Filed on behalf of: Meta Platforms, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`Entered: March 7, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`META PLATFORMS, INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ANGEL TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`__________________
`Case No. IPR2023-00058
`U.S. Patent No. 9,959,291
`__________________
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Entered: March 7, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`META PLATFORMS, INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ANGEL TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`__________________
`Case No. IPR2023-00058
`U.S. Patent No. 9,959,291
`__________________
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00058 (USP 9,959,291)
`
`
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s Reply to POPR
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`PATENT OWNER FAILS TO ANTEDATE SHARPE ................................. 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PO Fails to Show an Earlier Conception of the Claimed
`Invention ................................................................................................ 2
`
`PO Fails to Show an Earlier Reduction to Practice .............................. 5
`
`PO Fails to Show Diligence to a Subsequent Reduction to
`Practice .................................................................................................. 5
`
`PO Provides No Evidence for Claims 2-26........................................... 7
`
`II.
`
`PATENT OWNER’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ARGUMENTS FAIL ..... 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00058 (USP 9,959,291)
`
`
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s Reply to POPR
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`CASES
`Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc.,
`40 F.3d 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1994) .............................................................................. 2
`Coleman v. Dines,
`754 F.2d 353 (Fed. Cir. 1985) .......................................................................... 1, 3
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc.,
`800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ........................................................................ 1, 6
`Field v. Knowles,
`183 F.2d 593 (C.C.P.A. 1950) .............................................................................. 1
`Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L.,
`437 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ........................................................................ 1, 5
`Perfect Surgical Techniques, Inc. v. Olympus Am., Inc.,
`841 F.3d 1004 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 5
`Sewall v. Walters,
`21 F.3d 411 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ............................................................................ 1, 2
`REGULATIONS
`37 C.F.R. § 1.131(b) .................................................................................................. 1
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00058 (USP 9,959,291)
`
`
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s Reply to POPR
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,959,291 (“’291 Patent”)
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,291 (“’291 FH”)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Benjamin B. Bederson (“Bederson”)
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Benjamin B. Bederson
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,461,099 to Sharpe et al. (“Sharpe”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,687,878 to Eintracht et al. (“Eintracht”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,714,793 to Carey et al. (“Carey”)
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 10,628,480 (“’480 FH”)
`
`Excerpt from THE OXFORD AMERICAN DICTIONARY AND LANGUAGE
`GUIDE (1999), at 203 (contact).
`Excerpt from THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY (4th ed. 2001), at
`191 (contact).
`Kuchinsky et al., FotoFile: A Consumer Multimedia Organization and
`Retrieval System, CHI ’99: PROCEEDINGS OF THE SIGCHI
`CONFERENCE ON HUMAN FACTORS IN COMPUTING SYSTEMS, 496-503
`(May 1999) (“FotoFile”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,739,139 to Robertson, et al. (“Robertson”)
`
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2002/0055955 to Lloyd-Jones, et al.
`(“Lloyd-Jones”)
`Reserved
`
`Yuichi Yagawa et al., The Digital Album: A Personal File-tainment
`System, PROCEEDINGS OF THE THIRD IEEE INTERNATIONAL
`CONFERENCE ON MULTIMEDIA COMPUTING AND SYSTEMS
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00058 (USP 9,959,291)
`
`
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s Reply to POPR
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`(MULTIMEDIA ’96), June 17-23, 1996, at 433-39.
`Ben Shneiderman & Hyunmo Kang, Direct Annotation: A Drag-and-
`Drop Strategy for Labeling Photos, 2000 IEEE INTERNATIONAL
`CONFERENCE ON INFORMATION VISUALIZATION (IV ’00), July 19-21,
`2000.
`Benjamin B. Bederson et al., Pad++: A Zoomable Graphical
`Sketchpad For Exploring Alternate Interface Physics, 7 J. OF VISUAL
`LANGUAGES & COMPUTING 3 (1996).
`1018 Mark Roseman & Saul Greenberg, Building Real-Time Groupware
`with GroupKit, a Groupware Toolkit, 3 ACM TRANSACTIONS ON
`COMPUTER-HUMAN INTERACTION 1 (Mar. 1996), at 66-106.
`Excerpts from ROB KIRKLAND ET AL., DOMINO SYSTEM
`ADMINISTRATION (1999).
`Excerpts from DOROTHY BURKE & JANE CALABRIA, TEN MINUTE
`GUIDE TO LOTUS NOTES 4.6 (1997).
`Elizabeth F. Churchill, et al., Anchored Conversations: Chatting in the
`Context of a Document, CHI ’00: PROCEEDINGS OF THE SIGCHI
`CONFERENCE ON HUMAN FACTORS IN COMPUTING SYSTEMS, April
`2000, at 454-61.
