Paper No. 6
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`––––––––––––––––––
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`––––––––––––––––––
`
`GOOGLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BLACKBERRY LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`––––––––––––––––––
`
`Case No. IPR2017-00911
`U.S. Patent No. 8,745,149
`
`––––––––––––––––––
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00911 (U.S. Patent 8,745,149)
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Resp.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Exhibit List ................................................................................................................ iv
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`The ’149 Patent ................................................................................................ 2
`
`A. Overview of the ’149 Patent .................................................................. 2
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Priority Date and Relevant Prosecution History ................................... 5
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................................................... 9
`
`III. Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 10
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`“Automatically” (All Claims) ............................................................. 12
`
`“Automatically … Displaying” (All Claims) ...................................... 16
`
`IV. The Petition Fails to Meet the Requirements for Instituting an Inter Partes
`Review ........................................................................................................... 18
`
`A.
`
`The Petition’s Obviousness Grounds for “Automatically …
`Displaying” Are Legally Deficient ..................................................... 19
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`Appelman in view of Toshio (Grounds 1 & 3) ......................... 19
`
`Appelman in view of Milton (Grounds 2 & 4) ......................... 25
`
`B.
`
`Neither Toshio nor Milton Discloses “Automatically Changing the
`First Time Information” ...................................................................... 27
`
`i.
`
`Toshio Discloses a Manual Display Function (Grounds 1 &
`3) ............................................................................................... 27
`
`ii. Milton Discloses a Manual Report Function (Grounds 2 & 4) 30
`
`C.
`
`Appelman Would Not Have Been Combined with Toshio or Milton as
`the Petition Suggests ........................................................................... 33
`
`i
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00911 (U.S. Patent 8,745,149)
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Resp.
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`Appelman Would Not Have Been Combined with Toshio
`(Grounds 1 & 3) ........................................................................ 33
`
`Appelman Would Not Have Been Combined with Milton
`(Grounds 2 & 4) ........................................................................ 38
`
`D.
`
`The Petition Fails to Explain How Milton Renders Obvious “bvious s
`issy Changing … and Displaying” (Grounds 2 & 4) .......................... 40
`
`V.
`
`The Board Should Deny the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) Because
`“Substantially the Same” Grounds Overcome During Prosecution .............. 42
`
`VI. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 45
`
`Certificate Of Compliance .......................................................................................... i
`
`Certificate Of Service................................................................................................ ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00911 (U.S. Patent 8,745,149)
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Resp.
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Apple Inc. v. Papst Licensing GMBH & Co. KG,
`IPR2016-01841, Paper 10 (PTAB Apr. 17, 2017) ............................................. 43
`Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc.,
`832 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .............................................................. 21, 22, 24
`CollegeNet, Inc. v. ApplyYourself, Inc.,
`418 F.3d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 15
`Dexcowin Glob., Inc. v. Aribex, Inc.,
`IPR2016-00440, Paper 13 (PTAB July 7, 2016) .......................................... 36, 39
`K/S HIMPP v. Hear-Wear Techs., LLC,
`751 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ...................................................................passim
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .............................................................. 10, 11, 15
`Nu Mark LLC v. Fontem Holdings 1, B.V.,
`IPR2016-01309, Paper 11 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2016) ............................................. 44
`Tempo Lighting Inc. v. Tivoli LLC,
`742 F.3d 973 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ...................................................................... 11, 14
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 112(b) ................................................................................................... 15
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ................................................................................... 1, 24, 27, 42
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) .............................................................................................. 23
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) ..................................................................................... 23, 26, 44
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 10
`
`iii
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00911 (U.S. Patent 8,745,149)
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Resp.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)
` ........................................................................................................... 21, 26, 42, 44
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit Description
`No.
`2001 U.S. Patent No. 7,181,497 to Appelman et al.
`2002 U.S. Patent No. 7,219,109 to Lapuyade et al.
