`
`Before Hon. Michael R. Zecher, Miriam L. Quinn, and Aaron W. Moore
`
`Case Nos. IPR2019-00714 & IPR2019-00715
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 8,825,084 & 8,326,327
`
`BlackBerry Limited (Patent Owner)
`
`Snap, Inc. (Petitioner)
`
`v.
`
`Patent Owner’s Oral Hearing Demonstratives
`
`BLACKBERRY 2011
`SNAP, INC. V. BLACKBERRY LIMITED
`IPR2019-00715
`
`1
`
`
`
`2
`
`•Motion to Amend: Substitute Claim 21 ______________________________ 30
`
`•Winkler Grounds ___________________________________________ 20
`•LemmelaGrounds _________________________________________ 11
`
`•Prior Art Deficiencies
`
`“determine” at least one “action spot” ___________________________ 4
`•Claim Construction _____________________________________________ 3
`
`•
`
`Table Of Contents
`
`2
`
`
`
`3
`
`3
`
`“determine” at least one “action spot”
`
`(all independent claims)
`
`Claim Construction
`
`3
`
`
`
`4
`
`(EX-2003 (IPR2019-00714) (Dr. McDaniel 2ndDec.), ¶¶40-41)
`
`determination of an ‘action spot” is an outputwhich is not the same as its inputdata.”
`action that ‘has occurred’ recently on other mobile devices at a location, but the claimed
`Evidence: “the claimed determination can rely on input data related to documenting
`
`activity is occurring relative to the current location of another mobile device.”
`BlackBerryThe term “action spot” is defined as “a location or an event where at least one
`
`an event.”
`(Paper 13 (IPR2019-00714) (POR), pp. 15 and 18)
`which refers to a determination that activity ‘is occurring’ at a location or
`“the claims require that the system must ‘determine’ an ‘action spot,’
`
`time” (Paper 22 (IPR2019-00714) (Reply), p. 3)
`device has engaged in a documenting action within a predetermined period of
`activity—one ‘correspond[ing] to a location where at least one other mobile
`“‘determin[ing] at least one action spot’ … is a determination of past tense
`Meaning
`
`Petitioner
`Party
`
`(cited by Paper 1 (IPR2019-00714) (‘084 Patent), p. 17)
`(EX-1001 (IPR2019-00714) (’084 Patent), 19:33-37 (Claim 1))
`
`engaged in at least one documenting action”
`corresponding to a location where at least one second mobile device has
`the current location of the first mobile device, the at least one action spot
`“determine at least one action spot within a predetermined distance from
`
`Representative Claim Language:
`Parties’ Competing Proposals
`
`4
`
`
`
`5
`
`(cited by Paper 13, (IPR2019-00714) (POR), p. 17)
`(EX-2003 (IPR2019-00714) (Dr. McDaniel 2ndDec.), ¶38)
`
`(cited by Paper 13, (IPR2019-00714) (POR), pp. 1, 3, 5, 12)
`(EX-1001 (IPR2019-00714) (’084 Patent), 3:3-5)
`
`BlackBerry’s Position: Consistent With Lexicography
`
`5
`
`
`
`6
`
`(cited by Paper 13 (IPR2019-00714) (POR), pp. 16-17)
`(AIPLA) Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C. (Oct. 25, 2018))
`issuance.” (Andrei Iancu, USPTO Director, Remarks At The American Intellectual Properly Law Association
`depend on the happenstance on which forum might review the patent, years after
`
`•Director Iancu: “Objectively speaking, that meaning cannot, and should not,
`
`•83 Fed. Reg. 51,342: “[H]avingAIA proceedings use the same claim construction
`construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action …”
`
`•37 CFR §42.100(b): Claims in an IPR “shall be construed using the same claim
`
`proceedings.”
`potential unfairness could result from using an arguably broader standard in AIA
`standard that is applied in federal courts … also addresses the concern that
`
`(cited by Paper 13 (IPR2019-00714) (POR), p. 23)
`(EX-2002 (IPR2019-00714) (MarkmanOrder), p. 9)
`
`BlackBerry’s Position: Consistent With District Court
`
`6
`
`
`
`(cited by Paper 13 (IPR2019-00714) (POR), p. 4)7
`
`(EX-2003 (IPR2019-00714) (Dr. McDaniel 2ndDec.), ¶20)
`
`(cited by Paper 13 (IPR2019-00714) (POR), p. 2-3)
`(EX-1001 (IPR2019-00714) (’084 Patent), 4:44-53)
`
`user might wish to visit, attend, or monitor.”