`1022 Mark S. Ackerman & David W. McDonald, Answer Garden 2:
`Merging Organizational Memory with Collaborative Help, CSCW
`’96: PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1996 ACM CONFERENCE ON COMPUTER
`SUPPORTED COOPERATIVE WORK, Nov. 1996, at 97-105.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,175,831 to Weinreich, et al.
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`Excerpts from C.J. DATE, AN INTRODUCTION TO DATABASE SYSTEMS
`(6th ed. 1995).
`Excerpts from RANDY JAY YARGER ET AL., MYSQL & MSQL (1st ed.
`1999).
`Ulla Merz & Roger King, DIRECT: A Query Facility for Multiple
`Databases, 12 ACM TRANSACTIONS ON INFORMATION SYSTEMS 4
`(Oct. 1994), at 339-59.
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00058 (USP 9,959,291)
`
`
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s Reply to POPR
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`
`
`
`
`Excerpts from CHARLES DYE, ORACLE DISTRIBUTED SYSTEMS (1999).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,442,573 to Schiller, et al.
`
`Reserved
`
`Reserved
`
`Reserved
`
`Reserved
`
`Reserved
`
`Reserved
`
`Reserved
`
`Board correspondence dated February 24, 2023.
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00058 (USP 9,959,291)
`
` Petitioner’s Reply to POPR
`
`Pursuant to the Board’s authorization (Ex. 1036), Petitioner submits its reply
`
`
`
`
`
`to Patent Owner’s (“PO”) Preliminary Response (“POPR,” Paper 9).
`
`I.
`
`PATENT OWNER FAILS TO ANTEDATE SHARPE
`
`PO attempts to antedate Sharpe with a swear-behind declaration from the
`
`named inventor of the ’291 Patent, Mr. Mark Frigon. POPR 16-29 (citing EX2005).
`
`This evidence fails to antedate Sharpe, which qualifies as prior art on its face.
`
`To antedate Sharpe, PO must produce evidence showing an earlier reduction
`
`to practice of the claimed invention, or an earlier conception of the claimed invention
`
`plus diligence to a subsequent reduction to practice. 37 C.F.R. § 1.131(b); Dynamic
`
`Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378-80 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`Critically, PO’s evidence must address every feature of the claimed invention. See
`
`Sewall v. Walters, 21 F.3d 411, 415 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo,
`
`S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1169 (Fed. Cir. 2006). And PO’s inventor declaration must be
`
`supported by corroborating evidence showing that he “disclosed to others [a]
`
`‘completed thought expressed in such clear terms as to enable those skilled in the
`
`art’ to make the invention.” Coleman v. Dines, 754 F.2d 353, 359 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
`
`(quoting Field v. Knowles, 183 F.2d 593, 601 (C.C.P.A. 1950)).
`
`PO fails to satisfy its evidentiary burden for several reasons. To start,
`
`Mr. Frigon admits that several of the claimed features are not present in the
`
`corroborating evidence, and provides nothing more than his say-so to establish prior
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00058 (USP 9,959,291)
`
` Petitioner’s Reply to POPR
`
`conception. See EX2005 at 9-13. On this basis alone, PO’s attempt to antedate
`
`
`
`
`
`Sharpe must fail. In addition, there are significant issues with the adequacy of the
`
`evidence presented. For example, PO’s corroborating evidence includes missing
`
`and empty files. PO’s evidence of diligence is insufficiently specific and fails to
`
`address the relevant period. See POPR 28-29. PO also fails to provide evidence or
`
`analysis showing all elements of the claimed invention reduced to practice or
`
`conceived. See generally id. Indeed, PO does not even attempt to address any of
`
`the claimed features beyond those of claim 1, despite the Petition’s reliance on
`
`Sharpe’s teachings to challenge all the remaining claims. See POPR 28-29.
`
`Thus, PO has failed to satisfy its burden to provide evidence showing prior
`
`conception, diligence, or any reduction to practice of the claimed invention of the
`
`’291 Patent. The Board should reject PO’s attempt to swear behind Sharpe.
`
`PO Fails to Show an Earlier Conception of the Claimed Invention
`
`
`PO’s conception evidence is inadequate because it fails to establish prior
`
`conception of every feature and fails to describe the features with particularity. See
`
`Sewall, 21 F.3d at 415 (“Conception exists when a definite and permanent idea of
`
`an operative invention, including every feature of the subject matter sought to be
`
`patented, is known.” (emphasis added)); see also Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr
`
`Labs., Inc., 40 F.3d 1223, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“[C]onception analysis necessarily
`
`turns on the inventor’s ability to describe his invention with particularity.”).
