UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SNAP, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BLACKBERRY LIMITED,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00715
`Patent No. 8,326,327
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case No.: IPR2019-00715
`Attorney Docket No.: 21828-0041IP1
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`I. 
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`OVERVIEW OF THE ’327 PATENT ............................................................ 2 
`II. 
`III.  OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART ............................................................... 6 
`A.  Winkler .................................................................................................. 6 
`B. 
`Altman ................................................................................................... 9 
`C. 
`Lemmela .............................................................................................. 10 
`D. 
`Crowley ............................................................................................... 13 
`E.  Waldman ............................................................................................. 14 
`IV.  LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL .................................................................. 14 
`V. 
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 14 
`A. 
`“determine” at least one “action spot” (claims 1, 10, and 13) ............ 15 
`B. 
`within a “predetermined distance” from the current location of the
`mobile device (claims 1, 10, and 13) .................................................. 21 
`VI.  THE LEMMELA GROUNDS ARE DEFICIENT ....................................... 22 
`A. 
`The Lemmela-Crowley Combination Fails To Disclose The Claimed
`Requirement For “Determin[e]/[ing] At Least One Action Spot” As
`Recited In Independent Claims 1, 10, and 13 ..................................... 23 
`The Petition Fails To Show That Lemmela “Provide[s] An Indication
`Of Activity Level At The At Least One Action Spot” (Claim 1) or
`“Mark[s] The Graphical Item According To An Activity Level With
`At Least One Action Spot” (Claim 13) ............................................... 30 
`The Petition Fails To Show That Lemmela’s System Provides An
`Indication Of Activity Level That Is Based Upon A Number Of
`Actions “Within A Predetermined Distance From The At Least One
`Action Spot” (Claims 3 And 15) ......................................................... 33 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`B. 
`
`D. 
`
`The Lemmela-Crowley Combinations Of Grounds 2-4 Are Based
`Upon Hindsight Assertions ................................................................. 35 
`The Proposed Combination of Ground 3 Fails To Provide The
`“Displaying A Graphical Item … Identifying A Direction” Limitation
`Of Independent Claim 10 .................................................................... 37 
`The Petition’s Proposed Combination Based On Lemmela, Crowley,
`And Waldman Is Unsupported And Improperly Rooted In Hindsight
`(Claims 9 And 20) ............................................................................... 40 
`VII.  THE WINKLER GROUND IS DEFICIENT ................................................ 43 
`A. 
`The Winkler-Altman Combination Fails To Disclose The Claimed
`Requirement For “Determin[e]/[ing] At Least One Action Spot” As
`Recited In Independent Claims 1, 10, and 13 ..................................... 43 
`1. 
`The Petition’s inconsistent mapping of Winkler to Claims 1, 10,
`and 13 deprive Patent Owner and the Board of a fair
`opportunity to assess Petitioner’s combination and ignore all
`requirements for “the at least one action spot” ......................... 43 
`The Petition fails to show that any individual map element
`disclosed in the Winkler-Altman combination is an action spot
`corresponding to “a location where at least one second mobile
`device has engaged in at least one documenting action” .......... 49 
`The Petition fails to show that the Winkler-Altman system sets
`a “predetermined distance” before determining “the at least one
`action spot” ............................................................................... 52 
`The Petition’s Proposed Modification To Winkler’s System Is
`Factually And Legally Flawed ............................................................ 55 
`1. 
`The Petition fails to address how/why a POSITA would have
`combined Winkler’s distinct embodiments to achieve one map
`element that would provide all requirements of the claimed
`“action spot” .............................................................................. 55 
`The Petition’s Winkler-Altman combination conflates distances
`from a map element with distances from a current location of
`the mobile device ...................................................................... 57 
`
`Case No.: IPR2019-00715
`Attorney Docket No.: 21828-0041IP1
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`2. 
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`3. 
`
`C. 
`
`The Petition’s hindsight motivations to combine Altman with
`Winkler are deficient ................................................................. 60 
`The Winkler-Altman Combination Fails To Provide The “Displaying
`A Graphical Item … Identifying A Direction” Limitation Of
`Independent Claim 10 ......................................................................... 61 
`VIII.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 62 
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2019-00715
`Attorney Docket No.: 21828-0041IP1
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`EX2001
`
`EX2002
`
`EX2003
`
`EX2004
`
`EX2005
`
`EX2006
`
`EX2007
`
`EX2008
`
`EX2009
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2019-00715
`Attorney Docket No.: 21828-0041IP1
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Declaration of Patrick McDaniel, Ph.D.
