Paper No. ____
`Filed: February 22, 2019
`
`Filed on behalf of: Snap Inc.
`
`By: Yar R. Chaikovsky (Snap-Blackberry-PH-IPR@paulhastings.com)
`
`Chad Peterman (Snap-Blackberry-PH-IPR @paulhastings.com)
`
`David Okano (Snap-Blackberry-PH-IPR@paulhastings.com)
`
`Paul Hastings LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`SNAP INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BLACKBERRY LIMITED
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,326,327
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,326,327
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1 
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 .................................. 1 
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.15 AND 42.103 ................ 2 
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ....................................................................... 2 
`V.
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ................................................................. 2 
`A.
`Proposed Grounds and Prior Art .......................................................... 2 
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................ 3 
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE ’327 PATENT AND PRIOR ART ............................ 4 
`A.
`The ’327 Patent .................................................................................... 4 
`B.
`Prosecution History of the ’327 Patent ................................................ 6 
`C. Winkler ................................................................................................. 7 
`D.
`Altman................................................................................................... 9 
`E.
`Lemmela ............................................................................................. 11 
`F.
`Crowley .............................................................................................. 13 
`G. Waldman ............................................................................................. 14 
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 15 
`A.
`“determine/determining at least one action spot within a
`predetermined distance from the current location of the first
`mobile device” .................................................................................... 16 
`“display the image with the at least one activity spot” ...................... 17 
`B.
`IX. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS ........................................... 20 
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-3, 8, 10-11, and 13-15 Are Obvious Over
`Winkler in View of Altman ................................................................. 20 
`1.
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 20 
`2.
`Claim 2 ..................................................................................... 36 
`3.
`Claim 3 ..................................................................................... 37 
`4.
`Claim 8 ..................................................................................... 38 
`5.
`Claim 10 ................................................................................... 39 
`6.
`Claim 11 ................................................................................... 40 
`7.
`Claim 13 ................................................................................... 40 
`
`i
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`8.
`Claim 14 ................................................................................... 42 
`9.
`Claim 15 ................................................................................... 42 
`B. Ground 2: 1-3, 8, and 13-15 are Obvious Over Lemmela in
`View of Crowley ................................................................................ 43 
`1.
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 43 
`2.
`Claim 2 ..................................................................................... 56 
`3.
`Claim 3 ..................................................................................... 56 
`4.
`Claim 8 ..................................................................................... 57 
`5.
`Claim 13 ................................................................................... 58 
`6.
`Claim 14 ................................................................................... 59 
`7.
`Claim 15 ................................................................................... 60 
`C. Ground 3: Claims 10-11 Are Obvious Over Lemmela in View
`of Crowley, and Further in View of Winkler ...................................... 60 
`1.
`Claim 10 ................................................................................... 60 
`2.
`Claim 11 ................................................................................... 65 
`D. Ground 4: Claims 9 and 20 Are Obvious Over Lemmela in
`View of Crowley, and Further in View of Waldman ......................... 65 
`1.
`Claim 9 ..................................................................................... 65 
`2.
`Claim 20 ................................................................................... 72 
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 73 
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`
`
`X.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .......................................................... 15
`
`U.S. Surgical v. Ethicon, Inc.,
`103 F.3d 1554, 1568-70 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ........................................................... 15
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`572 U.S. 898, 910 (2014) .................................................................................... 17
`KSR Int.’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) .............................................................................passim
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ................................................................................................. 2, 3
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ..................................................................................................... 3
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ..................................................................................................... 3
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ..................................................................................................... 3
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ......................................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ................................................................................................ 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ................................................................................................ 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15 ....................................................................................................... 2
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ..................................................................................................... 2
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 15
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,326,327
`
`Declaration of Dr. Samrat Bhattacharjee
`
`CV of Dr. Samrat Bhattacharjee
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,750,906 (“Winkler”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0250337 (“Lemmela”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0281716 (“Altman”)
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,326,327
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,593,740 (“Crowley”)
`
`RESERVED
`
`Complaint for Patent Infringement, Case No. 2:18-cv-02693, CD CA
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0199479 (“Waldman”)
`
`No.
