Meta Platforms, Inc. v.
`Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00057 (U.S. Patent No. 8,954,432)
`IPR2023-00058 (U.S. Patent No. 9,959,291)
`IPR2023-00059 (U.S. Patent No. 10,417,275)
`IPR2023-00060 (U.S. Patent No. 10,628,480)
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives
`February 13, 2024
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 1 of 108
`
`
`Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00057 (U.S. Patent No. 8,954,432)
`IPR2023-00058 (U.S. Patent No. 9,959,291)
`IPR2023-00059 (U.S. Patent No. 10,417,275)
`IPR2023-00060 (U.S. Patent No. 10,628,480)
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives
`February 13, 2024
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 1 of 108
`
`
`
`Overview
`
`’432 / ’291 Patents – Sharpe Alone or in View of a POSA
`• Single-Reference Obviousness
`• Disputed Limitations
`
`’432 / ’291 / ’275 Patents – Sharpe + Eintracht
`• Motivation to Combine
`• Undisputed Disclosures
`• Disputed Limitations
`
`’480 Patent – Robertson + Lloyd-Jones
`• Analogous Art
`• Motivation to Combine
`• Disputed Limitations
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 2 of 108
`
`
`
`Overview
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 3 of 108
`
`
`
`Challenged Patents
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`4
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 4 of 108
`
`
`
`Challenged Patents
`
`’432 Patent
`Filed: Nov. 15, 2001
`Issued: Feb. 10, 2015
`
`’291 Patent
`Filed: Oct. 15, 2013
`Issued: May 1, 2018
`
`’275 Patent
`Filed: Mar. 23, 2018
`Issued: Sep. 17, 2019
`
`’480 Patent
`Filed: Aug. 9, 2019
`Issued: Apr. 21, 2020
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`5
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 5 of 108
`
`
`
`Challenged Patents
`
`’432 Pet. 1, 6-12.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`6
`
`’432 Patent at (54), 1:11-17.
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 6 of 108
`
`
`
`Challenged Patents
`
`’432 Patent, Fig. 4
`
`’432 Patent, Fig. 7
`
`’432 Pet. 1, 6-12.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`7
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 7 of 108
`
`
`
`Photo Tagging Was Well-Known in the Art
`
`PhotoFinder
`
`FotoFile
`
`Ex. 1016 at 4 (Fig. 4).
`
`Ex. 1011 at 4 (Fig. 1).
`
`’432 Pet. 1, 6; ’432 Bederson Decl. (Ex. 1003) at 63-69 (¶¶ 107-09).
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`8
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 8 of 108
`
`
`
`Photo Tagging Was Well-Known in the Art
`
`’432 Ex. 1002 (’432 FH) at 935.
`
`’432 Pet. 1, 10-12.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`9
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 9 of 108
`
`
`
`Prosecution: ’432 Allowed Based on “Three Distinct and Separate Databases”
`
`’432 Pet. 1, 10-11.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`10
`
`’432 Ex. 1002 at 885.
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 10 of 108
`
`
`
`Prosecution: ’432 Allowed Based on “Three Distinct and Separate Databases”
`
`’432 Patent at 17:41-18:23 (cl. 6).
`’432 Pet. 1, 10-12.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`11
`
`’432 Patent, Fig. 1
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 11 of 108
`
`
`
`Prosecution: ’432 Allowed Based on “Three Distinct and Separate Databases”
`
`’432 Ex. 1002 (’432 FH) at 935.
`
`’432 Pet. 1, 10-12.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`12
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 12 of 108
`
`
`
`Prosecution: ’291 Allowed Based on Selecting Tagged User from Contact List
`
`’291 Ex. 1002 (’291 FH) at 394.
`
`’291 Pet. 1-2, 7-13.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`13
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 13 of 108
`
`
`
`Prosecution: ’291 Allowed Based on Selecting Tagged User from Contact List
`
`’291 Pet. 1-2, 7-13.
`
`’291 Patent at 26:30-60 (cl. 26).