`happenings, such as nearby events that the
`providing users with an indication of current
`“[T]he inventors’ purported goal [was]
`Testimony evidence confirms:
`
`(cited by Paper 13 (IPR2019-00714) (POR), p. 4)
`(EX-1001 (IPR2019-00714) (’084 Patent), 3:19-30)
`
`Inventors’ delineation from such problem (col. 4):
`(cited by Paper 13 (IPR2019-00714) (POR), p. 14)
`
`Problem recognized by inventors (col. 3):
`
`Eng’gCorp., 216 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ( “understand and explain, but not to change, the scope…”)
`PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Comm’nsRF, LLC, 815 F.3d 734, 740-742 (emphasis added); Embrex, Inc. v. Serv.
`
`the scope of the claim[ed] invention.”
`“[T]he correct construction [is] the construction that most accurately delineates
`
`The Inventors
`BlackBerry: “Most Accurately Delineates” The Scope Identified By
`
`7
`
`
`
`8
`
`(cited by Paper 13 (IPR2019-00714) (POR), p. 18)
`(EX-2003 (IPR2019-00714) (Dr. McDaniel 2ndDec.), ¶40)
`
`(Paper 13 (IPR2019-00714) (POR), p. 18)
`
`The Claimed “Output” Determination Is “not the same as its input data”
`BlackBerry: Consistent With Both Intrinsic And Extrinsic Evidence Showing
`
`8
`
`
`
`9
`
`(cited by Paper 25 (IPR2019-00714) (Sur-Reply), p. 6)
`(EX-1013 (IPR2019-00714) (Dr. McDaniel Depo. Transcript), 38:9-11)
`
`(Paper 25 (IPR2019-00714) (Sur-Reply), p. 5)
`
`‘recent’ and past activity”
`Petitioner’s Strawman: “an arbitrary and unsupported cutoff between
`
`9
`
`
`
`10
`
`(cited by Paper 13 (IPR2019-00714) (POR), p. 19)
`(EX-2003 (IPR2019-00714) (Dr. McDaniel 2ndDec.), ¶41)
`
`(cited by Paper 25 (IPR2019-00714) (Sur-Reply), p. 4)
`(EX-1001 (IPR2019-00714) (’084 Patent), 8:59-9:4)
`
`(Paper 25 (IPR2019-00714) (Sur-Reply), p. 3)
`
`be coterminous with “one specific input”
`Petitioner errs in assuming that the “determined output” need always
`
`10
`
`
`
`11
`
`11
`
`The LemmelaGrounds
`
`Prior Art Deficiencies
`
`11
`
`
`
`12
`
`(Paper 25 (IPR2019-00714) (Sur-Reply), pp. 7-8)
`
`(all independent claims)
`
`First Deficiency: “determining at least one action spot”
`Phillips Construction
`LemmelaGrounds Are Deficient Under The Proper
`
`12
`
`
`
`13
`(cited by Paper 13 (IPR2019-00714) (POR), p. 10)
`(EX-2003 (IPR2019-00714) (Dr. McDaniel 2ndDec.), ¶48)
`
`NEVER DISPUTED IN THE REPLY
`
`(Paper 13 (IPR2019-00714) (POR), p. 25)
`
`(cited by Paper 13 (IPR2019-00714) (POR), p. 4)
`(EX-2003 (IPR2019-00714) (Dr. McDaniel 2ndDec.), ¶53)
`
`(all independent claims)
`
`First Deficiency: “determining at least one action spot”
`Phillips Construction
`LemmelaGrounds Are Deficient Under The Proper
`
`13
`
`
`
`14
`(cited by Paper 13 (IPR2019-00714) (POR), p. 10)
`(EX-2003 (IPR2019-00714) (Dr. McDaniel 2ndDec.), ¶48)
`
`NEVER DISPUTED IN THE REPLY
`
`cited by Paper 13 (IPR2019-00714) (POR), p. 2-3)
`(cited by Paper 25 (IPR2019-00714), p. 4; and
`
`(Paper 13 (IPR2019-00714) (POR), p. 25)
`
`COMPARE
`
`Inventors’ straightforward teaching (col. 4):
`
`(cited by Paper 13 (IPR2019-00714) (POR), p. 4)
`
`(all independent claims)
`
`Problem recognized by inventors (col. 3):
`First Deficiency: “determining at least one action spot”
`Phillips Construction
`LemmelaGrounds Are Deficient Under The Proper
`
`14
`
`14
`
`
`
`15
`
`(cited by Paper 13 (IPR2019-00714) (POR), p. 31)
`(Ex-1005 (Lemmela), ¶0038)
`
`(Paper 1 (IPR2019-00714) (Petition), p. 47)
`
`(’084 Patent, Claim 1)
`
`indicative of a current location of a first mobile device”
`Second Deficiency: “A server configured to: receive data
`LemmelaGrounds Are Deficient
`
`15
`
`
`
`(cited by Paper 13 (IPR2019-00714) (POR), p. 34)16
`