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,326,327
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Snap Inc. (“Petitioner”) requests inter partes review of claims 1-3, 8-11, 13-
`
`15 and 20 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,326,327 (“the ’327
`
`patent”) (Ex. 1001), which is assigned to Research In Motion Limited, now known
`
`as BlackBerry Limited (“Patent Owner”). For the reasons explained below, the
`
`challenged claims of the ’327 patent should be found unpatentable and canceled.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`Real Party-in-Interest: Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), Petitioner
`
`identifies Snap Inc. as the real party-in-interest.
`
`Related Matters: Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2), Petitioner identifies
`
`the following related matters. The ’327 patent and another patent in the same
`
`family, U.S. Patent No. 8,825,084 (“the ’084 patent”) are at issue in BlackBerry
`
`Limited v. Snap Inc., No. 2:18-cv-02693-GW (KSx) (C.D. Cal.). Petitioner is
`
`concurrently filing a petition for inter partes review challenging claims 1-2, 5-6, 9-
`
`10, 12-13, and 15 of the ’084 patent.
`
`Counsel and Service Information: Lead counsel is Yar Chaikovsky (Reg.
`
`No. 39,625). Back-up counsel: (1) Chad Peterman (pro hac vice admission to be
`
`requested), and (2) David Okano (Reg. No. 66,657). Service information: Paul
`
`Hastings LLP, 1117 California Avenue, Palo Alto, CA, Telephone: 650.320.1800,
`
`Fax:
`
`650.320.1900,
`
`E-mail:
`
`Snap-Blackberry-PH-IPR@paulhastings.com.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,326,327
`
`Petitioner consents to electronic service of all documents.
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.15 AND 42.103
`Petitioner submits the required fees with this petition. Please charge any
`
`additional fees required for this proceeding to Deposit Account 50-2613.
`
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioner certifies that the ’327 patent is available for inter partes review
`
`and Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting such review of the ’327
`
`patent on the grounds identified herein.
`
`V.
`
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`A.
`Proposed Grounds and Prior Art
`Petitioner respectfully requests review of the challenged claims of the ’327
`
`patent and cancellation of these claims as unpatentable in view of the following
`
`grounds:
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-3, 8, 10-11, and 13-15 are unpatentable under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over U.S. Patent No. 8,750,906 (“Winkler”) in view of
`
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2007/0281716 (“Altman”).
`
`Ground 2: Claims 1-3, 8, and 13-15 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103 as obvious over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2008/0250337 (“Lemmela”) in
`
`view of U.S. Patent No. 7,593,740 (“Crowley”).
`
`Ground 3: Claims 10-11 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
`
`obvious over Lemmela in view of Crowley, and further in view of Winkler.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,326,327
`
`Ground 4: Claims 9 and 20 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
`
`obvious over Lemmela in view of Crowley, and further in view of U.S. Patent App.
`
`Pub. 2011/0199479 (“Waldman”).
`
`For purposes of this proceeding only, Petitioner assumes the earliest
`
`effective filing date of the ’327 patent is August 27, 2010.1 Winkler was filed on
`
`February 20, 2009, published on August 26, 2010, and issued on June 10, 2014.
`
`Altman was filed on June 1, 2006 and published on December 6, 2007. Lemmela
`
`was filed on April 5, 2007 and published on October 9, 2008. Crowley was filed
`
`on May 11, 2005, published on November 30, 2006, and issued on September 22,
`
`2009. Waldman was filed on February 12, 2010 and published on August 18,
`
`2011. Therefore, Winkler is prior art at least under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and (e);
`
`Waldman is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e); Altman, Lemmela, and
`
`Crowley are prior art at least under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), (b), and (e).
