Paper 9
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: September 4, 2019
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SNAP INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BLACKBERRY LIMITED,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2019-00715
`Patent 8,326,327 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before MICHAEL R. ZECHER, MIRIAM L. QUINN,
`and AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Instituting Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00715
`Patent 8,326,327 B2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Snap Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting inter partes review
`of claims 1–3, 8–11, 13–15, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 8,326,327 B2
`(Ex. 1001, “the ’327 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). BlackBerry Limited
`(“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 8 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`Institution of an inter partes review is authorized when “the
`information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that
`there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect
`to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`Having considered the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the
`evidence of record, we conclude there is a reasonable likelihood that
`Petitioner will prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one claim
`of the ’327 patent and, therefore, institute inter partes review.
`
`A.
`
`Related Matters
`
`The parties identify BlackBerry Limited v. Snap Inc., No. 2:18-cv-
`02693 (C.D. Cal.), as a related matter. See Pet. 1; Patent Owner Mandatory
`Notices (Paper 5) 2. The District Court issued a claim construction ruling in
`that case on April 5, 2019, a copy of which has been filed as Exhibit 2002.
`Petitioner has also filed a petition in Case IPR2019-00714 requesting
`inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,825,084 B2, which was filed as a
`continuation of the ’327 patent.
`
`B.
`
`The ’327 Patent
`
`The ’327 patent relates to a system and method for determining an
`action spot based on the location of a mobile device. See Ex. 1001, 1:8–10.
`Specifically, the patent discloses determining an “action spot” by identifying
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00715
`Patent 8,326,327 B2
`
`a location where mobile devices have engaged in “documenting action.” See
`id. at 3:21–35. The action spot is located within a “predetermined distance”
`from the location of the user’s mobile device. See id. at 3:64–66.
`Figure 3, reproduced below, illustrates a screenshot of an interactive
`map, which includes display screen 102, graphical user interface 206,
`current location 302, action spots 304 and 306, and graphical representations
`308 of location landmarks. See Ex. 1001, 5:47–58.
`
`
`“FIG. 3 is an illustrative implementation of a graphical user interface
`displaying an action spot within a predetermined distance from a current
`location of a mobile device.” Ex. 1001, 1:46–48.
`The action spots can have different sizes to indicate the associated
`activity level; for example, a larger size may represent more activity. See
`Ex. 1001, 6:23–39.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00715
`Patent 8,326,327 B2
`
`Figure 7 of the ’327 patent, reproduced below, shows “compass” 702
`identifying the direction in which to travel to arrive at an action spot. See id.
`at 12:1–16.
`
`
`FIG. 7 illustrates “a graphical user interface of a mobile
`device having a compass showing at least the distance and
`direction to an action spot.” Ex. 1001, 1:61–64.
`
`
`C.
`
`The Challenged Claims
`
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 10, and 13 are independent and
`are reproduced below to show the scope of the subject matter at issue:
`1. A mobile device comprising:
`a display; and
`a processor module communicatively coupled to the display and
`configured to receive executable instructions to:
`display a graphical user interface on the display;
`receive data indicative of a current location of the mobile device;
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00715
`Patent 8,326,327 B2
`
`determine at least one action spot within a predetermined distance
`from the current location of the mobile device, the at least one
`action spot corresponding to a location where at least one other
`mobile device has engaged in documenting action within a
`predetermined period of time;
`signify the at least one action spot on the graphical user interface;
`and
`provide an indication of activity level at the at least one action
`spot.
`10. A method for providing action spots on a mobile device
`comprising:
`determining, via a processor, a current location of the mobile device;
`determining at least one action spot within a predetermined distance
`from the current location of the mobile device, the at least one
`action spot corresponding to a location where at least one other
`mobile device has engaged in documenting action within a
`predetermined period of time;
`displaying a graphical item on the display of the mobile device, said
`graphical item identifying a direction, relative to the current
`location, in which to travel in order to arrive at the determined at
`least one action spot.