`(EX-2003 (IPR2019-00714) (Dr. McDaniel 2ndDec.), ¶63)
`
`(cited by Paper 25 (IPR2019-00714) (Sur-Reply), p. 10)
`
`1186, 1195-96 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (‘a high standard” for inherency)
`
`•Par Pharmaceutical v. TWI Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 773 F.3d
`
`(inherency theory requires a showing of ‘necessarily function[]”);
`•Cruciferous Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
`
`(cited by Paper 13 (IPR2019-00714) (POR), p. 34)
`(EX-2003 (IPR2019-00714) (Dr. McDaniel 2ndDec.), ¶63)
`
`(’084 Patent, Claim 1)
`
`indicative of a current location of a first mobile device”
`Second Deficiency: “A server configured to: receive data
`LemmelaGrounds Are Deficient
`
`16
`
`
`
`17
`
`(“utmost importance”) (cited by Paper 25 (IPR2019-00714) (Sur-Reply), p. 12)
`rationale’”) (emphasis added); Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge, Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`“hold[] [Petitioner] to the obviousness theory in its petition,” and “an IPR petitioner may not raise in reply‘an entirely new
`Henny Penny Corp. v. FrymasterLLC, 938 F.3d 1324, 1330-1331 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (confirming it was proper for the Board to
`
`Reply Theory (p. 29)
`
`Petition’s Analysis (p. 47)
`
`(’084 Patent, Claim 1)
`
`indicative of a current location of a first mobile device”
`Second Deficiency: “A server configured to: receive data
`LemmelaGrounds Are Deficient
`
`17
`
`
`
`(cited by Paper 13 (IPR2019-00714) (POR), pp. 36-37)
`(EX-2003 (IPR2019-00714) (Dr. McDaniel 2ndDec.), ¶¶ 74-75)
`proximity of Lemmela’sposts within a group.”
`commonality based on the geographic
`further skews the level of salient word
`location because Lemmela’sdensity metric
`inform the user of a level of action at a given
`“Lemmela’sdensity metric would also fail to
`
`18
`
`of salient word commonality.”
`include the same salient words—i.e., a level
`postings within a geographic area that
`instead represent just a mere subset of
`mobile devices at a given location but
`the level of actions (e.g., postings) taken by
`postings in [a] group’ do not actually reflect
`“Lemmela’salleged ‘quantitative measure of
`
`•
`
`•
`
`cited by Paper 13 (IPR2019-00714) (POR), p. 10)
`
`Lemmela, FIG. 1
`
`(’084 Patent, Claim 1; ’327 Patent, Claims 1, 13)
`
`Third Deficiency: “activity level [] at [the] at least one action spot”
`LemmelaGrounds Are Deficient
`
`18
`
`
`
`19
`(Paper 13 (IPR2019-00714) (POR), pp. 35-38)
`
`action spot” (’084 Patent, Claim 9; ’327 Patent, Claim 10)
`a direction … in which to travel in order to arrive at the determined at least one
`Petition fails to show obviousness of “display[ing] a graphical item … identifying
`
`Least One Action Spot’” (’084 Patent, Claim 6)
`Level ‘Identifying A Relative Level Of Documenting Action Occurring At The At
`“The Petition Fails To Show That LemmelaTransmits ‘The Indication’ Of Activity
`
`(Paper 13 (IPR2019-00714) (POR), pp. 38-39)
`
`(all challenged claims)
`“The Lemmela-CrowleyCombinations … Are Based Upon Hindsight Assertions”
`
`(Paper 13 (IPR2019-00714) (POR), pp. 39-41)
`
`Distance From The At Least One Action Spot’” (’327 Patent, Claims 3, 15)
`Activity Level That Is Based Upon A Number Of Actions ‘Within A Predetermined
`“The Petition Fails To Show That Lemmela’sSystem Provides An Indication Of
`
`(Paper 14 (IPR2019-00715) (POR), pp. 33-35)
`
`Claims 9, 20)
`WaldmanIs Unsupported And Improperly Rooted In Hindsight” (’327 Patent,
`“The Petition’s Proposed Combination Based On Lemmela, Crowley, And
`
`(Paper 14 (IPR2019-00715) (POR), pp. 40-43)
`
`5.
