UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`––––––––––
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`––––––––––
`
`META PLATFORMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ANGEL TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`––––––––––
`
`Case IPR2023-00058
`U.S. Patent 9,959,291
`
`––––––––––
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`Submitted Electronically via the Patent Review Processing System
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`IPR2023-00058
`U.S. Patent 9,959,291
`
`I. 
`II. 
`
`B. 
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 3 
`A. 
`The ’291 Patent ..................................................................................... 3 
`1. 
`Existing Technology ................................................................... 3 
`2. 
`Advantages Provided by the ’291 Patent .................................... 4 
`3. 
`System Components .................................................................... 5 
`4. 
`The Operation of the ’291 Patent’s System ................................ 8 
`ALLEGED PRIOR ART ....................................................................... 9 
`1. 
`Sharpe ........................................................................................ 10 
`2. 
`Eintracht .................................................................................... 13 
`3. 
`Carey ......................................................................................... 15 
`III.  LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL .................................................................. 16 
`IV.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 16 
`V. 
`THE CITED REFRENCES DO NOT RENDER CLAIMS 1-26
`UNPATENTABLE ........................................................................................ 17 
`A.  Ground 1: Sharpe Alone or in View of the Knowledge of a
`POSITA Does Not Render Obvious Claims 1, 5 or 10-26 ................. 18 
`1. 
`Claim 26 .................................................................................... 18 
`a. 
`Limitation 26[d]: “in response to receiving from the
`identifying user the input indicating the selection of the
`named user from the list of other users, determining a
`unique user identifier of the named user” ................................. 18 
`Limitation 26[e]: “storing an association between a unique
`user identifier of the named user and a unique digital
`media identifier corresponding to the digital media
`selected” .................................................................................... 23 
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 25 
`Limitation 1[d]: “determining, from a plurality of digital
`media accessible to one or more of the plurality of
`computing devices, a unique digital media identifier
`corresponding to a digital media selection input by the
`second user” .............................................................................. 25 
`i
`
`b. 
`
`2. 
`a. 
`
`
`
`

`

`b. 
`
`c. 
`
`IPR2023-00058
`U.S. Patent 9,959,291
`Limitation 1[e]: “providing, via one or more of the
`plurality of computing devices, a graphical user interface
`for presentation to the second user, the graphical user
`interface operative to receive one or more inputs from the
`second user indicating a selection of one or more of the
`plurality of users from descriptive information associated
`with unique user identifiers of the one or more of the
`plurality of users, the graphical user interface configured
`to display descriptive information associated with unique
`user identifiers of one or more of the plurality of users with
`a determined association with the second user” ....................... 29 
`Limitation 1[f]: “receiving, via the communications
`network, an input initiated by the second user via the
`graphical user interface, the received input indicating a
`selection of the first user from descriptive information
`associated with the unique user identifier of the first user”
` ................................................................................................... 31 
`Limitation 1[g]: “determining the unique user identifier of
`the first user from the received input initiated by the
`second user indicating the selection of the first user” .............. 32 
`Dependent Claims 5 and 10-23 ................................................. 34 
`Independent Claims 24 and 25 .................................................. 43 
`Petitioner Has Not Set Forth Any Proper Obviousness
`Argument for the Independent Claims ...................................... 44 
`Ground 2: Sharpe in View of Eintracht Does Not Render
`Obvious Claims 1-26 ........................................................................... 50 
`1. 
`A POSITA Would Not Have Been Motivated to Combine
`Sharpe with Eintracht to Arrive at the Challenged Claims....... 50 
`The Petition Fails to Explain How the Combination of
`Sharpe and Eintracht Would Operate ....................................... 52 
`Claim 2: “The method of claim 1, further comprising in
`response to receiving the input initiated by the second user
`indicating the selection of the first user and to determining
`the unique user identifier of the first user, providing
`information about the stored association to a computing
`device of the first user, the information indicating that the
`
`d. 
`
`3. 
`4. 