`
`Corrected Final Ruling on Claim Construction/Markman
`Hearing, Blackberry Limited v. Snap Inc., Case Nos. CV 18-
`1844-GW & 18-2693-GW (C.D. Cal. April 5, 2019)
`(“Markman Order”)
`
`Second Declaration of Patrick McDaniel, Ph.D.
`
`Transcript of Deposition of Dr. Samrat Bhattacharjee
`(November 18, 2019)
`
`Final Ruling On Defendant Snap Inc.’s Motion For Summary
`Judgment Of Invalidity Under Section 101 Of U.S. Patent Nos.
`8,825,084 And 8,326,327, Blackberry Limited v. Snap Inc.,
`Case Nos. CV 18-1844-GW & 18-2693-GW (C.D. Cal.
`October 1, 2019)
`
`Disclosure Pursuant To 37 C.F.R. §42.11
`
`US Appl. No. 12/870,676 (as filed)
`
`Garmin: Updating Maps on Your Garmin Device (May 2010),
`available at https://www8.garmin.com/documents/instructions/
`Garmin_Map_Update_Guide.pdf (retrieved November 24,
`2019)
`
`CNET Article: How To Update Your GPS Maps TomTom
`Edition (July 14, 2010), available at https://www.cnet.com/
`pictures/how-to-update-your-gps-maps-tomtom-edition-photos
`(retrieved November 24, 2019) (slideshow pictures reproduced
`in a single PDF)
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`Case No.: IPR2019-00715
`Attorney Docket No.: 21828-0041IP1
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`This PTAB trial was instituted on the premise that the claim term “action spot”
`
`need not be expressly construed at that preliminary “juncture” (Inst. Dec., 8), but a
`
`construction is necessary and was already established. Here, the district court’s
`
`order identified the proper construction under the Phillips standard—a construction
`
`that perfectly aligns with the lexicographic definition set forth in the specification.
`
`See EX2002, 9; EX1001, 2:63-65. There can be no greater support in the
`
`specification for the district court’s construction, which is why all parties already
`
`agreed the construction is proper. If the Board faithfully applies the proper
`
`construction of this term “using the same claim construction standard that would be
`
`used to construe the claim in a civil action,” the Lemmela grounds (Grounds 2-4)
`
`inevitably fail. 37 C.F.R. §42.100.
`
`Moreover, even if the Board concludes that the claim scope should depart
`
`from the Phillips construction ordered by the district court and now imposed upon
`
`Patent Owner in the litigation, the Petition’s reliance on Lemmela’s display of a
`
`“salient word” cloud falls short of achieving a number of other elements in
`
`independent claims 1, 10, and 13. As detailed below, the Petition cannot satisfy its
`
`heightened burden under §316(e).
`
`Lastly, the Board squarely addressed the Winkler ground (Ground 1) and its
`
`fatal flaws. See Inst. Dec., 22-24 (“Petitioner has not shown”). Simply put, the
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`“information presented in the petition” for the Winkler ground was woefully
`
`Case No.: IPR2019-00715
`Attorney Docket No.: 21828-0041IP1
`
`insufficient to satisfy Petitioner’s burden under §314(a)—and even further short of
`
`the now-heightened burden under §316(e), especially where the law forbids
`
`subsequently adding new theory/argument that “could have been included in a
`
`properly-drafted petition, but was not.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, 829 F.3d
`
`1364, 1378-80 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge,
`
`Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“utmost importance”). The Petition
`
`alone set forth Petitioner’s case-in-chief for the Winkler ground, and it was
`
`irreparably defective.
`
`The final quotation in the conclusion of the Institution Decision is incisive
`
`here: “there is a significant difference between a petitioner’s burden to establish a
`
`‘reasonable likelihood of success’ at institution, and actually proving invalidity by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence at trial.” See Inst. Dec., 36 (quoting Trivascular, Inc.
`
`v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The Board was right. This
`
`difference is meaningful, especially in light of the substantial evidence in the record
`
`showing the fundamental shortcomings of Grounds 1-4.