`2003 The American Heritage College Dictionary (4th Ed. 2004) (Excerpt)
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00911 (U.S. Patent 8,745,149)
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Resp.
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Patent Owner BlackBerry Limited (“Patent Owner”) submits this
`
`Preliminary Response in opposition to the Petition for inter partes review (Paper 1)
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,745,149 (“’149 patent”). The Petition challenges the
`
`patentability of claims 1-17 of the ’149 patent on four different grounds, each of
`
`which relies on the Appelman reference in view of either Toshio or Milton. For
`
`the reasons discussed below, trial should not be instituted.
`
`The Petition should be denied because none of the references show
`
`“automatically changing … and displaying” as required by every claim. This
`
`requirement was added during prosecution to overcome Appelman in view of a
`
`reference that is substantially the same as Toshio and Milton. Both secondary
`
`references are relied on to render obvious “automatically changing … and
`
`displaying,” but both Toshio and Milton disclose only manually initiated
`
`operations. Recognizing this deficiency, the Petition improperly asserts that
`
`“automatically … displaying” would have been obvious solely in view of the ipse
`
`dixit testimony of its expert. The Petition’s obviousness arguments also cobble
`
`together features from different references without any valid reason for doing so
`
`and without any showing of a reasonable expectation of success. Finally, the
`
`Board should exercise its discretion to deny the petition under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d)
`
`1
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00911 (U.S. Patent 8,745,149)
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Resp.
`
`for advancing “substantially the same” patentability challenges and arguments
`
`considered and overcome during prosecution.
`
`II. The ’149 Patent
`
`A. Overview of the ’149 Patent
`
`Portable handheld devices available by 2003 were capable of numerous
`
`types of communication, including instant messaging. Ex. 1001, 1:39-44. Instant
`
`messaging enables a first device to send a message on a more or less instantaneous
`
`basis to a second device. Id., 1:40-44. The ’149 patent describes an improved
`
`handheld electronic device that provides time data regarding certain aspects of a
`
`messaging conversation to a user. Id., 2:9-15. Time data for instant messages can
`
`be provided, for example, in situations where an interruption has occurred during a
`
`messaging conversation, or on demand in certain circumstances. Id. Figure 9
`
`illustrates one example of the functionality provided by the ’149 patent.
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00911 (U.S. Patent 8,745,149)
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Resp.
`
`
`
`Id., Fig. 9.
`
`Figure 9 shows an embodiment where time stamps are provided in a fashion
`
`that saves space on the display of a handheld device. Ex. 1001, 7:10-11. Messages
`
`are output without displayed time stamps, but upon moving a cursor or other
`
`pointing device in proximity to a given message a corresponding requested time
`
`stamp is output adjacent to the message. Id., 7:11-16. This allows messages to be
`
`displayed initially without time stamps, but if a time stamp is desired it can be
`
`readily output. Id., 7:16-26.
`
`Figure 10 shows another example of the functionality provided by the ’149
`
`patent in the form of a smart and active time stamp.
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00911 (U.S. Patent 8,745,149)
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Resp.
`
`
`
`Id., Fig. 10.
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 10, the ’149 patent describes smart time stamps that
`
`provide additional information depending upon the prevailing circumstances. Ex.
`
`1001, 7:37-40. If a first time stamp was output and the conversation was not
`
`resumed until the following day, for example, the first time stamp could be
`
`configured to automatically change from being displayed as “2:44 pm” to “2:44
`
`PM Sep. 17, 2004,” or even “2:44 pm yesterday.” Id., 7:41-50. The first time
`
`stamp can also change as time progresses, such as by progressively changing from
`
`displaying “less than one minute ago” to displaying “one minute ago,” “two
`
`minutes ago,” etc., id., 7:59-64. These time stamps can also revert from displaying
`
`relative times to displaying absolute times after the expiration of a given time
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00911 (U.S. Patent 8,745,149)
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Resp.
`
`duration, such as changing from displaying “fifty-nine minutes ago” to “2:54 pm.”
