITA
`Claims 18, 19 and 26 are obvious over Sharpe and Carey in view of
`knowledge of POSITA
`Claims 18, 19 and 26 are obvious over Sharpe, Eintracht and Carey
`in view of knowledge of POSITA
`
`-00058: Instit. Dec. at 2, 7, 26, 28
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 86 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00058
`
`86
`
`
`
`’275 Patent (IPR2023-00059): Instituted Grounds
`
`Ground 1
`
`Ground 2
`
`Claims 1, 5 and 1-26 are obvious over Sharpe, Eintracht and
`Fotofile in view of knowledge of POSITA
`Claims 1-26 are obvious over Sharpe, Eintracht, Fotofile and Carey
`in view of knowledge of POSITA
`
`-00059: Instit. Dec. at 2, 6, 28
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 87 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00058
`
`87
`
`
`
`• Sharpe does not disclose or suggest the claimed “pictured user unique
`identifier”/“unique user identifier” (’432/’291/’275)
`• Sharpe does not disclose or suggest the “second tagging user”
`limitations (’432)
`• Sharpe does not disclose or suggest the “said image data” limitation
`(’432)
`• Sharpe does not disclose or suggest a “list of pictured users” (’432)
`• Sharpe and Eintracht do not disclose or suggest the “coordinates”
`limitations (’432/’291/’275)
`
`-00057: Resp. at 18-23; Sur-Reply at 4-6, -00058: Resp. at 18-22; Sur-Reply at 4-6,
`-00059: Resp. at 22-26; Sur-Reply at 3-7
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 88 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00058
`
`88
`
`
`
`Claim 6
`
`
`
`-00057: Ex. 1001 at Claim 600 Cl i
`
`
`
`
`
`-00057: Resp. at 18-23; Sur-Reply at 4-6
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 89 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00058
`
`89
`
`
`
`Claim 26
`
`
`
`-00058: Ex. 1001 at Claim 2600 Cl i
`
`
`
`
`
`-00058: Resp. at 18-22; Sur-Reply at 4-6
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 90 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00058
`
`90
`
`
`
`Claim 1
`
`
`
`-00059: Ex. 1001 at Claim 100 Cl i
`
`
`
`
`
`-00059: Resp. at 22-26; Sur-Reply at 3-7
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEO S O
`
`
`
`Angel Tech Ex 2023, p. 91 of 124
`Meta v. Angel Tech IPR2023-00058
`
`91
`
`
`
`-00057: Resp. at 18-19; Sur-Reply at 6, -00058: Resp. a
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