`13. A method for providing action spots on a mobile device
`comprising:
`determining, via a processor, a current location of the mobile device;
`determining at least one action spot within a predetermined distance
`from the current location of the mobile device, the at least one
`action spot corresponding to a location where at least one other
`mobile device has engaged in documenting action within a
`predetermined period of time;
`signifying the at least one action spot with a graphical item on a
`display of the mobile device;
`marking the graphical item according to an activity level with at least
`one action spot.
`Ex. 1001, 19:18–35, 20:2–15, 20:24–37.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00715
`Patent 8,326,327 B2
`
`D.
`
`Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1–3, 8–11, 13–15, and 20 are
`unpatentable on the following grounds:
`
`Claims
`Basis
`References
`§ 103(a) 1–3, 8, 10, 11, and 13–15
`Winkler1 and Altman2
`§ 103(a) 1–3, 8, and 13–15
`Lemmela3 and Crowley4
`§ 103(a) 10 and 11
`Lemmela, Crowley, and Winkler
`Lemmela, Crowley, and Waldman5 § 103(a) 9 and 20
`
`Petitioner alleges that “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)”;
`and “Altman, Lemmela, and Crowley are prior art at least under 35 U.S.C.
`§§ 102(a), (b), and (e).” Pet. 3. Petitioner also relies on a Declaration of
`Dr. Samrat Bhattacharjee, filed as Exhibit 1002.
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`A.
`
`Level of Skill in the Art
`
`The level of skill in the art is a factual determination that provides a
`primary guarantee of objectivity in an obviousness analysis. See Al-Site
`Corp. v. VSI Int’l, Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing
`Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966)). The level of skill in
`
`
`1 US 8,750,906 B2, filed Feb. 20, 2009 (Exhibit 1004).
`2 US 2007/0281716 A1, published Dec. 6, 2007 (Exhibit 1006).
`3 US 2008/0250337 A1, published Oct. 9, 2008 (Exhibit 1005).
`4 US 7,593,740 B2, issued Sept. 22, 2009 (Exhibit 1008).
`5 US 2011/0199479 A1, filed Feb. 12, 2010 (Exhibit 1011).
`6
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00715
`Patent 8,326,327 B2
`
`the art also informs the claim construction analysis. See Teva Pharm. USA,
`Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 841 (2015) (explaining that claim
`construction seeks the meaning “a skilled artisan would ascribe” to the claim
`term “in the context of the specific patent claim”).
`Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`the invention “would have had at least a [Bachelor of Science] degree in
`computer science, electrical engineering, or an equivalent, and at least two
`years of experience in the relevant field, e.g., computer networking,” and
`that “[m]ore education can substitute for practical experience and vice
`versa.” Pet. 3–4 (citing Ex. 1002 (Bhattacharjee) ¶ 20.) The Preliminary
`Response does not address this issue.
`Because Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s characterization
`of the level of skill in the art, and we find it generally consistent with the
`’327 patent and cited references, we adopt it for purposes of this analysis.
`
`B.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`In inter partes review proceedings based on petitions filed on or after
`November 13, 2018, such as this one, we construe claims using the same
`claim construction standard that would be used in a civil action under
`35 U.S.C. § 282(b), as articulated in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc), and its progeny. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`Both parties seek construction of “determine/determining at least one
`action spot within a predetermined distance from the current location of the
`first mobile device,” Patent Owner seeks construction of “action spot” alone,
`and Petitioner seeks construction of “display the image with the at least one
`activity spot.” See Pet. 15–19; Prelim. Resp. 14–17.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00715
`Patent 8,326,327 B2
`
`“action spot”
`1.
`Patent Owner argues that “action spot” should be construed to mean
`“a location or event where at least one activity is occurring relative to the
`current location of another mobile device.” Prelim. Resp. 14–15 (citing
`Ex. 1001, 2:63–65). Patent Owner also asserts that “in the related litigation
`over the ’327 patent, the parties agreed upon this exact construction, and the
`district court adopted it in the final claim construction ruling.” Prelim. Resp.