`5. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`B. 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`IPR2023-00058
`U.S. Patent 9,959,291
`first user has been associated with one or more of the
`plurality of digital media.” ........................................................ 54 
`Claim 3: “The method of claim 2, wherein the information
`about the stored association is provided via an email.” ............ 55 
`Claim 6: “The method of claim 5, further comprising
`receiving, via the communications network, one or more
`inputs initiated by the second user indicating a set of
`coordinates corresponding to a location of the first user
`within the image data.” ............................................................. 56 
`Ground 3: Sharpe in View of Carey Does Not Render Obvious
`Claims 18-19 or 26 .............................................................................. 60 
`D.  Ground 4: Sharpe in View of Eintracht and Carey Does Not
`Render Obvious Claims 18-19 or 26 ................................................... 61 
`VI.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 61 
`
`
`
`C. 
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00058
`U.S. Patent 9,959,291
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`CASES
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................... 52, 53
`ADT LLC v. Vivint, Inc.,
`IPR2022-00634, Paper No. 7 (PTAB Oct. 4, 2022) ........................................... 52
`Amazon Web Services, Inc. v. Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe,
`IPR2019-00103, Paper No. 22 (PTAB May 10, 2019) ................................ 46, 47
`Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.,
`66 F.4th 952 (Fed. Cir. 2023) ............................................................................. 21
`Apple Inc. v. Yu,
`IPR2019-01258, Paper No. 29 (PTAB Jan. 5, 2021) ......................................... 45
`Corning Incorp. v. Danjou’s DSM IP Assets B.V.,
`Case No. IPR2013-00043, Paper No. 95 (PTAB May 1, 2014) ......................... 47
`Daifuku Co. v. Murata Machinery, Ltd.,
`IPR2015-00084, Paper No. 10 (PTAB May 4, 2015) ........................................ 53
`Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd. V. ResMed R&D Ger. GmbH,
`IPR2017-00272, Paper 41 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 6, 2018) ........................................... 52
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ................................................................................................ 45
`In re Oelrich,
`666 F.2d 578 (CCPA 1981) .................................................................... 19, 20, 21
`In re Stepan Co.,
`868 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 45
`Kranos Corp. v. Riddell, Inc.,
`IPR2016-01646, Paper No. 10 (PTAB Feb. 14, 2017) ....................................... 44
`M&K Holdings, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`985 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2021) .............................................................. 47, 48, 49
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00058
`U.S. Patent 9,959,291
`
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co.,
`868 F.3d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 17
`Personal Web Tech. v. Apple,
`848 F.3d 987 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................ 52
`PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`917 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .................................................................... 20, 21
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Circ. 2005) (en banc) ........................................................ 16
`Toyota Motor Corp. v. Cellport Systems, Inc.,
`IPR2015-00633, Paper No. 11 (Aug. 14, 2015) ........................................... 16, 17
`TQ Delta, LLC v. CISCO Sys., Inc.,
`942 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .................................................................... 31, 35
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .................................................................................................. 44, 49
`35 U.S.C. § 316(e) ..................................................................................................... 2
`Administrative Procedures Act .................................................................... 47, 48, 49
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`37 C.F.R. § 100(b) (2019) ........................................................................................ 16
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00058
`U.S. Patent 9,959,291
`PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`2001 Eliza Beeney Biography (previously submitted)
`2002 Declaration of Eliza Beeney in Support of Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`(previously submitted)
`2003 Kaylee Hoffner Biography (previously submitted)
`2004 Declaration of Kaylee Hoffner in Support of Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`(previously submitted)
`2005 Declaration of Mark Frigon Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.131 (previously
`submitted)
`Pict_inpt (previously submitted)
`2006
`Picture.mbd (previously submitted)
`2007
`Pict_upd (previously submitted)
`2008
`Picture.asp (previously submitted)
`2009
`2010 Links.asp (previously submitted)
`2011 Ex0006.log (previously submitted)
`2012 Messages_post (previously submitted)
`2013 Ex0007.log (previously submitted)
`2014 American Express Statement (previously submitted)
`2015 Emails (users populating profiles) (previously submitted)
`2016 Declaration of Chris Malone Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.131 (previously
`submitted)
`Provisional File History Regarding Application 60/248994 of
`November 15, 2000 (previously submitted)
`2018 Declaration of Lisa Larson Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.131 (previously
`submitted)
`
`2017
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00058
`U.S. Patent 9,959,291
`2019 Deposition transcript of Dr. Benjamin Bederson dated July 20, 2023 in
`IPR2023-00056, 00058 and 00059.