`
`Id., 7:64-8:5.
`
`Independent claims 1, 9, and 17 recite a method, an electronic device, and a
`
`non-transitory computer readable medium related to this disclosure. Claim 1 is
`
`representative at this stage of the proceeding:
`
`1. A method of displaying an instant messaging conversation on a
`display of an electronic device, the method comprising:
`
`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
`
`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
`information.
`
`B.
`
`Priority Date and Relevant Prosecution History
`
`The ’149 patent was filed on September 13, 2012, and is a continuation of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,301,713, itself a continuation of U.S. Patent No. 7,970,849, each
`
`of which claims priority to Provisional application No. 60/504,379, filed on
`
`September 19, 2003. The ’149 patent is entitled to at least this priority date, which
`
`Petitioner has not challenged. See Pet. 3.
`
`The Examiner initially rejected the claims as obvious over U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,181,497 to Appelman (Ex. 2001) in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,219,109 to
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00911 (U.S. Patent 8,745,149)
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Resp.
`
`Lapuyade (Ex. 2002). Ex. 1004, 245-47. Appelman discloses a messaging
`
`application user interface designed to auto-complete partially entered addresses,
`
`Ex. 2001, Figs. 17-18, 9:49-67, but the Examiner concluded it did not disclose the
`
`final two limitations of original claim 1:
`
`changing the first time information for the instant message to a
`second time information as time progresses; and
`
`displaying the second time information in response to a second
`input.
`
`Ex. 1004, 245.
`
`The Examiner argued that these features would have been obvious in view
`
`of Lapuyade’s disclosure of “displaying time and time zone information as a result
`
`of user input when a change in time zone has occurred,” i.e., a manually initiated
`
`action. Id., 246 (citing Ex. 2002, Fig. 7, 6:21-43). Lapuyade discloses a “Time
`
`Zone Alert!” that allows a user to change the displayed time zone, as well as a time
`
`zone button:
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00911 (U.S. Patent 8,745,149)
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Resp.
`
`
`
`Ex. 2002, Fig. 7. Lapuyade’s disclosure is clear that the displayed time
`
`information (e.g., the displayed time for a calendar entry) is always changed
`
`manually, such as when the user instructs the system to “change display time zone”
`
`via button 724, or by “tap[ing] the displayed time zone in box 718 to make a
`
`selection of a correct local time zone.” Id., 6:21-43.
`
`In response, Patent Owner amended the claims to (1) combine “changing the
`
`first time information …” and “displaying the second time …” clauses into a single
`
`step, and (2) clarify that the entire step happens “automatically … as time
`
`progresses,” rather than, for example, “in response to a second input”:
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00911 (U.S. Patent 8,745,149)
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Resp.
`
`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
`information; and
`
`displaying the second time information in response to a second
`input.
`
`Ex. 1004, 233. Patent Owner pointed to the ’149 patent’s disclosure of smart and
`
`active time stamps as support for this amendment. Id., 236 (citing id., 380-381
`
`(¶¶52-54), 393 (Fig. 10), which corresponds to Ex. 1001, 7:34-8:5, Fig. 10).
`
`Patent Owner explained that “[c]laim 1 has been amended to clarify the
`
`protection being sought by combining the final two operations and specifying that
`
`the ‘changing’ [i.e., the combined operations] is done automatically.” Ex. 1004,
`
`236 (emphasis added). Patent Owner explained that “none of the cited references
`
`teach or suggest such an automatic changing of time information,” i.e.,
`
`“automatically changing the first time information … as time progresses and
`
`displaying the second time information instead of the first time information.” Id.,
`
`237. In other words, Patent Owner characterized its amendment as requiring that
`
`the combined step of “changing” and “displaying” occurs “automatically … as
`
`time progresses,” and thus distinguished the manually initiated display change
`
`disclosed by Lapuyade and relied upon by the Examiner. Id., 236.
