`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BLACKBERRY LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`_________________
`
`Case IPR2017-00911
`Patent 8,745,149 B2
`_________________
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Demonstratives of Petitioner Google LLC
`
`Inter Partes Reviews of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,745,149
`
`IPR2017-00911
`IPR2017-00912
`
`Oral Hearing: May 30, 2018
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00911 – Instituted Grounds
`
`• Claims 1-5, 9-13, and 17 as obvious over
`Appelman and Toshio;
`• Claims 1, 5-7, 9, 13-15, and 17 as obvious over
`Appelman and Milton;
`• Claims 8 and 16 as obvious over Appelman,
`Toshio, and MacPhail; and
`• Claims 8 and 16 as obvious over Appelman,
`Milton, and MacPhail.
`
`IPR2017-00911, Dec. (Paper 7) at 19-20
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00912 – Instituted Grounds
`
`• Claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 13, 15, and 17 as obvious over Graham;
`• Claims 1, 5-7, 9, 13-15, and 17 as obvious over Graham and Milton;
`• Claims 1-5, 9-13, and 17 as obvious over Graham and Toshio;
`• Claims 8 and 16 as obvious over Graham and MacPhail;
`• Claims 8 and 16 as obvious over Graham, Milton, and MacPhail;
`• Claims 8 and 16 as obvious over Graham, Toshio, and MacPhail;
`• Claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 13, 15, and 17 as obvious over Graham and
`Deshpande;
`• Claims 1, 5-7, 9, 13-15, and 17 as obvious over Graham, Milton, and
`Deshpande;
`• Claims 1-5, 9-13, and 17 as obvious over Graham, Toshio, and
`Deshpande;
`• Claims 8 and 16 as obvious over Graham, MacPhail, and Deshpande;
`• Claims 8 and 16 as obvious over Graham, Milton, MacPhail, and
`Deshpande; and
`• Claims 8 and 16 as obvious over Graham, Toshio, MacPhail, and
`Deshpande.
`
`IPR2017-00912, Dec. (Paper 7) at 22-23
`
`3
`
`
`
`Representative Independent Claim
`
`and—
`
`1. A method of displaying an instant messaging conversa-
`tion on a display of an electronic device, the method compris-
`ing:
`displaying a conversation of instant messages;
`displaying a first time information for an instant mes sage in
`the conversation in response to a first input; and
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`
`Whether “automatically” should be interpreted
`to preclude the manual initiation of prior
`operations?
`
`Whether “automatically” modifies the
`“displaying” limitation?
`
`Whether “first input” should be interpreted to
`mean “any event detected by the electronic
`device?”
`
`5
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`
`Whether “automatically” should be interpreted
`to preclude the manual initiation of prior
`operations?
`
`Whether “automatically” modifies the
`“displaying” limitation?
`
`Whether “first input” should be interpreted to
`mean “any event detected by the electronic
`device?”
`
`6
`
`
`
`Claim Construction — “Automatically”
`
`Petitioner’s
`
`Construction
`
`PO’s
`
`Construction
`
`Board’s Preliminary
`Construction
`
`
`
`term ‘automatically’
`only applies to the
`specific operations of
`changing and then
`displaying the time
`information, and that
`other prior operations
`can be manually
`initiated”
`
`“by itself with little or
`no direct human control”
`
`“not manually initiated”
`
`“not manually initiated,”
`but clarified that “the
`
`IPR2017-00911. Reply (Paper 20) at 2-9
`IPR2017-00912. Reply (Paper 20) at 2-8
`
`IPR2017—009l l. Resp. (Paper 17) at 12-16
`IPR2017—00912. Resp. (Paper 17) at 10-14
`
`IPR201 7-0091 l~ Dec. (Paper 7) at 5-8
`IPR201 7-0091 l~ Dec. (Paper 7) at 5-8
`
`
`
`Claim Construction – “Automatically”
`
`• The term “automatically” does not preclude the
`manual initiation of prior operations. Such a
`preclusion would be:
`− Inconsistent with the specification;
`− Inconsistent with the prosecution history; and
`− Inconsistent with the plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`• The BRI of “automatically” is “by itself with
`little or no direct human control.”
`
`IPR2017-00911, Reply (Paper 20) at 2-9
`IPR2017-00912, Reply (Paper 20) at 2-8
`
`8
`
`
`
`Claim Construction — “Automatically”
`
`° The term “automatically” appears once in the
`specification of the ’ 149 patent.
