Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper # 41
`Entered: May 19, 2020
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`
`FACEBOOK, INC., INSTAGRAM, LLC, and WHATSAPP INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BLACKBERRY LIMITED,
`Patent Owner.
`
`__________
`
`Case IPR2019-00516
`Case IPR2019-00528
`Patent 8,279,173 B2
`
`__________
`
`Record of Remote Oral Hearing
`Held: May 5, 2020
`__________
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and AARON W.
`MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper # 41
`Entered: May 19, 2020
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`
`FACEBOOK, INC., INSTAGRAM, LLC, and WHATSAPP INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BLACKBERRY LIMITED,
`Patent Owner.
`
`__________
`
`Case IPR2019-00516
`Case IPR2019-00528
`Patent 8,279,173 B2
`
`__________
`
`Record of Remote Oral Hearing
`Held: May 5, 2020
`__________
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and AARON W.
`MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00516 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`IPR2019-00528 (Patent 8,279,173 B2
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`ANDREW C. MACE, ESQ.
`HEIDI L. KEEFE, ESQ.
`of: Cooley LLP
`3175 Hanover Street
`Palo Alto, California 94304-1130
`(650) 843-5808 (Mace)
`amace@cooley.com
`(650) 843-5001 (Keefe)
`hkeefe@cooley.com
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`SAM STAKE, ESQ.
`OGI ZIVOJNOVIC, ESQ.
`of: Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
`50 California Street
`22nd Floor
`San Francisco, California 94111
`(415) 875-6387 (Stake)
`samstake@quinnemanuel.com
`(415) 875-6469 (Zivojnovic)
`ogizivojnovic@quinnemanuel.com
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday,
`
`May 5, 2020, commencing at 11:00 a.m. EDT, via
`Video/Teleconference.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00516 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`IPR2019-00528 (Patent 8,279,173 B2
`
`
`
`P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S
`
`11:01 a.m.
`JUDGE QUINN: All right. Welcome, everyone. This is
`
`the hearing for Case IPR 2019-516 and IPR 2019-528 concerning U.S.
`Patent No. 8,279,173. The caption for this case is Facebook, Inc.,
`Instagram, LLC and WhatsApp, Inc. v. BlackBerry Limited. May I
`have, at this point, who is here for Petitioner?
`MR. MACE: Good morning, Your Honor. This is Andrew
`Mace. Can you hear me?
`JUDGE QUINN: I'm sorry about that. This is the
`emergency test for the USPTO. Hold on. Okay. You may proceed.
`MR. MACE: Okay. Good morning, Your Honor. This is
`Andrew Mace for Petitioner, confirming you can hear me.
`JUDGE QUINN: Yes, I can hear you.
`MR. MACE: Okay, great. I've also got Heidi Keefe dialed
`in telephonically, but I'll be making the presentation today.
`JUDGE QUINN: I want to confirm the court reporter has
`been able to determine those names.
`COURT REPORTER: Yes, I have.
`JUDGE QUINN: Thank you. All right, who do we have for
`Patent Owner?
`MR. STAKE: Good morning, Your Honor. This is Sam
`Stake from Quinn, Emanuel for Patent Owner BlackBerry Limited.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00516 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`IPR2019-00528 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`
`With me is Ogi Zivojnovic, an associate at Quinn, Emanuel. Mr.
`Zivojnovic will be presenting for us today.
`JUDGE QUINN: Okay. With me on the screen are Judge
`Aaron Moore and Judge Sally Medley.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Good morning.
`JUDGE QUINN: I am Miriam Quinn. As you know,
`Petitioner begins. You have 30 minutes, and you may reserve time
`for rebuttal. How much time would you like to reserve?
`MR. MACE: I'll reserve 10 minutes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE QUINN: Okay. This is how -- will you be keeping
`some time on your own as well, so that we are not interrupting you, or
`do you want me -- (Simultaneous speaking.)
`JUDGE QUINN: -- to interrupt you? Okay, you are. All
`right, you may start whenever you're ready.
`PETITIONERS' PRESENTATION
`MR. MACE: Okay, thanks, Your Honor. Let's turn to Slide
`4 of Petitioners' demonstratives. This slide provides a brief
`identification of the key disputes between the parties. They are the
`construction of tag source, the prior art disclosure of tag sources, tag
`type indicator, tag list, motivations to combine and Patent Owner's
`motion to amend.
`We go in order with these disputes, starting with tag source.