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00911 (U.S. Patent 8,745,149)
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Resp.
`
`In response to Patent Owner’s argument that Lapuyade’s user selection
`
`prompt did not render obvious “automatically changing … as time progresses and
`
`displaying,” the Examiner responded by advancing the theory that such a
`
`distinction was obvious in view of the “knowledge generally available to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art.” Ex. 1004, 214-15. Patent Owner argued in its appeal
`
`brief that “[t]he Examiner must provide a factual basis for each of the claimed
`
`features of a rejected claim,” Id., 68, and that Lapuyade merely “shows a prompt
`
`allowing the user to select an option to change to a new time zone,” id., 70. Patent
`
`Owner argued that it was “unclear … how such a feature would suggest
`
`automatically changing time information” in the context of the claims. Id. The
`
`Examiner accepted this argument—rather than maintaining this rejection on
`
`appeal, the Examiner allowed the claims “based on applicant’s Arguments in the
`
`Appeal Brief ….” Id., 18.
`
`C.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art in the field of the ’149 patent would have at
`
`least a bachelors degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or the
`
`equivalent, and at least two years of experience in designing user interfaces for
`
`mobile devices such as cellular telephones, personal digital assistances (PDA), or
`
`other handheld devices. While Petitioner has advanced a different statement of the
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00911 (U.S. Patent 8,745,149)
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Resp.
`
`level of ordinary skill in the art, these differences do not appear material at this
`
`stage of the proceedings. See Pet. 5-6.
`
`III. Claim Construction
`
`Petitioner proposes a single claim construction: it argues “first input” should
`
`be interpreted to mean “any event detected by the electronic device.” Pet. 13. The
`
`Petition is defective under any reasonable construction of the term, so the Board
`
`need not construe it.
`
`Central to the Parties’ dispute, however, is the proper scope of the
`
`“automatically changing … and displaying” step. The Petition’s patentability
`
`challenges rest on a broad and unstated claim construction of this step that is not
`
`reasonable in the context of the claims and the ’149 patent’s intrinsic record. See
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). When the claims are given their broadest reasonable
`
`construction, the Petition must be denied.
`
`Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, claims are evaluated
`
`using the plain and ordinary meaning of their words from the perspective of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire patent disclosure.
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“A
`
`construction that is ‘unreasonably broad’ and which does not ‘reasonably reflect
`
`the plain language and disclosure’ will not pass muster.”). In an inter partes
`
`review, this meaning requires consideration of the prosecution history: “The PTO
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00911 (U.S. Patent 8,745,149)
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Resp.
`
`should also consult the patent’s prosecution history in proceedings in which the
`
`patent has been brought back to the agency for a second review.” Id. (citing
`
`Tempo Lighting Inc. v. Tivoli LLC, 742 F.3d 973, 978 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). This
`
`includes giving weight to clarifying amendments made during the original
`
`prosecution. Tempo Lighting, 742 F.3d at 977-78.
`
`Each of the independent claims (i.e., claims 1, 9, and 17) recites
`
`“automatically chang[ing] the first time information for the instant message to a
`
`second time information as time progresses and display the second time
`
`information instead of the first time information.” The Petition’s patentability
`
`challenges (1) effectively read “automatically” out of the claim by mapping this
`
`step to manually initiated actions (Pet. 19-26, 41-45), and (2) analyze the
`
`“automatically changing … and displaying” as if it were two separate steps, only
`
`the first of which occurs “automatically” (id., 24-25, 44-45). In both cases,
`
`Petitioner seeks to ignore or undo the claim amendments Patent Owner made to
`
`obtain allowance of the ’149 patent. Neither of these mappings comport with what
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art would consider the plain and ordinary meaning and
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of the phrase in light of the intrinsic record as a
`
`whole.
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00911 (U.S. Patent 8,745,149)
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Resp.
`
`A.
