Filed: February 16, 2017
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________
`
`GOOGLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BLACKBERRY LTD.
`Patent Owner
`
`_________________
`
`Patent No. 8,745,149
`_________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,745,149
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,745,149
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`I. 
`II.  MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 1 
`III.  PAYMENT OF FEES ..................................................................................... 1 
`IV.  GROUNDS FOR STANDING ........................................................................ 2 
`V. 
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED .................................................................. 2 
`A. 
`Proposed Grounds and Prior Art ........................................................... 2 
`B.  All Proposed Grounds Should Be Adopted .......................................... 4 
`VI.  LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL .................................................................... 5 
`VII.  OVERVIEW OF THE ’149 PATENT AND PRIOR ART ............................. 6 
`A. 
`The ’149 Patent ..................................................................................... 6 
`B. 
`Prosecution History of the ’149 Patent ................................................. 8 
`Appelman ............................................................................................... 9 
`C. 
`Toshio .................................................................................................. 10 
`D. 
`E.  Milton .................................................................................................. 11 
`F.  MacPhail ............................................................................................. 12 
`VIII.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 12 
`IX.  DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS ............................................ 14 
`A.  Ground 1: Appelman and Toshio Render Obvious Claims 1-5, 9-13,
`and 17 ............................................................................................................. 15 
`1.  Claim 1 ........................................................................................... 15 
`2.  Claim 2 ........................................................................................... 27 
`3.  Claim 3 ........................................................................................... 27 
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,745,149
`4.  Claim 4 ........................................................................................... 28 
`5.  Claim 5 ........................................................................................... 29 
`6.  Claim 9 ........................................................................................... 29 
`7.  Claim 10 ......................................................................................... 32 
`8.  Claim 11 ......................................................................................... 33 
`9.  Claim 12 ......................................................................................... 33 
`10.  Claim 13 ....................................................................................... 33 
`11.  Claim 17 ....................................................................................... 34 
`B.  Ground 2: Appelman and Milton Render Obvious Claims 1, 5-7, 9, 13-
`15, and 17 ....................................................................................................... 36 
`1.  Claims 1, 9, and 17 ........................................................................ 37 
`2.  Claim 5 ........................................................................................... 45 
`3.  Claim 6 ........................................................................................... 46 
`4.  Claim 7 ........................................................................................... 46 
`5.  Claim 13 ......................................................................................... 47 
`6.  Claim 14 ......................................................................................... 47 
`7.  Claim 15 ......................................................................................... 47 
`C.  Ground 3: Appelman, Toshio and MacPhail Render Obvious Claims 8
`and 16 ............................................................................................................. 48 
`1.  Claim 8 ........................................................................................... 48 
`2.  Claim 16 ......................................................................................... 51 
`D.  Ground 4: Appelman, Milton, and MacPhail Render Obvious Claims
`8 and 16 .......................................................................................................... 52 
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 53
`
`ii
`
`X. 
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,745,149
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007)
`
`Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co.,
` CBM2012-00003, Paper 7 (Oct. 25, 2012)
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)
`
` Page(s)
`
`passim
`
`4
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,745,149
`
`
`Ex. 1001
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS1
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,745,149
`
`Ex. 1002
`
`Declaration of Dr. Dan R. Olsen Jr.
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`CV of Dr. Dan R. Olsen Jr.
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,745,149
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`RESERVED
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,631,949 (“Milton”)
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`JP Patent Application No. H03-89639 (“Toshio”)
`
`Ex. 1008
`
`RESERVED
`
`Ex. 1009
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,661,434 (“MacPhail”)
`
`Ex. 1010
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 9,385,973
`
`Ex. 1011
`
`Ex. 1012
`
`BlackBerry’s Opposition to Motion to Dismiss in BlackBerry LTD.
`v. BLU Prods., Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-23535 (S.D. Fla.)
`
`International Publication No. WO 01/24036 (“Appelman”)
`
`Ex. 1013
`
`Caroline Rose et al., “Inside Macintosh Volume 1” (1985)
`
`Ex. 1014
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,554,859
`
`
`
`
`1 Citations to non-patent publications are to the original page numbers of the
`
`publication, and citations to U.S. patents are to column:line number of the patents.