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00058 (USP 9,959,291)
`
` Petitioner’s Reply to POPR
`
`As but one example, Mr. Frigon admits that the point of novelty of the
`
`
`
`
`
`challenged claims is missing from the conception evidence. As noted in the Petition,
`
`the applicant only obtained allowance of the ’291 Patent by amending the claims to
`
`allow a user to photo tag another user selected from a contact list. Pet. 11-12;
`
`EX1002 at 282, 394. Yet Mr. Frigon concedes that the purported conception
`
`evidence does not include “filtering th[e] input list to users in a contact list.”
`
`EX2005 at 12. Mr. Frigon nonetheless asserts, without evidence, that the feature
`
`“had been conceived” and “was in development” at the time he drafted the
`
`provisional application. Id. Mr. Frigon’s say-so is inadequate as a matter of law,
`
`because inventor testimony must be supported by corroborating evidence. Coleman,
`
`754 F.2d at 359. Accordingly, PO has failed to provide evidence sufficient to
`
`establish prior conception of the ’291 Patent claims.
`
`Beyond Mr. Frigon’s admissions regarding missing features, PO’s
`
`corroborating evidence is riddled with inconsistencies and gaps, including missing
`
`and empty files. For example, Mr. Frigon relies on the file “pict_upd_asp.asp” to
`
`corroborate his purported conception of claim element 1[h]. EX2005 at 13. PO did
`
`not provide any such file in support of its inventor’s declaration, however.1
`
`
`1 PO has provided a similarly named file, “pict_upd.asp” (EX2008), but the code
`identified in Mr. Frigon’s declaration does not appear in that file either.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00058 (USP 9,959,291)
`
` Petitioner’s Reply to POPR
`
`Similarly, Mr. Frigon relies on specific “code in Exhibit 2012” to corroborate his
`
`
`
`
`
`testimony regarding claim 1[b], but Exhibit 2012 does not include any code; it
`
`instead appears to be a screen capture of a user interface. Id. at 10-11; EX2012.
`
`Mr. Frigon also relies on the “pictures.mdb” database to corroborate his testimony
`
`regarding various elements of claim 1, but the supporting Exhibit 2007 includes no
`
`data and only shows a single “Picts” table. EX2005 at 10-13; EX2007.
`
`The other purported corroborating evidence is insufficiently specific to
`
`support conception of the claimed features. Mr. Frigon’s purchase of web authoring
`
`software in August 2000 does not establish conception of any particular feature of
`
`the claimed subject matter. EX2005 ¶ 16; EX2014. The declarations of Lisa Larson
`
`(EX2018) and Chris Malone (EX2016) similarly fail to corroborate the missing
`
`elements of the claimed invention—including the claimed user interface that allows
`
`a user to photo tag another user selected from a contact list. See generally EX2018,
`
`EX2016. Rather, Ms. Larson merely states that Mr. Frigon “demonstrated the
`
`functionality of the invention and his website to me.” EX 2018 ¶ 6. Likewise,
`
`Mr. Malone merely describes the user-side experience, stating “he could load images
`
`into the website he had developed and identify individuals in the photo by labeling
`
`their faces” and “later enter individuals’ names and then pull up all the photos that
`
`they had been identified in.” EX 2016 ¶ 4. Mr. Malone also concedes that he “did
`
`not have a technical background to understand the code.” Id. ¶ 5.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00058 (USP 9,959,291)
`
`
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s Reply to POPR
`
`
`PO Fails to Show an Earlier Reduction to Practice
`
`
`Actual reduction to practice requires an even greater showing than
`
`conception: (1) construction of an embodiment with all claimed features, (2) proof
`
`that the device works, and (3) corroborating evidence. Medichem, 437 F.3d at 1169.
`
`PO relies on the same faulty, insufficient evidence for actual reduction to practice.
`
`See, e.g., POPR 2; EX2005 ¶¶ 3, 5, 18.
`
`PO Fails to Show Diligence to a Subsequent Reduction to Practice
`
`
`To rely on the provisional application as a subsequent constructive reduction
`
`to practice, PO must provide evidence showing reasonably continuous diligence
`
`from just before the priority date of Sharpe (September 26, 2000) until the filing date
`
`of the provisional application (November 15, 2000). See Perfect Surgical
`
`Techniques, Inc. v. Olympus Am., Inc., 841 F.3d 1004, 1007 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`However, most of PO’s purported evidence of diligence is for the wrong time period:
`
`from the purported conception in April 2000 to Sharpe’s filing on September 26,
`
`2000. POPR 18-19 (“[B]etween the conception in early 2000 of the invention, and
`
`the critical date of Sharpe, the patent owner had reasonably continued activity to
`
`reduce the invention to practice.”). Therefore, such evidence is immaterial.
