IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`In re Inter Partes Review of:
`U.S. Patent No. 10,417,275
`Issued: Sep. 17, 2019
`Application No.: 15/933,531
`Filing Date: Mar. 23, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`For: Artificial Intelligence Assisted Tagging of Users in Digital Media Online
`FILED VIA P-TACTS
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 10,417,275
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 10,417,275
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`I.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Real Parties-in-Interest .......................................................................... 2
`
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 2
`
`Notice of Counsel and Service Information .......................................... 3
`
`Fee for Inter Partes Review .................................................................. 5
`
`Certification of Grounds for Standing ................................................... 5
`
`III.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGES (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)) ................. 5
`
`IV. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Technology Overview ........................................................................... 6
`
`The ’275 Patent ..................................................................................... 7
`
`The Challenged Claims ....................................................................... 11
`
`Prosecution History ............................................................................. 11
`
`V.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ...........................................13
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ..........................................................................14
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`“user identifier” (all claims) ................................................................ 14
`
`“contact list” (all claims) ..................................................................... 15
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART .............................................................16
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Sharpe (EX1005) ................................................................................. 16
`
`Eintracht (EX1006) ............................................................................. 18
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 10,417,275
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`FotoFile (EX1011) .............................................................................. 21
`
`Carey (EX1007) .................................................................................. 24
`
`VIII. GROUND 1: SHARPE IN VIEW OF EINTRACHT AND FOTOFILE
`RENDERS OBVIOUS CLAIMS 1-12 ....................................................................25
`
`A. Motivation to Combine Sharpe with Eintracht ................................... 25
`
`B. Motivation to Combine Sharpe and Eintracht with FotoFile .............. 27
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Reasonable Expectation of Success .................................................... 28
`
`Independent Claim 1 ........................................................................... 30
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1[pre]: method implemented within a computer system
`for associating users with digital media ....................................30
`
`1[a]: distinguishing users via unique user identifiers ..............32
`
`1[b]: in response to selection of digital media,
`determining unique digital media identifier
`corresponding to digital media selected ....................................40
`
`1[c]: receiving input indicating selection of named user
`from contact list of other users including the named user ........41
`
`1[d]: in response to selection of named user from list,
`determining unique user identifier of the named user ..............46
`
`1[e]: receiving input indicating set of coordinates
`corresponding to location of named user within image;
`and .............................................................................................47
`
`1[f]: applying artificial intelligence algorithms to locate
`images, wherein coordinates associated with unique user
`identifier of named user and unique image identifier ...............51
`
`E.
`
`Dependent Claims 2-12 ....................................................................... 58
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 10,417,275
`
`Claim 2: artificial intelligence algorithms include image
`recognition algorithm ................................................................58
`
`Claim 3, 4: in response to locating image, providing
`information indicating that named user has been
`associated with one or more images via email .........................59
`
`Claims 5, 6: set of coordinates defines polygonal or
`circular area ...............................................................................61
`
`Claim 7: providing graphical user interface configured
`to display representation of set of coordinates indicating
`location of named user within image ........................................62
`
`Claim 8: in response to locating image, providing
`interface configured for named user to select or deselect
`users for which to store association with unique image
`identifier ....................................................................................63
`
`Claim 9: in response to selection of named user and
`determining photo album associated with named user,
`adding image to photo album associated with named user.......66
`
`Claim 10: naming information includes name, e-mail
`address, other naming information, or home page address ......67
`
`Claim 11: naming information includes screen name ............67
`
`Claim 12: located image matching characteristics of the
`subset of image data does not have prior stored
`association with the named user ...............................................68
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IX. GROUND 2: SHARPE IN VIEW EINTRACHT AND FOTOFILE, AND IN
`FURTHER VIEW OF CAREY, RENDERS OBVIOUS CLAIMS 1-12 ...............69
`
`A. Motivation to Combine ....................................................................... 69
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Reasonable Expectation of Success .................................................... 70
`
`Independent Claim 1 ........................................................................... 71
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 10,417,275
`
`D. Dependent Claims ............................................................................... 72
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 10 ...................................................................................72
`
`Claim 11 ...................................................................................73
`
`Claims 2-9, 12 ..........................................................................74
`
`X.
`
`SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS ...........................................................74
`
`XI. THE BOARD SHOULD REACH THE MERITS OF THIS PETITION .....74
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Institution is appropriate under §325(d) .............................................. 74
`
`Institution is appropriate under §314(a) .............................................. 75
`
`XII. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................75
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 10,417,275
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`STATUTES
`
`Page(s)
`
`35 U.S.C.