`2020 RESERVED
`2021 Declaration of Dr. Eli Saber
`
`
`
`vii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2023-00058
`U.S. Patent No. 9,959,291
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Angel Technologies, LLC (“Patent Owner” or “Angel Technologies”)
`
`respectfully submits this Response to the Board’s decision to institute inter partes
`
`review (Paper No. 16, the “Decision) and to the Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`(Paper No. 1, the “Petition”) filed by Meta Platforms, Inc., (“Petitioner” or “Meta”).
`
`This Response is timely filed in accordance with the parties’ stipulation (Paper 23).
`
`The Board instituted review of U.S. Patent No. 9,595,291 (the “’291 patent”) on four
`
`grounds that challenge claims 1-26 (“the Challenged Claims”) of the ’291 patent.
`
`Decision, 28.
`
`Meta’s Petition includes four grounds as shown below.
`
`Ground
`
`References
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`
`
`
`Sharpe1
`Sharpe, Eintracht2
`Sharpe, Carey3
`Sharpe, Eintracht, Carey
`
`Claims
`
`1, 5, 10-26
`1-26
`18, 19, 26
`18, 19, 26
`
`
`1 “Sharpe” is U.S. Patent No. 7,461,099 (Ex-1005).
`
`2 “Eintracht” is U.S. Patent No. 6,687,878 (Ex-1006).
`
`3 “Carey” is U.S. Patent No. 6,714,793 (Ex-1007).
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case IPR2023-00058
`U.S. Patent No. 9,959,291
`Petitioner has not carried its burden of proving unpatentability by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence (35 U.S.C. § 316(e)). As explained below and in the
`
`accompanying declaration of Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Saber, Petitioner has not
`
`established that the cited prior art discloses or suggests all of the limitations of the
`
`Challenged Claims.4
`
`In particular, as further explained below in Section V, Petitioner has not
`
`established that the prior art references disclose or suggest all of the limitations of
`
`the Challenged Claims. Further, Petitioner has not established motivation to combine
`
`the references to arrive at the Challenged Claims, and, even if they were combined,
`
`the cited combinations do not teach or suggest each and every claim limitation.
`
`Additionally, in Ground 1, the Petitioner improperly presents an obviousness
`
`challenge without ever providing any proper obviousness analysis or even
`
`mentioning obviousness.
`
`Petitioner has not met its burden of establishing by a preponderance of the
`
`evidence that the Challenged Claims are unpatentable. Accordingly, the patentability
`
`of the Challenged Claims should be confirmed.
`
`
`4 Patent Owner submits the declaration of Dr. Saber (Ex. 2021), an expert in the field
`
`of the ’291 patent. (Ex. 2021, ¶¶ 44-45.)
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2023-00058
`U.S. Patent No. 9,959,291
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`The ’291 Patent
`The ’291 patent is directed to a system, computer program, and method for
`
`A.
`
`storing and sharing images such as photographs via a communications network and
`
`for permitting the identification of objects within the images. The invention allows
`
`the identification of objects, such as persons within the photos, without requiring the
`
`person submitting the photos to type in identification information for each and every
`
`photo in a photo album. Ex-1001, Abstract. See also Ex-2021, ¶¶ 44-62.
`
`1.
`
`Existing Technology
`In the late 1990’s and early 2000’s at the time of the invention, people began
`
`creating web pages for online photo albums, which offered advantages over
`
`traditional photo albums. Ex-1001, 1:35-40. Several websites existed which allowed
`
`users without programming skills to create and maintain online photo albums by
`
`simply uploading photos they wished to add to the album. Ex-1001, 1:45-60.