`
`For instance, if
`the first time stamp 84 of FIG. 4 was output as indicated
`above, and
`
`be Within the concept of the invention.
`
`, the first time stamp 84 potentially could be
`configured to -change from being displayed as
`“2:44 pm” on the day of communication of the non-re-
`sponded-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
`
`’149 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 7:40—50
`
`
`
`Claim Construction — “Automatically”
`
`° Dr. Ligler confirmed that a conversation is resumed manually by
`
`a user.
`
`By way of further example, and as is depicted generally in
`
`’149 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 5:62—6:2
`
`Q.
`
`So the timestamp 92 is output in
`
`response to a user sending another message to
`
`' djacent the resumption mes-
`It's output—
`
`resume the conversation?
`
`A.
`
`Ligler Dep. Tr. (Ex. 1018) at 85:14—20
`
`
`
`Claim Construction — “Automatically”
`
`° The term “manually” appears once in the specification of the
`
`’ 149 patent.
`
`time stamp is desired,
`., such as the exemplary user interface 96 of FIG. 6a, which
`can
`
`adjacent the message 68, as in FIG. 6b.
`
`’149 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 6:19-23
`
`( Con'l rail 168 ( C001 11de
`
`Clear conversaion
`i
`View Conlocl
`flow or ”09,456 pm
`list
`>
`my. “on. ‘0 9° CU. tonighl? —
`>
`d
`r
`< Sure. sounds fur.
`[a Comm on
`>
`Great.
`I'LL pirlr you up in an hour.
`
`>
`
`good for you
`
`4:56 pro/‘92
`
`Hey, «ml to go out tonight?
`)
`( Sm. sounds lun.
`
`)
`
`Great, I'Ll pick you up in on hour.
`my,
`
`FIG. 6a
`
`FIG. 6b
`
` )
`
`m Horny, how was your day?
`>
`< Halal! lorry emtarrossed me in front of
`
`Hi Honey. how IDS your day?
`( Brutal! Lorry embarrassed me 'n lronl oi
`«anybody.
`A
`3*
`Whol o Jerk!
`( Yeah. M I got h'm back later I'lh o Irorole chop! Q3
`
`
`
`Claim Construction — “Automatically”
`
`° Dr. Ligler confirmed that the timestamp is inserted manually by
`a user selecting the “Insert Time” option.
`
`In your opinion,—
`
`And why is that?
`
`A-—
`
`Q.
`
`So because the user is directly
`
`MR. DILLON: Objection to form.
`
`selecting the insert time feature, causing the
`
`timestamp labeled 98 to appear in figure 6B; is
`
`that right?
`
`That's what's happening.
`
`Ligler Dep. Tr. (Ex. 1018) at 84:2—13
`
`
`
`Claim Construction — “Automatically”
`
`° During prosecution, the applicant argued that Lapuyade does not
`disclose “automatically changing” because a user selects a
`
`button for the purpose of changing the displayed time.
`
`Lapuyade teaches a time zone management system for a date book like application.
`
`Although—
`
`- it is unclear to Applicant how such a feature would suggest automatically changing time
`
`
`
`information in an instant messaging conversation.
`
`’149 File History (Ex. 1004) at 238
`
`
`
`Claim Construction — “Automatically”
`
`that a time zone may have changed, the system tries to
`determine the new local time zone and diSplay it as a part of
`the alert.
`In this illustrative example,
`the window 712
`indicates that the new time zone may be Eastem US. as
`indicated by box 718. The user is offered the opportunit
`to
`
`ace 1 the new time zone as the dis olav time zone.
`
`Lapuyade (Ex. 2002) at 6:30-38
`
`"nun--.mung....uouou...u...nu-unu-uouonnoun-couuuuuunnunewoooooo
`
`4‘20
`
`112
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.////,/
`mmfl//flflfllfllfl
`
`
`unnu-runn-u-nnuuouuo-unoun-noun.nooaaounuonau-nauau nnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
`
`Mcoureneucz CALL WITH YOSHIDA J 712
`
`
`
`
`11:00 ..........
`.
`//,/////////C/////////’W////’
`////,/////§//////l////////////////////
`
`
`
`vou MAY HAVE'ENTEREO A new
`-----------------
`TIME ZONE. A RECEIVED MESSAGE
`INDICATES vou MAY BE IN THE
`FOLLOWING TIM; zone:
`
`
`
`--*°
`
`oooooooooo
`
`
`
`
`CENTRAL EUROPE THE (DEFAULT) _./'
`
`II [E]
`
`FIG. 7
`
`1m
`
`
`
`Claim Construction — “Automatically”
`
`° Petitioner’s interpretation is consistent with prior art cited by the applicant that
`describes operations that are “automatically” performed in response to prior
`manual operations.