`
`4.
`
`3.
`
`2.
`
`1.
`
`Additional Deficiencies:
`LemmelaGrounds Are Deficient
`
`19
`
`
`
`20
`
`20
`
`The WinklerGrounds
`
`Prior Art Deficiencies
`
`20
`
`
`
`21
`
`(Paper 9 (IPR2019-00714) (Inst. Dec.), pp. 32-35)
`
`is located within that predetermined distance.”
`from the current location …, and then determining whether an action spot
`
`3.Failed to show “how any activity that Winklermonitors involves the
`
`documenting activity.”
`location of a mobile device in which the device ‘has engaged’ in a
`
`1.Failed to show that “any of the cited map elements meets both [claimed]
`Preliminary Assessment (in Institution Decision) Identified Three Deficiencies:
`
`criteria of an ‘action spot.’”
`
`2.Failed to show that “Winklerteaches having a predetermined distance
`
`(Paper 9 (IPR2019-00714) (Inst. Dec.), p. 32)
`
`Institution Decision
`
`Winkler Grounds Are Deficient
`
`21
`
`
`
`22
`
`(cited by Paper 13 (IPR2019-00714) (POR), pp. 53, 58)
`(EX-2003 (IPR2019-00714) (Dr. McDaniel 2ndDec.), ¶¶ 109, 113)
`
`(cited by Paper 13 (IPR2019-00714) (POR), pp. 51-52)
`(EX-2003 (IPR2019-00714) (Dr. McDaniel 2ndDec.), ¶¶ 105-106)
`
`Substantial Evidence Supports The Board’s Preliminary Assessment
`Winkler Grounds Are Deficient
`
`22
`
`
`
`23
`
`(cited by Paper 22 (IPR2019-00714) (Reply), p. 13)
`
`the original petition] into its treatment of claim 1.”)
`(“there was nothing improper about the Board relying on arguments that [Petitioner] incorporated from its treatment of claim 8 [from
`•Petitioner’s citation to unpublished decision:Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Ericsson Inc., 685 F.Appx. 913, 920 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`
`(“utmost importance”)
`new rationale’”) (emphasis added); Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge, Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`for the Board to “hold[] [Petitioner] to the obviousness theory in its petition,” and “an IPR petitioner may not raise in reply‘an entirely
`
`(cited by Paper 25 (IPR2019-00714) (Sur-Reply), p. 12)
`
`•Precedential Authority: Henny Penny Corp. v. FrymasterLLC, 938 F.3d 1324, 1330-1331 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (confirming it was proper
`
`(Paper 22 (IPR2019-00714) (Reply), pp. 17-20)
`
`(Paper 25 (IPR2019-00714) (Sur-Reply), p. 13)
`
`Disregarded
`Petitioner’s Reply “Scenarios” Were Prejudicially Late And Should Be
`Winkler Grounds Are Deficient
`
`23
`
`
`
`24
`
`PETITION’S ORIGINAL EMPHASIS
`
`Reply Theory (p. 10)
`
`(Paper 25 (IPR2019-00714) (Sur-Reply), p. 19)
`
`that give rise to the ‘Scenarios’ set forth in the Reply.”
`Petition never “expressed ‘with particularity’ the specific permutations
`Winkler Grounds Are Deficient
`
`Petition’s Analysis (p. 18)
`
`24
`
`
`
`25
`
`(Paper 22 (IPR2019-00714) (Reply), p. 17)
`
`(Paper 25 (IPR2019-00714) (Sur-Reply), pp. 22-23)
`
`element Y rather than element X.”