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,745,149
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Google Inc. (“Petitioner”) requests inter partes review (“IPR”) of claims 1-
`
`17 of U.S. Patent No. 8,745,149 (“the ’149 patent”) (Ex. 1001), which, on its face,
`
`is assigned to Blackberry Limited (“Patent Owner”). For the reasons explained
`
`below, claims 1-17 of the ’149 patent should be found unpatentable and canceled.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`Real Party-in-Interest: Petitioner identifies Google Inc. as the real party-in-
`
`interest.
`
`Related Matters: The ’149 patent is at issue in BlackBerry Ltd. v. BLU
`
`Prods. Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-23535 (S.D. Fla.). Petitioner is filing a second IPR
`
`petition challenging claims 1-17 of the ’149 patent.
`
`Counsel and Service Information: Lead Counsel: Naveen Modi (Reg. No.
`
`46,224). Backup Counsel: (1) Joseph E. Palys (Reg. No. 46,508), (2) Phillip W.
`
`Citroën (Reg. No. 66,541), and (3) John S. Holley (Reg. No. 65,683). Service
`
`information: Paul Hastings LLP, 875 15th St. N.W., Washington D.C., 20005, Tel:
`
`202.551.1700,
`
`Fax.
`
`202.551.1705,
`
`E-mail:
`
`PH-Google-Blackberry-
`
`IPR@paulhastings.com. Petitioner consents to electronic service.
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES
`The PTO is authorized to charge any fees due during this proceeding,
`
`including filing fees, to Deposit Account No. 50-2613.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,745,149
`
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioner certifies that the ’149 patent is available for IPR and Petitioner is
`
`not barred or estopped from requesting IPR on the grounds identified herein.
`
`V.
`
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`A.
`Claims 1-17 of the ’149 patent should be canceled as unpatentable on the
`
`Proposed Grounds and Prior Art
`
`following grounds:
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-5, 9-13, and 17 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`in view of International Publication No. WO 01/240346 (“Appelman”) (Ex. 1012)
`
`and Japanese Patent Application Publication No. H03-89639 (“Toshio”) (Ex.
`
`1007)2;
`
`Ground 2: Claims 1, 5-7, 9, 13-15, and 17 are obvious under § 103(a) in
`
`view of Appelman and U.S. Patent No. 5,631,949 (“Milton”) (Ex. 1006);
`
`Ground 3: Claims 8 and 16 are obvious under § 103(a) in view of
`
`Appelman, Toshio, and U.S. Patent No. 6,661,434 (“MacPhail”) (Ex. 1009); and
`
`
`2 Ex. 1007 is a compilation containing the Japanese-language version of Toshio
`
`(Ex. 1007, 1-4), followed by an English-language translation of Toshio (id., 5-8).
`
`The affidavit required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b) follows the English-language
`
`translation. (Id., 9.) All citations to Toshio are to the original page numbers of the
`
`English-language translation.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,745,149
`Ground 4: Claims 8 and 16 are obvious under § 103(a) in view of
`
`Appelman, Milton, and MacPhail.
`
`For purposes of this proceeding only, Petitioner assumes the earliest
`
`effective filing date of the ’149 patent is September 19, 2003.3 Appelman was filed
`
`on September 21, 2000, and published on April 5, 2001. Milton was filed on May
`
`22, 1995, and issued on May 20, 1997. Toshio published on April 15, 1991.
`
`MacPhail was filed on April 13, 2000, and published on December 9, 2003.
`
`Therefore, MacPhail is prior art at least under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), and Appelman,
`
`Milton, and Toshio are prior art at least under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`While a counterpart U.S. patent to Appelman (U.S. Patent No. 7,181,497)
`
`and a U.S. patent related to MacPhail (U.S. Patent No. 6,636,243) were considered
`
`during prosecution of the ’149 patent, the PTO did not consider whether these
`
`references in combination with Toshio or Milton render claims 1-17 obvious under
`
`§ 103(a), and was not presented with expert testimony regarding these references,
`
`like in this petition. Thus, that these references were considered during prosecution
`
`should not preclude IPR of the ’149 patent based on the Grounds presented above.