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF THE ’327 PATENT
`The ’327 patent describes techniques for determining “action spots” relative
`
`to a “current location” of a mobile device. EX1001, 1:7-10, 3:21-4:44, FIGS. 1, 3;
`
`EX2003, ¶¶19-25. The specification provides a deliberate lexicographic definition
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`of “action spot,” as ordered by the district court in the concurrent litigation and
`
`Case No.: IPR2019-00715
`Attorney Docket No.: 21828-0041IP1
`
`agreed upon by the parties:
`
`The term “action spot” refers to a location or an event where at least
`one activity is occurring relative to the current location of another
`mobile device.
`
`EX1001, 2:63-65 (emphasis added); EX2002, 9; infra, Section V.A. Based
`
`on the system’s determination that an “action spot” is occurring in the vicinity of a
`
`mobile device, the ’327 patent’s techniques advantageously allow a user to readily
`
`identify nearby locations or events that he or she may be interested in visiting,
`
`attending, or otherwise monitoring. EX1001, 2:54-3:35, 4:35-44 (detailing the
`
`inventors’ objective in which “a user can review information related to current
`
`happenings within the vicinity of the user’s mobile device” (emphasis added)); 8:9-
`
`39. Also, the ’327 patent describes that “activity” refers to actions taken by a mobile
`
`device, and in particular those types of actions “where the 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.” EX1001, 2:54-63 (emphasis added); EX2003, ¶20.
`
`The purpose of the invention was to accomplish a technological solution to a
`
`problem with typical mobile devices more than a decade ago—namely, that “[i]n
`
`order to find information relating to events and happenings currently occurring
`
`proximate to the mobile device’s present location, the user of the mobile device will
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`have to search an external resource, such as an electronic events calendar, internet
`
`Case No.: IPR2019-00715
`Attorney Docket No.: 21828-0041IP1
`
`sites, internet calendars of individual business or event holders …, and compare the
`
`locations of the found events and happenings to the mobile device’s current
`
`location.” EX1001, 3:4-12 (emphasis added). The ’327 patent explains that this
`
`traditional process could lead to “user frustration” and “incomplete and inaccurate”
`
`results such that the user risked “miss[ing] certain happenings that are close in
`
`proximity to the current location of the user’s mobile device.” EX1001, 3:12-20;
`
`EX2003, ¶¶20-21.
`
`The inventors’ solution to these problems included a novel system to monitor
`
`near real-time documenting actions by other mobile devices within a geographic
`
`area, which can then advantageously output a determination that at least one “action
`
`spot” is present (a determination that activity is occurring based upon the input from
`
`such monitored actions) at a location or event within a predetermined distance of the
`
`current location of a user’s mobile device. EX1001, 3:16-35; see also 4:35-39
`
`(“current happenings within the vicinity” (emphasis added)); 7:8-36, FIG. 1;
`
`EX2003, ¶¶20-22. EX1001, 3:21-35. In the depicted examples, the system provides
`
`graphical items for display over a map at the first mobile device for at least one
`
`action spot, and the graphical item for each action spot can be presented at a position
`
`over the map that corresponds to the real-world location where the system
`
`determined the action spot is occurring. EX1001, 6:9-22, FIG. 3. Figure 3
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`(reproduced below) illustrates one example of a map 206 presented in a graphical
`
`Case No.: IPR2019-00715
`Attorney Docket No.: 21828-0041IP1
`
`user interface on a mobile device. EX1001, FIG. 3. As shown in Figure 3, various
`
`graphical items are overlaid on the map 206 including a first item 302 that indicates
`
`a current location of the user’s device, and graphical items 304 and 306 showing
`
`“action spots” where activity is occurring. EX1001, FIG. 3.
`
`Critically, not all elements on the map are “action spots” within the meaning
`
`of the term as it is used in the ’327 patent, for the specification plainly states some
`
`elements on the map are simply “graphical representations 308” that identify pre-
`
`existing “venues, locations, monuments, buildings, streets, lakes, and other location
`
`landmarks.” EX1001, 5:54-58; EX2003, ¶¶23-24. For example, FIG. 3
`
`demonstrates that there is no “action spot” proximate to the “museum”—namely,
`
`because there was no determination it is a location where activity “is occurring” (col.