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the alleged
`
`invention (the assumed effective filing date of the ’327 patent) would have had at
`
`
`1 Petitioner does not concede that any challenged claim is, in fact, entitled to an
`
`effective filing date of August 27, 2010, and reserves the right to challenge any
`
`claim of priority in any other proceeding involving the ‘327 patent.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,326,327
`
`least a B.S. degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or an equivalent,
`
`and at least two years of experience in the relevant field, e.g., computer
`
`networking. (Ex. 1002, ¶ 20.)2 More education can substitute for practical
`
`experience and vice versa. (Id.)
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE ’327 PATENT AND PRIOR ART
`A. The ’327 Patent
`The ’327 patent, titled “System and Method for Determining Action Spot
`
`Locations Relative to the Location of a Mobile Device” is generally directed to
`
`determining and displaying the location of mobile device activity on a map. (Ex.
`
`1001, Abstract; Ex. 1002, ¶ 28.) The ’327 patent recognizes that previously
`
`existing mobile devices could retrieve maps and directions for locations relative to
`
`a mobile device. (Ex. 1001, 1:29-32.) The ’327 patent also recognizes that prior
`
`device users could determine “events and happenings” occurring proximate to a
`
`mobile device’s location and manually compare the location of these events to the
`
`mobile device’s location, which could be “tedious.” (Id., 3:4-16.) According to
`
`Patent Owner, the patented concept differs from the prior art by disclosing “action
`
`
`2 Petitioner submits herewith the declaration of Dr. Samrat Bhattacharjee (Ex.
`
`1002), an expert in the field of the ’327 patent (Id. ¶¶ 3-16; Ex.1003).
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,326,327
`
`spots” determined using location data and the activity of other mobile devices.3
`
`(See Ex. 1010, ¶ 77.)
`
`The ’327 patent explains that an “action spot” refers to a location or an event
`
`where at least one other mobile device engages in certain types of activity. (Ex.
`
`1001, 2:63-65.) This “activity” may include a “documenting action” (such as text
`
`messaging, emailing, blogging, posting a message on a social networking internet
`
`site), a “recording action” (such as video recording, audio recording, or
`
`photographing), or “any other action where a mobile device is being used to
`
`observe and make note of a location or an event currently occurring at the location
`
`of the mobile device.” (Id., 2:54-63.)
`
`The ’327 patent also teaches that action spots may be determined within a
`
`“predetermined distance” from a mobile device and may correspond to device
`
`activity occurring within a “predetermined period of time.” (Id., 3:23-29, 3:32-35;
`
`Ex. 1002, ¶ 30.) This predetermined distance and predetermined period of time
`
`can be set manually by the user, or can be predefined by the software application
`
`developer, the server provider, the manufacturer of the mobile device, or the
`
`
`3 This statement in the complaint is made in reference to the ’084 patent, rather
`
`than the ’327 patent. However, the ’084 patent is a continuation of the ’327 patent
`
`and shares a common specification.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,326,327
`
`communication network service provider. (Ex. 1001, 8:15-23, 8:28-35.) This
`
`predetermined distance can be any specific distance from the current location of
`
`the mobile device; this predetermined period of time can be any specific time
`
`period that is measured from the time the mobile device arrived at the current
`
`location. (Id., 8:23-27, 8:35-39.)
`
`Further, the ’327 patent teaches that action spots may be displayed with an
`
`indication of activity level occurring at each spot. (Id., Abstract; Ex. 1002, ¶ 31.)
`
`Graphical items associated with action spots may employ colors, shapes, or sizes,
`
`to display the relative level of activity occurring at the spot. (Ex. 1001, 10:1-5.)
`
`For example, “the graphical item associated with the action spot 410 can have a
`
`green color to indicate that the most activity is occurring at that action spot 410.
`
`The graphical item associated with the action spot 406 can be orange to indicate
`
`that the action spot 406 has the second most activity.” (Id., 10:5-10.)
`
`B.