`Return to Slide 6. This slide sets forth the parties' competing
`constructions for Petitioner. The construction of tag source is either a
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00516 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`IPR2019-00528 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`
`collection of tags or a recognizable collection of tags. Patent Owner
`contends that it's the separately searchable collection of tags.
`JUDGE QUINN: Is your contention --
`MR. MACE: Turning to Slide 7 --
`JUDGE QUINN: -- that the -- let me ask you about your
`contention. What is your proposed construction for the term tag
`source?
`MR. MACE: So as we explained in our reply I think, it's a
`collection of tags. Implicit in that is the idea that that collection of
`tags is recognizable, so either of those constructions would be
`acceptable to us, so either a collection of tags or a recognizable
`collection of tags.
`JUDGE QUINN: What does recognizable add to the
`collection of tags phrase?
`MR. MACE: Right, so as we explained in the reply, we think
`the idea of recognizability is implicit in the term collection of tags, but
`in case there's any doubt about that, the idea of recognizability is
`simply that the system that uses the tags for photo tagging would be
`able to recognize distinct collections of tags in order to carry out the
`photo tagging functionality.
`JUDGE QUINN: You mean the source of the tags must
`somehow be captured in some form; some data that goes with that
`information, so that then a tag type indicator can be associated with a
`tag. Is that what you're saying?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00516 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`IPR2019-00528 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`MR. MACE: A tag source is just simply, in the context of the
`claim, simply a collection of tags that is recognizable by the system as
`a distinct set of tags that is distinguished from another collection of
`tags. So for example, in Zuckerberg, there's the collection of tags
`that's used for the text list, and there's a separate collection of tags
`that's used for the friends list. In MacLaurin, there is the automatic
`tags that are generated by the system versus the explicit tags that are
`input by the user. There's also the external tags that the user can
`download, like the attorney tag set or the medical tag set.
`So for all of these examples, these are distinct collections of
`tags that the tagging systems recognize as distinct sets in order to
`provide the tagging functionality. So in Zuckerberg, simply by virtue
`of how that tag list is presented, we know that the system is
`recognizing the tags for the text list as distinct from the tags for the
`friends list, for example. That's all that the patent requires.
`JUDGE QUINN: But it seems to me that the recognizability,
`however implicit, is not recited. And the only limitation that goes to
`indicating such a distinguishing source, one from the other, is that you
`have a tag type associated with each source. Other than that, I don't
`see where the claims require that there would be some recognizability
`expressed from the sources, either when they're -- specifically when
`they're searched or matching a string.
`MR. MACE: No, I think you're exactly right, Your Honor. I
`don't think the claims require that at all. It's just in connection with
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00516 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`IPR2019-00528 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`
`providing the tag type indicator that's indicative of the tag source that
`shows that the tag sources are recognized by the system as these
`distinct collections of tags. That's all the claim requires. I think
`Your Honor is absolutely right.
`JUDGE QUINN: Okay. Now talk to me about “collection
`of tags” because that seems to me, that phrase, even though you both
`agree there must be a collection of tags, there is a dispute as to how to
`articulate the meaning of source, meaning where they come from.
`And it doesn't seem to me that the word “collection of tags” really
`captures the meaning of “source.”
`MR. MACE: Right. So I don't think there's any dispute
`between the parties about what a collection can be. I didn't see, in
`Patent Owner's papers any dispute that prior art discloses a
`recognizable collection of tags or separate collections of tags. The
`dispute about whether -- what's required by a source, I think Patent
`Owner is taking an unduly narrow interpretation of that term. The
`collections of tags, simply by virtue of being distinct collections used
`by the tagging system, provide sources of tags for the tagging.
`That's all there is to it. That's all the claims require. The
`parties agree that collections can each be logically defined. They
`don't have to be -- use separate styles in order to define different tag
`sources. And when that collection is used as a source of tags for the
`tagging functionality, it's a tag source for that functionality. And
`that's all there is to it.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00516 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`IPR2019-00528 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`JUDGE QUINN: Let me try to unpack that because you're
`just saying the collection is the source because they are collections,
`and that sounds circular to me. So you're saying that the fact that all
`of the tags are grouped together, that because they form a group, that
`in and of itself makes that collection a source of tags.
`MR. MACE: Correct. It can be a source of tags is that
`collection of tags is ultimately used for the tagging functionality, and
`in the prior art that we had identified; those collections of tags are
`used for tagging functionality, so they are there for tag sources.