`
`3:3-5), regardless of whether the system might have historically detected posts from
`
`other mobile devices at the museum gallery on previous days or weeks. By contrast,
`
`FIG. 4 shows another example where an “action spot” is displayed proximate to the
`
`“museum” because the system made a determination an event “is occurring at action
`
`spot 408” (col. 9:23-29 (emphasis added)), not a determination that historical posting
`
`activity occurred there on previous days or weeks:
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`Case No.: IPR2019-00715
`Attorney Docket No.: 21828-0041IP1
`
`EX2003, ¶23(comparing FIGS. 3-4); EX1001, 9:23-29.
`
`
`
`The ’327 patent further describes that an activity level of each action spot
`
`presented to the user can be signified in various ways such as by setting a size or
`
`color of the graphical item for the action spot to reflect the activity level or displaying
`
`text that indicates metric(s) that may be related to activity level (e.g., a count of a
`
`number of documenting actions by at least one other mobile device at the action
`
`spot). EX1001, 6:23-52, 9:47-57, 11:46-54, FIG. 6. The ’327 patent also describes
`
`how the display can include a graphical item identifying a “direction” (e.g., an arrow,
`
`compass features, etc.), not merely a location, in which to travel for reaching the
`
`action spot. EX1001, 12:1-24; 13:23-40, FIGS. 7-8; EX2003, ¶25.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART
`A. Winkler
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`Winkler (EX1004) describes “[a] system and method for providing
`
`Case No.: IPR2019-00715
`Attorney Docket No.: 21828-0041IP1
`
`information on a map displayed by a mobile device.” EX1004, Abstract; EX2003,
`
`¶¶82-88. Winkler’s system conveys location-based information to a user through
`
`“map elements” overlaid on a map on the user’s mobile device. EX1004, 2:6-26,
`
`3:62-4:5, FIGS. 5, 6A-6C. A “map element” can be a pin, icon, or other visual
`
`indicator associated with a particular location or map feature (e.g., a restaurant, store,
`
`bar, or other venue). EX1004, 3:62-4:5, 10:10-31, 11:1-15, FIGS. 6A-6C.
`
`Moreover, Winkler describes examples in which the system “changes” the pre-
`
`existing map elements “based on events that occur at or proximate to … a location
`
`associated with the element.” EX1004, 10:3-7; see also 2:16-33, 11:16-26. Figures
`
`6A-6C illustrate a relevant example:
`
`EX1004, FIGS. 6A-6C.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`As shown above in FIG. 6A, a map element 610 is depicted in the form of a
`
`Case No.: IPR2019-00715
`Attorney Docket No.: 21828-0041IP1
`
`light-colored pin that points to a particular location on the map. EX1004, 11:3-5.
`
`Winkler discloses a number of ways in which the map element 610 may be initially
`
`generated. See, e.g., EX1004, 10:10-16, 6:14-26, 11:61-63. In contrast to the
`
`“action spots” of the ’327 patent, the display of a map element in Winkler’s system
`
`does not mean there was a determination that activity is occurring at the location
`
`associated with the map element—and certainly not relative to the current location
`
`of the user’s mobile device. First, Winkler’s map elements that are displayed
`
`merely, for example, as a result of having been “tagged” by a user for generation on
`
`the map, e.g., thereby allowing the user to communicate with other users (all of who
`
`may be remote from the location) by posting comments to the pre-existing element
`
`over time or allowing the user to monitor for the occurrence of “events” at the pre-
`
`existing element. EX1004, 6:6-11, 6:2-7:24, 11:16-24. Second, the user generating
`
`the map element need not be at the actual location, and the map element may be
`
`displayed regardless of the user’s current location.
`
`After map element 610 is initially displayed, Figure 6B shows that the pin
`
`icon for the element 610 may change appearance (e.g., darken) when an event is
`
`detected to have occurred at the location corresponding to the map element 610.
`
`EX1004, 11:6-10 (“when a friend arrives at the location or adds a comment to the
`
`map element.”). Winkler lists a number of distinct “events” that may trigger a
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`change in appearance of a map element, but as detailed below, not one of those
`
`Case No.: IPR2019-00715
`Attorney Docket No.: 21828-0041IP1
`
`events provides all of the required characteristics of “the at least one action spot”
`
`recited in claims 1 and 9. Infra, Section VII.A.2. For instance, Winkler discloses
`
`detected events related to “movement” of a mobile device, such as:
`
` “movement of another mobile device near, to, or proximate to a tagged
`location,” or
` “movement of a user’s mobile device near, to, or proximate to the user’s
`tagged location.”
