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
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`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 .................................................................... 6
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE ’149 PATENT AND PRIOR ART ............................. 7
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The ’149 Patent ..................................................................................... 7
`
`Prosecution History of the ’149 Patent ................................................. 7
`
`C. Graham .................................................................................................. 8
`
`D. Milton .................................................................................................... 9
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Toshio .................................................................................................... 9
`
`Deshpande ........................................................................................... 10
`
`G. MacPhail ............................................................................................. 10
`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 10
`
`IX. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS ............................................ 12
`
`A. Ground 1: Graham Renders Obvious Claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 13, 15, and 17
` ............................................................................................................. 13
`
`1. Claim 1 ........................................................................................... 13
`
`2. Claim 5 ........................................................................................... 27
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,745,149
`3. Claim 7 ........................................................................................... 27
`
`4. Claim 9 ........................................................................................... 29
`
`5. Claim 13 ......................................................................................... 31
`
`6. Claim 15 ......................................................................................... 31
`
`7. Claim 17 ......................................................................................... 31
`
`B. Ground 2: Graham and Milton Render Obvious Claims 1, 5-7, 9, 13-
`15, and 17 ............................................................................................ 34
`
`1. Claims 1, 9, 17 ............................................................................... 34
`
`2. Claim 5 ........................................................................................... 41
`
`3. Claim 6 ........................................................................................... 41
`
`4. Claim 7 ........................................................................................... 41
`
`5. Claim 13 ......................................................................................... 42
`
`6. Claim 14 ......................................................................................... 42
`
`7. Claim 15 ......................................................................................... 42
`
`C. Ground 3: Graham and Toshio Render Obvious Claims 1-5, 9-13, and
`17 ......................................................................................................... 43
`
`1. Claims 1, 9 and 17 ......................................................................... 43
`
`2. Claim 2 ........................................................................................... 51
`
`3. Claim 3 ........................................................................................... 52
`
`4. Claim 4 ........................................................................................... 52
`
`5. Claim 5 ........................................................................................... 53
`
`6. Claim 10 ......................................................................................... 53
`
`7. Claim 11 ......................................................................................... 54
`
`8. Claim 12 ......................................................................................... 54
`ii
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,745,149
`9. Claim 13 ......................................................................................... 54
`
`D. Ground 4: Graham and MacPhail Render Obvious Claims 8 and 16 54
`
`1. Claim 8 ........................................................................................... 54
`
`2. Claim 16 ......................................................................................... 58
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Ground 5: Graham, Milton, and MacPhail Render Obvious Claims 8
`and 16 .................................................................................................. 59
`
`Ground 6: Graham, Toshio, and MacPhail Render Obvious Claims 8
`and 16 .................................................................................................. 59
`
`G. Grounds 7-12: Combinations with Deshpande Render Obvious
`Claims 1-17 Under an Alternative Interpretation of the Instant
`Messaging Terms ................................................................................ 60
`
`X.
`
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 62
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`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
`
`5
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`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
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,167,703 (“Graham”)
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,631,949 (“Milton”)
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`JP Patent Application No. H03-89639 (“Toshio”)
`
`Ex. 1008
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0039340 (“Deshpande”)
`
`Ex. 1009
`Ex. 1010
`Ex. 1011
`
`Ex. 1012
`
`Ex. 1013
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,661,434 (“MacPhail”)
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 9,385,973
`BlackBerry’s Opposition to Motion to Dismiss in BlackBerry LTD.
`v. Blu Products, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-23535 (S.D. Fla.)
`RESERVED
`
`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.
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`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” or “PO”). 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 concurrently filing a
`
`separate petition for IPR 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,
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,745,149
`
`including filing fees, to Deposit Account No. 50-2613.