`Prosecution History of the ’327 Patent
`The ’327 patent issued on December 4, 2012 from U.S. Patent Application
`
`No. 12/870,676 (“the ’676 application”), filed on August 27, 2010. (Id., Title.)
`
`During prosecution of the ’676 application, the PTO issued a non-final rejection on
`
`April 18, 2012. (Ex. 1007, Pgs. 0143-50.) In response, applicant amended
`
`relevant claims to require the recited “action spot,” in addition to being within a
`
`“predetermined distance,” to be located where at least one other mobile device has
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,326,327
`
`engaged in a “documenting action within a predetermined period of time.” (Id., at
`
`0166-69.) Applicant’s amendment was successful as the PTO subsequently issued
`
`a Notice of Allowance on August 16, 2012. (Id., at 0178.)
`
`C. Winkler
`Winkler generally relates to a system for determining and displaying
`
`dynamic elements on a mobile device’s map application. (Ex. 1002, ¶ 41; Ex.
`
`1004, Abstract.) Winkler labels these elements as “map elements,” which may
`
`correspond to locations where mobile devices have performed actions at various
`
`locations (Ex. 1002, ¶ 41; Ex. 1004, 1:8-12; 2:14-26; 10:40-52; 12:5-10.)
`
`“Map elements” can be dynamically modified based on “events” occurring
`
`at a user’s mobile device or at other locations associated with map elements. (Ex.
`
`1004, 10:1-7.) “Events” can reflect movement of mobile devices near a “map
`
`element” and/or user device activity associated with a “map element,” such as
`
`posting comments. (Id., 10:40-47; Ex, 1002, ¶ 42). When the occurrence of an
`
`event is detected, the associated “map element” can change color, blink, or issue an
`
`audible signal, and an updated “map element” will be displayed. (Ex. 1004, 10:54-
`
`64; 11:6-26.) For example, Figures 6A-6C display mobile device screens with a
`
`“map element” dynamically changing based on the occurrence of an “event”:
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,326,327
`
`
`
`(Id., FIG. 6.)
`
`Winkler also discloses use of “map elements” to display additional
`
`information on a map, such as the range of user device activity in different
`
`locations. (Id., 11:66-12:2; Ex. 1002, ¶ 43.) For example, Winkler discloses a
`
`“heat map,” which displays zones with varying concentrations of user activity:
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,326,327
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1004, FIG. 7A; 12:4-10.) The highlighted areas 710, 720, 730 represent
`
`different zones. (Id., 12:4-10, 12:45-46.) These zones are colored based on the
`
`amount of activity in each region. (Id., 12:45-51.) Activity in a zone may equate
`
`to, for example, the number of “map elements,” mobile device users, or comments
`
`posted about locations within that region. (Id., 12:5-10.) The Winkler system can
`
`also filter information shown on a map based on user feedback and/or input. (Id.,
`
`12:25-26; Ex. 1002, ¶ 43.)
`
`D. Altman
`Altman generally
`
`
`
`relates
`
`to a system
`
`for
`
`location-based mobile
`
`communications. (Ex. 1002, ¶ 44; Ex. 1006, ¶¶ 2, 5-6.) Altman discusses how
`
`existing methods of mobile communication are not optimized based on the relative
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,326,327
`
`locations of communicating users. (Ex. 1006, ¶ 4.) Specifically, these systems are
`
`not optimized for facilitating communication when users are within certain
`
`proximity of a particular location or to one another. (Id.) Altman thus teaches a
`
`mobile communication system that initiates communication among users based on
`
`the users’ current device location. (Id., Abstract.)
`
`Altman discloses a “location-based social network manager process” and a
`
`“mobile communication device that incorporates a real-time map.” (Id., ¶ 29.) In
`
`general, the process first determines the current location of a mobile device. (Id.,
`
`¶ 7.) It then displays a map representation of an area, for example, the area
`
`surrounding the mobile device. (Id.) The process then superimposes on the map
`
`the locations of other user devices within a specific radius. (Id., ¶¶ 7, 60.)