`
`EX1004, 11:38-44. Such “movement” of a mobile device is detected even when no
`
`documenting action is occurring at that location. In another example, Winkler
`
`discloses other events related to detection of “activity,” such as:
`
` “a certain frequency or amount of activity in a certain region.”
`
`EX1004, 11:38-44. The detected “activity” may include other users commenting on
`
`a tagged location—regardless of whether those other users are physically present at
`
`the tagged location, and regardless of whether those other users are within a
`
`predetermined distance of a first user. EX1004, 7:35-8:18, Table 2, FIG. 3
`
`(disclosing a user commenting on a coffee shop he/she plans to visit).
`
`B. Altman
`Altman (EX1006) discloses a “location-based social network manager” that
`
`“superimposes on the map the respective locations of one or more other users of
`
`mobile communication devices coupled to the mobile communication device over
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`the network.” EX1006, Abstract, [0059]-[0060] (“send an alert to that user when a
`
`Case No.: IPR2019-00715
`Attorney Docket No.: 21828-0041IP1
`
`friend of the user gets within a certain distance of the POI”); EX2003, ¶¶89-90. The
`
`Petition relies on Altman as a secondary reference in combination with Winkler,
`
`solely for the aspect of claims 1, 10, and 13 directed to the Petition’s now-rejected
`
`claim construction demanding a “specific distance” requirement. Pet., 16-17, 27-
`
`32; EX2002, 37 (rejecting Petitioner’s construction).
`
`C. Lemmela
`Lemmela (EX1005) is titled “Identifying Interesting Locations Based On
`
`Commonalities in Location Based Postings” and describes “a method and system
`
`that identifies and presents information[] which is common in various postings in an
`
`area.” EX1005, Abstract; EX2003, ¶¶47-49. Lemmela’s system collects so-called
`
`“location postings” from users over a historical period of time (e.g., previous days,
`
`weeks, or months) and filters the location postings to isolate those having “salient
`
`words” for determining where users have historically posted about topics such as
`
`“shopping,” “gallery,” “football,” etc. EX1005, [0007]-[0009], [0024]-[0026],
`
`Abstract, FIG. 1. For example, Figure 2A illustrates a collection of geographically
`
`proximate location postings that each include the term “pizza,” and Figure 2B
`
`depicts a view of a map with overlay graphic information 32 (e.g., a cloud) derived
`
`from the location postings identifying the geographic area associated with the subset
`
`of filtered postings about “pizza”:
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`Case No.: IPR2019-00715
`Attorney Docket No.: 21828-0041IP1
`
`
`
`EX1005, FIGS. 2A-2B; [0031].
`
`To determine groups of related location postings, Lemmela’s system
`
`identifies salient words in the postings and then clusters the postings using, for
`
`example, a “clustering algorithm” that is used to collect and “pre-process” the
`
`postings over time before the posting information is subsequently provided to the
`
`user’s mobile device 50. EX1005, [0035], [0043]. Because the posting information
`
`is locally stored at the user’s mobile device 50, the user can adjust the historical
`
`timeframe to be considered for the clouds drawn on that device, e.g., via a slider tool
`
`presented on a user’s device that allows the user to adjust the start and end dates for
`
`a historical window of postings. EX1005, [0037], [0039], FIG. 5.
`
`Lemmela’s principle of operation is to generate “salient word” clouds on the
`
`map that merely informs the viewer of a summary of historical activity detected over
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`previous days or weeks.
`
`Case No.: IPR2019-00715
`Attorney Docket No.: 21828-0041IP1
`
` See EX1005,
`
`[0009]
`
`(“summary view” of
`
`meaningful/important/relevant information “filtered out and presented to a user”),
`
`[0039] (“a time window from late February to late March”); EX2003, ¶49. Thus,
`
`the user of Lemmela’s system can view the locations on a map where similarly-
`
`worded postings occurred in the past and then might attempt to make her own
`
`assumptions (right or wrong) from there, but Lemmela’s system never uses the input
`
`of its historical posting data to output an actual determination that activity is
`
`occurring relative to the current location of the user’s mobile device. EX1005,
`
`FIGS. 1-2B, [0036] (“Once the location postings are grouped…”); but see EX1001,
`
`3:3-5 (“a location or an event where at least one activity is occurring relative to the
`
`current location of another mobile device.” (emphasis added)), 4:46-48 (“a user can
`
`review information related to current happenings within the vicinity of the user’s
`
`mobile device” (emphasis added)); EX2003, ¶49.