`allegedly trigger an event with respect to
`selected range of map element X would
`user’s device moving within a pre-
`“[D]oesnot explain how the second
`
`located when element Y was created).”
`location where the second device was
`rather than merely being fixed at the
`movement of the second device (e.g.,
`would actually follow the location and
`“[F]ails to show that map element Y
`
`•
`
`•
`
`First Scenario Deficiencies
`
`Winkler Grounds Are Deficient
`
`25
`
`
`
`26
`
`(Paper 22 (IPR2019-00714) (Reply), p. 19)
`
`(Paper 25 (IPR2019-00714) (Sur-Reply), pp. 23-24)
`
`distance …”
`Petition’s cited example of a 0.5 mile
`the first mobile device,” including the
`specific distance fromthe current location of
`system determined map elements ‘within a
`original theory where the Winkler-Altman
`range of ‘zero’ departs from the Petition’s
`[T]he requirement … for a pre-selected
`
`action spot.’”
`order to arrive at the determined at least one
`identifying a direction ‘in which to travel in
`Petition’s original theory ... which requires
`2’s proposed ‘zero’ distance … with the
`“[T]he Reply [] does not reconcile Scenario
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Second Scenario Deficiencies
`Winkler Grounds Are Deficient
`
`26
`
`
`
`27
`
`Reply’s “Scenario 2” (p. 17)
`
`Petition’s Mapping (p. 31)
`
`the Petition for claim element [2][.]”
`“[T]he pair of ‘event’ conditions relied upon in Scenario 2 are distinct from event cited in
`
`(Paper 25 (IPR2019-00714) (Sur-Reply), pp. 23-24)
`
`•
`
`Second Scenario Deficiencies
`Winkler Grounds Are Deficient
`
`27
`
`
`
`28
`
`(Paper 22 (IPR2019-00714) (Reply), p. 20)
`
`(Paper 25 (IPR2019-00714) (Sur-Reply), p. 24)
`
`X (causing it to appear).
`when ‘another device’ finally reaches element
`tethered to element X at the subsequent time
`discloses) that the first user’s location remain
`Nothing requires (and nothing in Winkler
`displayed as an alleged “action spot”). …
`element X is generated and hidden (not yet
`distance’ is applied at the time Winkler’s map
`“[T]he Reply admits that the ‘predetermined
`
`•
`
`Third Scenario Deficiencies
`Winkler Grounds Are Deficient
`
`28
`
`
`
`29
`
`Reply’s “Scenario 3” (p. 19)
`
`Claim 5 (p. 32)
`
`Claim 2 (p. 31)
`
`Petition Mappings
`claim elements [2] and [5].”
`inconsistent with the Petition’s original mapping for the conditions in at least dependent
`“[T]he pair of ‘event’ conditions relied upon in Scenario 3 appear to be markedly
`
`(Paper 25 (IPR2019-00714) (Sur-Reply), p. 24)
`
`•
`
`Third Scenario Deficiencies
`Winkler Grounds Are Deficient
`
`29
`
`
`
`30
`
`30
`
`Substitute Claim 21 Is Patentable
`
`Motion To Amend
`
`30
`
`
`
`31
`
`(Paper 13 (IPR2019-00715) (MTA Appendix A), p. 27
`
`Substitute Claim 21 (IPR2019-00715)
`
`31
`
`
`
`32
`
`(cited by Preliminary Guidance, 11; Paper 32 (IPR2019-00715), 2)
`(Ex-1013 (IPR2019-00715) (Jaffe), 1:14-21)
`
`(Paper 24 (IPR2019-00715) (Pet’s Opp. to MTA), 16)
`
`Jaffe (col. 1:14-21)
`
`Motion to Amend (p. 16)
`Petitioner’s Opposition to
`
`(Paper 32 (IPR2019-00715) (MTA Sur-Reply), pp. 2-3)
`
`popularization of ‘digital photography’ at the time, not ‘video posts.’”