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`’291 Patent, Fig. 4.
`
`14
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 14 of 108
`
`
`
`Prosecution: ’275 Also Allowed Based on Selecting Tagged User from Contact List
`
`’275 Ex. 1002 (’275 FH) at 235.
`
`’275 Pet. at 12-13.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`15
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 15 of 108
`
`
`
`Prosecution: ’275 Also Allowed Based on Selecting Tagged User from Contact List
`
`’275 Patent at 16:59-17:29 (cl. 1).
`
`’275 Pet. 1-2, 7-13.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`16
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 16 of 108
`
`
`
`Prosecution: Selecting Tagged User from Contact List Would Have Been Obvious
`
`’291 Ex. 1008 (’480 FH) at 206-07.
`
`‘432 Pet. 11-12; ’291 Pet. 13; ’275 Pet. 13.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`17
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 17 of 108
`
`
`
`Prosecution: ’480 Allowed Based on Prompt to Add Contact from Tagged Photo
`
`’480 Pet. 1-2, 7-10.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`18
`
`’480 Ex. 1002 (’480 FH) at 273.
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 18 of 108
`
`
`
`Prosecution: ’480 Allowed Based on Prompt to Add Contact from Tagged Photo
`
`’480 Patent at 16:53-17:38 (cl. 1).
`
`’480 Pet. 1-2, 7-10.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`19
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 19 of 108
`
`
`
`Prosecution: ’480 Allowed Based on Prompt to Add Contact from Tagged Photo
`
`’480 Pet. 1-2, 7-10.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`20
`
`’480 Patent at 9:31-48.
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 20 of 108
`
`
`
`Challenged Patents: Reasons for Allowance
`
`’432 Patent Three Distinct and Separate Databases
`
`’291 Patent Selecting Tagged User From Contact List
`
`’275 Patent Selecting Tagged User From Contact List
`
`’480 Patent Prompt to Add Contact from Tagged Photo
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`21
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 21 of 108
`
`
`
`Asserted Prior Art
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`22
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 22 of 108
`
`
`
`Overview of Instituted Grounds
`’432 Patent (IPR2023-00057)
`Ground 1: Claims 1, 3, 6-8 obvious over Sharpe alone or in view of the knowledge of a POSA
`Ground 2: Claims 1-8 obvious over Sharpe in view of Eintracht teachings
`Ground 3: Claim 3 obvious over Sharpe in view of Carey teachings
`Ground 4: Claim 3 obvious over Sharpe in view of Eintracht and Carey teachings
`
`’291 Patent (IPR2023-00058)
`Ground 1: Claims 1, 5, 10-26 obvious over Sharpe alone or in view of the knowledge of a POSA
`Ground 2: Claims 1-26 obvious over Sharpe in view of Eintracht teachings
`Ground 3: Claim 18, 19, 26 obvious over Sharpe in view of Carey teachings
`Ground 4: Claim 18, 19, 26 obvious over Sharpe in view of Eintracht and Carey teachings
`
`’275 Patent (IPR2023-00059)
`Ground 1: Claims 1-12 obvious over Sharpe in view of Eintracht and FotoFile teachings
`Ground 2: Claims 1-12 obvious over Sharpe in view of Eintracht, FotoFile, and Carey teachings
`
`’480 Patent (IPR2023-00060)
`Ground 1: Claims 1-30 obvious over Robertson in view of Lloyd-Jones teachings
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`23
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 23 of 108
`
`
`
`Sharpe (’432 / ’291 / ’275)
`
`‘432 Pet. 15-17; ’291 Pet. 16-18; ’275 Pet. 16-18.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 4.
`
`24
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 24 of 108
`
`
`
`Sharpe (’432 / ’291 / ’275)
`
`‘432 Pet. 15-17; ’291 Pet. 16-18; ’275 Pet. 16-18.