`§ 101 ................................................................................................................ 3, 75
`§ 102(a) ............................................................................................................... 21
`§ 102 (b) .............................................................................................................. 21
`§ 102(e) ................................................................................................... 16, 18, 24
`§ 103 .................................................................................................................. 5, 6
`§ 314(a) ............................................................................................................... 75
`§ 325(d) ............................................................................................................... 74
`REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.10(b) .............................................................................................................. 4
`§ 42.15(a) .............................................................................................................. 5
`§ 42.100(b) ........................................................................................................... 14
`§ 42.104(a) ............................................................................................................ 5
`§ 42.104(b) ............................................................................................................ 5
`
`v
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 10,417,275
`
`Exhibit
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,417,275 (“’275 Patent”)
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 10,417,275 (“’275 FH”)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Benjamin B. Bederson (“Bederson”)
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Benjamin B. Bederson
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,461,099 to Sharpe, et al. (“Sharpe”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,687,878 to Eintracht, et al. (“Eintracht”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,714,793 to Carey, et al. (“Carey”)
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 10,628,480 (“’480 FH”)
`
`Excerpt from THE OXFORD AMERICAN DICTIONARY AND LANGUAGE
`GUIDE (1999), at 203 (contact).
`Excerpt from THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY (4th ed. 2001),
`at 191 (contact).
`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) (“FotoFile”).
`U.S. Patent No. 7,739,139 to Robertson, et al. (“Robertson”)
`
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2002/0055955 to Lloyd-Jones, et al.
`(“Lloyd-Jones”)
`Reserved
`
`Yuichi Yagawa et al., The Digital Album: A Personal File-tainment
`System, PROCEEDINGS OF THE THIRD IEEE INTERNATIONAL
`CONFERENCE ON MULTIMEDIA COMPUTING AND SYSTEMS
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 10,417,275
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`(MULTIMEDIA ’96), June 17-23, 1996, at 433-39.
`Ben Shneiderman & Hyunmo Kang, Direct Annotation: A Drag-and-
`Drop Strategy for Labeling Photos, 2000 IEEE INTERNATIONAL
`CONFERENCE ON INFORMATION VISUALIZATION (IV ’00), July 19-21,
`2000.
`Benjamin B. Bederson et al., Pad++: A Zoomable Graphical
`Sketchpad For Exploring Alternate Interface Physics, 7 J. OF VISUAL
`LANGUAGES & COMPUTING 3 (1996).
`1018 Mark Roseman & Saul Greenberg, Building Real-Time Groupware
`with GroupKit, a Groupware Toolkit, 3 ACM TRANSACTIONS ON
`COMPUTER-HUMAN INTERACTION 1 (Mar. 1996), at 66-106.
`Excerpts from ROB KIRKLAND ET AL., DOMINO SYSTEM
`ADMINISTRATION (1999).
`Excerpts from DOROTHY BURKE & JANE CALABRIA, TEN MINUTE
`GUIDE TO LOTUS NOTES 4.6 (1997).
`Elizabeth F. Churchill, et al., Anchored Conversations: Chatting in the
`Context of a Document, CHI ’00: PROCEEDINGS OF THE SIGCHI
`CONFERENCE ON HUMAN FACTORS IN COMPUTING SYSTEMS, April
`2000, at 454-61.
`1022 Mark S. Ackerman & David W. McDonald, Answer Garden 2:
`Merging Organizational Memory with Collaborative Help, CSCW
`’96: PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1996 ACM CONFERENCE ON COMPUTER
`SUPPORTED COOPERATIVE WORK, Nov. 1996, at 97-105.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,175,831 to Weinreich, et al.
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`Excerpts from C.J. DATE, AN INTRODUCTION TO DATABASE SYSTEMS
`(6th ed. 1995).
`Excerpts from RANDY JAY YARGER ET AL., MYSQL & MSQL (1st ed.
`1999).
`Ulla Merz & Roger King, DIRECT: A Query Facility for Multiple
`Databases, 12 ACM TRANSACTIONS ON INFORMATION SYSTEMS 4
`(Oct. 1994), at 339-59.
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 10,417,275
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`
`
`
`
`Excerpts from CHARLES DYE, ORACLE DISTRIBUTED SYSTEMS (1999).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,442,573 to Schiller, et al. (“Schiller”)
`
`Reserved
`
`Reserved
`
`Reserved
`
`Reserved
`
`Reserved
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 8,954,432 (“’432 FH”)
`
`Declaration of Sylvia D. Hall-Ellis, Ph.D. (“Hall-Ellis”)
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 10,417,275
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc. (“Petitioner”) respectfully requests inter partes review
`
`of claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 10,417,275 (EX1001, “’275 Patent”).
