UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`––––––––––
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`––––––––––
`
`META PLATFORMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ANGEL TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`––––––––––
`
`Case IPR2023-00059
`U.S. Patent 10,417,275
`––––––––––
`
`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
`
` 
` 
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00059
`U.S. Patent 10,417,275
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`B.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 3
`A.
`The ’275 Patent ..................................................................................... 3
`1.
`Existing Technology ................................................................... 3
`2.
`Advantages Provided by the ’275 Patent .................................... 4
`3.
`System Components .................................................................... 5
`4.
`The Operation of the ’275 Patent’s System ................................ 8
`B. ALLEGED PRIOR ART ....................................................................... 9
`1.
`Sharpe .......................................................................................... 9
`2.
`Eintracht .................................................................................... 13
`3.
`FotoFile ..................................................................................... 16
`4.
`Carey ......................................................................................... 16
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL .................................................................. 17
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 17
`V.
`THE CITED REFERENCES DO NOT RENDER CLAIMS 1-12
`UNPATENTABLE ........................................................................................ 18
`A. A POSITA Would Not Have Been Motivated to Combine
`Sharpe with Eintracht and FotoFile to Arrive at the Challenged
`Claims .................................................................................................. 18
`The Petition Fails to Explain How the Combination of Sharpe
`and Eintracht Would Operate .............................................................. 20
`C. Ground 1: Sharpe, Eintracht, and FotoFile Do Not Render
`Obvious Claims 1-12 ........................................................................... 22
`Limitation 1[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” ................................................................................... 22
`Limitation 1[e]: “receiving, from the identifying user, one or
`more inputs indicating a set of coordinates corresponding to a
`location of the named user within the image; and” ............................. 27
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
` 
`
`i 
`
`

`

`3.
`
`E.
`
`IPR2023-00059
`U.S. Patent 10,417,275
`Limitation 1[f]: “applying artificial intelligence algorithms to
`image data of other images accessible to said computer system
`to locate images matching characteristics of a subset of image
`data bound by the set of coordinates corresponding to the
`location of the named user within the image, wherein the set of
`coordinates corresponding to the location of the named user
`within the image is associated with the unique user identifier of
`the named user and the unique image identifier.” ............................... 32
`Dependent Claims 2-12 ....................................................................... 35
`4.
`Claims 3 and 4 ..................................................................................... 35
`a.
`Claim 7 ................................................................................................ 37
`b.
`Claim 8 ................................................................................................ 38
`c.
`Claim 9 ................................................................................................ 39
`d.
`Claim 11 .............................................................................................. 41
`e.
`D. Ground 2: Sharpe in View of Eintracht, FotoFile, and Carey
`Does Not Render Obvious Claims 1-12 .............................................. 42
`The Petition’s Reliance on a Combination of References
`Without Including Any Analysis Regarding the Secondary
`References is Impermissibly Vague .................................................... 42
`VI. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 44
`
`
` 
`
`
`
` 
`
`ii 
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`IPR2023-00059
`U.S. Patent 10,417,275
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`CASES
`3M Company v. Evergreen Adhesives, Inc.,
`No. 2020-1738 (Fed. Cir. June 25, 2021) ........................................................... 43
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................... 20, 21
`ADT LLC v. Vivint, Inc.,
`IPR2022-00634, Paper No. 7 (PTAB Oct. 4, 2022) ........................................... 21
`Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.,
`66 F.4th 952 (Fed. Cir. 2023) ............................................................................. 25
`ATD Corp. v. Lydall, Inc.,
`159 F.3d 534 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ............................................................................ 33
`Daifuku Co. v. Murata Machinery, Ltd.,
`IPR2015-00084, Paper No. 10 (PTAB May 4, 2015) ........................................ 21
`Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd. V. ResMed R&D Ger. GmbH,
`IPR2017-00272, Paper 41 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 6, 2018) ........................................... 20
`In re Oelrich,
`666 F.2d 578 (CCPA 1981) .................................................................... 24, 25, 26
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co.,
`868 F.3d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 17
`Parus Holdings, Inc. v. Google LLC,
`70 F.4th 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2023) ........................................................................... 43
`Personal Web Tech. v. Apple,
`848 F.3d 987 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................ 20
`PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`917 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .................................................................... 24, 25
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Circ. 2005) (en banc) ........................................................ 17
`
` 
`
`iii 
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00059
`U.S. Patent 10,417,275
`
`Toyota Motor Corp. v. Cellport Systems, Inc.,
`IPR2015-00633, Paper No. 11 (Aug. 14, 2015) ................................................. 17
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) ............................................................................................... 43
`35 U.S.C. § 316(e) ..................................................................................................... 2
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) .............................................................................................. 43
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) ............................................................................................ 43
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)-(5) .................................................................................... 43
`37 C.F.R. § 100(b) (2019) ........................................................................................ 17
`
`
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`iv 
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00059
`U.S. Patent 10,417,275
`
`PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`Eliza Beeney Biography (previously submitted)
`Declaration of Eliza Beeney in Support of Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`(previously submitted)
`Kaylee Hoffner Biography (previously submitted)
`Declaration of Kaylee Hoffner in Support of Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`(previously submitted)
`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
`Links.asp (previously submitted)
`2010
`Ex0006.log (previously submitted)
`2011
`2012 Messages_post (previously submitted)
`2013
`Ex0007.log (previously submitted)
`2014
`American Express Statement (previously submitted)
`2015
`Emails (users populating profiles) (previously submitted)
`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)
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`v 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00059
`U.S. Patent 10,417,275
`Declaration of Lisa Larson Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.131 (previously
`submitted)
`Deposition transcript of Dr. Benjamin Bederson dated July 20, 2023 in
`IPR2023-00056, 00058 and 00059.
`RESERVED
`Declaration of Dr. Eli Saber
`
`
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`2020
`2021
`
`
`
` 
`
`vi 
`
`