`
`
`
`3 Petitioner does not concede that any challenged claim is, in fact, entitled to an
`
`effective filing date of September 19, 2003, and reserves the right to challenge any
`
`claim of priority in this or any other proceeding involving the ’149 patent.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,745,149
`
`B. All Proposed Grounds Should Be Adopted
`Petitioner is concurrently filing two IPR petitions challenging claims 1-17 of
`
`the ’149 patent. The Board should adopt all grounds, as proposed in each petition,
`
`because each ground relies on prior art that discloses the claims in different ways,
`
`with different strengths. Moreover, the two petitions rely on references that provide
`
`stronger disclosure with respect to certain claim elements. See Liberty Mutual Ins.
`
`Co. v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co., CBM2012-00003, Paper 7 at 3 (P.T.A.B.
`
`Oct. 25, 2012).
`
`For example, as discussed below, this petition relies on Appelman as a
`
`primary reference. Appelman explicitly discloses displaying a first
`
`time
`
`information for an instant message in a conversation in response to a first input, but
`
`does not explicitly disclose automatically changing the first time information to a
`
`second time information. In comparison, the concurrently-filed petition relies on
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,167,703 (“Graham”) as a primary reference. Graham explicitly
`
`discloses displaying first time information for an instant message, automatically
`
`changing the first time information to a second time information as time progresses
`
`and displaying the second time information instead of the first time information,
`
`and displaying an instant messaging conversation, but does not explicitly disclose,
`
`in a single embodiment, displaying first time information for an instant message in
`
`the conversation. Accordingly, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board adopt
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,745,149
`
`all grounds in both petitions.
`
`Moreover, the Board should adopt all proposed grounds in this petition, as
`
`each ground relies on prior art that discloses the claims in different ways, with
`
`different strengths. For example, as discussed below, whereas the combination of
`
`Appelman and Toshio (Ground 1) discloses first time information in the form of an
`
`absolute time and second time information in the form of both a relative time and
`
`an absolute time, the combination of Appelman and Milton (Ground 2) discloses
`
`first time information in the form of a relative time and second time information in
`
`the form of an absolute time. Grounds 3-4, which address certain dependent
`
`claims, incorporate MacPhail to show that a pointing device can be used to cause
`
`the first time information to be displayed.
`
`Accordingly, because the record has not yet been fully developed with
`
`respect to these issues, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board adopt all
`
`grounds, as proposed in each Petition.
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention
`
`would have had at least a B.S. degree in computer science, electrical engineering,
`
`or equivalent thereof, and at least two years of experience in the relevant field, e.g.,
`
`graphical user interfaces. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶13-14.)4 More education can supplement
`
`4 Petitioner submits herewith the declaration of Dan R. Olsen Jr., Ph.D. (Ex. 1002),
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,745,149
`
`practical experience and vice versa.
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE ’149 PATENT AND PRIOR ART
`A. The ’149 Patent
`The ’149 patent, titled “Handheld Electronic Device and Associated Method
`
`Providing Time Data in a Messaging Environment,” is generally directed to
`
`providing time information associated with messages displayed on a handheld
`
`device (e.g., PDAs, pagers, cellular telephones). (Ex. 1001, Abstract, 1:20-24,
`
`1:26-29, 1:39-43, 5:31-8:38; Ex. 1002, ¶20.) In a co-pending litigation involving
`
`the ’149 patent, Patent Owner explained that “[p]rior art solutions typically used a
`
`series of static timestamps to show when each of a series of corresponding
`
`messages was received.” (Ex. 1011, 22.) According to Patent Owner, the ’149
`
`patent differs from the prior art by providing a “dynamic timestamp.”5 (Id.)
`
`an expert in the field of the ’149 patent (Ex. 1002, ¶¶1-8; Ex. 1003). For purposes
`
`of this proceeding, the time of the alleged invention of the ’149 patent is the mid to
`
`late 2003 time frame, including the September 19, 2003 filing date of the ’149
`
`patent. (Id., ¶¶11, 13, 14.)