`
`In a straightforward example, based upon Lemmela’s disclosure and
`
`transmission of “raw” or “pre-processed” posting information for local storage at the
`
`mobile device 50, the evidence confirms that Lemmela’s “shoe” cloud would appear
`
`on the user’s map at 4AM on a holiday closure date (or another time long after the
`
`shoe store is closed):
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`Case No.: IPR2019-00715
`Attorney Docket No.: 21828-0041IP1
`
`
`
`EX1005, FIGS. 3A-3C and 5 (color added); EX2003, ¶49. This result arises because
`
`Lemmela’s visual summary of a cluster of historical “shoe” postings that
`
`accumulated over previous days or weeks is far different from, for example, a
`
`technical solution that monitors recent postings to make an actual determination that
`
`a “shoe” action spot is occurring relative to the current location of a mobile device.
`
`EX2003, ¶49; 4:46-48 (“current happenings”), 3:3-5.
`
`D. Crowley
`Crowley (EX1008) describes a “method of establishing connection between
`
`users of mobile devices” and facilitating communications between users who are “in
`
`close proximity to each other.” EX1008, Abstract, 1:54-58; EX2003, ¶50. The
`
`Petition relies on Crowley as a secondary reference in combination with Lemmela,
`
`solely for the aspect of claims 1, 10, and 13 directed to the Petition’s now-rejected
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`claim construction demanding a “specific distance” requirement. Pet., 16-17 and
`
`Case No.: IPR2019-00715
`Attorney Docket No.: 21828-0041IP1
`
`49-52; EX2002, 37.
`
`E. Waldman
`Waldman (EX1011) describes a “handheld communication device to capture
`
`and display a real-time view stream.” EX1011, Abstract; EX2003, ¶51. In one
`
`example, a mobile device displays a viewfinder image 102 on a screen of the device,
`
`and superimposes labels identifying points of interest shown in the image 102. Id.,
`
`[0019]-[0020], FIG. 1. The Petition relies on Waldman as a tertiary reference in
`
`combination with Lemmela and Crowley, solely for the additional features recited
`
`in dependent claims 9 and 20. Pet., 65-72.
`
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`The evidence here demonstrates that—based upon the relevant factors here—
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (“POSITA”) would
`
`have had “a bachelor of science degree in computer engineering/computer science
`
`or similar subject matter, or at least approximately two years of work or research
`
`experience in the fields of computer software, networking, and/or user experience
`
`design, or an equivalent subject matter.” EX2003, ¶¶17-18.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Patent Owner submits that all claim terms should be construed according to
`
`the Phillips standard. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005); 37
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`C.F.R. §42.100. Unlike the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, the Phillips
`
`Case No.: IPR2019-00715
`Attorney Docket No.: 21828-0041IP1
`
`standard seeks “the correct construction—the construction that most accurately
`
`delineates the scope of the claim[ed] invention.” PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning
`
`Optical Comm’ns RF, LLC, 815 F.3d 734, 740-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Under the
`
`Phillips standard, the purpose of claim construction is “to understand and explain,
`
`but not to change, the scope of the claims.” Embrex, Inc. v. Serv. Eng’g Corp., 216
`
`F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
`
`Here, the district court has already issued its final claim construction ruling
`
`for a number of claim elements—detailing the proper construction under the Phillips
`
`standard that is imposed upon Patent Owner in the concurrent litigation. See
`
`EX2002, 9, 36-41; EX2003, ¶¶32-34. Patent Owner specifically addresses two
`
`claim elements below.
`
`A.
`“determine” at least one “action spot” (claims 1, 10, and 13)
`The district court’s final claim construction order properly interpreted the
`
`term “action spot” under the Phillips standard to mean “a location or event where at
`
`least one activity is occurring relative to the current location of another mobile
`
`device.” EX2002, 9. Indeed, not only did all parties agree that this was the proper
`
`construction under the Phillips standard (id.), but this construction matches the
`
`deliberate lexicography of “action spot” in the specification:
`
`The term “action spot” refers to a location or an event where at least
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case No.: IPR2019-00715
`Attorney Docket No.: 21828-0041IP1
`
`
`
`one activity is occurring relative to the current location of another
`mobile device.