`

`Case IPR2023-00059
`U.S. Patent No. 10,417,275
`
`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. 10,417,275 (the “’275 patent”) on
`
`two grounds that challenge claims 1-12 (“the Challenged Claims”) of the ’275
`
`patent. Decision, 29.
`
`The Petition includes two grounds as shown below.
`
`Ground
`
`References
`
`Claims
`
`1
`
`Sharpe1, Eintracht2, Fotofile3
`
`1, 5, 10-26
`
`                                                            
`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 Allan Kuchinsky et al., FotoFile: A Consumer Multimedia Organization and
`
`Retrieval System, CHI ’99: PROCEEDINGS OF THE SIGCHI CONFERENCE
`
`ON HUMAN FACTORS IN COMPUTING SYSTEMS, 496-503 (May 1999).
`
`(Ex-1011).
`
` 
`
`1 
`
`

`

`2
`
`
`
`Sharpe, Eintracht, Fotofile,
`Carey4
`
`Case IPR2023-00059
`U.S. Patent No. 10,417,275
`1-26
`
`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.5
`
`
`
`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 in
`
`any of the Challenged Claims. Further, Petitioner has not established motivation to
`
`combine Sharpe and Eintracht to arrive at the Challenged Claims, and, even if they
`
`were combined, the Sharpe-Eintracht combination does not teach or suggest each
`
`and every claim limitation. Further, Petitioner should not be rewarded for the lack
`
`of clarity present in the Petition.
`
`Accordingly, the patentability of the Challenged Claims should be confirmed.
`
`                                                            
`4 Carey is U.S. Patent No. 6,714,793 (Ex-1007).
`
`5 Patent Owner submits the declaration of Dr. Saber (Ex-2021), an expert in the
`
`field of the ’275 patent. (Ex-2021, ¶¶1-21, 44-45).
`
` 
`
`2 
`
`