`
`5 The plain language of the claims and specification of the ’149 patent does not
`
`limit “time information” to merely a timestamp or preclude other forms of
`
`information associated with or reflecting time. Indeed, dependent claim 2 in related
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,554,859, which is a continuation from the same parent
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,745,149
`With respect to this aspect of the alleged invention, the ’149 patent explains
`
`that a timestamp may provide “additional information depending upon the
`
`prevailing circumstances.” (Ex. 1001, 7:37-40.) For instance, if a first timestamp is
`
`displayed upon receiving a message (id., 8:10-13), but the conversation did not
`
`resume until the following day, “the first time stamp 84 potentially could be
`
`configured to automatically change from being displayed as ‘2:44 pm’ on the day
`
`of communication of the non-responded-to message 80 to being displayed as, for
`
`instance, ‘2:44 pm Thursday’ or, for instance, ‘2:44 PM Sep. 17, 2004’ or, for
`
`instance, ‘2:44 pm yesterday’ on the following day, although other configurations
`
`will be apparent and will be within the concept of the invention” (id., 7:40-50; Ex.
`
`1002, ¶21).
`
`The ’149 patent also explains that a timestamp “can be configured to depict
`
`relative times, i.e., elapsed times, rather than absolute times.” (Ex. 1001, 7:51-58,
`
`FIG. 10.) According to the ’149 patent, such timestamps may change as time
`
`progresses. (Id., 7:59-60.) For instance, a relative timestamp “could progressively
`
`change from saying ‘less than one minute ago’ to saying ‘one minute ago,’ ‘two
`
`minutes ago,’ ‘forty-five minutes ago,’ and the like as time progressed.” (Id., 7:61-
`
`applications that the ’149 patent claims priority to, supports the understanding that
`
`“time information” in the context of the alleged inventions of the ’149 patent is
`
`broader than a timestamp. (See, e.g., Ex. 1014, 8:49-61.)
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,745,149
`64.) A relative time may also change to an absolute time after the expiration of a
`
`given time duration. (Id., 7:64-8:3; Ex. 1002, ¶22.)
`
`Prosecution History of the ’149 Patent
`
`B.
`The ’149 patent issued on June 3, 2014, from U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`13/615,419 (“the ’419 application”), filed on September 13, 2012. The ’419
`
`application is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 13/111,675, filed on
`
`May 19, 2011, now U.S. Patent No. 8,301,713, which is a continuation of U.S.
`
`Patent Application No. 10/944,925, filed on September 20, 2004, now U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,970,849, and claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No.
`
`60/504,379, filed on September 19, 2003.
`
`During prosecution of the ’419 application, Patent Owner amended the then-
`
`pending claims in an attempt to overcome an obviousness rejection in view of a
`
`counterpart U.S. patent to Appelman (U.S. Patent No. 7,181,497). (Ex. 1004, 233-
`
`35, 237-38.) According to Patent Owner, the counterpart U.S. patent to Appelman
`
`“teaches a messaging application user interface” (id., 70, 238), “may show a
`
`conversation screen (see FIG. 18) that includes multiple outgoing (T) and multiple
`
`incoming (F) messages” (id., 70), and discloses that “a timestamp is displayed with
`
`each message” (id., 70), but does not disclose “changing any of these timestamps
`
`under any circumstances” (id., 238). The Examiner maintained the rejections, and
`
`Patent Owner appealed. On appeal, Patent Owner again argued that the claims,
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,745,149
`unlike the prior art, recite “automatically changing a particular timestamp in order
`
`to intelligently convey when time has elapsed.” (Id., 72.) Based on that argument
`
`by Patent Owner, the Examiner allowed the claims. (Id., 18.)
`
`C. Appelman
`Appelman is directed to an instant messaging application user interface. (Ex.
`
`1012, 1:6-8; Ex. 1002, ¶¶25-27.) For example, Appelman’s “FIG. 12 shows a
`
`screen shot of a messaging application user interface used in AOL’s Instant
`
`Messenger.” (Ex. 1012, 7:12-13.)