`
`Ex. 1005 at (54), Fig. 6.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`25
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 25 of 108
`
`
`
`Undisputed: Sharpe Discloses Three Distinct and Separate Databases
`
`‘432 Pet. 16-17; ’432 Reply 1; ’432 Bederson Decl. ¶¶ 84-85.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Sharpe (Ex. 1005), Fig. 6.
`
`26
`
`Sharpe (Ex. 1005) at 3:64-4:6, 4:21-28.
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 26 of 108
`
`
`
`Undisputed: Sharpe Discloses Selecting Tagged User from Contact List
`
`Sharpe (Ex. 1005) at 3:57-63, 6:65-7:1, 8:26-29.
`
`‘291 Pet. 31-36; ’291 Reply 1; 275 Pet. 41-46; ’275 Reply 1.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Sharpe (Ex. 1005), Fig. 4.
`
`27
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 27 of 108
`
`
`
`Eintracht (’432 / ’291 / ’275)
`
`‘432 Pet. 17-20; ’291 Pet. 18-21; ’275 Pet. 18-21.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`28
`
`Eintracht (Ex. 1006) at (54), Figs. 1A-C, 2.
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 28 of 108
`
`
`
`Additional Prior Art Not at Issue (’432 / ’291 / ’275)
`Undisputed: Carey Teaches Contact Lists; FotoFile Teaches Image Recognition Via AI
`FotoFile
`Carey
`
`’432 Pet. at 78.
`
`‘432 Pet. 20-21, 78-79; ’291 Pet. 21-22; ’275 Pet. 22-23, 53;
`‘275 Bederson Decl. ¶¶ 210-211
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`29
`
`Ex. 1011 at 5 (Figs. 3-4).
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 29 of 108
`
`
`
`Robertson (’480 Only)
`
`’480 Pet. 19-21.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`30
`
`Robertson (Ex. 1012)
`at (54), Fig. 11.
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 30 of 108
`
`
`
`Robertson (’480 Only)
`
`Robertson (Ex. 1012) at (54), Fig. 8.
`
`’480 Pet. 19-21.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`31
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 31 of 108
`
`
`
`Lloyd-Jones (’480 Only)
`
`’480 Pet. 22-23.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`32
`
`Lloyd-Jones (Ex. 1013) at (54), Fig. 5.
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 32 of 108
`
`
`
`Robertson Modified by Lloyd-Jones Teachings (’480 Only)
`
`Robertson (Ex. 1012), Fig. 11 (modified).
`
`Robertson (Ex. 1012), Fig. 8 (modified).
`
`’480 Pet. 41-48; ’480 Bederson Decl. ¶¶ 175-80.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`33
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 33 of 108
`
`
`
`Sharpe Alone or in View of
`the Knowledge of a POSA
`(’432 / ’291)
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 34 of 108
`
`
`
`Overview
`
`’432 / ’291 Patents – Sharpe Alone or in View of a POSA
`• Single-Reference Obviousness
`• Disputed Limitations
`
`’432 / ’291 / ’275 Patents – Sharpe + Eintracht
`• Motivation to Combine
`• Undisputed Disclosures
`• Disputed Limitations
`
`’480 Patent – Robertson + Lloyd-Jones
`• Analogous Art
`• Motivation to Combine
`• Disputed Limitations
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`35
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 35 of 108
`
`
`
`Sharpe:
`Single-Reference Obviousness
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`36
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 36 of 108
`
`
`
`Sharpe: Single-Reference Obviousness (’432 / ’291)
`PO is on notice that Sharpe is a single-reference obviousness ground
`
`E.g., ’432 Pet. at 5.
`
`E.g., ’432 Pet. at 22.
`
`E.g., ’432 ID at 7.
`
`’432 Reply 12-17; ‘291 Reply 13-18.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`37
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 37 of 108
`
`
`
`Sharpe: Single-Reference Obviousness (’432 / ’291)
`The Board is not required to address motivation to combine for Sharpe alone
`
`E.g., ’432 ID at 27 n.11.