`
`such as application server 202 of FIG. 2A.
`message 404, and that she will not be granted further access to the system until she logs in using the new password. This system, lmown as Portal User Session Handling (PUSH),
`
`Axe (Ex. 1019) at 30, 7
`
`through a hyperlink from the operator’s Web page 401. The hyperlink leads the subscriber
`
`to the front end of the PLIM system Privacy Management System 402, where—
`
`_ including her name and mobile phone number 403. -
`
`informing her that an electronically generated password is being sent to her phone as a text
`
`NIcDowell (Ex. 1020) at 1H00144]
`
`
`
`Claim Construction — “Automatically”
`
`° Petitioner’s interpretation is consistent with contemporaneous
`dictionary definitions.
`
`automatic / 3:ta'mzetik/ adj. & n. 0 adj. 1 (of a machine, device. etc., or
`its function)—
`2 a done spontaneously, without conscious thought or intention (an
`automatic reaction). b necessary and inevitable (an automatic penalty).
`3 Psycho]. performed unconsciously or subconsciously. 4 (of a firearm)
`that continues firing until the ammunition is exhausted or the
`pressure on the trigger is released. 5 (of a motor vehicle or its
`transmission) using gears that change automatically according to
`speed and acceleration. O n. 1 an automatic device, esp. a gun or
`transmission. 2 col/oq.
`
`a vehicle with automatic transmission.
`
`Oxford English Reference Dictionary (Ex. 1021) at 3
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`
`Whether “automatically” should be interpreted
`to preclude the manual initiation of prior
`operations?
`
`Whether “automatically” modifies the
`“displaying” limitation?
`
`Whether “first input” should be interpreted to
`mean “any event detected by the electronic
`device?”
`
`17
`
`
`
`Claim Construction — “Automatically .
`
`.
`
`. Displaying”
`
`Petitioner’s
`Construction
`
`PO’s
`Construction
`
`Boa rd’s Preliminary
`Construction
`
`
`
`term ’automatically’
`only applies to the
`specific operations of
`changing and then
`displaying the time
`information, and that
`other prior operations
`can be manually
`initiated”
`
`”a utomatically” does
`not modify the
`”displaying” limitation
`
`”a utomatically”
`modifies the
`”displaying” limitation
`
`”a utomatically”
`_
`.
`modifies thf _
`displaying limitation,
`but clarified that ”the
`
`IPR2017-0091 1. Reply (Paper 20) at 9-12
`IPR2017—00912. Reply (Paper 20) at 8-11
`
`IPR201 7-0091 1. Resp. (Paper 17) at 16—18
`IPR2017-00912. Resp. (Paper 17) at 14—16
`
`IPR2017—0091 1. Dec. (Paper 7) at 5-8
`IPR2017—0091 1. Dec. (Paper 7) at 5-8
`
`
`
`. Displaying”
`
`Claim Construction — “Automatically .
`
`.
`
`- The term “automatically” appears beside “changing.”
`
`1. A method of displaying an instant messaging conversa-
`tion on a display ofan electronic device, the method compris-
`ing:
`displaying a conversation of instant messages;
`displaying a first time information for an instant message in
`the conversation in response to a first input; and
`
`
`
`-and—
`
`’149 Patent (Ex. 1001) at Claim 1
`
`
`
`. Displaying”
`
`Claim Construction — “Automatically .
`
`.
`
`° The prosecution history indicates that “automatically” modifies the
`“changing” limitation but not the “displaying” limitation.
`
`1.
`
`(Currently amended) A method of displaying an instant messaging conversation on a display
`
`of an electronic device, the method comprising:
`
`diSpIaying a conversation of instant messages;
`
`informationeanel
`
`displaying a first time information for an instant message in the conversation in response to a
`
`first input; and
`
`automatically changing the first time information for the instant message to a second time
`
`information as time progresses and displaying the second time information instead of the first time
`
`’149 File History (Ex. 1004) at 233
`
`Claim 1 has been amended to clarify the protection being sought by combining the final two
`
`operations and specifying that—
`
`’149 File History (Ex. 1004) at 236
`
`Applicant respectfully submits that none of the cited references teach or suggest such.