`
`The messaging application (“MA”) “user interface 600 also includes an
`
`output text field 614 where messages 616 that are sent and received by the MA
`
`user interface 600 are displayed,” each message including “a time stamp field
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,745,149
`624.” (Id., 16:23-28, FIG. 12.) “The time at which the message 616 was sent or
`
`received is shown in the time stamp field 624” of the MA user interface. (Id., 17:1-
`
`2.)
`
`D.
`Toshio
`Toshio explains that it was known to associate a time with a message, but
`
`that “over several days, the message is displayed in a state where it is impossible
`
`for the user to know which date the message came” and the “display of time is
`
`confusing to a user, which is problematic.” (Ex. 1007, 230; Ex. 1002, ¶28.) This is
`
`because the message’s “time is effective only for that day” and becomes less
`
`meaningful the next day. (Ex. 1007, 230.) Thus, Toshio provides a display function
`
`that is “useful when displaying an incoming message on a day after the message
`
`was received.” (Id.) In particular, Toshio determines if “date has been updated”
`
`and, if so, “the fact that the day the message was received is not today is
`
`memorized and displayed along with the incoming message and the receipt time.”
`
`(Id.) For example, when the date changes, Toshio displays “the number of elapsed
`
`days of a message along with an incoming message and the time” the message was
`
`received. (Id.) Toshio also explains that the display of the number of elapsed days
`
`“does not need to be a complicated one.” (Id., 231.) “[A] simple mark may be used
`
`as long as identification is possible.” (Id.; Ex. 1002, ¶28.)
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,745,149
`
`E. Milton
`Milton discloses automatically changing a message’s time information from
`
`a relative time to an absolute time after a predetermined amount of time. (Ex. 1006,
`
`4:1-13; Ex. 1002, ¶29.) Milton explains that a user “can better determine his course
`
`of action” if presented with a relative timestamp for newer messages. (Ex. 1006,
`
`1:60-61.) If the elapsed time becomes too great, “rather than reporting the elapsed
`
`time, the system can report the actual month and day on which the message” was
`
`delivered. (Id., 1:67-2:4, 4:1-13.) For example, as shown in FIG. 4, Milton
`
`discloses determining a message’s age (step 45). (Id., 3:60-63.) If the message was
`
`received less than 24 hours ago (step 46),6 then the time information is converted
`
`to a relative time (step 47) and reported as the number of elapsed hours and
`
`minutes (step 48). (Id., 3:63-4:6.) If the message was received more than 24 hours
`
`ago (step 46), then the time information is converted to an absolute time (step 49)
`
`and reported as the month and day that the message was received. (Id., 4:9-13.)
`
`(Ex. 1002, ¶29.)
`
`
`6 Consistent with the description corresponding to FIG. 4 (Ex. 1006, 3:63-4:13), a
`
`POSA would have understood that the greater-than sign (>) in decision box 46 of
`
`FIG. 4 is a typographical error and should be a less-than sign (<). (See also id.,
`
`1:67-2:4, 3:63-4:13, 5:19-23, 6:9-15.) (Ex. 1002, ¶29.)
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,745,149
`
`F. MacPhail
`MacPhail addresses problems related to “displays having diverse sizes and
`
`capacities.” (Ex. 1009, 2:8-50.) For instance, MacPhail discloses displaying a
`
`timestamp only upon request by a user, such as in response to a pointer being
`
`placed over the time-stamped object. (Id., 9:64-10:11, 12:60-63.) The pointer may
`
`be moved “using a pointing device such as a mouse or trackball.” (Id., 9:66-67.)
`
`(Ex. 1002, ¶30.)
`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`In an IPR, a claim that will not expire before a final written decision is
`
`issued receives the “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of
`
`the patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). The ’149 patent will not
`
`expire before a final written decision will be issued. Thus, for purposes of this
`
`proceeding, the claims of the ’149 patent should be given their broadest reasonable
`
`construction.