`
`“Automatically” (All Claims)
`
`The broadest reasonable interpretation of an “automatic” operation is one
`
`not manually initiated. Petitioner advances an implicit construction of
`
`“automatically” that would cover operations such as those disclosed in Milton and
`
`Toshio, which as explained below are manually initiated. See §§ IV.B.i-ii below.
`
`This implicit construction reads “automatically” out of the claims and conflicts
`
`with their plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`This distinction is evident in the plain and ordinary meaning of “automatic”
`
`in the context of the ’149 patent and the claims. “Automatic” has a well-known
`
`common meaning: “acting or operating in a manner essentially independent of
`
`external influence or control.” E.g., The American Heritage College Dictionary
`
`(4th Ed. 2004) (Ex. 2003), 96-97. In this context, a manually initiated action is not
`
`“automatically” performed. Claim 1 confirms this understanding by distinguishing
`
`between certain types of operations (“displaying a first time information … in
`
`response to a first input”) which in certain situations could be manual (e.g., claim
`
`8’s “detecting a pointing device”) and automatic operations without manual
`
`initiation (“automatically changing … as time progresses and displaying the
`
`second time information”). The plain and ordinary meaning of an “automatic”
`
`operation is one not manually initiated.
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00911 (U.S. Patent 8,745,149)
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Resp.
`
`This understanding is confirmed by the ’149 patent’s specification, which
`
`distinguishes a user “manually caus[ing] the output of an inserted time stamp” and
`
`a smart time stamp “configured to automatically change” from a first display to a
`
`second, such as by “chang[ing] as time progressed.” Ex. 1001, 6:19-23, 7:40-8:5.
`
`This functionality directly corresponds to the claims. Compare Ex. 1001, Claims 1
`
`& 8 (manual operation: “displaying … in response to … detecting a pointing
`
`device”) with Claim 1 (automatic operation: “automatically … as time
`
`progresses”). For example, the ’149 patent discloses that “upon moving a cursor
`
`… or other pointing device … a corresponding requested time stamp is output
`
`adjacent the message,” while “in accordance with another aspect of the invention, a
`
`given time stamp may be a smart time stamp and … be configured to automatically
`
`change from being displayed” one way to another way. Ex. 1001, 7:10-50. These
`
`are the same portions of the ’149 patent’s disclosure pointed to by Patent Owner
`
`when it made the original amendment. Ex. 1004, 236 (citing id., 380-381 (¶¶52-
`
`54), 393 (Fig. 10), which corresponds to Ex. 1001, 7:34-8:5, Fig. 10).
`
`Patent Owner added the “automatic” requirement to its claims during
`
`prosecution to successfully overcome prior art cited by the Examiner. Specifically,
`
`Patent Owner amended the claims to recite “automatically changing … as time
`
`progresses” to overcome a rejection that relied on disclosure of a user manually
`
`selecting an option that results in new time information being displayed. Ex. 1004,
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00911 (U.S. Patent 8,745,149)
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Resp.
`
`233-39. The Examiner allowed the patent based on this argument. Id., 18, 70-71.
`
`Any construction of “automatically” that would reverse this amendment and cover
`
`manually-initiated operations would render Patent Owner’s amendment
`
`superfluous, and the Examiner’s subsequent allowance based on this amendment
`
`nonsensical.
`
`The patent owner in Tempo Lighting, 742 F.3d at 976-78, had likewise
`
`amended its claims in response to an Office action, explained why the amendments
`
`had clarified the Office’s concerns, and obtained allowance of its claims. There,
`
`the Federal Circuit found that the prosecution history in such a case supported a
`
`claim construction commensurate with the patent owner’s representations to the
`
`office:
`
`This court also observes that the PTO is under no obligation to accept
`a claim construction proffered as a prosecution history disclaimer,
`which generally only binds the patent owner. However, in this
`instance, the PTO itself requested Tivoli rewrite the "non-
`photoluminescent" limitation in positive terms. Tivoli complied, and
`then supplied clarification about the meaning of the "inert to light"
`limitation. J.A. 1216. For all these reasons, this court affirms the
`Board's construction of "inert to light."