`
`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, 7, 9, 13, 15, and 17 are obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,167,703 (“Graham”) (Ex. 1005);
`
`Ground 2: Claims 1, 5-7, 9, 13-15, and 17 are obvious under § 103(a) in
`
`view of Graham and U.S. Patent No. 5,631,949 (“Milton”) (Ex. 1006);
`
`Ground 3: Claims 1-5, 9-13, and 17 are obvious under § 103(a) in view of
`
`Graham and Japanese Patent Application Publication No. H03-89639 (“Toshio”)
`
`(Ex. 1007)2;
`
`
`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 Graham
`
`and U.S. Patent No. 6,661,434 (“MacPhail”) (Ex. 1009);
`
`Ground 5: Claims 8 and 16 are obvious under § 103(a) in view of Graham,
`
`Milton, and MacPhail;
`
`Ground 6: Claims 8 and 16 are obvious under § 103(a) in view of Graham,
`
`Toshio, and MacPhail;
`
`Ground 7: Claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 13, 15, and 17 are obvious under § 103(a) in
`
`view of Graham and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0039340 (“Deshpande”)
`
`(Ex. 1008);
`
`Ground 8: Claims 1, 5-7, 9, 13-15, and 17 are obvious under § 103(a) in
`
`view of Graham, Deshpande, and Milton;
`
`Ground 9: Claims 1-5, 9-13, and 17 are obvious under § 103(a) in view of
`
`Graham, Deshpande, and Toshio;
`
`Ground 10: Claims 8 and 16 are obvious under § 103(a) in view of
`
`Graham, Deshpande, and MacPhail;
`
`Ground 11: Claims 8 and 16 are obvious under § 103(a) in view of
`
`Graham, Deshpande, Milton, and MacPhail; and
`
`Ground 12: Claims 8 and 16 are obvious under § 103(a) in view of
`
`Graham, Deshpande, Toshio, and MacPhail.
`
`For purposes of this proceeding only, Petitioner assumes the earliest
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,745,149
`effective filing date of the ’149 patent is September 19, 2003, the date of
`
`provisional application no. 60/504,379.3 Graham was filed on September 25, 2002,
`
`claims priority to a provisional application filed on September 25, 2001,4 and
`
`issued on January 23, 2007. Deshpande was filed on August 24, 2001, and
`
`published on February 27, 2003. 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, Graham and MacPhail
`
`are prior art at least under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), Deshpande is prior art at least under
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and (e), and Milton and Toshio are prior art at least under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`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 both petitions,
`
`because each ground relies on prior art that discloses the claims in different ways,
`
`3 Petitioner does not concede that the ’149 patent is entitled to the September 19,
`
`2003 priority date of the ’379 provisional application and reserves the right to
`
`challenge any priority claim to that application that patent owner may raise in this
`
`or other proceedings.
`
`4 Petitioner reserves the right to establish that Graham is entitled to the September
`
`25, 2001 priority date in this or any other proceeding involving the ’149 patent.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,745,149
`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 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. In comparison, the
`
`concurrently-filed petition relies on International Publication No. WO 01/240346
`
`(“Appelman”) as a primary reference. Appelman explicitly discloses displaying a
`
`first time information for an instant message in a conversation of instant messages
`
`in response to a first input, but does not explicitly disclose automatically changing
`
`the first time information to a second time information as time progresses.
`
`Accordingly, the Board should adopt all grounds, as proposed in each Petition.
`
`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 Graham (Ground 1)
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,745,149
`discloses first time information and second time information each in the form of an
`
`elapsed time (or a color that indicates age), the combination of Graham 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. And the combination of
`
`Graham and Toshio (Ground 3) discloses first time information in the form of an
`
`absolute time and second time information in the form of a combined relative time
`
`and absolute time.
`
`Grounds 4-6, 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. Grounds 7-12 are similar to Ground 1-6, but differ in that Grounds 7-12
`
`incorporate Deshpande’s teachings of non-SMS instant messages, to the extent it is
`
`found or argued that SMS messages (like described in Graham) are not examples
`
`of instant messages, as recited in the claims.
`
`Accordingly, because the record has not yet been fully developed with
`
`respect to these issues, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board adopt all
`
`proposed grounds.
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) 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
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,745,149
`relevant field, e.g., graphical user interfaces. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶13-14.)5 More education
`
`can supplement practical experience and vice versa.