`
`’432 Reply 12-17; ‘291 Reply 13-18.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`38
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 38 of 108
`
`
`
`Sharpe: Single-Reference Obviousness (’432 / ’291)
`The Board is not required to address motivation to combine for Sharpe alone
`
`Here, HP’s primary argument to the Board was that all of the elements of claims 1–4, 8, and 28 were
`disclosed in O’Brien, a single reference. [...] As both the Board and Realtime recognized, HP also argued in
`the alternative that Nelson disclosed some of the elements in the claims at issue.
`
`We conclude that, in this case, the Board was not required to make any finding regarding a motivation
`to combine given its reliance on O’Brien alone. Certainly, had the Board relied on HP’s alternative
`argument, HP would have been required to demonstrate a sufficient motivation to combine the two
`references. [...]
`
`Under these circumstances, the Board was free to come to the very conclusion it reached: that O’Brien
`alone disclosed every element of claims 1-4, 8, and 28. And because the Board did not rely on Nelson for
`the disclosure of a particular element or teaching, the Board had no obligation to find a motivation to
`combine O’Brien and Nelson.
`
`Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1372-73 (Fed. Cir. 2019)
`
`’432 Reply 12-17; ‘291 Reply 13-18.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`39
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 39 of 108
`
`
`
`Sharpe: Single-Reference Obviousness
`Stepan footnote addressed a combination of multiple embodiments from a single reference,
`which does not apply to Sharpe
`
`Whether a rejection is based on combining disclosures from multiple references, combining
`multiple embodiments from a single reference, or selecting from large lists of elements in
`a single reference, there must be a motivation to make the combination and a reasonable
`expectation that such a combination would be successful, otherwise a skilled artisan would not
`arrive at the claimed combination.
`
`In re Stepan Co., 868 F.3d 1342, 1346 n.1 (Fed Cir. 2017)
`
`’432 Reply 12-17; ‘291 Reply 13-18.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`40
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 40 of 108
`
`
`
`Sharpe:
`Disputed Limitations
`1. Unique User Identifier
`2. Request for Said Image Data
`3. List of Pictured Users
`4. Second Tagging User
`5. ’291 Dependent Claims
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`41
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 41 of 108
`
`
`
`Sharpe: Unique User Identifier (’432 / ’291 / ’275)
`A POSA would have understood that Sharpe’s username is a unique user identifier
`
`’432 Reply 2-4; ’291 Reply 2-5; ’275 Reply 4-8;
`’432 Pet. 29-32; ’291 Pet. 25-26, 36-38, 43-46; ’275 Pet. 33-34, 46-47.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1005 (Sharpe) at Fig. 6.
`
`42
`
`E.g., ’432 Pet. at 31-32.
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 42 of 108
`
`
`
`Sharpe: Unique User Identifier (’432 / ’291 / ’275)
`A POSA would have understood that Sharpe’s username is a unique user identifier
`
`E.g., ’432 Bederson Decl. ¶ 132.
`
`’432 Reply 2-4; ’291 Reply 2-5; ’275 Reply 4-8;
`’432 Pet. 29-32; ’291 Pet. 25-26, 36-38, 43-46; ’275 Pet. 33-34, 46-47.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`43
`
`E.g., ’432 Bederson Decl. at 88.
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 43 of 108
`
`
`
`Sharpe: Unique User Identifier (’432 / ’291 / ’275)
`A POSA would have understood that Sharpe’s username is a unique user identifier
`
`’432 Reply 2-4; ’291 Reply 2-5; ’275 Reply 4-8;
`’432 Bederson Reply ¶ 10; ’291 Bederson Reply ¶ 10; ’275 Bederson
`Reply ¶ 13.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`44
`
`Falquet (Ex. 1042) at 4.
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 44 of 108
`
`
`
`Sharpe: Unique User Identifier (’432 / ’291 / ’275)
`PO and its expert do not dispute that Sharpe’s username can be a unique user identifier
`
`E.g., ’432 Saber Decl. ¶ 81.
`
`E.g., ’432 Saber Decl. ¶ 81.