`15 (citing Ex. 2002 (the District Court claim construction), 9).
`At this juncture, we do not see a need to adopt the agreed construction
`or expressly construe the term “action spot,” except to resolve a dispute
`raised by Patent Owner’s arguments. Relying on what it calls
`“lexicography” of “action spot,” Patent Owner focuses on the words “is
`occurring” in the Specification to argue that “historical activity occurring
`days or weeks ago is unlike the claimed solution.” Prelim. Resp. 29 (citing
`Ex. 1001, 2:63–65; Ex. 2001 (McDaniel Dec.) ¶ 53)). Claim 1 itself,
`however, recites that the “at least one action spot correspond[s] to a location
`where at least one other mobile device has engaged in a documenting action
`within a predetermined period of time.” Ex. 1001, 19:27–30 (emphasis
`added). This indicates that “action spot” should encompass past activity,
`because “has engaged” is in the present perfect tense, which refers to an
`action that either occurred at an indefinite time in the past or that began in
`the past and continued to the present time.
`The Specification comports with our broader view of “action spot,”
`because it includes embodiments that are not limited to presently occurring
`activity. For example, the Specification states that “[t]he period of time can
`be within the last hour, the last twelve hours, the last twenty-four hours, the
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00715
`Patent 8,326,327 B2
`
`last thirty minutes, or any other time period that is measured from the time
`the mobile device 100 arrived at the current location 302.” Ex. 1001, 8:35–
`39. Because the Specification does not consistently refer only to activities
`that are presently occurring, it does not give notice to a person of ordinary
`skill in the art that “action spot” has that narrow meaning. See In re
`Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (explaining that an inventor
`seeking to define terms must do so “with reasonable clarity, deliberateness,
`and precision”).
`Were we to adopt the definition argued by Patent Owner, we would be
`construing the claim to be internally inconsistent and excluding described
`embodiments that allow historical activity to influence the determination of
`an action spot. We thus do not agree with Patent Owner that an action spot
`is limited to a location or an event where an activity is presently occurring,
`and instead interpret “action spot” to refer to a location or event in which the
`activity “is occurring” or “has occurred.”
`
`2.
`
`“determine/determining at least one action spot
`within a predetermined distance from the current
`location of the first mobile device”
`Petitioner argues that “determine/determining at least one action spot
`within a predetermined distance from the current location of the first mobile
`device” should be construed to mean “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.” Pet. 16. Essentially,
`Petitioner would have us (1) substitute “each action spot” for “at least one
`action spot” in the claim, (2) substitute “specific” for the claim’s
`“predetermined,” and (3) add “the specific distance being set prior to the
`determining step.” On the present record, we see no reason to make any of
`9
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00715
`Patent 8,326,327 B2
`
`those modifications to the claim language. Both “at least one action spot”
`and “predetermined” are clear and unambiguous, and we see no basis for
`grafting “the specific distance being set prior to the determining step” onto
`the claim, particularly where the Specification does not require a “specific
`distance.” See Ex. 1001, 8:32–37. If, as Petitioner argues, “the ‘distance’
`must be determined before action spots are determined,” then the additional
`language is superfluous.
`We thus agree with Patent Owner that “this limitation should be
`construed according to its plain and ordinary meaning under the Phillips
`standard,” and that, at this stage of the proceeding, “no formal construction
`is necessary.” Prelim. Resp. 15.
`
`“display the image with the at least one activity spot”
`3.
`Petitioner argues that we should construe “display the image with the
`at least one activity spot” to mean “display the viewfinder image from the
`camera module with action spots superimposed thereupon.” Pet. 17. In
`other words, Petitioner asks us to narrow the claim by changing (1) the
`claim’s “image” to “viewfinder image from the camera module,” and (2) “at
`least one activity spot” in the claim to “action spots superimposed
`thereupon.” Petitioner’s argument that these changes would be “consistent”
`with the claims and Specification (see Pet. 17) is not a sufficient reason to
`read these specific details of a described embodiment into the claim,6 and we
`
`
`6 See, e.g., Bradium Techs. LLC v. Iancu, 923 F.3d 1032, 1049 (Fed. Cir.