`“Jaffe’sstatements for ‘broad social and practical importance’ … pertain to the
`
`•
`
`Are Insufficient And Contrary To Substantial Evidence
`Petitioner’s Rationales For The Proposed New Obviousness Combinations
`Claim 21 Is Non-Obvious Under §103
`
`32
`
`
`
`33
`(cited by Paper 13 (IPR2019-00715) (MTA), p. 11)
`(Ex-2003 (IPR2019-00715) (Dr. McDaniel 2nd Dec.), ¶143)
`
`(cited by Paper 13 (IPR2019-00715) (MTA), p. 12)
`(Ex-2003 (IPR2019-00715) (Dr. McDaniel 2nd Dec.), ¶147)
`
`(Paper 30 (IPR2019-00715) (MTA Pet. Reply to PG), p. 8)
`
`Evidence:
`
`Petitioner’s MTA Reply:
`
`solutions at an absurdly high level of generality.” (Paper 32 (IPR2019-00715) (MTA Sur-Reply), p. 3)
`“Petitioner overlooks critical differences among the references by characterizing their
`
`•
`
`Are Insufficient And Contrary To Substantial Evidence
`Petitioner’s Rationales For The Proposed New Obviousness Combinations
`Claim 21 Is Non-Obvious Under §103
`
`33
`
`
`
`34
`
`(cited by Paper 32 (IPR2019-00715) (MTA Sur-Reply), p. 4)
`(Ex-1014 (IPR2019-00715) (Eyal), 7:20-22)
`
`(cited by Paper 32 (IPR2019-00715) (MTA Sur-Reply), p. 4)
`(Ex-1014 (IPR2019-00715) (Eyal), 5:16-21)
`
`(cited by Paper 32 (IPR2019-00715) (MTA Sur-Reply), p. 4 (“tags its videos with GPS/location coordinates”)
`(Ex-1014 (IPR2019-00715) (Eyal), 2:29-31)
`
`•Petitioner “assumes that Eyal’svideo posts are associated with ‘word tags,’ when, in
`Are Insufficient And Contrary To Substantial Evidence
`Petitioner’s Rationales For The Proposed New Obviousness Combinations
`Claim 21 Is Non-Obvious Under §103
`
`(Paper 32 (IPR2019-00715) (MTA Sur-Reply), p. 4)
`
`reality, they are not.”
`
`34
`
`
`
`35
`
`(cited by Paper 32 (IPR2019-00715) (MTA Sur-Reply), p. 5)
`(Ex-1013 (IPR2019-00715) (Jaffe), FIGS. 2A-2B, 4)
`
`embodiment …”
`in the alleged ‘reasons to combine,” Petitioner switches to Jaffe’sdistinct Figure 4
`graphical items that would ‘provide a pop-up display of [] underlying video posts,” but “[t]hen,
`“Petitioner pointed to Jaffe’s map interface of Figures 2A-B as allegedly teaching selectable
`
`(Paper 32 (IPR2019-00715) (MTA Sur-Reply), p. 5)
`
`•
`
`Are Insufficient And Contrary To Substantial Evidence
`Petitioner’s Rationales For The Proposed New Obviousness Combinations
`Claim 21 Is Non-Obvious Under §103
`
`35
`
`
`
`36
`
`(cited by Paper 32 (IPR2019-00715) (MTA Sur-Reply), p. 5)
`(Ex-2003 (IPR2019-00715) (Dr. McDaniel 2ndDec.), ¶¶142-143)
`
`Dr. McDaniel’s Testimony:
`
`(Paper 32 (IPR2019-00715) (MTA Sur-Reply), p. 5)
`
`McDaniel testified that Winkler‘does not include anything akin to video postings’ …”
`“[R]egardingthe new Winklercombinations, Petitioner ignored critical evidence. Dr.
`
`•
`
`Are Insufficient And Contrary To Substantial Evidence
`Petitioner’s Rationales For The Proposed New Obviousness Combinations
`Claim 21 Is Non-Obvious Under §103
`
`36
`
`
`
`37
`
`(Paper 24 (IPR2019-00715) (Petitioner’s Opposition to MTA), p. 16)
`
`(Paper 24 (IPR2019-00715) (Petitioner’s Opposition to MTA), p. 14)
`
`(Paper 24 (IPR2019-00715) (Petitioner’s Opposition to MTA), p. 10)
`
`(Paper 32 (IPR2019-00715), p. 6)
`
`‘Particularity’ And Thereby Prejudiced Patent Owner
`The Opposition Failed To Specify All Grounds With The Requisite
`Claim 21 Is Non-Obvious Under §103
`
`37
`
`
`
`38
`
`(Paper 32 (IPR2019-00715) (MTA Sur-Reply), pp. 7-10)
`
`3.New Element 21[i] (“provide a pop-up display of said posted video on the graphical user
`
`interface of the touch sensitive display”)
`
`device as an icon on the interactive map of the graphical user interface”)
`the interactive map of the graphical user interface and the current location of the mobile
`2.New Element 21[f] (“signify the at least one action spot as a selectable graphical item on
`
`one action spot …’).”