`
`The ’275 Patent relates to photo tagging over a communications network—
`
`enabling “users to supply and/or receive information about the existence of objects
`
`within images.” EX1001, 1:21-26. The specification claims that prior art systems
`
`failed to “provide a way to obtain additional information about a person or object
`
`such as contact information or to locate additional photos of the person or object.”
`
`Id., 3:41-45.
`
`But such networked photo tagging systems were available at the time.
`
`Consequently, the Applicant spent over a decade prosecuting the patent family,
`
`attempting to distinguish the claimed system from the prior art. The Applicant
`
`ultimately overcame the Examiner’s rejections only by amending the claims to
`
`include a limitation that allowed a user to photo tag another user from a contact list.
`
`When allowing the Examiner remarked:
`
`[A]lthough the prior art … clearly allows users to annotate images with
`people who appear in them, the specific use of a contact list of an
`identifying user as the list with which that identifying user can use to
`annotate the images is not found in the prior art, in conjunction with the
`rest of the limitations of the independent claim.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 10,417,275
`
`
`EX1002, 199. But the use of contact lists was by no means inventive in the early
`
`2000s.
`
`Identifying a user in a photo from a contact list was a known feature that a
`
`POSA understood encourages collaboration and enhances the user experience. For
`
`example, U.S. Patent No. 7,461,099 (EX1005, “Sharpe”) expressly teaches an
`
`archiving system that allowed “members of [a] private group [to] work together …
`
`to identify, collect, translate, or create digital media items” and allowed the user to
`
`tag its contacts in a photo using a contact list in the form of “[a] drop down box 55
`
`[] provided for selecting any of a number of people within the group.” EX1005, 5:7-
`
`10; 6:67-7:1.
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner respectfully requests the Board institute review and
`
`find all challenged claims of the ’275 Patent unpatentable.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`A. Real Parties-in-Interest
`
`The real parties-in-interest are Meta Platforms, Inc. (formerly Facebook, Inc.)
`
`and Instagram, LLC.
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`U.S. Patent Office records indicate that the ’275 Patent is assigned to Angel
`
`Technologies Group LLC (“PO”), which asserted the ’275 Patent in the following
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 10,417,275
`
`
`litigation filed on October 26, 2021: Angel Technologies Group LLC v. Facebook,
`
`Inc. and Instagram LLC, No. 2:21-cv-08459-CBM-JPR (C.D. Cal.). On June 30,
`
`2022, the district court found the asserted patents, including the ’275 Patent, invalid
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and dismissed the case. On July 29, 2022, PO filed a Notice
`
`of Appeal. The case has been docketed as the following: Angel Technologies Group,
`
`LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 2022-2100 (Fed. Cir.). The opening appeal brief
`
`is currently due on November 2, 2022.
`
`Petitioner has filed, at substantially the same time that this Petition was filed,
`
`petitions for inter partes review against related family members U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,954,432 (the “’432 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 9,959,291 (the “’291 Patent”), and
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,628,480 (the “’480 Patent”).
`
`C. Notice of Counsel and Service Information
`
`Lead Counsel
`Lisa K. Nguyen (Reg. No. 58,018)
`lisa.nguyen@allenovery.com
`Postal & Hand-Delivery Address:
`Allen & Overy LLP
`550 High Street, Second Floor
`Palo Alto, CA 94301
`Telephone: (650) 388-1724
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`David M. Tennant (Reg. No. 48,362)
`david.tennant@allenovery.com
`Postal & Hand-Delivery Address:
`Allen & Overy LLP
`1101 New York Avenue NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`Telephone: (202) 683-3891
`
`Alan M. Billharz (Reg. No. 79,532)
`alan.billharz@allenovery.com
`Postal & Hand-Delivery Address:
`Allen & Overy LLP
`1101 New York Avenue NW
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 10,417,275
`
`
`
`Washington, DC 20005
`Telephone: (202) 683-3862
`
`Chitrajit Chandrashekar (Reg. No. L0896)
`chitrajit.chandrashekar@allenovery.com
`Postal & Hand-Delivery Address:
`Allen & Overy LLP
`550 High Street, Second Floor
`Palo Alto, CA 94301
`Telephone: (650) 388-1736
`
`Eric E. Lancaster (pro hac vice to be filed)
`eric.lancaster@allenovery.com
`Postal & Hand-Delivery Address:
`Allen & Overy LLP
`550 High Street
`Palo Alto, CA 94301
`Telephone: (650) 388-1700
`
`Sara L. Townsend
`(pro hac vice to be filed)
`sara.townsend@allenovery.com
`Postal & Hand-Delivery Address:
`Allen & Overy LLP
`550 High Street, Second Floor
`Palo Alto, CA 94301
`Telephone: (650) 388-1733
`
`
` A
`
` Power of Attorney is being filed concurrently with this Petition in
`
`accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b). Petitioner consents to electronic service by
`
`e-mail.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`D.