`
`These websites offered many advantages to users, but also suffered from
`
`many limitations. For example, the websites did not allow users to identify objects
`
`and individuals within the photos without cumbersome limitations such as requiring
`
`individuals to wear a badge in the photos for identification. Further, the websites did
`
`not provide search capabilities for identifying photos of specific individuals once
`
`identified, or ways to distinguish between different types of the same object (i.e.,
`
`identifying one clown from another clown). Finally, the websites did not offer a way
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2023-00058
`U.S. Patent No. 9,959,291
`to quickly and easily send notification to individuals that they had been identified in
`
`a photo. Ex-1001, 1:62-3:44.
`
`2.
`
`Advantages Provided by the ’291 Patent
`The ’291 patent addressed these deficiencies with a system that allows users
`
`to supply and/or receive information about the existence of objects within images.
`
`Figure 2 of the ’291 patent, reproduced below, demonstrates some of the novel
`
`aspects in a particular embodiment. As shown below, a user database receives,
`
`stores, and provides information about people and/or objects identified within the
`
`photo.
`
`Ex-1001, Fig. 2.
`
`For example, the User’s database can be populated to include a user identifier
`
`with information such as the user’s name, email-address, home page address, and/or
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case IPR2023-00058
`U.S. Patent No. 9,959,291
`a list of contacts. The Images database receives and stores information about photos
`
`and can be populated to include, for each photo, a photo identifier unique to the
`
`photo and the location of the image file on the network. The Images database may
`
`also include descriptive information about the photo such as a caption or the date the
`
`photo was taken. The Identifications database may receive, store, and provide
`
`information about relationships between users and photos. For example, the
`
`Identifications database may contain fields specifying what kind of relationship
`
`exists between a photo and a user, information about the location within a photo, or
`
`the coordinates that a user or other person appears. Ex-1001, 6:59-7:37.
`
`The ’291 patent thus permits the identification of objects within images
`
`without requiring the person submitting the photos to input the information for each
`
`and every photo in an album. The ’291 patent also allows users to share their photos
`
`with those individuals identified in them, and to automatically search for photos
`
`and/or certain people in photos. Ex-1001, Abstract.
`
`3.
`
`System Components
`The host computer of the ’291 patent’s system may be any computing device
`
`such as a network computer running Windows 2000, Novel Netware, Unix, or any
`
`other network operating system. The host computer may be connected to a firewall
`
`computer at the boundaries of network to prevent tampering with information stored
`
`on or accessible by the host computer. If the invention is implemented with the
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case IPR2023-00058
`U.S. Patent No. 9,959,291
`Internet, the host computer may include conventional web hosting operating
`
`software, an Internet connection such as a modem, DSL converter or ISDN
`
`converter, and be assigned an IP address and corresponding domain name so that the
`
`website hosted thereon can be accessed via the communications network. Ex-1001,
`
`5:26-39.
`
`The client computer of the ’291 system provides a system interface for a user.
`
`The client computer allows a user to access a host computer via a communications
`
`network in order to upload and/or view photographs. Each client computer may also
`
`include or can access a conventional Internet connection such as a modem, Digital
`
`Subscriber Line (DSL) converter, or Integrated Service Digital Network (ISDN)
`
`converter and a web browser that permits it to access and view data over the Internet.
`
`Ex-1001, 5:40-56.
`
`The communications network may be internet or any other communications
`
`network such as local area network, a wide area network, a wireless network, an
`
`intranet or a virtual private network. Ex-1001, 5:56-64.
`
`The computer program or programs embodying one or more aspects of the
`
`invention are stored in or on computer-readable medium residing on or accessible
`
`by host computer and provide a mechanism for instructing host computer to operate
`
`the invention as described herein. The computer programs typically comprise
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case IPR2023-00058
`U.S. Patent No. 9,959,291
`ordered listings of executable instructions for implementing logical functions in host
`
`computer and user computers coupled with host computer. Ex-1001, 5:65-6:2.