`2019) (“[I]t is long-settled that even though ‘claims must be read in light of
`the specification of which they are a part, it is improper to read limitations
`from the written description into a claim.’”) (quoting Wenger Mfg., Inc. v.
`Coating Mach. Sys., Inc., 239 F.3d 1225, 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2001)).
`10
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00715
`Patent 8,326,327 B2
`
`conclude that no express construction of this straightforward term is
`necessary at this stage.
`
`C.
`
`Reasonable Likelihood Analysis
`
`Patent Owner’s “Claim Scope” Argument
`1.
`Patent Owner argues, as a threshold matter, that the Petition should be
`denied because Petitioner seeks a construction that would convert “at least
`one action spot” in the claims to “each action spot,” and asserts that
`“[w]ithout interpreting this limitation as applying to ‘each action spot,’ the
`’327 patent [] fails to inform a [person of ordinary skill in the art] with
`reasonable certainty about the claim’s scope.” Prelim. Resp. 17–18 (citing
`Pet. 17). We find this argument unpersuasive because our review is limited
`to grounds that “could be raised under section 102 or 103.” 35 U.S.C. §
`311(b). We view the claims as simply requiring determining at least one
`action spot––i.e., one or more action spots––within the predetermined
`distance that correspond(s) to a location where another mobile device has
`engaged in a documenting action within the predetermined period of time.
`
`Grounds Based on Lemmela and Crowley
`2.
`Petitioner alleges that claims 1–3, 8, and 13–15 are unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Lemmela and Crowley. See Pet.
`43–60. Petitioner adds Winkler to address claims 10 and 11. See Pet. 60–
`65. Petitioner adds Waldman to address claims 9 and 20. See Pet. 65–72.
`
`Lemmela
`a.
`Lemmela is directed to finding interesting locations using location
`based posting. See Ex. 1005 ¶ 7. The method includes creating a group of
`postings for a geographic area and creating display information for the
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00715
`Patent 8,326,327 B2
`
`group, including location information. See id. ¶ 11. The method may be
`implemented on a server that accesses location postings and provides
`information to a user on a mobile device, and the mobile device may include
`a Global Positioning System receiver to determine its location. See id.
`¶¶ 38, 42, 43.
`Lemmela’s Figure 1, reproduced below, shows example display 20,
`with a map of an area of interest that may be based on a user’s present
`location. See id. ¶ 26.
`
`
`
`“FIG. 1 shows a display of information as created by an illustrative
`embodiment of [Lemmela’s] invention.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 18.
`Location map 22 in Figure 1 may show information and postings
`about places and activities proximate to the user. See id. ¶ 26. Areas of
`interest are shown as clouds 24 and 26 and may be colored based on certain
`information, such as by density of location postings. See id. ¶¶ 27–28. In
`addition, “the shape or shading of clouds may be altered to convey different
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00715
`Patent 8,326,327 B2
`
`information.” Id. The map may also include a timeline, so that “[t]he user
`can freely select the starting and ending times defining the interesting time
`period.” Id. ¶ 39; see also id. Fig. 5. The display may be continuously
`updated, taking into account postings sent during a selected time period. Id.
`
`b. Crowley
`Crowley discloses a system for establishing connections between
`users of mobile devices by identifying the locations of related users and
`sending a message between them based on proximity. See Ex. 1008, 2:31–
`38. The system includes a location engine 102 for identifying the distance
`between users to identify which users are near each other. See id. at 12:54–
`65. Users within a predetermined distance receive messages about each
`other, and the predetermined distance may be a set amount (e.g., ten blocks)
`or may vary based on location. Id. A server may test for all active
`acquaintances of a user, retrieve their location coordinates, “check the first
`member’s location against those other locations,” and send a message to
`each relevant member of the group, including the user. Id. at 11:3–16.