`
`Messaging using the communications capability of a mobile device can then
`
`incorporate this location information. (Id., ¶ 7.) This allows users’ interactions to
`
`be based on their relative location to each other. (Id.)
`
`Altman discloses one embodiment in which the location-based social
`
`network manager includes a point of interest (POI) feature. (Id., ¶ 54; Ex. 1002, ¶
`
`46.) This feature allows device users to program and share POIs with one another.
`
`(Ex. 1006, ¶ 54.) It also allows the system to determine a POI that might be of
`
`interest to a user based on her location. (Id.) Altman discloses that the POI feature
`
`can also include an auto-messaging mechanism which sends an alert to a user
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,326,327
`
`based on the POI of another user. (Id., ¶ 59.) For example, a user can tag a
`
`location as a POI, and then be alerted when any of her friends gets within a specific
`
`distance of this POI:
`
`
`
`(Id., FIG. 9; ¶ 59.) In Figure 9, the system alerts the user when her friend Cindy is
`
`within 0.5 miles from her. (Id.) This specific distance may be set by the user in
`
`advance. (Id., ¶ 60.)
`
`E.
`Lemmela
`Lemmela generally relates to determining and displaying information
`
`regarding location-based electronic postings. (Ex. 1002, ¶ 47; Ex. 1005, ¶ 1.)
`
`Lemmela discloses determining “interesting locations” by utilizing other device
`
`users’ location-based electronic postings. (Ex. 1005, ¶¶ 7, 9.) “Interesting
`
`locations” are determined by analyzing other users’ location-based postings and
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,326,327
`
`identifying information which is common in postings within a geographic area.
`
`(Id.) For example, if various neighboring postings contain the same salient
`
`word(s), those words are determined common to postings in the area, and therefore
`
`are likely to be reliable and useful. (Id.) The disclosed system then groups
`
`postings which exist within a particular geographic area and contain the same
`
`salient words. (Id., ¶¶ 7, 9, 11)
`
`Lemmela discloses a mobile device that can display graphics representing
`
`information based on groups of location-based postings:
`
`(Id., FIG. 1; ¶ 26.) In Figure 1, a “display 20 shows a map of an area of interest.”
`
`(Id.) To illustrate “an overall picture of the activities, services, sights and
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,326,327
`
`atmosphere” of the area, the information regarding the most salient words used in
`
`public postings can be presented to the user. (Id.) This information “may [be] in
`
`the form of a cloud 24 or 26.” (Id., ¶ 27.) In Figure 1, “cloud 24 indicates an area
`
`with several shopping opportunities,” as determined by postings within the
`
`bordered area. (Id., ¶¶ 26-27.) Similarly, “cloud 26 indicat[es] an area [where
`
`location postings mention] one or more cafes.” (Id.)
`
`Lemmela also discloses signifying the relative amount of mobile device
`
`activity at each grouped posting location. (See id., ¶¶ 12, 28; Ex. 1002, ¶ 49.) For
`
`example, a mobile device’s display of grouped posting information may take the
`
`form of a “heat map,” in which certain areas are colored based on information
`
`corresponding to posts within that area. (Ex. 1005, ¶¶ 12, 28.) The heat map may
`
`use different colors to illustrate the density of location postings in different areas.
`
`(Id.) In another example, size variations may be used to show the popularity of a
`
`certain word within an area’s location-based electronic postings. (Id., ¶ 29.)
`
`F.
`Crowley
`Crowley generally relates to “location-based social software for mobile
`
`devices.” (Ex. 1008, 2:19-21.) Crowley teaches a system and method for location-
`
`based communication between mobile device users. (See id., 2:32-38; Ex. 1002, ¶
`
`50.) In one aspect, Crowley teaches a system which determines the location of
`
`multiple user devices, receives a message from a first user, and then sends this
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,326,327
`
`message to other users based on the proximity of the first user to the other users.