`
`The host computer comprises server engine which is programmed to operate
`
`or host a website and serve as a repository for images and identification information
`
`for objects within the images as described in more detail below. The images may be
`
`photographs, graphics, artwork, or any other digital image that contains or depicts
`
`one or more objects. The objects within the images may include people, animals,
`
`plants, buildings, places, or anything else shown in images. In one embodiment of
`
`the invention, the images and objects are referred to (but not limited to) as
`
`photographs and people, respectively. Ex-1001, 6:32-44.
`
`In order to implement the ’291 invention, the host system will access a server
`
`system or database system configured to support the functionality. As discussed
`
`above, ’291 the system may utilize a Users database, Identifications database, and
`
`Images database.
`
`When the host computer wishes to find all the people identified in a specific
`
`image, it will look for all records in the Identifications database 240 where the Image
`
`I.D. equals a supplied I.D. When the host computer wishes to find all the photos that
`
`a specific user appears in, it will search for all records in the Identifications database
`
`where the user’s I.D. equals a supplied I.D. Ex-1001, 9:8-21.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case IPR2023-00058
`U.S. Patent No. 9,959,291
`The host computer may access information in the Identifications database to
`
`find all the people identified in a given photo or to find all the photos a given person
`
`has been identified in. Ex-1001, 8:44-9:5.
`
`Figure 1 of the ’291 patent, reproduced below, represents an exemplary
`
`schematic diagram of the ’291 patent’s system as detailed above.
`
`
`
`Ex-1001, Fig. 1.
`
`4.
`
`The Operation of the ’291 Patent’s System
`In operation, users of the ’291 system can supply and/or receive information
`
`about the existence of objects within images. The process initiates by obtaining
`
`image data comprising one or more objects. For instance, a user may provide a
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case IPR2023-00058
`U.S. Patent No. 9,959,291
`system embodying the invention a digital photo of a group of friends and family
`
`members. Ex-1001, 9:35-41.
`
`The ’291 system obtains identifying information from the user where the
`
`identifying information relates to the existence of at least one object in the image
`
`(e.g., digital photo). For example, when viewing an image, a user may select the
`
`name of a person from a list to identify this person as existing in the image. The
`
`identifying information may be stored in the databases. Ex-1001, 9:41-49.
`
`The identifying information is also displayed to a user. The identifying
`
`information may be displayed in several different ways. For example, the system
`
`may provide an output displaying an image and listing the names of all objects
`
`identified therein. In another example, the system may provide a listing of all images
`
`a specific person is identified in. Ex-1001, 9:50-58.
`
`B.
`
`ALLEGED PRIOR ART
`As shown above, Meta presents four grounds challenging claims 1-26 using
`
`various combinations of Sharpe, Eintracht, and Carey.5 These references are
`
`described briefly below. See also Ex-2021, ¶¶ 64-75.
`
`
`5 Petition, 5-6.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case IPR2023-00058
`U.S. Patent No. 9,959,291
`
`1.
`
`Sharpe
`Sharpe discloses a system and method for archiving and retrieving digital
`
`media items based on episodic memory of predefined groups of one or more people.
`
`Ex-1005, 1:5-10.
`
`Sharpe describes a method and apparatus for archiving and retrieving digital
`
`media items in which the archiving and retrieval process is based on common
`
`episodic memory of a strong social group. Ex-1005, 1:34-37. The method uses three
`
`parameters (group event type, person, time) to generate and store index information
`
`for digital media items. Ex-1005, 1:49-58. The application of the indices to a group
`
`with shared experiences limits the number of people and event types needed for
`
`indexing or retrieving the digital data items. Ex-1005, 2:2-5. When the group is
`
`set up, a group identifier is assigned so that all digital media items archived for
`
`that group can be associated to the group in the archive. Ex-1005, 2:27-29.
`
`Figure 1 shows a block overview of the Sharpe method. Sharpe first discloses
`
`users of a group who are registered by a group registration process in a database.