`
`The only purportedly corroborating evidence of diligence within the relevant
`
`time period is an email exchange between Mr. Frigon and Ms. Larson dated
`
`September 28, 2000. EX2015. That exchange discusses a different web site
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00058 (USP 9,959,291)
`
` Petitioner’s Reply to POPR
`
`(sacko.com) from the site used to support conception (cmalone.com), and does not
`
`
`
`
`
`discuss the required user interface enabling a user to photo tag another user selected
`
`from a contact list. See generally id.
`
`PO provides no additional evidence to account for the remaining 48 days of
`
`the critical period. Indeed, PO and Mr. Frigon assert that the provisional application
`
`itself was complete and ready for mailing by August 15, 2000. EX2005 ¶ 3. Thus,
`
`the preparation of the provisional application cannot account for diligence in the
`
`relevant period. Instead, the three-month delay in mailing the application further
`
`underscores the unreasonable delay in the critical period. PO provides no
`
`explanation for the delay. See generally POPR. Mr. Frigon identifies a
`
`contemporaneous relocation to Colorado, but he does not testify that the move was
`
`the source of any delay. EX2005 ¶ 3. In any event, Mr. Frigon’s credit card
`
`statements suggest that he mailed the provisional application from New York—not
`
`Colorado. See EX2014 at 2 (November 15, 2000 charge for “USPS” located in
`
`Westhampton Beach, NY).
`
`Finally, PO provides no evidence or analysis establishing that the provisional
`
`application actually qualifies as a constructive reduction to practice. See generally
`
`POPR. Because the Office does not examine priority claims unless necessary, the
`
`Board has no basis to presume that the ’291 Patent is entitled to the filing date of its
`
`provisional application. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1380. Without any
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00058 (USP 9,959,291)
`
` Petitioner’s Reply to POPR
`
`argument or evidence from PO establishing the provisional as a constructive
`
`
`
`
`
`reduction to practice, PO’s attempt to antedate Sharpe must fail.
`
`PO Provides No Evidence for Claims 2-26
`
`
`PO does not separately address the elements of claims 2-26 despite the
`
`requirement that conception and reduction to practice are determined on a claim-by-
`
`claim basis. See POPR 28-29. Indeed, PO does not discuss independent claim 26
`
`at all. See id. Accordingly, even if PO had provided evidence sufficient to disqualify
`
`Sharpe for claim 1 (it has not), PO has not provided any basis to disqualify Sharpe
`
`for the remaining challenged claims.
`
`II.
`
`PATENT OWNER’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ARGUMENTS FAIL
`
`PO’s argument that the Petition sets forth “unreasonable claim constructions”
`
`(POPR 29-31) is nonsensical. To start, PO applies the incorrect “broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation” standard. Id. at 31. Further, PO incredibly asserts “the Petition failed
`
`to provide any evidence to support its claim construction” (id. at 29), ignoring
`
`evidence plainly set forth in the Petition and supporting declaration. Pet. 14-16
`
`(citing EX1001, EX 1003 ¶¶ 61-67, EX1009, EX1010). Critically, PO does not
`
`assert that the prior art fails to disclose any limitation under a plain meaning or other
`
`construction—rendering PO’s criticism irrelevant to institution. See POPR 30-31.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00058 (USP 9,959,291)
`
`
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s Reply to POPR
`
`
`
`
`Date: March 7, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: / Lisa K. Nguyen /
`
`Lisa K. Nguyen (Reg. No. 58,018)
`lisa.nguyen@allenovery.com
`ALLEN & OVERY LLP
`550 High Street
`Palo Alto, CA 94301
`Telephone: 650.388.1724
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00058 (USP 9,959,291)
`
`
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s Reply to POPR
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), I certify that on this 7th day of March, 2023,
`
`a true and correct copy of the foregoing Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s
`
`Preliminary Response was served by electronic mail on Patent Owner’s lead and
`
`backup counsel at the following email addresses:
`
`Scott W. Hejny (Reg. No. 45,882)
`shejny@mckoolsmith.com
`
`Eliza Beeney (pro hac vice)
`ebeeney@mckoolsmith.com
`
`Kaylee Hoffner (pro hac vice)
`khoffner@mckoolsmith.com
`
`
`
`By: / Lisa K. Nguyen /
`
`Lisa K. Nguyen (Reg. No. 58,018)
`lisa.nguyen@allenovery.com
`ALLEN & OVERY LLP
`550 High Street
`Palo Alto, CA 94301
`Tel: (650) 388-1724
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
` Meta Platforms, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
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