`

`Case IPR2023-00059
`U.S. Patent No. 10,417,275
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`The ’275 Patent
`The ’275 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 photo in
`
`a photo album. Ex-1001, Abstract. See also Ex-2021, ¶¶ 46-62.
`
`1.
`
`Existing Technology
`In the late 1990s and early 2000s 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 IPR2023-00059
`U.S. Patent No. 10,417,275
`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 ’275 Patent
`The ’275 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 ’275 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 Users database 230 can be populated to include a user
`
`identifier with information such as the user’s name, email-address, home page
`
`
`
` 
`
`4 
`
`

`

`Case IPR2023-00059
`U.S. Patent No. 10,417,275
`address, and/or a list of contacts. The Images database 250 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 240 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 ’275 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 ’275 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 system and process disclosed in the ’275 patent 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
`
` 
`
`5 
`
`

`

`Case IPR2023-00059
`U.S. Patent No. 10,417,275
`with information stored on or accessible by the host computer. If the invention is
`
`implemented with the 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 ’275 patent’s 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
`
`the 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 IPR2023-00059
`U.S. Patent No. 10,417,275
`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 a 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 as (but not limited to)
`
`photographs and people, respectively. Ex-1001, 6:53-65.
`
`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.
`
`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 ’275 patent, reproduced below, represents an exemplary
`
`schematic diagram of the ’275 patent’s system as detailed above.
`
` 
`
`7 
`
`

`

`Case IPR2023-00059
`U.S. Patent No. 10,417,275
`
`
`
`Ex-1001, Fig. 1.
`
`4.
`
`The Operation of the ’275 Patent’s System
`In operation, users of the ’275 patent’s 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 system embodying the invention a digital photo of a group of friends and
`
`family members. Ex-1001, 9:35-41.
`
`The ’275 patent’s 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
`
` 
`
`8 
`
`

`

`Case IPR2023-00059
`U.S. Patent No. 10,417,275
`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, Petitioner presents two grounds challenging claims 1-12
`
`using various combinations of Sharpe, Eintracht and FotoFile.6 These references are
`
`described briefly below. See also Ex-2021, ¶¶ 64-76.
`
`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
`
`                                                            
`6 Petition, 5-6.
`
` 
`
`9 
`
`

`

`Case IPR2023-00059
`U.S. Patent No. 10,417,275
`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. Importantly, Sharpe
`
`does not aim to uniquely index or identify digital multimedia items, but rather
`
`collectively group them according to a memory. “The aim of retrieval is not to
`
`retrieve a specific digital media item but instead to retrieve any digital media items
`
`relating to a memorable episode. Thus the indexing system does not uniquely
`
`identify digital media items, but replaces them within a highly personal framework.”
`
`Sharpe, 2:17-22. 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 discloses
`
`users of a group who are registered by a group registration process in a database.
`
`Ex-1005, 5:4-6. The members 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
`
`the database, identifying one or more multimedia items to be archived with index
`
` 
`
`10 
`
`

`

`Case IPR2023-00059
`U.S. Patent No. 10,417,275
`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.
`
`Ex-1005, Fig. 1.
`
`The items stored are associated to the group. Ex-1005, 7:47-48. This is shown
`
`
`
`in Figure 6b.
`
` 
`
`11 
`
`

`

`Case IPR2023-00059
`U.S. Patent No. 10,417,275
`
`
`
`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 IPR2023-00059
`U.S. Patent No. 10,417,275
`
`
`
`Ex-1005, Fig. 4.
`
`2.
`
`Eintracht
`Eintracht was considered during the prosecution of the ’275 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 IPR2023-00059
`U.S. Patent No. 10,417,275
`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 IPR2023-00059
`U.S. Patent No. 10,417,275
`The display may also include Note Event description, Note Owner ID, user name,
`
`path, originator IP address, time and Note Contents. Ex-1006, 7:5-17.
`
`
`
`Ex-1006, Fig. 1C.
`
`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.
`
` 
`
`15 
`
`