`
`’432 Reply 2-4; ’291 Reply 2-5; ’275 Reply 4-8.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`45
`
`E.g., ’432 Saber Decl. ¶ 82.
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 45 of 108
`
`
`
`Sharpe: Unique User Identifier (’432 / ’291 / ’275)
`PO’s “inherency” argument is a straw man
`
`E.g., ’432 Pet. 31-32.
`
`’432 Reply 2-4; ’291 Reply 2-5; ’275 Reply 4-8.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`E.g., ’432 Bederson Decl. ¶ 307.
`
`46
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 46 of 108
`
`
`
`Sharpe: Request for Said Image Data (’432 / ’291)
`
`’432 Reply 6-10; ’291 Reply 5-8;
`’432 Pet. 39-40, 44-54, 55; ’291 Pet. 42-43, 48, 50-51.
`
`’432 Patent at 17:41-18:23 (cl. 6).
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`47
`
`’432 Patent at 18:24-42 (cls. 7-8).
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 47 of 108
`
`
`
`Sharpe: Request for Said Image Data (’432 / ’291)
`PO’s misinterpretation would improperly exclude requests that return multiple images
`
`’432 Reply 6-10; ’291 Reply 5-8;
`’432 Pet. 39-40, 44-54, 55; ’291 Pet. 42-43, 48, 50-51.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`48
`
`E.g., ’432 POR at 31-32.
`
`Sharpe (Ex. 1005), Fig. 4.
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 48 of 108
`
`
`
`Sharpe: Request for Said Image Data (’432 / ’291)
`PO’s misinterpretation would improperly exclude an embodiment in the specification
`
`E.g., ’432 Patent at 15:46-58.
`
`’432 Reply 6-10; ’291 Reply 5-8.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`E.g., ’432 Patent, Fig. 10.
`
`49
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 49 of 108
`
`
`
`Sharpe: Request for Said Image Data (’432 / ’291)
`Even under PO’s misinterpretation, Sharpe discloses the claimed request
`
`’432 Reply 6-10; ’291 Reply 5-8.
`
`Sharpe (Ex. 1005) at 3:29-44.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`50
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 50 of 108
`
`
`
`Sharpe: List of Pictured Users (’432 / ’291)
`Sharpe’s drop-down box discloses a list of pictured users
`
`E.g., ’432 Pet. 42.
`
`’432 Reply 10-12; ’291 Reply 9-11;
`’432 Pet. 40-42, 58; ’291 Pet. 51-53.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Sharpe (Ex. 1005) Fig. 4.
`
`51
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 51 of 108
`
`
`
`Sharpe: List of Pictured Users (’432 / ’291)
`PO and its expert offer little more than “not so”
`
`E.g., ’432 POR at 33.
`
`E.g., ’432 POR at 34.
`
`E.g., ’432 Saber Decl. ¶ 94.
`
`’432 Reply 10-12; ’291 Reply 9-11.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`52
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 52 of 108
`
`
`
`Sharpe: List of Pictured Users (’432 / ’291)
`A POSA implementing Sharpe would have understood available UI design options
`
`Sharpe (Ex. 1005) at 9:4-11.
`
`’432 Reply 10-12; ’291 Reply 9-11;
`’432 Bederson Reply ¶¶ 26-30; ’291 Bederson Reply ¶¶ 20-26.
`
`Apple (Ex. 1043) at 79.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Sharpe (Ex. 1005) Fig. 4.
`
`53
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 53 of 108
`
`
`
`Sharpe: Second Tagging User (’432 Only)
`
`’432 Patent at 17:41-18:23 (cl. 6).
`’432 Reply 4-5; ’432 Pet. 38-39, 55.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`’432 Patent at 18:24-36 (cl. 7).
`
`54
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 54 of 108
`
`
`
`Sharpe: Second Tagging User (’432 Only)
`Obvious to apply predictable, nearly identical operations to the same image for a second user
`
`[W]e affirm the Board’s conclusion that the challenged claims would have been
`obvious because modifying the Admitted Prior Art/Betts combination to include
`a second recess was nothing more than the predictable application of
`known technology. The prior art yields a predictable result, the “second
`recess,” because a person of skill in the art would have applied a variation of the
`first recess and would have seen the benefit of doing so.