`JUDGE QUINN: What do you say about --
`MR. MACE: You could have a collection of tags --
`JUDGE QUINN: Sorry. Is somebody else asking a
`question? So here's my problem with your contention. It seems to
`be removed from the disclosure. It seems that the disclosure supports
`the contention that the source -- the tag source is where the tags came
`from, not so much that they just happen to be grouped together and
`they happen to be some sort of category that they have in common.
`The indicator indicating the tag source seems to be tied more to where
`the tags were collected from rather than just a group -- a logical
`grouping of tags that happen to have something in common.
`MR. MACE: So I would have two points to that, Your Honor.
`First of all, the tag sources that are described in the specification are
`merely exemplary. As we pointed out in our papers, the Federal
`Circuit is clear that the examples, preferred embodiments and
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00516 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`IPR2019-00528 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`
`embodiments should not be imported from a specification into the
`claims. For example, in our reply in the 516 proceeding, at 3 to 5, we
`cite the Kara Tech v. Stamps.com Inc. case -- that's 582 F.3d
`1341 -- talking about how the Court should not limit patents to
`preferred embodiments or import a limitation for the specification into
`the claims. That's also Hill-Rom Services v. Stryker Corp. at 755
`F.3d 1367, another case on that. Similarly, we cite Hill-Rom for the
`proposition that the Federal Circuit has expressly rejected the
`argument that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the
`claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that
`embodiment. And so in addition to the law and claim construction,
`I'll also point out that the ’173 patent, itself, seems to contemplate that
`the tag types and tag sources can be essentially co-extensive.
`So for example, at Column 4, Line 46, the ’173 patent
`describes how tag types can include free-form alphanumeric string,
`Facebook friends, address book entries and browser bookmarks. This
`is describing the exemplary tag types. And then in Column 5,
`starting around Line 42, the patent describes tag sources and describes
`them simply as lists of those tag types, of tags of those types. So for
`example, a list of friends from Facebook or a list of contacts from an
`address book. So there is not necessarily a distinction between tag
`types and tag sources.
`JUDGE QUINN: Well how about the fact that all of those
`listings -- for example, in Claim 5, they all say “from,” so it's from the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00516 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`IPR2019-00528 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`
`online service, like Facebook, from the user's address book, and it says
`in the Internet browser or the cache. So it's not just a collection of
`things that happen to have a commonality, but they also come from
`those specific sources. That seems to be the theme. What prior art
`do you have that has a similar tag source identifier or tag source
`indicator, so that we can see they came from a specific source?
`MR. MACE: Sure, Your Honor. I guess starting with
`MacLaurin reference, where we point out that there's both explicit
`tags that are provided by a user and there are automatic tags that are
`generated by the system. And so you've got one set of tags that
`comes from a user and one that comes from the system. In addition
`to the automatic and explicit tags, there's also the external tag sources
`in MacLaurin that come from various online services.
`So there's the medical profession tag set versus the attorney
`tag set. With respect to Zuckerberg, while both of the text lists and
`the friends list are previously used tags, Zuckerberg makes clear that
`the sources of those tags are distinct. For example, around Column 9
`of Zuckerberg, it describes a process for a user to tag a friend in a
`photo. And it talks about how the system identifies an email that's
`been entered as corresponding to a Facebook friend.
`JUDGE QUINN: I'm sorry. Can you be more specific as to
`where in Zuckerberg are you reading this from?
`MR. MACE: Sure, yes. I'm at Column 9. It's sort of
`generally describing the process for a user to tag a friend, starting at
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00516 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`IPR2019-00528 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`
`Line 3. What I'm talking about in particular starts I think around
`Line 31. Zuckerberg said that the email address entered in the email
`entry field corresponds to a user in the social network. It talks about
`sending out a notification and so on. So Zuckerberg is talking about
`identifying Facebook friends in the system in connection with the
`friends lists that are subsequently displayed for the tag list. And so
`you've got separate collections of tags that correspond to these
`different sources for the text list in Zuckerberg versus the friends list.
`I'll also point out, Your Honor, I think in our reply we talked about
`how it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art
`to physically arrange those separate tag lists in Zuckerberg so they're
`physically separate and distinct sources.
`JUDGE QUINN: Let me go back to something on
`Zuckerberg that ties to claim construction. I see a lot of argument
`about whether you could have one source versus multiple sources. It
`seems like that's some way to try to distinguish Zuckerberg if it,
`indeed, had one source. Somehow it requires multiple sources.
`What is your contention on that?