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE ’149 PATENT AND PRIOR ART
`A. The ’149 Patent
`The ’149 patent is generally directed to providing time information
`
`associated with messages displayed on a device. (Ex. 1001, Abstract, 1:20-24,
`
`1:26-29, 1:39-43, 5:31-8:38; Ex. 1002, ¶¶20-21.) In a co-pending litigation
`
`involving the ’149 patent, PO 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 PO, the ’149 patent differs
`
`from the prior art by providing a “dynamic timestamp.”6 (Id.)
`
`Prosecution History of the ’149 Patent
`
`B.
`The ’149 patent issued on June 3, 2014, from U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`
`5 Petitioner submits herewith the declaration of Dr. Dan R. Olsen Jr. (Ex. 1002), 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 ’379
`
`provisional application. (Id., ¶11, 13, 14.)
`
`6 As explained below, the claims do not recite a “timestamp” but instead broadly
`
`recite “time information.” (Ex. 1001, 8:48-10:25.)
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,745,149
`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, PO amended the then-pending
`
`claims in an attempt to overcome an obviousness rejection in view of prior art that,
`
`according to PO, teaches a user interface for displaying electronic messages with
`
`timestamps but fails to disclose “changing any of these timestamps under any
`
`circumstances.” (Ex. 1004, 238.) The Examiner maintained the rejections and PO
`
`appealed. On appeal, PO again argued that the claims, 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, the Examiner allowed
`
`the claims. (Id., 18.)
`
`C. Graham
`Graham discloses a mobile device that displays a conversation of messages
`
`that “facilitat[e] non-verbal communications between users of wireless mobile
`
`devices.” (Ex. 1005, 3:25-27; see also id., 3:55, 4:8-13, 7:1-20, 8:52-59, 10:21-28,
`
`15:1-17, FIGs. 5, 6, 13a-13d.) Graham describes displaying an absolute time or an
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,745,149
`elapsed time that changes as time progresses. (Id., Abstract, 2:20-31, 9:1-4, 9:53-
`
`54, 10:29-32, 10:59-61, 11:14-18, 12:18-21, 12:54-58, 13:1-12, 16:37-41, FIG. 5.)
`
`(Ex. 1002, ¶¶24-25.)
`
`D. Milton
`Milton discloses automatically changing a message’s time information from
`
`a relative time to an absolute time after a predetermined amount of time, such as 24
`
`hours. (Ex. 1006, 3:60-4:13, FIG. 4.)7 (Ex. 1002, ¶26.)
`
`Toshio
`
`E.
`Toshio describes a display function that is “useful when displaying an
`
`incoming message on a day after the message was received.” (Ex. 1007, 230.) 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.) (Ex. 1002, ¶27.)
`
`
`7 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, ¶26.)
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,745,149
`
`F. Deshpande
`Deshpande discusses non-SMS instant message communication between
`
`computing devices, including mobile devices. (Ex. 1008, ¶¶[0001], [0002]-[0009],
`
`[0016], [0028], [0039].) (Ex. 1002, ¶28.)
`
`G. MacPhail
`MacPhail addresses problems related to “displays having diverse sizes and
`
`capacities.” (Ex. 1009, 2:8-50.) For instance, MacPhail discloses displaying time
`
`information only upon request by a user, such as in response to a pointer being
`
`placed over a time-stamped object. (Id., 9:64-10:11, 12:60-63.) (Ex. 1002, ¶29.)
`
`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. Any term not addressed below should be interpreted in accordance with its
`
`plain and ordinary meaning under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard.8
`
`
`8 Any claim interpretations submitted or implied herein for the purpose of this
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`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
`
`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, PO stated
`
`that the first input includes “receipt of message, time elapsing, manual input, etc.”
`
`proceeding are not binding upon Petitioner in any litigation involving the ’149
`
`patent. Moreover, Petitioner does not concede that the challenged claims are not
`
`invalid for reasons not raised herein.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,745,149
`
`(Ex. 1004, 67.)