`
`Fee for Inter Partes Review
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 10,417,275
`
`
`
`The Director is authorized to charge the fee specified by 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a)
`
`to Deposit Account No. 604184.
`
`E. Certification of Grounds for Standing
`
`Petitioner certifies pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) that the ’275 Patent is
`
`available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from
`
`requesting an inter partes review challenging the patent claims on the grounds
`
`identified in this Petition.
`
`III.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGES (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b))
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-12 are obvious under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
`
`Sharpe1 in view of Eintracht2 and FotoFile.3
`
`
`1 U.S. Patent No. 7,761,099 to Sharpe, et al. (EX1005, “Sharpe”).
`
`2 U.S. Patent No. 6,687,878 to Eintracht, et al. (EX1006, “Eintracht”).
`
`3 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) (EX1011, “FotoFile”).
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 10,417,275
`
`
`Ground 2: Claims 1-12 are obvious under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
`
`Sharpe in view of Eintracht and FotoFile, and in further view of Carey.4
`
`IV. BACKGROUND
`
`A. Technology Overview
`
`With the advent of practical digital photography in the 1990s, digital photo
`
`management became an area of rapid growth and interest in the field of information
`
`technology. Bederson, ¶¶88, 91-98. By 2000, a wide range of technologies and
`
`commercial systems to organize, annotate, and share photos and other kinds of media
`
`were well-known and in common use. Id., ¶¶87, 91-98. These technologies and
`
`systems were used personally and professionally, on personal computers, via the
`
`web, and with different kinds of databases. Id., ¶¶91-98. In particular, multiple
`
`systems for annotation (or tagging) of photos were disclosed to the public by 2000.
`
`Id. Sharpe was one of those systems. Id., ¶98.
`
`In parallel, the popularization of networking technologies in the 1990s drove
`
`the development of rich collaborative applications often called “groupware.” Id.,
`
`¶¶88, 99-105. Groupware applications were typically centralized and made
`
`available to users via a server and a client application (which could be a web
`
`
`4 U.S. Patent No. 6,714,793 to Carey, et al. (EX1007, “Carey”).
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 10,417,275
`
`
`browser). Id., ¶¶99-105. Lotus Notes and Microsoft Outlook are two major
`
`examples, as well as early wikis. Id., ¶¶101-102. Groupware applications included
`
`multiple features that enabled teams of users to work collaboratively on documents
`
`(including images) and engage in discussions on team topics. Id., ¶¶99-105.
`
`Annotation of images was one such groupware feature, one that is discussed by
`
`Eintracht. Id., ¶105.
`
`As groupware and the Internet were growing in popularity in the 1990s, so
`
`were social networks. Id., ¶¶89, 106-109. Early examples of social networks were
`
`AOL Instant Messenger (AIM) and ICQ that each used buddy lists to enable real-
`
`time chat among a group of people. Id. Carey is an AOL patent that discusses these
`
`buddy lists. Id., ¶86. By 2000, the concept of general online chatting had broadened
`
`to chatting about documents. Id., ¶107. Another use of social networks was to use
`
`one’s contacts or groups to provide collaborative help. Id., ¶108.
`
`Thus, at the relevant time in 2000, it was obvious to develop software that
`
`could use the features of all three technologies—photo management software,
`
`groupware, and social networking. Id., ¶90.
`
`B.
`
`The ’275 Patent
`
`The ’275 Patent describes a well-known system and method “for storing and
`
`sharing images such as photographs via a communications network,” such as the
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 10,417,275
`
`
`Internet. EX1001, Abstract. The system and method “allows the identification of
`
`objects such as persons within the photos” and allows users “to automatically search
`
`for photos and/or certain people in photos.” Id.
