1
`
`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
`
`
`
`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
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
