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