`
`Like other annotation systems, the ’275 Patent stores and retrieves
`
`photographs using associations between the users and photographs—specifically,
`
`associations between their IDs. Id., 9:41-45, 9:57-60, Fig. 2. The system identifies
`
`each user using a user ID (or “unique user identifier”) and each photograph using an
`
`image ID (or “unique image identifier”). Id. For example, the system identifies
`
`“John Doe” using the unique user identifier “007,” and identifies the image
`
`“my_image.jpg” using the image identifier “ABCD.” Id., 7:58-8:12. The system
`
`enables searches of the stored photographs using associations between the
`
`identifiers. Id., 9:8-13, 9:23-26, Fig. 2. For example, the system could retrieve John
`
`Doe’s images by searching for all image identifiers associated with John Doe’s user
`
`identifier, “007.” See id., 8:14-27.
`
`To create the associations, the system uses a web page called an “identifying
`
`page.” Id., 10:20-27. A user “may view the page with a browser and then identify
`
`people within the photo 34 displayed on the page.” Id., 11:65-12:2. This creates an
`
`association between the user and the image. Id., 8:14-19. For example, if John Doe
`
`is tagged in my_image.jpg, the system creates a record for the association with John
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 10,417,275
`
`
`Doe’s user identifier (i.e. “007”) and my_image.jpg’s image identifier (i.e.
`
`“ABCD”):
`
`
`
`EX1001, Fig. 2 (annotated)
`Notably, the claimed system allows a user to tag another user from a contact
`
`list, as shown below in Figure 4. Id., 12:4-6 (“In one embodiment, the user may
`
`simply select or click on the names of all people in the contact list 36 that are in the
`
`displayed photograph 34.”), Fig. 4. “The contacts may include, for example, friends
`
`and family members who regularly appear in photographs taken by the user and/or
`
`persons who may wish to receive or view photographs taken by the users.” Id., 9:47-
`
`51. As explained in the prosecution history discussion below, the challenged claims
`
`were allowed on the basis of this contact list. Tellingly, the ’275 Patent does not
`
`emphasize the contact list as an inventive aspect of the system. To the contrary, the
`
`’275 Patent expressly states that the contact list is unnecessary. Id., 7:26-27 (“The
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 10,417,275
`
`
`list of contacts is not necessary and may be stored in a separate database.”); 9:51-55
`
`(“The use of contacts, while not necessary, …”).
`
`
`
`
`
`EX1001, Fig. 4 (annotated)
`
`The claimed embodiment “can also utilize artificial intelligence algorithms to
`
`locate other images where the identified object has not yet been defined by a user of
`
`the system.” Id., 4:9-12; see also 13:34-39 (“[A]rtificial intelligence algorithms
`
`(e.g., image recognition system) may be applied against images and utilized to
`
`further define characteristics of images, obtain identifying information, and/or
`
`search a database for other possible matches to a named object.”). The specification
`
`does not identify the artificial intelligence algorithms as an inventive aspect of the
`
`system. Further, as discussed below in the prosecution history section, the Examiner
`
`found (and the Applicant admitted) that these algorithms were taught in the prior art.
`
`EX1002, 162, 223-24.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`C. The Challenged Claims
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 10,417,275
`
`
`
`The ’275 Patent has 12 claims, 1 independent claim and 11 dependent claims.
`
`Independent claim 1 is a method claim reciting a 6-step process:
`
`(1) distinguishing between users of the computer system via one or more
`
`unique user identifiers;
`
`(2) determining a unique image identifier corresponding to the image selected;
`
`(3) receiving a selection of the named user from the identifying user’s contact
`
`list;
`
`(4) determining a unique user identifier of the named user;
`
`(5) indicating a set of coordinates corresponding to a location of the named
`
`user within the image;
`
`(6) applying artificial intelligence algorithms to locate other images of the
`
`named user by matching characteristics of the image data bounded by the set of
`
`coordinates.
`
`D.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`The Applicant only obtained allowance of the ’275 Patent by amending the
`
`claims to allow a user to photo tag another user selected from a contact list.
`
`During prosecution, the claims of the ’275 Patent were largely rejected as
`
`obvious over U.S. Patent Pub. 2002/0093678 to Skidgel in combination with other
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 10,417,275
`
`
`references. Id., 113-35. In one rejection, the Examiner specifically found “the
`
`secondary reference of Kuchinsky [FotoFile, EX1011] teaches the concept of using
`
`identified/known images to annotate … images of unidentified people in other
`
`images,” and that “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of the cited references
`
`because teaching [FotoFile’s] would have allowed Skidgel’s and Matsuoka’s to
`
`provide a method of avoiding frustration of retrieval and storage of retrieval and
`
`storage of images, as noted by [FotoFile].” Id., 121. In another rejection, the
`
`Examiner stated, “the face detection and recognition system of Kuchinsky [FotoFile]
`
`teaches the claimed artificial intelligence algorithm,” and “the results of the face
`
`detection and recognition system are clearly stored as the resultant output as shown
`
`in Figures 3-4.” Id., 183-84.