`
`Ex-1005, 5:4-6. The members then work together to identify, collect, translate or
`
`create digital media items which represent the culture of the group. Ex-1005, 5:6-
`
`17. The storage process associates a group identifier with each item to be stored and
`
`any other associated information (group event type, person, time) for the index. Ex-
`
`1005, 5:24-37. The storage process comprises identifying a group of people from
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case IPR2023-00058
`U.S. Patent No. 9,959,291
`the database, identifying one or more multimedia items to be archived with index
`
`information, selection of an event type from a table of possible events for the group
`
`of people, selecting a date from a calendar, and selecting individuals within the group
`
`identified on the database for association with the item. Ex-1005, 5:27-37.
`
`The items stored are associated to the group. Ex-1005, 7:47-48. This is shown
`
`
`
`in Figure 6b.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case IPR2023-00058
`U.S. Patent No. 9,959,291
`
`
`
`Users are given the opportunity to associate information with the items
`
`associated with the group identifier, including registered people to be associated,
`
`event types, and date. Ex-1005, 8:15-19. The information is then stored as index
`
`information as shown in Figure 6e. This completes the archival process.
`
`
`
`Figure 4 shows the graphical user interface for Sharpe’s system. A drop down
`
`box is provided for selecting any number of people within the group by personal
`
`name. Ex-1005, 6:67-7:1. A drop down box is also provided for identifying one or
`
`a number of event types. Ex-1005, 7:1-2. A date entry is provided to enable a user
`
`to enter a date. Archive and retrieve buttons are shown. If the archive button is
`
`selected the media item will be archived. Ex-1005, 7:16-19. A retrieve button is
`
`also provided to enable retrieval of items in accordance with the selected criteria.
`
`Ex-1005, 7:25-28.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case IPR2023-00058
`U.S. Patent No. 9,959,291
`
`
`
`Ex-1005, Fig. 4.
`
`2.
`
`Eintracht
`Eintracht was considered during the prosecution of the ’291 patent. Eintracht
`
`generally discloses a system for collaborative document annotation whereby notes
`
`(i.e. annotations) associated with an image or text document are stored in a notes
`
`database on a central notes server. Ex-1006, Abstract. Eintracht describes issues
`
`related to annotating documents on the client side such that others cannot see the
`
`notes. The entire document with the attached notes must be transmitted to other
`
`clients to see the notes or all parties need to be simultaneously logged on. Ex-1006,
`
`1:43-46, 61-67. To address these issues, Eintracht introduces a system that “allow[s]
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case IPR2023-00058
`U.S. Patent No. 9,959,291
`multiparty collaboration based on the asynchronous exchange of annotations over a
`
`network such as the Internet without the requirement that all parties wishing to
`
`collaborate be simultaneously logged on to a server.” Ex-1006, 2:1-5.
`
`Figure 1A shows an image with a car and Figure 1B shows the same image
`
`with added annotations displayed over the image but that are not a part of the
`
`image itself. Ex-1006, 6:66-7:4.
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex-1006, Figs. 1A-1B.
`
`Figure 1C shows the image with the added annotations on top of the image
`
`and a Note List window. The Note List window displays a list of the annotations.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case IPR2023-00058
`U.S. Patent No. 9,959,291
`The display may also include may include Note Event description, Note Owner ID,
`
`user name, path, originator IP address, time and Note Contents. Ex-1006, 7:5-17.
`
`
`
`Eintracht defines an annotation or note as a portion of text or a graphical
`
`drawing that is created and then associated with a specific location in a document.
`
`A note anchor expressed in terms of (x,y) coordinates is created at the location the
`
`user placed the note. Ex-1006, 7:55-62. A note can be moved to a new location by
`
`grabbing a note and dragging it to a new location on the image. Ex-1006, 15:24-25.
`
`Eintracht discloses a system for differentiating between the notes generated by
`
`various users to track the users who make the annotations in the document. Each
`
`user chooses a unique user ID that forms a Note Owner identifier (Note Owner ID).