`
`Id. at 978. Here, like in Tempo Lighting, Patent Owner amended the ’149 patent in
`
`response to a rejection that relied on manually initiated changing of time
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00911 (U.S. Patent 8,745,149)
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Resp.
`
`information, explained the claims no longer covered such a feature, and the
`
`Examiner subsequently allowed the patent based on these actions.
`
`Other cases that have interpreted “automatically” more broadly are
`
`inapposite, and instead illustrate why Petitioner’s mapping is improper. In
`
`CollegeNet, Inc. v. ApplyYourself, Inc., 418 F.3d 1225, 1235 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the
`
`Federal Circuit affirmed a construction of “automatically” as meaning “once
`
`initiated, the function is performed by a machine, without the need for manually
`
`performing the function.” The technology at issue in that proceeding, however,
`
`involved a variety of manual actions, with the claimed invention automating only
`
`some. Id., 1228. Conversely, the ’149 patent’s innovation was to automate the
`
`only relevant action: causing the output of a changed time stamp. Ex. 1001, 6:19-
`
`23, 7:40-8:5.
`
`Interpreting claim 1’s “automatically changing … and displaying” step as
`
`covering manually initiated functionality would thus eviscerate the amendments
`
`Patent Owner made during prosecution to “clarify the protection being sought,” see
`
`Ex. 1004, 236, as well as Patent Owner’s efforts to “particularly point[] out and
`
`distinctly claim[] the subject matter which the inventor … regards as the
`
`invention,” 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) (pre-AIA). Petitioner’s proposed interpretation
`
`conflicts with the plain and ordinary meaning of the claims and cannot be the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation. See Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d at 1298.
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00911 (U.S. Patent 8,745,149)
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Resp.
`
`The broadest reasonable interpretation of an operation performed
`
`“automatically,” in view of the intrinsic record as a whole, is one not manually
`
`initiated.
`
`B.
`
`“Automatically … Displaying” (All Claims)
`
`The broadest reasonable interpretation of the “automatically chang[ing] …
`
`and displaying” step as a whole requires “automatically changing” and
`
`“automatically … displaying.” Petitioner advances an implicit construction of this
`
`step as requiring only “automatically changing,” with no requirement that the
`
`claimed “displaying” occur “automatically.” See Pet. 24-25, 44-45.
`
`The prosecution history, however, mandates this interpretation because
`
`Patent Owner amended the claims to clarify this requirement. In response to the
`
`Examiner’s reliance on the Lapuyade reference, Patent Owner amended the claims
`
`as follows:
`
`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
`information; and
`
`displaying the second time information in response to a second
`input.
`
`Ex. 1004, 233; see id., 246. The claims recited “displaying the second time
`
`information in response to a second input,” but the amendment dropped any
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00911 (U.S. Patent 8,745,149)
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Resp.
`
`reference to “in response to a second input” and made the “displaying the second
`
`time information” limitation part of the “changing” step. Id. It also clarified that
`
`both happen “automatically.” Id. Patent Owner pointed to the ’149 patent’s
`
`disclosure of smart and active time stamps as support for this amendment. Id., 236
`
`(citing id., 380-381 (¶¶52-54), 393 (Fig. 10), which corresponds to Ex. 1001, 7:34-
`
`8:5, Fig. 10).
`
`The automatic changing and display of updated time information is also the
`
`only understanding taught by the specification: “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’ ….” Ex. 1001, 7:37-50 (emphasis
`
`added). This can occur “as time progresse[s],” where the time stamp is
`
`“progressively change[d]” from displaying “less than one minute ago” to saying
`
`“one minute ago,” etc. Id., 7:59-8:3.
`
`Petitioner’s theory of the claims would, again, undo Patent Owner’s
`
`amendment and revert the claims to their pre-amendment state. The broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of the “automatically chang[ing] … and displaying” step
`
`as a whole requires “automatically changing” and “automatically … displaying.”