`
`c. Winkler
`Winkler is directed to a system for generating and displaying
`graphical elements on a mobile device map so that a user may identify
`concentrations of other mobile device users at one or more locations. See
`Ex. 1004, 1:66–2:5, 2:47–49. The system includes a server that displays or
`presents information to mobile device users, and mapping components that
`generate a map and map elements. See id. at 4:43–51. The system may
`generate a map element based on an input identifying a location of a user’s
`mobile device and display the elements based on events that occur proximate
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00715
`Patent 8,326,327 B2
`
`to the user’s device or at a location associated with the map element. See id.
`at 10:10–19, 2:16–19. The system also may modify the appearance of a map
`element when a certain number of mobile device users comment on a
`location or event. See id. at 2:20–24, 10:40–44.
`
`Winkler’s Figure 7A, reproduced below, shows map 700 displayed on
`a mobile device with two highlighted zones, 710 and 720, tagged location
`735, and hot zone 730. See id. at 12:4–5, 32–38.
`
`
`Figure 7A illustrates an example mobile device
`screen used to dynamically display information
`about elements on a map. Ex. 1004, 1:57–59.
`Highlighted zones 710 and 720 may show increasing or decreasing
`concentrations of elements on the map or concentrations of comments by
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00715
`Patent 8,326,327 B2
`
`users at a location. See id. at 12:5–10. Hot zone 730 around tagged location
`735 “may indicate a certain amount or frequency of activity around or
`related to the location,” including comments from other mobile users. Id. at
`12:36–40. The display of hot zones or map elements may dynamically
`change based on events or time. See id. at 12:44–54.
`
`Petitioner’s Arguments Regarding Claims 1 and 10
`d.
`We refer to pages 43–72 of the Petition for the details of the grounds
`based, in part, on Lemmela and Crowley. Because Patent Owner argues the
`independent claims together (see Prelim. Resp. 51–58), we summarize only
`Petitioner’s analysis for claims 1 and 10 here.
`For claim 1, Petitioner first argues that Lemmela discloses a mobile
`device with a display, a processor, and a graphical user interface that
`receives data indicative of a current location of the device. See Pet. 43–45.
`For determining an action spot that corresponds to a location where
`another mobile device has engaged in documenting action within a
`predetermined period of time, Petitioner alleges that Lemmela discloses
`action spots in its “groups of virtual location-based posts.” Pet. 45.
`Petitioner asserts that Lemmela “discloses grouping virtual posts together
`based on common characteristics—for example, postings originating from a
`certain location that contain a particular common, salient word.” Id. at 45–
`46 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 11, 34–35, 38). Petitioner further argues that “[t]he
`posts . . . may also be limited to those within a predetermined period of
`time” in that “postings older than a certain date may be excluded from any
`processing” and “the user may be provided with options for selecting or
`adjusting a time range for postings.” Id. at 46 (quoting Ex. 1005 ¶ 37).
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00715
`Patent 8,326,327 B2
`
`For the action spot being within a predetermined distance from the
`current location of the mobile device, Petitioner relies on both Lemmela and
`Crowley. Specifically, Petitioner asserts that “Lemmela discloses displaying
`grouped postings within an area around the current location of the first
`mobile device” and that “Crowley discloses a system which receives current
`user device location data and a specific distance before it determines which
`second users to send the first user’s message to.” Id. at 48–49. Petitioner
`concludes that it “would have been obvious . . . to modify Lemmela based
`on the teachings of Crowley such that the determination of action spots was
`limited to those within a specific distance from the current location of the
`first mobile device.” Id. at 48–49. Petitioner argues that the combination
`“would have improved the usefulness and convenience of Lemmela’s
`application,” and “could potentially require less processing power.” Id. at
`52. Petitioner additionally argues that the combination “would involve
`combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`predictable results,” “would require nothing more than performing known
`methods . . . [to] yield a predictable result,” and would “involve a simple
`substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.”