`MR. MACE: So our contention is that Zuckerberg does
`disclose multiple tag sources, at least in the form of the tags that are
`used to populate the text list. I think it's 544. And the tags that are
`used -- the question of tags that are used to populate the friends list is
`546. They're absolutely separate and distinct collections of tags that
`are recognized by the system.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00516 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`IPR2019-00528 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`To the extent that there's some sort of physical requirements
`for the construction of tag source, that they have to be physically
`distinct in some way, stored in separate parts of memory, we explain
`in the reply that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
`skill in the art to organize the tags in that manner, both because
`Zuckerberg talks about how the text list is -- comprises two separate
`tag lists and to provide a benefit of more efficient searching and
`collating process.
`JUDGE QUINN: Okay. Do you read the claims as requiring
`multiple tag sources?
`MR. MACE: No, absolutely not. I think we describe how
`Zuckerberg discloses multiple tag sources just because of the idea that
`the claims provide a tag type indicator to distinguish the tag types in
`the tag list. And so the best way to present that concept is by having
`tags from multiple tag sources with the capability of including them in
`the list to drive home the point that it would be obvious to include
`these different tag type indicators indicating the different sources of
`the tags in the list.
`JUDGE QUINN: Okay. And a question about your
`combination of Zuckerberg with Rothmuller. What we understand
`now is the issue that Zuckerberg provides the teaching for the one or
`more tag sources, and you're relying on Rothmuller for disclosing the
`tag type indicator. And I want you to talk a little bit about your
`motivation to combine those two.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00516 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`IPR2019-00528 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`I think you've already alluded to the fact of putting everything
`in one list and having everything listed together, but it seems to me
`that motivation to combine relies a little bit -- if I'm mistaken, please
`correct me -- on Rothmuller potentially also having tag sources. And
`if we find that Rothmuller does not have a tag source because they're
`just mere groupings of tags, then how do you argue your motivation to
`combine these two references?
`MR. MACE: Right, so Slide 39 has some bullet points
`identifying the rationale and motivation to combine Zuckerberg and
`Rothmuller. And so in the combinations where Zuckerberg is the
`primary reference, we absolutely are not relying on whether or not
`Rothmuller discloses tag sources as required by the claims. It's
`simply for the teaching that it would be obvious benefits of providing
`visual indicators, sort of icons that identify the tags by tag type or tag
`category.
`When you have a situation in Zuckerberg where the text list is
`analogous to the miscellaneous category of Rothmuller, and the
`friends list of Zuckerberg is analogous to the people category of
`Rothmuller, when you apply Rothmuller's teachings of distinct icons,
`visual indicators for those tag categories, with Zuckerberg's
`disclosures, it results in the tag type indicators in Zuckerberg that are
`indicative of the tag source.
`As I mentioned before, the ’173 patent expressly contemplates
`that the tag type can be essentially co-extensive with a tag source.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00516 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`IPR2019-00528 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`
`You can have a one-to-one correspondence with that. As a result, if
`you have a tag type indicator that indicates a tag type, it's going to
`also indicate the tag source.
`JUDGE QUINN: Okay. Now in connection with that
`contention, Patent Owner has presented additional evidence that there
`wouldn't be a motivation to combine because of Facebook's own style
`guide with respect to the Web, I would say the clean look of their
`service in design principles. And I wanted to ask you about that
`because I don't know where your rebuttal to that particular evidence
`was, other than you're relying on your expert. So what do you say
`about that?
`MR. MACE: Yeah, so I don't have the page number right in
`front of me right now, but we absolutely do address it in our reply. I
`think the upshot was that they're pointing to a document that
`post-dates the patent and the application by several years. It's their
`general design guidelines and principles. It has nothing to do with
`photo tagging in particular.
`And I don't think there's -- it's not sufficiently tied to -- the
`idea of displaying icons is not sufficiently tied to extraneous visual
`clutter that would negatively impact the user experience. The idea of
`providing tag type indicators to distinguish the tags in the tag list
`would provide benefits that clearly outweigh any type of visual clutter
`argument.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00516 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`IPR2019-00528 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`JUDGE QUINN: We are running into your rebuttal time.
`Do you want to keep going?
`MR. MACE: No, I'll pass to Patent Owner, Your Honor.
`Thank you very much.
`JUDGE QUINN: All right, you have eight minutes and
`eighteen seconds left. All right. I think we're ready, now, for Patent
`Owner's presentation. Are you ready?