`

`Case IPR2023-00059
`U.S. Patent No. 10,417,275
`
`3.
`
`FotoFile
`FotoFile was considered during prosecution of the ’275 patent. FotoFile is an
`
`article that discloses an experimental system for multimedia organization and
`
`retrieval, based upon the design goal of making multimedia content accessible to
`
`non-expert users. Ex-1011, Abstract. FotoFile discloses algorithms to locate faces
`
`in images by blending human annotation with automated algorithms to support
`
`search, browsing, and retrieval technologies for multimedia. FotoFile discloses a
`
`face detection and recognition system in which, when given faces of new people,
`
`the face recognition system attempts to match the identity of the face. Ex-1011, 4.
`
`FotoFile can arrange small groups of photographs and orders the events
`
`chronologically to mirror human episodic memory. Ex-1011, 3-4.
`
`4.
`
`Carey
`Carey discloses a method, system and computer program product for instant
`
`message communications, allowing team members in different locations to
`
`converse. Ex-1007, Abstract, 1:24-26. 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.
`
` 
`
`16 
`
`

`

`Case IPR2023-00059
`U.S. Patent No. 10,417,275
`
`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.
`
`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,
`
` 
`
`17 
`
`

`

`Case IPR2023-00059
`U.S. Patent No. 10,417,275
`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.
`
`V.
`
`THE CITED REFERENCES DO NOT RENDER CLAIMS 1-12
`UNPATENTABLE
`The Board instituted review of the ’275 patent based on Grounds 1-2.
`
`Decision, 29. In instituting review, the Board relied on the Petition and the testimony
`
`of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Bederson (Ex-1003). For the reasons discussed below,
`
`the cited references do not render any of the challenged claims unpatentable. Ex-
`
`2021, ¶¶ 77-113.
`
`A.
`
`A POSITA Would Not Have Been Motivated to Combine Sharpe
`with Eintracht and FotoFile to Arrive at the Challenged Claims
`As an initial matter, Petitioner has failed to establish that a POSITA would
`
`have sought to combine Sharpe with Eintracht and FotoFile (as required for both
`
`Grounds 1 and 2 of the Petition) to arrive at the Challenged Claims. The Petition
`
`states that “a POSA would have recognized that Eintracht’s asynchronous annotation
`
`capability and groupware features would have improved the collaborative digital
`
`media archival system of Sharpe.” Petition, 25. Sharpe and Eintracht, however, are
`
`directed to fundamentally different systems with different goals. Ex-2021, ¶ 78.
`
`As Petitioner’s expert explains, “Sharpe discloses a method and system for
`
`archiving and retrieving digital media items, including images, based on the
`
`“episodic memory” of a group of people. Ex-1003, ¶ 71. On the other hand,
`
` 
`
`18 
`
`

`

`Case IPR2023-00059
`U.S. Patent No. 10,417,275
`Petitioner’s expert explains that “Eintracht discloses a system for collaborative
`
`documentation annotation.” Id., ¶ 75. Eintracht discloses a system with a
`
`synchronization mechanism for collaborative document annotation. Ex-2021, ¶¶ 79.
`
`Petitioner has not established that a POSITA would have modified the system of
`
`Sharpe, which is directed to archiving and retrieving digital media items based on
`
`episodic memory, in light of the teachings of Eintracht, which is directed to
`
`collaborative document annotation. A POSITA would not have sought to combine
`
`Sharpe and Eintracht in the manner proposed by Petitioner, much less combine them
`
`additionally with FotoFile. Ex-2021, ¶ 79.
`
`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; Ex-1003, ¶ 71.
`
`Eintracht generally discloses a system for collaborative document annotation in
`
`which 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 is not
`
`related to archival and retrieving of digital media items, nor is Sharpe related to
`
`collaborative document annotation. Ex-2021, ¶¶ 79. The Petition fails to provide
`
`support beyond mere conclusory statements as to why “a POSA would have
`
`recogn