`
`(Ex. 1008, 2:32-38 (emphasis added).) To determine whether users are sufficiently
`
`“proximate” to each other, a distance parameter is set. (Id., 12:53-64.) Crowley
`
`distinguishes between specific distance parameters and distance parameters that
`
`vary: the distance parameter may be either a “predetermined distance (e.g., ten
`
`blocks) or may vary based on location (e.g., closer for areas, like a downtown,
`
`where people can expect to walk from venue to venue).” (Id., 12:60-64.)
`
`G. Waldman
`Waldman generally relates to “searching for nearby points of interest” and
`
`“displaying information related to nearby points of interest overlaid onto a video
`
`feed of a surrounding area,” in an augmented-reality mobile device mapping
`
`program. (Ex. 1002, ¶ 51; Ex. 1011, ¶ 1.) Waldman discloses capturing and
`
`displaying an image or video stream with an image-capturing device; receiving a
`
`user’s request for nearby points of interest; and augmenting the displayed image or
`
`video stream with point of interest data and/or directions to a point of interest. (Ex.
`
`1011, FIG.4; claims 1-5.) Figure 1 illustrates a visually-augmented captured image
`
`with exemplary point-of-interest data requested by the user:
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,326,327
`
`
`
`(Id., FIG. 1; ¶ 12.)
`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b), a claim is construed using the standard
`
`set forth by Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`
`Petitioner contends only two terms must be construed for purposes of this petition.4
`
`The remaining terms do not require construction in this proceeding. See U.S.
`
`Surgical v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1568-70 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
`
`
`4 Petitioner does not waive any arguments concerning indefiniteness or claim scope
`
`that may be raised in litigation
`
`15
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,326,327
`
`A.
`
`least one action spot within a
`“determine/determining at
`predetermined distance from the current location of the first
`mobile device”
`All challenged claims recite this phrase. (Ex. 1001, 19:17-20:64.) Petitioner
`
`contends a POSITA would understand this phrase as meaning “determine each
`
`action spot within a specific distance from the current location of the mobile
`
`device, the specific distance being set prior to the determining step.”
`
`Petitioner’s proposed construction is consistent with the ’327 patent’s claims
`
`and specification. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 35-37.) The ’327 patent repeatedly and
`
`exclusively describes the predetermined distance as specific distances: “[t]he
`
`predetermined distance can be within five blocks, ten blocks, ten yards, one
`
`hundred yard, one hundred feet, thirty feet, ten meters, fifteen meters, five miles,
`
`ten miles, twelve miles, twenty miles, or any other distance from the current
`
`location 302 of the mobile device 100.” (Ex. 1001, 8:23-28.) Nowhere in the
`
`specification do the inventors disclose the predetermined distance as a range, or as
`
`the output of a predetermined algorithm. (See generally, id.; Ex. 1002, ¶ 35.)
`
`Logic requires the “predetermined distance” to be set prior to the
`
`determination of action spots. (Ex. 1002, ¶ 36.) Only action spots “within a
`
`predetermined distance from the current location of the mobile device” are
`
`determined. (Ex. 1001, 19:17-21:64.) Therefore, the “distance” must be
`
`determined before action spots are determined. (Ex. 1002, ¶ 36.)
`
`16
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,326,327
`
`Further, “each action spot” within a specific distance from the current
`
`location of the first mobile device must be determined. (Id., ¶ 37.) This limitation
`
`recites “at least one action spot,” but the specification does not explain how a
`
`system would treat action spots within the “predetermined distance from the
`
`mobile device” differently so that some action spots within that distance would be
`
`“determined” and others would not. (Id.) Without interpreting this limitation as
`
`applying to “each action spot,” the ’327 patent thus fails to inform a POSITA with
`
`reasonable certainty about the claim’s scope. See Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig
`
`Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 910 (2014).
`
`B.