`
`IX. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS
`Grounds 1-6 consist of three sets of grounds, each set disclosing certain
`
`limitations in different ways. Specifically, Ground 1 shows how Graham renders
`
`obvious claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 13, 15, and 17, where the terms “instant messaging,”
`
`“instant messages,” and “instant message” are interpreted to encompass SMS
`
`messages and the claimed “first time information” and “second time information”
`
`are each disclosed as a relative time (or color). Ground 2 shows how the
`
`combination of Graham 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 information” is disclosed as an absolute time. And Ground 3
`
`shows how the combination of Graham 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 relative time. Grounds 4-6
`
`address claims 8 and 16 in relation to Grounds 1-3. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶9-12, 30-34.)
`
`Grounds 7-12 are similar to Grounds 1-6, but incorporate the teachings of
`
`Deshpande to address any argument or finding that the instant messaging claim
`
`terms exclude SMS messages (like disclosed by Graham). (Id.)
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,745,149
`A. Ground 1: Graham Renders Obvious Claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 13, 15, and
`17
`1.
`
`[1a] “A method of displaying an instant messaging
`conversation on a display of an electronic device, the
`method comprising:”
`
`Claim 1
`a)
`
`To the extent the preamble is considered limiting, Graham discloses these
`
`features. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶24-25, 35-40.) For example, Graham describes a “mobile
`
`device” (“electronic device”), which is “any device capable of connecting to a
`
`wireless network.” (Ex. 1005, 4:3-20; see also id., Abstract, 1:64-66, 3:24-27, 7:1-
`
`20, 8:52-57, 10:21-22, FIGs. 1, 4-6; Ex. 1002, ¶37.) As shown in FIG. 4, Graham’s
`
`mobile device includes a display 456 (“a display”) (Ex. 1005, 7:13-20; see also id.,
`
`8:14-19, 8:58-60, 10:21-25, FIGs. 4-6), which is used for displaying “non-verbal
`
`communications between users of wireless mobile devices” (id., 3:24-27; see also
`
`id., Abstract, 1:15-18, 1:64-66, 2:35-39, 7:2-8, 8:52-55, 10:21-28, 11:20-61, 12:22-
`
`24, 12:62-66, 13:4-12, 14:15-24, 15:1-17, FIGs. 5-9, 12-14). (Ex. 1002, ¶¶15-16,
`
`37.)
`
`One type of communication described in Graham is “mixed media
`
`messages,” which “refer[s] to messages having textual and image contents,” but
`
`may “include only textual content in one case, and include only image content in
`
`another case.” (Ex. 1005, 14:17-22; see also id., Abstract, 2:35-49, 14:22-15:56.) A
`
`mixed media message “may also include audio, video and other media contents.”
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,745,149
`(Id., 14:22-25; see also id., 2:37-39.) As shown in FIG. 13d (annotated below),
`
`mixed media messages communicated between users of mobile devices are
`
`displayed as one “thread of communications,” such that messages sent to
`
`(annotated in blue) and received from (annotated in red) another device are
`
`displayed together chronologically. (Id., 15:11-14; see also id., FIGs. 13a-13d.)
`
`Such a thread of communications between users of devices is a messaging
`
`conversation, similar to the messaging conversations described in the ’149 patent
`
`(e.g., Ex. 1001, 5:10-16, Fig. 4). (Ex. 1002, ¶38.)
`
`
`
`Graham explains that users of mobile devices can communicate using
`
`messages via a telecommunications carrier or service provider. (Ex. 1005, 7:28-31;
`
`see also id., 4:22-30, 7:2-6.) For example, a device may “send and receive SMS
`
`messages,” or use “other messaging services.” (Id., 7:2-9.) Alternatively, a device
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,745,149
`“may be arranged to communicate with other mobile devices without assistance
`
`from a carrier or service provider.” (Id., 7:31-36.) For example, a device may
`
`support a protocol, such as IEEE 802.11b, “for communicating directly with other
`
`mobile devices.” (Id., 7:34-36.) Additionally, Graham explains that its “invention
`
`could be practiced over the Internet.” (Id., 5:16-21.) Thus, Graham explains that
`
`users of mobile devices can communicate via SMS, directly, and/or over the
`
`Internet, each of which provides for communication on a “more or less
`
`instantaneous basis,” and, therefore, constitutes “instant messaging” according to
`
`the ’149 patent (see Ex. 1001, 1:40-44). (Ex. 1002, ¶¶39-40.) Moreover, a POSA
`
`would have understood at the time of the alleged invention that SMS was an
`
`example of an instant messaging service. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶39-40; see also Ex. 1008,
`
`¶[0007]9.) Accordingly, Graham discloses displaying an instant messaging
`
`conversation on a display of an electronic device, e.g., in the form of SMS
`
`messages. (Ex. 1002, ¶40.)