`
`Ultimately, on July 3, 2019, in response to the Applicant’s request for
`
`reconsideration, the Examiner allowed claims 87-88 and 90-99. Id., 234-35.
`
`Specifically, the Examiner found:
`
`[A]lthough the prior art (See Skidgel and Schneiderman [sic]) clearly
`allows users to annotate images with people who appear in them, the
`specific use of a contact list of an identifying user as the list with which
`that identifying user can use to annotate the images is not found in the
`prior art, in conjunction with the rest of the limitations of the
`independent claim.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Id., 235. The ’275 Patent subsequently issued on September 17, 2019.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 10,417,275
`
`
`
`Notably, months after the Examiner issued his Notice of Allowance, on
`
`August 9, 2019, the Applicant filed the application for U.S. Patent No. 10,628,480
`
`(the “’480 Patent”)—child of the ’275 Patent. Claim 85 was the only claim to
`
`include any language of contact lists or associations between users. On
`
`November 22, 2019, the Examiner rejected all original claims. Critically, for
`
`claim 85, the Examiner rejected the claim finding that Carey discloses contact lists:
`
`[T]he only support for the claimed associations between users is a
`contact list of a specific user (and the subsequent contacts of that user).
`Thus, the examiner is interpreting the claimed associations between
`users as simply contacts lists. The secondary reference of Carey
`clearly depicts displaying contact lists (which includes naming
`information) of a user (i.e. determining associations between a first user
`and a second user). The combination would result in the selectable
`naming information in Shneiderman to be from a contact list.
`
`EX1008, 206. The Applicant did not traverse the rejection.
`
`V. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) in 2000 would have had at least
`
`a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, computer
`
`engineering, or a similar technical field, with at least two years of experience in the
`
`field of networked and Web-based media applications. Additional experience could
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 10,417,275
`
`
`substitute for less education, and additional education could likewise substitute for
`
`less experience. Bederson, ¶39.
`
`This Petition does not turn on this precise definition, and the challenged claim
`
`would be unpatentable from the perspective of any reasonable person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the relevant time. Id., ¶40.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`The Board construes the claims “using the same claim construction standard
`
`that would be used” in district courts. 37 C.F.R. §42.100(b).5 This Petition
`
`establishes the prior art meets each of the claim limitations under any reasonable
`
`construction.
`
`A.
`
`“user identifier” (all claims)
`
`The Board should give the term “user identifier” its ordinary meaning to a
`
`POSA in the context of the ’275 Patent, namely “a series of characters identifying a
`
`user.” Bederson, ¶61-64. The ’275 Patent consistently refers to an “identifier” (also
`
`used interchangeably with “I.D.”) as a series of characters that identifies something.
`
`Id. For example, “a user, John Doe, may access and sign-up with host computer 200
`
`
`5 Petitioner reserves the right to argue alternative constructions in other proceedings,
`
`including that the claims are indefinite where such a defense is available.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 10,417,275
`
`
`and be assigned a user I.D. of ‘007’ in the Users database.” EX1001, 7:58-60. “The
`
`user, John Doe, may then upload a photo, ‘my_image.jpg’, which may be assigned
`
`an image I.D. of ‘ABCD’ in Images database 250.” Id., 8:1-3.
`
`The use of a series of characters as an identifier is also consistent with the
`
`understanding of a POSA at the relevant time. Bederson, ¶63. Just as used in the
`
`’275 Patent, identifiers were often used as keys to create links between different
`
`database tables. Id. Using a series of characters was simple and provided many
`
`options to ensure that the identifier would be unique. Id.
`
`B.
`
`“contact list” (all claims)
`
`The Board should give the term “contact list” its ordinary meaning to a POSA
`
`in the context of the ’275 Patent, namely a “list of people known to the user.”
`
`Bederson, ¶65-68. The ’275 Patent explains that “[u]sers may request to enter a
`
`number of other persons as contacts.” EX1001, 9:45-48. “The contacts may include,
`
`for example, friends and family members who regularly appear in photographs taken
`
`by the user and/or persons who may wish to receive or view photographs taken by
`
`th