`
`— ’
`
`149 File History (Ex. 1004) at 237
`
`
`
`Claim Construction — “Automatically .
`
`.
`
`. Displaying”
`
`Lapuyade teaches a time zone management system for a date book like application.
`
`Although Lapuyade shows a prompt allowing the user to select an option to change to a new time
`
`zone. it is unclear to Applicant how such a feature would suggest—
`
`-in an instant messaging conversation.
`
`’149 File History (Ex. 1004) at 70
`
`Examiner is reading too much into Lapuyade. particularly in suggesting that these teachings would
`
`cause a person skilled in the ad to modify Appelman. particularly when Appelman does not mention
`
`Applicant believes that the
`
`
`
`
`Applicant submits that the Examiner has overlooked that Appleman has failed to recognize let alone
`
`teach—-
`
`’149 File History (Ex. 1004) at 71
`
`
`
`—in order to intelligently convey when
`
`time has elapsed, thus making the timestamp more useful.
`
`Neither Appelman nor Lapuyade have recognized the benefitsof—
`
`- let alone provided sufficient teachings to lead a person skilled in the art to make a
`
`modification to Appelman in the way suggested by the Examiner.
`
`In contrast.
`
`
`
`. Displaying”
`
`Claim Construction — “Automatically .
`
`.
`
`° The specification does not support PO’s interpretation.
`
`For instance, if
`the first time stamp 84 of FIG. 4 was output as indicated
`above, and if the conversation was not resumed until the
`following day, the first time stamp 84 potentially could be
`configured to_from being displayed as
`“2:44 pm” on the day of communication of the non-re-
`sponded-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.
`
`
`
`’149 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 7:40-50
`
`
`
`Claim Construction — “Automatically .
`
`.
`
`. Displaying”
`
`Further in this regard, the time stamps can be configured to
`depict relative times, i.e., elapsed times, rather than absolute
`times. For instance, and as is depicted generally in FIG. 10, a
`time stamp 478 associated with a message 468 can be output
`to say, for example, “less than one minute ago”, meaning that
`the message 468 that has been—has
`been transmitted less than one minute prior to the current
`
`’149 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 7:51—58
`
`50
`
`Hi Honey, how was your day?
`>
`< Brutal! Larry embarrassed me in iront of
`everybody.
`>
`What a Jerk!
`< Yeah, but
`I got him back ialer with a karate chop!
`>
`Hey, want
`
`time.
`to go out tonight? ( Sure, sounds tun.
`
`Great.
`>
`-< Can't wait
`
`I'LL pick you up in an hour.
`LESS THAN ONE umurr A60
`
`478
`
`468
`
`“4
`
`FIGJO
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`
`Whether “automatically” should be interpreted
`to preclude the manual initiation of prior
`operations?
`
`Whether “automatically” modifies the
`“displaying” limitation?
`
`Whether “first input” should be interpreted to
`mean “any event detected by the electronic
`device?”
`
`24
`
`
`
`Claim Construction – “First Input”
`
`• Petitioner’s proposed BRI of “first input” is
`“any event detected by the electronic device.”
`
`• Neither PO nor the Board construed this term.
`
`• This term does not require express construction
`to resolve the parties’ disputes.
`
`IPR2017-00911, Pet. (Paper 1) at 12-14
`IPR2017-00912, Pet. (Paper 1) at 10-12
`
`25
`
`
`
`The Challenged Claims Are Obvious
`
` Graham renders the challenged claims obvious.
` The combinations based on Toshio disclose the
`“automatically changing” and “displaying” limitations
`under any interpretation.
` The combinations based on Milton disclose these
`limitations under Petitioner’s and the Board’s
`interpretations.
` The “displaying” limitation is also obvious under PO’s
`construction.
` A POSA would have combined Appelman with Toshio or
`Milton.
` Milton is analogous art.
`
`26
`
`
`
`The Challenged Claims Are Obvious
`
` Graham renders the challenged claims obvious.
` The combinations based on Toshio disclose the
`“automatically changing” and “displaying” limitations
`under any interpretation.
` The combinations based on Milton disclose these
`limitations under Petitioner’s and the Board’s
`interpretations.
` The “displaying” limitation is also obvious under PO’s
`construction.
` A POSA would have combined Appelman with Toshio or
`Milton.
` Milton is analogous art.
`
`27
`
`
`
`The Challenged Claims Are Obvious
`
` Graham renders the challenged claims obvious.