`Id. at 50–52.
`Finally for claim 1, Petitioner argues that “Lemmela teaches
`signifying action spots on the GUI of a mobile device” (Pet. 53 (citing
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 5, ¶ 22)) and “discloses a ‘heat map,’ which provides an
`indication of activity level at each grouped posting (i.e., action spot)” (id. at
`54 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 28).
`Claim 10 is similar to claim 1, but also requires a “graphical item
`identifying a direction, relative to the current location, in which to travel in
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00715
`Patent 8,326,327 B2
`
`order to arrive at the determined at least one action spot.” Ex. 1001, 20:13–
`15. In the ’327 patent this is embodied in the “compass” of Figure 7.
`Petitioner argues that Winkler meets this limitation because it describes how
`“[a]s the user attempts to walk towards the store, the system causes the map
`element [corresponding to the store’s location] to change colors.” Pet. 62
`(citing Ex. 1004, 13:21–31). Petitioner asserts that “Lemmela seeks to help
`users ‘easily pinpoint locations which are the most interesting from their
`point of view’” and “[p]roviding explicit directions to an interesting
`location,” as in Winkler, “is one way of pinpointing it.” Pet. 61–65.
`Petitioner also argues, among other things, that adding Winkler’s color
`effect “would have improved the usefulness and convenience of the
`Lemmela-Crowley system.” Pet. 64.
`
`Patent Owner’s Arguments
`e.
`Patent Owner argues Petitioner has not shown that Lemmela discloses
`an “action spot,” because the groups of posts do not represent activity that
`“is occurring” with respect to a current location of a mobile device. Prelim.
`Resp. 51−54.
`Patent Owner also argues the Petition fails to show that Lemmela’s
`“quantitative measure of the postings in the group” and “density of location
`postings” provide “a ‘level of actions’ taken by one or more mobile devices
`at the location.” Prelim. Resp. 56. Patent Owner argues that the
`“‘quantitative measure of postings in [a] group’ do not actually reflect the
`level of actions (e.g., postings) taken by mobile devices at a given location
`or geographic area but instead represent [a] subset of postings at the location
`or area containing the same salient words.” Id. at 56. Patent Owner argues
`that the “‘density of postings’ containing a salient word is deficient for
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00715
`Patent 8,326,327 B2
`
`similar reasons, and also because Lemmela’s alleged ‘density’ is a function
`of geographic proximity in addition to a level of postings.” Id. at 57.
`Regarding claim 10, Patent Owner argues “the petition fails to show
`that Winkler’s color-changing map element . . . identifies a direction relative
`to a current location of the mobile device.” Prelim. Resp. 58.
`
`f.
`
`Analysis and Conclusion for the
`Lemmela and Crowley Grounds
`Having considered the Petition and Patent Owner’s arguments, we
`conclude that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of proving
`that claims 1–3, 8–11, 13–15, and 20 would have been obvious as argued in
`the grounds based, in part, on Lemmela.
`We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s first argument, that
`Petitioner failed to show Lemmela discloses an “action spot,” because the
`argument is based on a temporal requirement of “action spot” that we have
`not adopted for purposes of this Decision. See Section II.B.1 (concluding
`that an “action spot” refers to a location or event in which activity “is
`occurring” or “has occurred.”). Accordingly, at this juncture, we are
`persuaded that Lemmela teaches “action spots” in its “grouping virtual posts
`together based on common characteristics.” See Pet. 45–46 (citing Ex. 1005
`¶¶ 11, 34–35, 38).
`We also are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s second argument, that
`Lemmela’s “quantitative measure of the postings in the group” and “density
`of location postings” do not show the claimed “activity level” because they
`do not “actually reflect the level of actions (e.g., postings) taken by mobile
`devices at a given location or geographic area.” Prelim. Resp. 56. We find,
`for purposes of this Decision, that Lemmela’s clouds change colors based on
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00715
`Patent 8,326,327 B2
`
`the quantitative measure or density of activity at the locations, which is
`indicative of an “activity level.” The claims do not require any particular
`proportionality or accuracy of the activity level indication.