`“display the image with the at least one activity spot”
`Petitioner contends a POSITA would understand this phrase, which is
`
`recited by claims 9 and 20, as meaning to “display the viewfinder image from the
`
`camera module with action spots superimposed thereupon.”
`
`Petitioner’s proposed construction is consistent with the ’327 patent’s claims
`
`and specification. (Ex. 1002, ¶ 40.) Claims 9 and 20 depend from claims 1 and
`
`13, respectively. Claims 9 and 20 both require:
`
`run/running an image acquisition application of the
`mobile device;
`display/displaying an image from a camera module on
`the display screen;
`and
`display/displaying the image with the at least one activity
`spot.
`
`17
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,326,327
`
`
`The specification discusses an “image acquisition application” and “camera
`
`module” in connection with Figure 8 (below). (Ex. 1001, 13:41-63.)
`
`
`
`(Id., FIG. 8.) Figure 8 illustrates “determining action spot[s] relative to the
`
`location of a mobile device that utilizes the camera viewfinder of an integrated
`
`camera of the mobile device 100.” (Id., 13:41-44.) Figure 8 displays “a graphical
`
`user interface for an image acquisition application 800.” (Id., 13:44-46.) Here,
`
`“[t]he viewfinder 802 displays an image from a camera module. For example, the
`
`18
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,326,327
`
`viewfinder displays the landscape, cityscape, or locations captured by the lens of a
`
`camera of the mobile device 100.” (Id., 13:47-50.) “Action spots 804, 806, 808”
`
`(represented by the cloud-shaped icons) can be superimposed on the “viewfinder
`
`802” signifying the locations of “action spots 804, 806, 808” located within the
`
`vicinity shown in the “viewfinder 802.” (Id., 13:56-59.) Thus, in view of the
`
`specification and in particular the surrounding limitations of claims 9 and 20,
`
`which delineate the recited process, a POSITA would have understood the recited
`
`“image” to be the “viewfinder image from the camera module” and would have
`
`understood “display[ing] the image with the at least one activity spot” to mean
`
`displaying that image “with action spots superimposed thereupon.” (Ex. 1002, ¶
`
`40.)
`
`BlackBerry may advance different and broader constructions for the terms
`
`above. Under a broader construction, the Board should still institute trial based on
`
`the following grounds, as the grounds demonstrate the challenged claims are
`
`unpatentable under Snap’s construction and any broader construction.
`
`19
`
`

`

`
`
`Petitioon for Interr Partes Reeview of UU.S. Patent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No. 8,3266,327
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IX. DDETAILEDD EXPLAANATIONN OF GROOUNDS
`
`
`
`AA. Groound 1: Claims 1-3, 8, 10-11, aand 13-15
`
`
`
`Are Obviious Over
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Winnkler in Vieew of Altmman
`1.
`
`Claim 1
`
`a)
`
`
`[1aa] “A mobbile device
`
`comprisinng:”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`er disclosng, Winklered limitinTTo the exttent the ppreamble is consider
`
`es a
`
`mobile
`
`
`
`device. (EEx. 1002, ¶¶ 53[1a].)
`
`
`
`Winkler’s
`
`invention
`
`
`
`presents ““[a] systemm and
`
`
`
`method
`
`
`
`for generaating and ddisplaying
`
`
`
`graphical
`
`
`
`elements oon a map,
`
`such as a
`
`map
`
`
`
`displayeed by a moobile devicce, is descrribed.” (IdId., ¶ 43; EEx. 1004, AAbstract, 11:65-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2:1 (emmphasis aadded).)
`
`
`
`
`
`Winkler
`
`
`
`additionaally discl
`
`
`
`oses Figuure 1, wwhich
`
`
`
`
`
`“illustraat[es] a moobile devicce that proovides dynnamic elemments and uuser-controolled
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`elementts on a mapp displayedd by a mobbile device
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`”:
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`
`
`Pe