`− Graham discloses communicating mixed media messages via
`SMS instant messages.
`− It would have been obvious to communicate mixed media
`messages via non-SMS instant messaging based on
`Deshpande.
`− Graham discloses the “automatically changing” and
`“displaying” limitations under Petitioner’s and the Board’s
`interpretations.
`− Graham discloses these limitations under PO’s interpretation.
`− PO’s statements during foreign prosecution confirm that
`Graham discloses these limitations under PO’s interpretation.
`
`28
`
`
`
`Graham — “Instant Message[s]”
`
`1. A method of displaying an—conversa-
`tion on a display of an electronic device, the method compris-
`
`
`
`displaying a first time information for an—in
`the conversation in response to a first input; and
`automatically changing the first time information for the
`—to a second time information as time
`progresses and displaying the second time information
`instead of the first time information.
`
`
`
`Graham – “Instant Message[s]”
`
`• Patent Owner argues that Graham’s mixed
`media messaging is limited to email.
`
`IPR2017-00912, Resp. (Paper 17) at 21-25
`
`30
`
`
`
`Graham — “Instant Message[s]”
`
`
`
`For the purpose of the
`present application,— refer to mes-
`sages having— However, in two
`degenerate forms, a mixed media message may nevertheless
`include—in one case, and include-
`_ in another. In other embodiments, a non-
`degenerated mixed media message may also include-
`
`Graham (Ex. 1005) at 14:17-24
`
`
`
`Graham – “Instant Message[s]”
`
`• Graham does not limit mixed media messaging
`to email. (See Graham (Ex. 1005) at 14:15-
`15:56.)
`
`• PO does not argue that mixed media messaging
`cannot be transmitted via SMS.
`
`• Graham explains that mobile device 400 can
`transmit messages via SMS.
`
`IPR2017-00912, Reply (Paper 20) at 12-14
`
`32
`
`
`
`Graham — “Instant Message[s]”
`
`Additionally, Gateway 115 may
`be used to translate exchan es of other
`es of messages,
`e.g.,
`V between
`mobile devices 400 that are facilitated by resources (servers)
`cou . led to WAN/LAN 200.
`
`Graham (Ex. 1005) at 4:43—47 In particular, mobile device 400
`Graham (Ex. 1005) at 7:1—6
`
`may be arranged to send and receive—that can
`include data re-resentin; an ima e. Of course, other mes-
`
`WM! Arm
`
`NrrwarMnml
`Am Network
`
`(HG. 2)
`
`Fig.1
`
`
`
`The Challenged Claims Are Obvious
`
` Graham renders the challenged claims obvious.
`− Graham discloses communicating mixed media messages via
`SMS instant messages.
`− It would have been obvious to communicate mixed media
`messages via non-SMS instant messaging based on
`Deshpande.
`− Graham discloses the “automatically changing” and
`“displaying” limitations under Petitioner’s and the Board’s
`interpretations.
`− Graham discloses these limitations under PO’s interpretation.
`− PO’s statements during foreign prosecution confirm that
`Graham discloses these limitations under PO’s interpretation.
`
`34
`
`
`
`Combinations with Deshpande — “Instant Message[s]”
`
`If Graham does not disclose the “instant message[s]” limitations,
`
`these limitations would have been obvious based on Deshpande.
`
`[0004] But, users wanted a faster way to communicate
`more akin to talking, so now instant messaging services are
`available that—than email and allow
`text-based communication to occur in a rapid. conversa-
`
`tional fashion.
`when a particular user is online.
`
`Graham (Ex. 1005) at {[[0004]
`
`Many instant messaging
`services also include a—, which enables the
`instant messaging system (and also other users) to know
`
`Graham (Ex. 1005) at {[[0006]
`
`[0008] Users may send and receive instant messages from
`and to a—
`
`Graham (Ex. 1005) at fl[0006]
`
`
`
`The Challenged Claims Are Obvious
`
` Graham renders the challenged claims obvious.
`− Graham discloses communicating mixed media messages via
`SMS instant messages.
`− It would have been obvious to communicate mixed media
`messages via non-SMS instant messaging based on
`Deshpande.
`− Graham discloses the “automatically changing” and
`“displaying” limitations under Petitioner’s and the Board’s
`interpretations.
`− Graham discloses these limitations under PO’s interpretation.
`− PO’s statements during foreign prosecution confirm that
`Graham discloses these limitations under PO’s interpretation.