`“[T]he Winkler-Altmancombinations fail to teach Element 21[e] (‘determine at least
`
`•
`
`mobile device’) and Element 21[g] (‘provide an indication of activity level’).”
`least one action spot within a predetermined distance from the current location of the
`“[T]he Lemmela-Crowleycombinations fail to teach Element 21[e] (‘determine at
`
`•
`
`1.Original Claim Limitations
`
`Multiple Elements Of Claim 21
`Petitioner Overlooked Why The Cited References Are Lacking
`Claim 21 Is Non-Obvious Under §103
`
`38
`
`
`
`39
`
`(Paper 26 (IPR2019-00715) (Preliminary Guidance), pp. 6-7)
`
`record buttresses the Board’s explanation.” (Paper 32 (IPR2019-00715) (MTA Sur-Reply), p. 10)
`was supported by the original ’676 application, and substantial evidence in the
`“The Preliminary Guidance correctly assessed why the subject matter of claim 21
`Under 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶1
`Claim 21 Satisfies The Written Description Requirement
`
`•
`
`39
`
`
`
`40
`
`(cited by Paper 13 (IPR2019-00715) (MTA), p. 6)
`(Ex-2003 (IPR2019-00715) (Dr. McDaniel, 2ndDec.), pp. 100-101)
`
`(Paper 32 (IPR2019-00715) (MTA Sur-Reply), pp. 10-11)
`
`provided in the claimed ‘pop-up display.’”
`recognized the original disclosure for each aspect of the ‘posted video’ that is
`“[S]ubstantialevidence also demonstrated why a POSITA would have
`
`•
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶1
`Claim 21 Satisfies The Written Description Requirement
`
`40
`
`
`
`41
`
`(Paper 26 (IPR2019-00715) (Preliminary Guidance), p. 13)
`
`(Paper 32 (IPR2019-00715) (MTA Sur-Reply), p. 11)
`
`supports the Board’s explanation.”
`eligible subject matter under §101, and substantial evidence in the record
`“The Preliminary Guidance correctly assessed that claim 21 is directed to
`
`•
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. §101
`Claim 21 Is Directed To Patent-Eligible Subject Matter
`
`41
`
`
`
`42
`
`(Paper 13 (IPR2019-00715) (MTA Appendix A), p. 27
`
`‘ABSTRACT IDEA’”
`INTO ONEGENERICIZED
`“FIVE DETAILED ELEMENTS …
`PETITIONER’S “LUMP[ING]” OF
`
`(MTA Pet. Reply to Prelim. Guid.), p. 10)
`(Paper 30 (IPR2019-00715)
`
`(Paper 32 (IPR2019-00715) (MTA Sur-Reply), pp. 11-12)
`
`describing broader claim 1 in a now-appealed district court decision. .’”
`span more than 150 words) into one genericized ‘abstract idea’ used for
`“[T]he Reply (p. 10) improperly lumped five detailed elements (21[d]-[h], which
`
`•
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. §101
`Claim 21 Is Directed To Patent-Eligible Subject Matter
`
`42
`
`
`
`43
`
`(October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (Revised Guidance), p. 15)
`
`USPTO’s October 2019 Revised Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance:
`
`(Paper 30 (IPR2019-00715) (MTA Reply to Prelim. Guid.), p. 11)
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Preliminary Guidance:
`Guidance.”
`idea into a ‘practical application’ is inconsistent with the Office’s Revised
`“Petitioner’s contention (p. 10-11) that claim 21 does not integrate any abstract
`
`(Paper 32 (IPR2019-00715) (MTA Sur-Reply), p. 12)
`
`•
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. §101
`Claim 21 Is Directed To Patent-Eligible Subject Matter
`
`43
`
`