`
`Petitioner provides the broadest reasonable construction for one claim term
`
`below. The remaining terms should be interpreted in accordance with their plain
`
`and ordinary meaning under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard.7
`
`7 Because of the different claim interpretation standards used in this proceeding
`
`and in district courts, any claim interpretations submitted or implied herein for
`
`purposes of this proceeding are not binding upon Petitioner in any litigation
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,745,149
`Claims 1, 8, 9, 16, and 17 recite the term “first input.” Based on the claim
`
`language, specification, and prosecution history of the ’149 patent, for purposes of
`
`this proceeding, “first input” should be interpreted to mean “any event detected by
`
`the electronic device.”
`
`For example,
`
`independent claims 1, 9, and 17 broadly
`
`recite
`
`“displaying[/display] a first time information . . . in response to a first input” (Ex.
`
`1001, 8:51-53, 9:17-18, 10:20-21), and dependent claims 8 and 16 recite “detecting
`
`a pointing device in proximity to the instant message” as an example of a first
`
`input (id., 9:6-8, 10:12-15). Consistent with the claim language, the specification
`
`states that an event resulting in the display of a timestamp may be the detection of
`
`a cursor or “virtually any other type of input,” including “a stylus and a touch
`
`sensitive screen,” “actuation of a key,” “alternate pointing or other devices,” “time
`
`involving the ’149 patent. Specifically, any interpretation of the claims presented
`
`herein, either implicitly or explicitly, should not be viewed as constituting, in
`
`whole or in part, Petitioner’s interpretation of such claims in any litigation
`
`involving the ’149 patent. Petitioner expressly reserves the right to argue a
`
`different claim interpretation in any litigation or appeal therefrom for any claim
`
`term of the ’149 patent. Moreover, Petitioner does not concede that the challenged
`
`claims are not invalid based on prior use, other prior art, or under other sections of
`
`the Patent Act.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,745,149
`progress[ing],” or simply “upon receiving a message on the handheld electronic
`
`device.” (Id., 7:27-31, 7:59-8:3, 8:6-25.) The specification, however, does not limit
`
`the input to these examples, stating that “[o]ther ways of managing the output . . .
`
`will be apparent.” (Id., 7:27-33, 8:4-5.) Moreover, during prosecution, Patent
`
`Owner stated that the first input includes “receipt of message, time elapsing,
`
`manual input, etc.” (Ex. 1004, 67.)
`
`IX. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS
`As discussed above, during prosecution, Patent Owner argued that the
`
`claims of the now issued ’149 patent were allowable because Appelman failed to
`
`disclose the concept of time information changing as time progresses. (See supra
`
`Part VII.B.) But this concept was well-known in the art at the time of the alleged
`
`invention, as demonstrated by Grounds 1-4. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶9-12, 31-33.)
`
`Grounds 1-4 consist of two sets of grounds (i.e., Grounds 1 & 3, and 2 & 4),
`
`each set disclosing certain limitations in different ways. Specifically, Ground 1
`
`shows how the combination of Appelman and Toshio discloses claims 1-5, 9-13,
`
`and 17, where the claimed “first time information” is disclosed as an absolute time
`
`and the claimed “second time information” is disclosed as a combination of
`
`absolute and relative time. Ground 2 shows how the combination of Appelman and
`
`Milton discloses claims 1, 5-7, 9, 13-15, and 17, where the claimed “first time
`
`information” is disclosed as a relative time and the claimed “second time
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`information” is disclosed as an absolute time.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,745,149
`
`A. Ground 1: Appelman and Toshio Render Obvious Claims 1-5, 9-
`13, and 17
`1.
`
`Claim 1
`a)
`
`[1a] “A method of displaying an instant messaging
`conversation on a display of an electronic device, the
`method comprising:”
`
`To the extent the preamble is considered limiting, Appelman discloses these
`
`features. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶34-37.) For example, Appelman describes a “computer
`
`system” (“electronic device”), which is, “for example, a personal or laptop
`
`computer.” (Ex. 1012, 1:10, 1:28-30; see also id., 26:6-32, FIGs. 1-2; Ex. 1002,
`
`¶35.) As shown in FIG. 1, Appelman’s computer system includes a display 107 (“a
`
`display”) (Ex. 1012, 1:17-19), for displaying an “instant message” (id., 2:12-18).