`
`36
`
`
`
`Graham – “Automatically Changing” / “Displaying”
`
`• PO does not dispute that Graham discloses:
`
`− The “automatically changing” and “displaying”
`limitations under Petitioner’s plain and ordinary
`meaning of these limitations; and
`
`− The “displaying” limitation under either Petitioner’s
`plain and ordinary meaning of “automatically” or the
`Board’s interpretation where “other prior operations
`can be manually initiated,” if “automatically”
`modifies “displaying.”
`
`IPR2017-00912, Reply (Paper 20) at 15-16
`
`37
`
`
`
`The Challenged Claims Are Obvious
`
` Graham renders the challenged claims obvious.
`− Graham discloses communicating mixed media messages via
`SMS instant messages.
`− It would have been obvious to communicate mixed media
`messages via non-SMS instant messaging based on
`Deshpande.
`− Graham discloses the “automatically changing” and
`“displaying” limitations under Petitioner’s and the Board’s
`interpretations.
`− Graham discloses these limitations under PO’s interpretation.
`− PO’s statements during foreign prosecution confirm that
`Graham discloses these limitations under PO’s interpretation.
`
`38
`
`
`
`Graham – “Automatically Changing” / “Displaying”
`
`• The only dispute is whether Graham discloses the
`“automatically changing” and “displaying” limitations
`under PO’s interpretation—it does.
`
`• Graham discloses “first time information” as (i) an
`elapsed time, and/or (ii) a color that indicates age.
`
`• Graham discloses “automatically changing” the “first
`time information” and automatically “displaying”
`“second time information” instead of the first time
`information.
`
`IPR2017-00912, Reply (Paper 20) at 16-17; Pet. (Paper 1) at 16-27
`
`39
`
`
`
`Graham — “Automatically Changing” / “Displaying”
`
`Elapsed Time
`
`Color Indicating Age
`
`
`
`Timer 510 indicates—When an
`image was last sent by the user to other users. In an alternate
`embodiment, timer 510 may simply denote the time an
`image was last sent by the user to other users.
`
`Graham (Ex. 1005) at 9:14
`
`
`
`Althou_- not shown, the invention provides for indicating
`since the image message was sent
`(or alternatively the time the image message was sent) by
`another user to mobile device 501'.
`
`Graham (EX. 1005) at 10:29-32
`
`In various embodiments where the sender users are asso-
`
`ciated with an illuminable input key of the mobile device,
`the process may also include illuminating the illuminable
`input key. Further, the illuminable input key may also be
`
`illuminated with a color, in particular, with—
`
`Graham (Ex. 1005) at 13:1-12
`
`
`
`Graham — “Automatically Changing” / “Displaying”
`
`message to convey current information may b
`
`Received ima e
`
`and/or color displays.
`device, ima e messa es sent/received, and
`
`Graham (Ex. 1005) at Abstract
`
`In yet another aspect, the invention is directed towards
`for a user of a Wireless mobile
`
`Graham (Ex. 1005) at 2:20—23
`
`Further, the illuminable input key may also be
`illuminated with a color: in particular, with—
`— For example,
`the color “green” may be employed to depict the image
`message received from the sender user is a recently received
`
`image message—
`
`
`
`Graham — “Automatically Changing” / “Displaying”
`
`° Regarding elapsed time, Patent Owner argues:
`
`This is contrary to Graham’s disclosure. however. which explains that the user
`
`must manually request an update to the image messages by. for example.
`
`“activating enter button 520":
`
`Although not shown. the invention provides for indicating an amount
`
`of elapsed time since the image message was sent (or alternatively the
`
`any of the image messages received. Ex. 1005. 10:29-37 (emphasis added).
`
`time the image message was sent) by another user to mobile device
`
`501’. By activating enter button 520 in some sequence and/or in
`
`combination with the activation of the buttons included with keypad
`
`503 and scroll-up button 521 and scroll-down button 522- the user
`
`can cause mobile device 501 to request and receive an update to
`
`
`
`Graham — “Automatically Changing” / “Displaying”
`
`Image Message Server
`Receives Image
`Messages From Users
`
`pdate Other
`User?
`
`FIG. 10 illustrates a process 600 of the present invention
`for users of mobile devices to
`
`LIST
`
`Image Server
`Automatically Sends
`
`R“ ”“""- Win» For
`
`Image Server
`Automaticall Sends
`
`
`Every Member Of PAL
`
`Other User
`
`
`
`Graham — “Automatically Changing” / “Displaying”
`
`Other identifier 1045 can contain other informa-
`
`tion related to the image message.