`PATENT OWNER'S PRESENTATION
`MR. ZIVOJNOVIC: Yes, Your Honors. So good morning.
`This is Ogi Zivojnovic here, speaking on behalf of BlackBerry. And
`I would like to reserve 10 minutes for rebuttal as well.
`JUDGE QUINN: Okay, got it.
`MR. ZIVOJNOVIC: May I proceed?
`JUDGE QUINN: You may proceed now. Thank you.
`MR. ZIVOJNOVIC: Thank you, Your Honors. I want to
`start where the previous presentation left off. That's in connection
`with Zuckerberg's teachings. If I may direct Your Honors' attention
`to Slide 25 of Petitioners' presentation. This slide shows
`Zuckerberg's descriptions of Figure 5, which is what Petitioners rely
`on for their tag lists. And it specifically discloses that all the tags in
`this list are from a list of previously used tags.
`Now this list can be organized as subject matter, such as text
`entries. Text List 544 is displayed above friends entries, Friends List
`546. The main thing I want to emphasize at this stage is that both of
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00516 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`IPR2019-00528 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`
`these lists are, at this point in time, when they're presented to the user,
`from the same list of previously used tags.
`And so during their presentation, Petitioners pointed to
`Column 9 in Zuckerberg, which the portion they cite actually relates
`to Figure 6, which is okay, the user does not have anything from the
`list of previously used tags they want to associate with a photograph,
`and so it provides an opportunity to enter a new email address for a
`new user or a new name that would then be added to the system.
`JUDGE QUINN: But it seems to me -- I don't want you to
`waste your time on things that are not contentious, but you could be
`using your time more wisely. You may have, in Zuckerberg, a
`sub-grouping of that group. And to the extent that they are indicative
`of where the tag came from, that's all we're looking for. Now my
`question to you, as far as Zuckerberg and what you're arguing, is that
`it only has one list or one source. Are you contending that because it
`might be one source, it doesn't meet the claims because the claims
`require, in your view, multiple sources?
`MR. ZIVOJNOVIC: Your Honors, the issue is that lines and
`the symbols are an icon cited by Petitioners' different references are
`not indicative of a tag source as required by the claims unless those
`different symbols and icons actually correspond to different tag
`sources. So for example, in the case of Rothmuller, they say that the
`people icon and the events icon are two different tag type indicators.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00516 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`IPR2019-00528 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`JUDGE QUINN: I don't think you're answering my question.
`You're going into the combination. I want to know your contention
`on claim construction. If you're saying that Zuckerberg -- let's say
`we agree that it has one tag list. And I think you don't dispute that
`there is a list of tags in Zuckerberg. And let's say, for purposes of
`this question, we find that there is one tag source. What is your
`contention about the claims vis-a-vis one tag source in light of your
`arguments about multiple tag sources being required?
`MR. ZIVOJNOVIC: We agree, Your Honors, that the claims
`recite one or more tag sources. And implicit in that is that some
`limitations of the claims can be met with just a single tag source.
`What I was attempting to address -- and maybe it would help if we
`turn to Slide No. 9, which has the claim language, is that even if some
`limitation met with just one tag source, the second limitation requires
`the tag type being indicative of tag source. And so what we're saying
`is in Petitioners' specific prior art and validity allegations, those
`allegations do not meet the indicative of a tag source limitation if the
`various prior art references have just one tag source. And so again,
`we fully acknowledge that the first limitation says tags from one or
`more tag sources, but the issue is that the specific grounds advanced
`by Petitioners do not meet the indicative of tag source limitation
`unless the different symbols and icons they point to actually
`correspond to different tag sources. And so with that, I would like
`to --
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00516 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`IPR2019-00528 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`JUDGE QUINN: I'm sorry. Can you -- what is the specific
`word in the claim that you are hanging this argument on?
`MR. ZIVOJNOVIC: It is the phrase "indicative of a tag
`source."
`JUDGE QUINN: Is it the Article “a” tag source, or what
`exactly --
`(Simultaneous speaking.)
`MR. ZIVOJNOVIC: No, Your Honor. It is Petitioners'
`allegations on how that specific limitation is allegedly met. So if you
`look at Petitioners' allegations, they're pointing to different symbols
`that they say are indicative of tag source, but those symbols are not
`actually indicative of any tag source if what those symbols indicate is
`not actually a tag source. So this was what I was hoping -- this is
`what I was pointing to Rothmuller to maybe try and clarify why their
`arguments fail if there are not multiple tag sources.