`EX1001, 2:63-65; EX2002, 9. There can be no clearer statement from the inventors
`
`regarding what this claim term “refers to” throughout this patent; it is not a mere
`
`sentence about a preferred embodiment. EX2003, ¶38; generally id., ¶¶35-42;
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1321.
`
`The Institution Decision did not construe this claim term “[a]t this juncture.”
`
`Inst. Dec., 8-9. Now, Patent Owner reiterates that a formal construction is necessary
`
`to resolve certain issues in dispute after a full PTAB trial. The Institution Decision
`
`addressed the Lemmela grounds (Grounds 2-4) based upon a claim scope that
`
`departed from the district court’s final claim construction ruling and the Phillips
`
`standard that is imposed upon Patent Owner in the concurrent litigation. Id. In
`
`particular, the Institution Decision assumed the scope of the claimed “action spot”
`
`must be broader because “an ‘action spot’ refers to a location or event where an
`
`activity ‘is occurring’ or ‘has occurred.’” Id. (emphasis added); but see EX1001,
`
`2:63-65; EX2002, 9.
`
`Patent Owner asks nothing more than a construction for this term that aligns
`
`with the proper Phillips construction ordered by the district court and now imposed
`
`upon Patent Owner in the concurrent litigation. Such symmetry avoids unfair
`
`prejudice and a number of reversible errors.
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`First, 37 C.F.R. §42.100(b) plainly explains that the Board should construe
`
`Case No.: IPR2019-00715
`Attorney Docket No.: 21828-0041IP1
`
`this term “using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe
`
`the claim in a civil action,” and there is no dispute how the district court (and both
`
`parties) construed this claim in the civil action here. EX2002, 9. As the Office
`
`explained, the purpose of seeking symmetry between the PTAB’s construction and
`
`the district court’s construction is to promote fairness, namely, by avoiding a
`
`scenario where “a patent claim could potentially be found unpatentable in an AIA
`
`proceeding on account of claim scope that the patent owner would not be able to
`
`assert in an infringement proceeding.” See 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340 at 51,342 (Oct. 11,
`
`2018); see also Andrei Iancu, USPTO Director, REMARKS AT THE AMERICAN
`
`INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW ASSOCIATION (AIPLA) ANNUAL MEETING,
`
`Washington D.C. (Oct. 25, 2018) (“Objectively speaking, that meaning cannot, and
`
`should not, depend on the happenstance on which forum might review the patent,
`
`years after issuance.”). These aims of the Office and its rules would be disrupted
`
`here if the Board interprets “action spot” broader than the proper Phillips
`
`construction set forth in the district court’s final claim construction order—
`
`especially where the parties have already agreed on this proper construction. See
`
`also PPC Broadband, 815 F.3d at 756 (“[I]f the Board had applied the Phillips
`
`standard rather than the broadest reasonable construction, this case would be
`
`straightforward.”).
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`Second, the Final Written Decision must avoid erroneously analyzing the
`
`Case No.: IPR2019-00715
`Attorney Docket No.: 21828-0041IP1
`
`scope of the claimed determination of an “action spot” in a manner that conflates the
`
`specification’s description of the desired output (determination of an action spot)
`
`with the specification’s description of the input (recent documenting actions from
`
`other mobile devices). See Inst. Dec., 8-9 (citing to col. 2:63-65, col. 8:35-9, and
`
`claim 1). To be clear, the text at column 2:63-65 of the specification provides a
`
`straightforward definition of “action spot” that is consistent with all embodiments of
`
`an “action spot,” and the district court’s final claim construction properly adopted
`
`this meaning. Supra, p. 15; EX2003, ¶37; see also EX2004, 44:13-23, 105:21-106:4.
`
`The Institution Decision (pp. 8-9) focused on column 8:35-39 and the language of
`
`claim 1 that recites “a location where at least one other mobile device has engaged
`
`in a documenting action,” but these texts merely refer to a parameter for the input
`
`data that is used by the system for purposes of achieving the output—outputting a
`
`determination of whether an action spot is present. See, e.g., EX1001, 6:63-66
`
`(describing the retrieval of input data “from a resource 1110, 1130, 1140 configured
`
`to monitor the documenting actions of mobile devices”), 8:2-8 (describing the output
`
`of a “determin[ation] that a location … is an action spot” based on the input from
`
`“message board p