`Regarding claim 10, we preliminary find that Winkler’s description of
`the map element changing color to “indicat[e] to the user that the user is
`heading in the correct direction” (Ex. 1004, 13:26–27) is sufficient to
`“identify[] a direction, relative to the current location, in which to travel in
`order to arrive at the determined at least one action spot,” as claimed. When
`the color changes, the user’s current direction is the “direction, relative to
`the current location, in which to travel.” This is so even though the user
`must move first in order for the system to determine the present direction of
`travel.
`Because we agree with Petitioner’s analysis for the grounds based on
`Lemmela and Crowley, as summarized above, and we are not persuaded by
`Patent Owner’s arguments, we conclude that Petitioner has, on the present
`record, established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that the
`independent claims would have been obvious.7 Because the Preliminary
`Response does not address any of the dependent claims separately, and
`because we are in any event required to go forward on all grounds if we go
`forward on any,8 we institute a review as to all grounds and all claims.
`
`
`7 We have not relied on Petitioner’s contention that Crowley discloses a
`“specific distance” because we have not adopted Petitioner’s claim
`construction adding that language. See Section II.B.2.
`8 See SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1353 (2018) (“The agency
`cannot curate the claims at issue but must decide them all.”); see also Trial
`Practice Guide Update 31 (July 2019) (“The Board will not institute on
`fewer than all claims or all challenges in a petition.”), available at
`19
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00715
`Patent 8,326,327 B2
`
`Ground Based on Winkler and Altman
`3.
`Petitioner alleges that claims 1–3, 8, 10–11, and 13–15 are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Winkler and Altman.
`See Pet. 20–42.
`
`Altman
`a.
`Altman discloses a system for displaying geographic locations and
`providing location-based message transmission for mobile device users. See
`Ex. 1006 ¶ 2. The system may include sending an alert to a user when a
`friend of the user gets within a certain distance of a point of interest tagged
`by the user. See id. ¶ 59. The user can specify a radius (e.g., 0.5 miles)
`around a location. See id. ¶ 60, Fig. 9.
`
`Petitioner’s Arguments Regarding Claims 1 and 10
`b.
`We refer to pages 20–42 of the Petition for the details of the
`combination based on Winkler and Altman. Because Patent Owner argues
`the independent claims together (see Prelim. Resp. 19–50), we summarize
`only Petitioner’s analysis for claims 1 and 10.
`For claim 1, Petitioner first argues that Winkler discloses a mobile
`device with a display, a processor, and a graphical user interface that
`receives data indicative of a current location of the device. See Pet. 20–23.
`For determining an “action spot” that corresponds to a location where
`another mobile device has “engaged in documenting actions within a
`predetermined period of time,” Petitioner alleges that Winkler discloses
`action spots in its “map elements,” and that the map elements “correspond to
`
`https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/trial-practice-
`guideupdate3.pdf.
`
`20
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00715
`Patent 8,326,327 B2
`
`locations where ‘events’ have occurred” and “can be limited to that which
`occurs within a certain time period and/or within a certain region.” Id. at
`23–25 (citing Ex. 1004, 2:16–18, 10:40–42, 11:43–48).
`For the action spot being within a predetermined distance from the
`current location of the mobile device, Petitioner relies on both Winkler and
`Altman. Petitioner asserts that Winkler “discloses determining action spots
`within a range of the current location of a mobile device,” and that Altman
`describes “determining when second user[] enter[s] a specific distance from
`the current location of a first user’s mobile device[] and . . . determining
`each action spot within that specific distance.” Id. at 26, 28. Petitioner
`concludes that it “would have been obvious . . . to combine Winkler with
`Altman in order to create a system where action spots are determined within
`a specific distance from the current location