`
`Ex-1006, 8:6-17.
`
`3.
`
`Carey
`Carey discloses a method, system and computer program product for instant
`
`message communications. Ex-1007, Abstract. Carey allows team members in
`
`different locations to converse. Ex-1007, 1:24-26.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case IPR2023-00058
`U.S. Patent No. 9,959,291
`Carey discloses a method for remotely creating instant message name lists for
`
`cellular devices. A user subscribes by registering, and then can create an instant
`
`message name list by entering the instant message name corresponding to a desired
`
`recipient. The name is then saved in a look-up table in a database, and stored in
`
`relation to predefined user profile information. Ex-1007,4:6-25.
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) in the timeframe of the
`
`invention would have a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical
`
`engineering, computer engineering, or a similar technical field, with two years of
`
`experience in the field of networked and Web-based media applications. Additional
`
`experience could substitute for less education, and additional education could
`
`likewise substitute for less experience. Ex-2021, ¶ 44.
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`The claims in an inter partes review (IPR) are construed using the same
`
`standard that applies in district court proceedings, as set forth in Phillips v. AWH
`
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Circ. 2005) (en banc); 37 C.F.R. § 100(b) (2019). Claim
`
`terms are afforded “their ordinary and customary meaning,” which is “the meaning
`
`that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the
`
`time of the invention.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13. “The Board only construes the
`
`claims when necessary to resolve the underlying controversy. Toyota Motor Corp.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case IPR2023-00058
`U.S. Patent No. 9,959,291
`v. Cellport Systems, Inc., IPR2015-00633, Paper No. 11 at 16 (Aug. 14, 2015) (citing
`
`Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
`
`Patent Owner does not believe express claim construction is necessary for any
`
`claim terms because no terms are in controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v.
`
`Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Toyota,
`
`IPR2015-00633, Paper No. 11 at 16. Here the Board does not need to construe any
`
`term, and each term should be given its ordinary and customary meaning. Ex-2021,
`
`¶ 63.
`
`V.
`
`THE CITED REFRENCES DO NOT RENDER CLAIMS 1-26
`UNPATENTABLE
`The Board instituted review of the ’291 patent based on grounds 1-4.
`
`Decision, 28. In instituting review, the Board relied on the Petition and the testimony
`
`of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Bederson (Ex. 1003). However, for the reasons
`
`discussed below, the cited references do not render any of the challenged claims
`
`unpatentable. Ex-2021, ¶¶ 76-125.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`1.
`
`Case IPR2023-00058
`U.S. Patent No. 9,959,291
`A. Ground 1: Sharpe Alone or in View of the Knowledge of a POSITA
`Does Not Render Obvious Claims 1, 5 or 10-26
`Claim 26
`Limitation 26[d]: “in response to receiving from the
`identifying user the input indicating the selection of the
`named user from the list of other users, determining a
`unique user identifier of the named user”
`The Petition states that “Sharpe alone or in view of the knowledge of a POSA
`
`a.
`
`discloses” limitation 26[d] (Petition, 36), but that is incorrect. Ex-2021, ¶¶ 78-84.
`
`The Petition maps the claimed “unique user identifier” to the “user name” of
`
`Sharpe’s system. Petition, 36. Specifically, the Petition asserts that “[a] POSA would
`
`understand that Sharpe determines the username of the user identified in the image
`
`in response to the selection of that user.” Id.; see also id., 47 (“Sharpe’s system
`
`would determine the selected user’s username … in response to the selection of that
`
`user….to create an association between the selected user and image”). Id., 37. But
`
`the Petition incorrectly stretches Sharpe’s thin disclosure regarding a user name, and
`
`Petitioner has not presented any obviousness argument to remedy the lack of
`
`disclosure in Sharpe. Ex-2021, ¶ 78.
`
`As an initial matter, Sharpe mentions a “user name” only once. Ex-1005, 7:37-
`
`41. In this single sentence, Sharpe teaches that a user can “enter a user name and
`
`passwo