`
`(See also id., Abstract, 2:25-3:16, 3:28-4:15, 5:1-4, 5:9-14, 6:3-8, 8:9-12, 8:21-26,
`
`9:1-10, 9:23-27, 10:1-5, 16:23-25, 18:2-19:29, 20:9-25:26, FIGs. 1-3, 5, 6, 12-31;
`
`Ex. 1002, ¶35.)
`
`The instant messages are displayed as part of a conversation, as illustrated in
`
`FIGs. 3, 5, 6, and 12-31 of Appelman.8 (Ex. 1012, 2:25-3:8, 3:28-4:15, 5:1-14
`
`
`8 During prosecution, Patent Owner conceded that a counterpart U.S. patent to
`
`Appelman (U.S. Patent No. 7,181,497) “may show a conversation screen (see FIG.
`
`18) that includes multiple outgoing (T) and multiple incoming (F) messages.” (Ex.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,745,149
`(describing a user interface for “exchanging instant messages”), 6:4-8 (describing
`
`an interface for exchanging instant messages “without having to switch among
`
`several instant message windows”), 7:21-9:10, 16:11-17:6, 18:15-19, 19:8-12,
`
`19:18-21, 19:30-31; Ex. 1002, ¶36.) For example, FIG. 19 (below) shows a screen
`
`shot of a messaging application (“MA”) user interface displaying an instant
`
`messaging conversation between two people.9 (Ex. 1012, 7:14, 17:5-6, 20:3-22;
`
`Ex. 1002, ¶37.) (See also citations and analysis below for remaining elements of
`
`claim 1.)
`
`
`
`
`1004, 70.)
`
`9 The string “T>” indicates that the message was sent to the user displayed in the
`
`address field, and the string “F>” indicates that the message was received from the
`
`user displayed in the address field. (See, e.g., Ex. 1012, 8:14-21.) (Ex. 1002, ¶37.)
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,745,149
`[1b] “displaying a conversation of instant messages;”
`
`b)
`
`Appelman discloses these features for the same reasons discussed above for
`
`claim element 1a, which demonstrates how Appelman discloses displaying instant
`
`message conversations. (See citations and analysis above in Part IX.A.1.a; Ex.
`
`1002, ¶¶15, 16, 38.)
`
`c)
`
`[1c] “displaying a first time information for an instant
`message in the conversation in response to a first input;
`and”
`
`Appelman discloses these features. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶39-41.) As discussed above
`
`for claim elements 1a-b, Appelman discloses a computer system that displays a
`
`conversation of instant messages. (See citations and analysis above in Parts
`
`IX.A.1.a-b; Ex. 1002, ¶¶15-16.) As explained below, Appelman discloses that a
`
`time stamp (“first time information”) is displayed for each instant message in the
`
`conversation, as shown in FIGs. 12 and 16-31.10 (Ex. 1012, 10:13-22, 18:2-28,
`
`19:8-29, 20:9-15, 20:20-33, 22:8-27, 23:16-24:4, 24:17-25:1, 25:20-26; Ex. 1002,
`
`¶39.)
`
`For example, referring to FIG. 12 (annotated below), Appelman explains that
`
`the MA “user interface 600 also includes an output text field 614 where messages
`
`10 During prosecution, Patent Owner conceded that a counterpart U.S. patent to
`
`Appelman (U.S. Patent No. 7,181,497) discloses that “a timestamp is displayed
`
`with each message.” (Ex. 1004, 70.)
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,745,149
`616 that are sent and received by the MA user interface 600 are displayed.” (Ex.
`
`1012, 16:23-25, FIG. 12.) Appelman further explains that “[e]ach message 616
`
`includes address information 618 and a message body 620,” where “the address
`
`information 618 includes a to/from field 622, a time stamp field 624, and an
`
`address field 626.” (Id., 16:25-28, FIG. 12.) As shown in FIG. 12 below, the “time
`
`at which the message 616 was sent or received is shown in the time stamp field
`
`624” in the form of an absolute time stamp (e.g., 13:20:05) (annotated in red). (Id.,
`
`17:1-2, FIG. 12; Ex. 1002, ¶40.)
`
`The time stamp (“first time information”) for each instant message (“an
`
`instan