`
`b)
`
` [1b] “displaying a conversation of instant messages;”
`
`For the same reasons discussed above for claim element 1a, Graham
`
`discloses displaying a conversation of instant messages. (See Part IX.A.1.a; Ex.
`
`1002, ¶¶15-16, 41.)
`
`9 For this Ground, Ex. 1008 is referenced only to show the state of the art at the
`
`time of the alleged invention, and is not relied on as a basis for this Ground.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`c)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,745,149
`[1c] “displaying a first time information for an instant
`message in the conversation in response to a first input;
`and”
`
`As discussed above for claim elements 1a-b, in connection with the
`
`embodiment illustrated in FIGs. 13a-13d (e.g., referred to collectively below as the
`
`“Figure 13 embodiment”), Graham discloses a mobile device that displays a
`
`conversation of SMS instant messages between users. (See Parts IX.A.1.a-b; Ex.
`
`1002, ¶¶42-57.)
`
`While Graham’s FIG. 13 embodiment does not explicitly disclose
`
`displaying a first time information for an instant message in response to a first
`
`input, it would have been obvious to incorporate such features based on Graham’s
`
`teachings related to the embodiments in FIGs. 5, 6, and 9. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶15-17, 43.)
`
`For example, Graham describes displaying messages between users on a
`
`display of an electronic device in connection with FIGs. 5 and 6, which illustrate a
`
`device in “image message edit mode” and “received image message mode,”
`
`respectively. (Ex. 1005, 2:62-67, 8:52-10:20, 10:21-41, FIGs. 5-6; Ex. 1002, ¶44.)
`
`The display in FIG. 5 shows messages sent to users of other mobile devices. (Ex.
`
`1005, 8:52-57; see also id., 9:14, 12:18-21, 16:37-41, 17:46-50.) The display in
`
`FIG. 6 shows six messages received from users of other mobile devices, each
`
`“including four images and indicating the identity of the other user that sent the
`
`message.” (Id. 10:21-25.)
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,745,149
`Graham discloses displaying first time information for such sent/received
`
`messages in three separate ways: (i) as an elapsed time, (ii) as a color, and (iii) as
`
`an absolute time. (Ex. 1005, Abstract, 2:20-31, 9:1-4, 10:29-32, 11:14-19, 12:54-
`
`58, 12:63-66, 13:1-13, 16:37-41, 17:46-50, 18:46-49, 19:33-37, FIGs. 5-6, 13a-d;
`
`Ex. 1002, ¶45.) For purposes of Ground 1, Petitioner relies on the first two ways
`
`Graham discloses displaying first time information.
`
`Displaying First Time Information as an Elapsed Time
`
`The first way Graham displays first time information is as an elapsed time.
`
`For example, referring to FIG. 5 (illustrating a device in “edit image message
`
`mode”), Graham explains that the device’s display may include a “[t]imer 510
`
`[that] indicates an amount of elapsed time when an image was last sent by the user
`
`to other users.” (Ex. 1005, 9:1-4; see also id., 2:20-23, 8:52-57, 10:38-41, FIG. 5;
`
`Ex. 1002, ¶46.) Accordingly, the device can “track and indicate for the user of the
`
`wireless mobile device an elapsed amount of time[] the selected first image
`
`message has been sent to the first other wireless mobile device.” (Ex. 1005, 16:37-
`
`41, 17:46-50.)
`
`Additionally, referring to FIG. 6 (illustrating a device in “received image
`
`message mode”), Graham explains that the device’s display “provides for
`
`indicating an amount of elapsed time since the image message was sent . . . to
`
`mobile device 501'” (i.e., the tim