`
`B/E Aerospace, Inc. v. C&D Zodiac, Inc., 962 F.3d 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
`(citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007)).
`
`’432 Reply 4-5; ’432 Pet. 38-39, 55.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`55
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 55 of 108
`
`
`
`Sharpe: Adding Image to Tagged User’s Photo Album (’291 cl. 15)
`Sharpe’s UI is used for both retrieving images and archiving images
`
`’291 Patent at 24:14-22.
`
`’291 Reply 11-12;
`’291 Pet. 53-54; ’291 Bederson Decl. ¶¶ 224-27.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`56
`
`Sharpe (Ex. 1005), Fig. 4.
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 56 of 108
`
`
`
`Sharpe: User ID Previously Provided by User (’291 cl. 17)
`Obvious design choice to have users provide their username in Sharpe’s registration process
`
`Sharpe (Ex. 1005) at 5:4-6, 7:35-41.
`
`’291 Reply 12-13; ’291 Pet. 33-34, 39-41, 54-55;
`’291 Bederson Decl. ¶¶ 228-29.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Sharpe (Ex. 1005), Fig. 1.
`
`57
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 57 of 108
`
`
`
`Sharpe: Screen Name Previously Provided by User (’291 cl. 19)
`Also an obvious design choice to have users provide screen names in Sharpe’s registration process
`
`’291 Bederson Decl. ¶ 233.
`
`’291 Reply 13; ’291 Pet. 33-34, 39-41, 54-55;
`’291 Bederson Decl. ¶¶ 232-33.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`58
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 58 of 108
`
`
`
`Sharpe: Naming Information Includes Screen Name (’275 cl. 11)
`Petition addresses obviousness of same functionality for username earlier in the claim
`
`’275 Pet. at 67.
`
`’275 Reply 14; ’275 Pet. 33-34, 67;
`’275 Bederson Decl. ¶ 245.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`59
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 59 of 108
`
`
`
`Sharpe + Eintracht
`(’432 / ’291 / ’275)
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 60 of 108
`
`
`
`Overview
`
`’432 / ’291 Patents – Sharpe Alone or in View of a POSA
`• Single-Reference Obviousness
`• Disputed Limitations
`
`’432 / ’291 / ’275 Patents – Sharpe + Eintracht
`• Motivation to Combine
`• Undisputed Disclosures
`• Disputed Limitations
`
`’480 Patent – Robertson + Lloyd-Jones
`• Analogous Art
`• Motivation to Combine
`• Disputed Limitations
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`61
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 61 of 108
`
`
`
`Sharpe + Eintracht:
`Motivation to Combine
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`62
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 62 of 108
`
`
`
`A POSA Would Have Combined the Teachings of Sharpe & Eintracht
`Eintracht’s asynchronous annotations would have improved Sharpe’s collaborative archival system
`Sharpe
`Eintracht
`
`Sharpe (Ex. 1005) at 5:4-18.
`
`’432 Pet. 59-62; ’291 Pet. 59-62; ’275 Pet. 25-27;
`’432 Bederson Decl. ¶¶ 143-45; ’291 Bederson Decl. ¶¶ 252-54;
`‘275 Bederson Decl. ¶¶ 129-31.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`63
`
`Eintracht (Ex. 1006) at 2:56-3:4.
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 63 of 108
`
`
`
`A POSA Would Have Combined the Teachings of Sharpe & Eintracht
`Sharpe and Eintracht disclose structurally similar web-based, collaborative systems
`Sharpe
`Eintracht
`
`’432 Pet. 59-62; ’291 Pet. 59-62; ’275 Pet. 25-27;
`’432 Bederson Decl. ¶¶ 143-45; ’291 Bederson Decl. ¶¶ 252-54;
`‘275 Bederson Decl. ¶¶ 129-31.