`
`can be an alphanumeric character or
`string that identifies—
`
`
`
`1000
`(\J
`
`1010
`
`1015
`
`1020
`
`1025
`
`+ Image Message +
`Flag
`
`Action Image
`Identifier
`
`+ Location Image
`Identifier
`
`4.
`
`1030
`
`1035
`
`Mood Image
`Identifier
`
`4.
`
`Symbol Image
`Identifier
`
`+
`
`Time
`
`+
`
`1045
`
`
`
`Graham — “Automatically Changing” / “Displaying”
`
`If afiirmative,
`
`the process moves to block 730 where
`
`760
`
`Image Message Server
`Receives Image Message
`From User
`
`To
`Every Member Of
`Enabled PAL LIST
`
`Image Server Sends
`Image Message To
`Other User
`
`5‘0" Image
`Message PW
`Later Use
`
`
`
`Graham — “Automatically Changing” / “Displaying”
`
`° Regarding color indicating age, Patent Owner argues:
`
`Moreover. Graham elsewhere explains that “[i]lltu11inator 450 may
`
`remain active for specific periods of time or in response to events
`
`such as
`
`selecting or sendng images." Id. . 8:27-39. In this context. Graham at best
`
`discloses that manually selecting a given message will illuminate the input key
`
`with an associated color for “specific pen'ods of time.” Ex. 2007, 1i65; EX. 1005. 8:27-39. 1324-12.
`
`
`
`Graham — “Automatically Changing” / “Displaying”
`
`
`
`As shown, mobile device 400 includes illuminator 450,
`haptic interface 452, and audio interface 454._
`— or in
`response to events. For example,—
`
`Graham (EX. 1005) at 8:27-32
`
`
`
`The Challenged Claims Are Obvious
`
` Graham renders the challenged claims obvious.
`− Graham discloses communicating mixed media messages via
`SMS instant messages.
`− It would have been obvious to communicate mixed media
`messages via non-SMS instant messaging based on
`Deshpande.
`− Graham discloses the “automatically changing” and
`“displaying” limitations under Petitioner’s and the Board’s
`interpretations.
`− Graham discloses these limitations under PO’s interpretation.
`− PO’s statements during foreign prosecution confirm that
`Graham discloses these limitations under PO’s interpretation.
`
`48
`
`
`
`Graham — Statements During Foreign Prosecution
`
`- EP No. 1668824, claim 1 (period of time):
`
`1.
`
`A method providing ...n output on at least one of a first electronic device
`
`(4) and a second electroni:: device (104), the first electmnic device being
`
`adapted to be in electronic :ommunication with the second electronic device,
`
`the method comprising:
`
`determining that a film messaging communicati0n (68) has occurred at a
`
`first time between the first (It vice and the second device; and,
`
`outputting a first indication that is representative of at least a portion of
`
`the first messaging communication;
`
`the method being characterised by further comprising:
`
`—since the
`
`fust time substantially without further communication between the first device
`
`and the second device; and,
`
`
`
`Graham — Statements During Foreign Prosecution
`
`- Patent Owner explained that Graham’s (D1)
`indication of time is automatic:
`
`Of particular relevance here is the
`fact that in D1,— regardless of whether any
`further communications have taken place.
`
`European Pat. App]. (Ex. 1022) at 136-37
`
`
`
`Rather D] is oniy directed to a new method
`
`for a receiving device to
`
`European Pat. App]. (Ex. 1022) at 137—38
`
`
`
`The Challenged Claims Are Obvious
`
` Graham renders the challenged claims obvious.
` The combinations based on Toshio disclose the
`“automatically changing” and “displaying” limitations
`under any interpretation.
` The combinations based on Milton disclose these
`limitations under Petitioner’s and the Board’s
`interpretations.
` The “displaying” limitation is also obvious under PO’s
`construction.
` A POSA would have combined Appelman with Toshio or
`Milton.
` Milton is analogous art.
`
`51
`
`
`
`Toshio Combinations – “Automatically Changing” / “Displaying”
`
`• PO does not dispute that the Toshio combinations
`disclose:
`− The “automatically changing” and “displaying” limitations
`under Petitioner’s plain and ordinary meaning of these
`limitations;
`
`− The “automatically changing” limitation under any
`interpretation of “automatically”; and
`
`− If “automatically” modifies “displaying,” the “displaying”
`limitation under either Petitioner’s plain and ordinary
`meaning of “automatically” or the Board’s interpretation
`where “other prior operations can be manually initiated.”