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00911 (U.S. Patent 8,745,149)
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Resp.
`
`IV. The Petition Fails to Meet the Requirements for Instituting an Inter
`Partes Review
`
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1-7, 9-15, and 17 of the ’149 patent are obvious
`
`over Appelman in view of either Toshio or Milton (Grounds 1-2), and that
`
`dependent claims 8 and 16 are obvious over either mapping in further view of
`
`MacPhail (Grounds 3-4). Pet. 2-3. In both the Toshio and Milton grounds, the
`
`Petition maps Appelman to claim 1’s preamble, “displaying a conversation of
`
`instant messages,” and “displaying a first time information for an instant message
`
`in the conversation in response to a first input.” Appelman discloses “a messaging
`
`application user interface used in AOL’s Instant Messenger,” with a time stamp
`
`being displayed next to each message. Ex. 1012, 7:12-13, Fig. 12. The Petition
`
`rightly concedes, however, that Appelman does not disclose “automatically
`
`changing the first time information to second time information as time progresses
`
`and displaying the second time information instead of the first time information,”
`
`Pet. 20, 41, and instead relies principally on Toshio and Milton to argue that such a
`
`feature would have been obvious, Pet. Pet. 19-26, 41-45. But both Toshio and
`
`Milton disclose manual actions that can cause the display/recitation of time
`
`information. Neither of these actions are performed “automatically … as time
`
`progresses.” The Petition’s obviousness rationales suffer from a number of critical
`
`flaws, each of which is independently fatal.
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00911 (U.S. Patent 8,745,149)
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Resp.
`
`A. The Petition’s Obviousness Grounds for “Automatically …
`Displaying” Are Legally Deficient
`
`i.
`
`Appelman in view of Toshio (Grounds 1 & 3)
`
`In Grounds 1 and 3, the Petition relies on Toshio to allege the final step of
`
`claim 1 is obvious: “Thus, by displaying an updated number of elapsed days as
`
`days progress, Toshio discloses automatically changing first time information to
`
`second time information as time progresses and displaying the second time
`
`information instead of the first time information.” Pet. 20-21. As explained above,
`
`however, claim 1 requires both “changing … as time progresses” and “displaying”
`
`the second time information to be done “automatically.” See § III.B above.
`
`Indeed, the Petition concedes that neither Appelman nor Toshio disclose
`
`“automatically … displaying.” See Pet. 24-25. Without relying on any disclosure
`
`in the art of “automatically … displaying,” Petition instead relies on the bare
`
`assertions of its expert:
`
`To the extent it is argued or found that “automatically” modifies
`“displaying” in claim 1, it also would have been obvious to
`automatically display the combined absolute and elapsed time as time
`progresses in the modified Appelman’s system. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶18-19,
`49.) One skilled in the art would have recognized that when the date
`changes, the displayed absolute time (“first time information”) may be
`inaccurate and/or less meaningful, and so a benefit would have been
`realized by automatically displaying the combined absolute and
`elapsed time (“second time information”) once the date changes. (Id.)
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00911 (U.S. Patent 8,745,149)
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Resp.
`
`Additionally, such a skilled person would have realized that, with
`such a modification, a user would not have needed to restart the
`messaging application or otherwise refresh the interface in order to
`see the updated time information.
`
`Id. (emphasis added) (footnote omitted).1 Given the structure Petitioner gave to its
`
`patentability challenges, if the claims require “automatically … displaying” in
`
`claim 1 (which they do), then the Petition must rely on this additional obviousness
`
`combination.
`
`The Petition does not identify any reference that actually discloses what it
`
`concedes is missing from Appelman and Toshio: “automatically … displaying the
`
`second time information instead of the first time information.” See Pet. 24-25.
`
`Instead, the Petition cites its expert and asserts that the missing feature was w