`
`Sharpe (Ex. 1005) Fig. 2.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Eintracht (Ex. 1006) Fig. 3.
`
`64
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 64 of 108
`
`
`
`A POSA Would Have Combined the Teachings of Sharpe & Eintracht
`Patent Owner and its expert offer little more than “not so”
`Patent Owner
`
`Dr. Saber
`
`E.g., ’432 POR at 53-54.
`
`E.g., Saber Decl. ¶ 110.
`
`’432 Reply 18-19; ’291 Reply 18-20; ’275 Reply 2-4.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`65
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 65 of 108
`
`
`
`A POSA Would Have Combined the Teachings of Sharpe & Eintracht
`Sharpe and Eintracht each operate on both documents and images
`
`Sharpe
`
`Eintracht
`
`Sharpe (Ex. 1005) at 3:45-56.
`
`Eintracht (Ex. 1006) at 6:55-65.
`
`’432 Reply 18-19; ’291 Reply 18-20; ’275 Reply 2-4;
`’432 Bederson Reply ¶¶ 32-34; ’291 Bederson Reply ¶¶ 28-30;
`’275 Bederson Reply ¶¶ 7-9.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`66
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 66 of 108
`
`
`
`A POSA Would Have Combined the Teachings of Sharpe & Eintracht
`Sharpe and Eintracht each operate on both documents and images
`Sharpe
`
`Eintracht
`
`Eintracht (Ex. 1006) Fig. 1C.
`
`’432 Reply 18-19; ’291 Reply 18-20; ’275 Reply 2-4;
`’432 Bederson Reply ¶¶ 32-34; ’291 Bederson Reply ¶¶ 28-30;
`’275 Bederson Reply ¶¶ 7-9.
`
`Sharpe (Ex. 1005) Fig. 4.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`67
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 67 of 108
`
`
`
`Sharpe + Eintracht:
`Undisputed Disclosures
`1.Unique User Identifier
`2.Second Tagging User
`3.List of Pictured Users
`4.Request for Said Image Data
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`68
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 68 of 108
`
`
`
`Undisputed: Eintracht Discloses Unique User ID (’432 / ’291 / ’275)
`PO does not challenge Petition’s showing that Eintracht also discloses a unique user ID
`
`’432 Reply 20-21; ’291 Reply 20-21; ’275 Reply 7-8;
`’432 Pet. 63-64, 68; ’291 Pet. 62-64; ’275 Pet. 34-36.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`69
`
`Eintracht (Ex. 1006) at 8:6-16.
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 69 of 108
`
`
`
`Undisputed: Eintracht Discloses Unique User ID (’432 / ’291 / ’275)
`During prosecution, PO admitted that Eintracht discloses a unique user ID
`
`’432 Ex. 1002 (’432 FH) at 487.
`
`’432 Reply 20-21; ’291 Reply 20-21; ’275 Reply 7-8;
`’432 Pet. 63-64, 68; ’291 Pet. 62-64; ’275 Pet. 34-36.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`70
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 70 of 108
`
`
`
`Undisputed: Eintracht Discloses Second Tagging User (’432 Only)
`PO does not challenge Petition’s showing that Eintracht also discloses a second tagging user
`
`Eintracht (Ex. 1006) at 3:59-65.
`
`’432 Reply 20-21; ’432 Pet. 65, 70.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`71
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 71 of 108
`
`
`
`Undisputed: Eintracht Discloses List of Pictured Users (’432 / ’291)
`PO does not challenge Petition’s showing that Eintracht also discloses a list of pictured users
`
`’432 Reply 20-21; ’291 Reply 20-21;
`’432 Pet. 66-68, 71; ’291 Pet. 70-72.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`72
`
`Eintracht (Ex. 1006) at 7:5-17, Fig. 1C.