`
`IPR2017-00911, Reply (Paper 20) at 13-14
`IPR2017-00912, Reply (Paper 20) at 22-23
`
`52
`
`
`
`Toshio Combinations – “Automatically Changing” / “Displaying”
`
`• The only dispute is whether the Toshio combinations
`disclose the “automatically changing” and “displaying”
`limitations under PO’s interpretation—they do.
`
`• Toshio describes displaying a message on a day after
`receipt with a time and the number of days elapsed
`(e.g., “13:20:27; 1 day ago”).
`
`• The number of days elapsed is updated automatically
`and displayed automatically when the date changes.
`
`IPR2017-00911, Reply (Paper 20) at 14-17
`IPR2017-00912, Reply (Paper 20) at 23-25
`
`53
`
`
`
`Toshio Combinations — “Automatically Changing” / “Displaying”
`
`Field of the Invention
`
`This invention relates to a selective call receiver with a display ftmction, wherein the selective call receiver
`-
`I WU llJ‘lll‘l-IHI
`‘l'
`I"! '4'
`'EH "J'I' 13"". '."H'y"l'fli
`".l'fl
`."
`'U H11
`p
`'ll'- ill Iyl'l
`Wlth a 351.8".
`.. w-
`.
`.attmdts - lay.
`this -. 8.}
`la n: .
`
`
`
`Means for Solving the Problem
`To achieve the objective described above, the present
`
`according to claim (1), wherein the data showing
`:
`whether 1116....91T<2¥.¢.;11¢9t.i99¢d 99¢in ”dateis. Vida! ,.99..1.1.1p.¥1§¢§.. .th.¢,..1.111.mb9r.. 9f, saysslapsesi #9111111? .I¢¢,¢1Y¢s!...daya
`when ?
`
`a'ib'reme
`
`Toshio (Ex. 1007) at 229
`
`
`
`Toshio Combinations — “Automatically Changing” / “Displaying”
`
`° Toshio’s reference to displaying data according to the
`“user’s need” does not detract from these teachings.
`
`
`
`Toshio (Ex. 1007) at 230
`
`° Nor does Toshio’s reference to displaying time
`information when the “message is read.”
`
`Therefore. according to the above-mentioned working example. the number of days elapsed is displayed on the
`display unit lla together with an incoming message when the incoming message is read. so it is possible to prevent
`a user from being confused even in the case of multiple incoming messages received over several days. allowing a
`
`user to easily manage the incoming messages.
`
`Toshio (Ex. 1007) at 231
`
`
`
`The Challenged Claims Are Obvious
`
` Graham renders the challenged claims obvious.
` The combinations based on Toshio disclose the
`“automatically changing” and “displaying” limitations
`under any interpretation.
` The combinations based on Milton disclose these
`limitations under Petitioner’s and the Board’s
`interpretations.
` The “displaying” limitation is also obvious under PO’s
`construction.
` A POSA would have combined Appelman with Toshio or
`Milton.
` Milton is analogous art.
`
`56
`
`
`
`Milton Combinations – “Automatically Changing” / “Displaying”
`
`• PO does not dispute that the Milton combinations
`disclose these limitations under Petitioner’s proposed
`plain and ordinary meaning or the Board’s
`interpretation.
`
`• PO only disputes whether the Milton combinations
`disclose the “displaying” limitation under PO’s
`interpretation.
`
`IPR2017-00911, Reply (Paper 20) at 17
`IPR2017-00912, Reply (Paper 20) at 25-26
`
`57
`
`
`
`Milton Combinations — “Automatically Changing” / “Displaying”
`
`
`
`Fmthermore, if the delta time exceeds a prede-
`termined time interval, such as twenty-four hours, rather
`than reporting the
`the system can report the
`actual
`on which the message originator
`delivered the message.
`
`Milton (Ex. 1006) at l:67-2:4
`
`
`
`The Challenged Claims Are Obvious
`
` Graham renders the challenged claims obvious.
` The combinations based on Toshio disclose the
`“automatically changing” and “displaying” limitations
`under any interpretation.
` The combinations based on Milton disclose these
`limitations under Petitioner’s and the Board’s
`interpretations.
` The “displaying” limitation is also obvious under PO’s
`construction.
` A POSA
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