`JUDGE QUINN: I think you -- what is your proposed
`construction for tag sources exactly? Be very precise. What is your
`proposed construction?
`MR. ZIVOJNOVIC: Our proposed construction is that a tag
`source is a separately searchable collection of tags.
`JUDGE MOORE: And so is this argument that you're making
`based on construction?
`MR. ZIVOJNOVIC: Excuse me, Your Honor, I couldn't
`quite catch -- I didn't quite hear that.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00516 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`IPR2019-00528 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`JUDGE MOORE: Sure. Is this argument that you're making
`based on that construction, a separable search?
`MR. ZIVOJNOVIC: That is correct. So our argument for
`why the various symbols and icons in the prior art do not meet this
`indicative of tagged source limitation, that specific argument does rely
`on BlackBerry's construction that once you reject -- or if you were to
`reject Petitioners' interpretation that any grouping of tags can qualify
`as a tag source, then under BlackBerry's construction, none of the
`prior art discloses the indicative of a tag source limitation.
`JUDGE MOORE: So does the argument go away if we agree
`with Petitioners' construction of tag source?
`MR. ZIVOJNOVIC: So if Your Honors agree with Petitioners'
`construction of tag source, it would still not address some of the
`motivation to combine issues presented in BlackBerry's Patent Owner
`response. And the Petitioners themselves acknowledge that they're
`relying on combinations of Zuckerberg and Rothmuller or MacLaurin
`and Rothmuller for the entire claim, so it would not resolve the
`petition altogether.
`JUDGE MOORE: Okay.
`JUDGE QUINN: Now let me ask you something I asked
`Petitioner. So it seems that you agree with the portion of the
`construction that says collection of tags. So you do agree that there
`has to be some sort of grouping of the tags that are logically
`associated with each other. Is that right?
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00516 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`IPR2019-00528 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`MR. ZIVOJNOVIC: Yes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE QUINN: Okay. Now it seems to me the dispute is as
`to how the tags are collected or how would the display show that these
`tags have the significance of where they come from. And your
`phrase that you want in your claim construction of separately
`searchable seems to me that doesn't really capture that. You
`submitted dictionary definitions of the plain meaning of the word
`"source" as being more like the origin or where something originates
`from. And that seems to be closer to what we're talking about here.
`What do you say about trying to clarify that concept rather than
`focusing on whether something is searchable separately or otherwise?
`MR. ZIVOJNOVIC: So Your Honor, our proposed
`construction is based on what is in -- what we found in the
`specification. And so we looked at the specification to interpret the
`meaning of tag sources. With that said, from even the claim
`language itself, the two main takeaways we wanted to emphasize here
`is this form language that I believe Your Honor has also noted. And
`that is addressed also by these dictionary definitions of "origin," as
`well as the possibility of distinguishing one or more tag sources. So
`again, we do agree that the focus is probably on where tags are from,
`the origin. The one thing that we sought though to clarify with our
`construction of separately searchable is that the phrase "origin" should
`not be interpreted to refer to some sort of historical -- how tags were
`generated in some previous point in time, but really where is the
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00516 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`IPR2019-00528 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`
`system searching for tags? Where is the system retrieving tags from
`to display this tag list? And so for example, in the specification,
`there's the example of a tag source being a list of friends from the
`Facebook platform.
`And the thing we want to emphasize here is that this source
`isn't referring to each individual user entering his or her name at some
`previous point in time. But it is really where the system, when it is
`displaying a tag list including tags from one or more tag sources
`matching a search string, it is where the system is retrieving those tags
`at that point in time.
`So even though that indicates the Facebook list, for example,
`each individual user, billions of them, individually enters their names,
`from the perspective of the system, there are not a billion tag sources.
`It's talking about just one tag source, Facebook. And so we agree
`ultimately that yes, tag sources should reflect the origin of the tag, but
`the additional language of separately searchable was meant to capture
`how -- if this is from the perspective of the system and not some sort
`of historical origin.
`JUDGE QUINN: I'm asking the question not to trick you
`here. I think we know that the specification has these examples.
`And what we discussed with Petitioner was that all of the example had
`something in common. That is, where the collection of tags was
`obtained from. And so you cannot take that to the logical conclusion
`of at some point somebody created a tag. It's not about the creation
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00516 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`IPR2019-00528 (Patent 8,279,173 B2)
`
`of it, but rather how the system gets the tags to prepare the tag list that
`is displayed. So how do we capture that concept without imbuing the
`construction with some process by which the tags are collecte
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