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 72 of 108
`
`
`
`Undisputed: Eintracht Discloses List of Pictured Users (’432 / ’291)
`PO does not challenge Petition’s showing that Eintracht also discloses a list of pictured users
`
`’432 Reply 20-21; ’291 Reply 20-21;
`’432 Pet. 66-68, 71; ’291 Pet. 70-72.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`73
`
`Eintracht (Ex. 1006) at 7:18-23, Fig. 2.
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 73 of 108
`
`
`
`Undisputed: Eintracht Discloses Request for Image (’432 / ’291)
`PO does not challenge Petition’s showing that Eintracht also discloses a request for image data
`
`’432 Reply 20-21; ’291 Reply 20-21;
`’432 Pet. 68-69; ’291 Pet. 62-64.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`74
`
`Eintracht (Ex. 1006) at 4:13-21, 8:17-23.
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 74 of 108
`
`
`
`Undisputed: Eintracht Discloses Request for Image (’432 / ’291)
`Even under PO’s improper interpretation, Eintracht discloses a request for a “particular” image
`
`’432 Reply 20-21; ’291 Reply 20-21;
`’432 Bederson Reply ¶¶ 35-36; ’291 Bederson Reply ¶¶ 31-32.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`75
`
`Eintracht (Ex. 1006) at 13:41-43, 13:56-58, Fig. 6 (excerpt).
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 75 of 108
`
`
`
`Sharpe + Eintracht:
`Disputed Limitations
`1. Coordinates
`2. Email Alerts
`3. ’275 Dependent Claim
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`76
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 76 of 108
`
`
`
`Sharpe + Eintracht: Coordinates (’432 / ’291 / ’275)
`Eintracht adds coordinates to the named user annotations of Sharpe
`
`’432 Reply 21-23; ’291 Reply 22-24; ’275 Reply 8-10;
`’432 Pet. 72-74, 68; ’291 Pet. 66-67; ’275 Pet. 47-51, 62-66.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`77
`
`Eintracht (Ex. 1006) at 7:59-66, Fig. 1B.
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 77 of 108
`
`
`
`Sharpe + Eintracht: Coordinates (’432 / ’291 / ’275)
`A POSA would have known of many UI design options to prevent obscuring an image
`
`Microsoft (Ex. 1044) at 343 (Fig. 12.6).
`
`’432 Reply 21-23; ’291 Reply 22-24; ’275 Reply 8-10;
`’432 Pet. 72-74, 68; ’291 Pet. 66-67; ’275 Pet. 47-51, 62-66.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`78
`
`Harrison & Vicente (Ex. 1045) at Fig. 1.
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 78 of 108
`
`
`
`Sharpe + Eintracht: Email Alerts (’432 / ’291 / ’275)
`Eintracht adds email alerts to named user annotation events of Sharpe
`
`’432 Reply 23-24; ’291 Reply 21-22; ’275 Reply 12-13;
`’432 Pet. 74-75; ’291 Pet. 64-65; ’275 Pet. 59-60;
`’432 Bederson Reply ¶¶ 45-46; ’291 Bederson Reply ¶¶ 33-34;
`’275 Bederson Reply ¶¶ 22-23.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`79
`
`Eintracht (Ex. 1006) at 10:5-16, 11:7-14.
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 79 of 108
`
`
`
`Sharpe + Eintracht: ’275 Dependent Claims 8-9
`Petition addresses “in response to” location of the image recited earlier in the claim
`
`’275 Reply 13-14; ’275 Pet. 63-67;
`’275 Bederson Decl. ¶¶ 233-43.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`’275 Pet. 64.
`
`80
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 80 of 108
`
`
`
`Robertson + Lloyd-Jones
`(’480 Only)
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Angel Technologies Group LLC
`IPR2023-00059
`Exhibit 1049 - Page 81 of 108
`
`
`
`Overview
`
`’432 / ’291 Patents – Sharpe Alone or in View of a POSA
`• Single-Reference Obviousness
`• Disputed Limitations
`
`’432 / ’291 / ’275 Patents – Sharpe + Eintracht
`• Motivation to Combine
`• Undisputed Disclosures
`• Disputed Limitation
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
