Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
` Paper 36
` Entered: June 28, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SNAP INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VAPORSTREAM, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00397
`Patent 9,306,886 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JUSTIN T. ARBES, STACEY G. WHITE, and
`JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ARBES, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
` Paper 36
` Entered: June 28, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SNAP INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VAPORSTREAM, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00397
`Patent 9,306,886 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JUSTIN T. ARBES, STACEY G. WHITE, and
`JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ARBES, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00397
`Patent 9,306,886 B2
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`Petitioner Snap Inc. filed a Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”) requesting inter
`partes review of claims 1, 4, 5, 9–11, and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 9,306,886
`B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’886 patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311(a).
`On July 10, 2018, we instituted an inter partes review of all challenges
`raised in the Petition. Paper 10 (“Dec. on Inst.”). Patent Owner
`Vaporstream, Inc. subsequently filed a Patent Owner Response (Paper 21,
`“PO Resp.”), Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 24, “Reply”), and Patent Owner
`filed a Sur-Reply (Paper 27, “Sur-Reply”). An oral hearing was held on
`March 27, 2019, and a transcript of the hearing is included in the record
`(Paper 34, “Tr.”).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This Final Written
`Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a). For the reasons that
`follow, we determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of
`the evidence that claims 1, 4, 5, 9–11, and 13 are unpatentable.
`
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`The parties indicate that the ’886 patent is the subject of the following
`district court proceeding involving Petitioner and Patent Owner:
`Vaporstream, Inc. v. Snap Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-00220-MLH-KS
`(C.D. Cal.). See Pet. 1; Paper 4, 1. Petitioner filed nine additional petitions
`for inter partes review of various related patents owned by Patent Owner in
`Cases IPR2018-00200, IPR2018-00312, IPR2018-00369, IPR2018-00404,
`IPR2018-00408, IPR2018-00416, IPR2018-00439, IPR2018-00455, and
`IPR2018-00458. See Pet. 1–2; Paper 4, 1–3. Inter partes review was
`instituted in each of these proceedings.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00397
`Patent 9,306,886 B2
`
`
`B. The ’886 Patent
`The ’886 patent discloses “[a]n electronic messaging system and
`method with reduced traceability.” Ex. 1001, Abstract. The ’886 patent
`notes that “[t]ypically, an electronic message between two people is not
`private.” Id. at col. 2, ll. 7–8. For example, messages may be intercepted by
`third parties; logged and archived; or copied, cut, pasted, or printed. Id. at
`col. 2, ll. 8–13. “This may give a message a ‘shelf-life’ that is often
`uncontrollable by the sender or even the recipient.” Id. at col. 2, ll. 13–14.
`As such, according to the ’886 patent, there was “a demand for a system and
`method for reducing the traceability of electronic messages.” Id. at col. 2,
`ll. 27–29. Figure 3 of the ’886 patent is reproduced below.
`
`Figure 3 above depicts system 300 for communicating electronic message
`330 from user computer 315 to user computer 320 over network 325 using
`server 310. Id. at col. 10, ll. 62–67. “An electronic message may be any
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00397
`Patent 9,306,886 B2
`
`electronic file, data, and/or other information transmitted between one or
`more user computers.” Id. at col. 7, ll. 50–52. The electronic message may
`include text, image, video, audio, or other types of data. Id. at col. 7,
`ll. 52–60.
`Figure 5 of the ’886 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00397
`Patent 9,306,886 B2
`
`Figure 5 depicts the process by which the electronic message is sent from the
`first user computer and received by the second user computer. Id. at col. 11,
`ll. 10–12. At steps 510–520, the user inputs a recipient address (e.g.,
`a unique identifier, such as an email address) and message content, using
`separate screens provided by the server computer, and the message is
`communicated from the user computer to the server. Id. at col. 11, l. 37–col.
`12, l. 26, Figs. 8, 9. The server then performs various actions to process the
`message at steps 525–545. Id. at col. 12, l. 27–col. 14, l. 26. For example,
`the server identifies header information (e.g., information that “identifies the
`sending user, recipient user, location of the electronic message, [or] timing
`of [the] electronic message”) separate from the content of the message itself
`and generates a message ID associated with the header information and
`message content. Id. at col. 12, ll. 37–49, col. 13, ll. 30–32 (“A message ID
`[is] used to maintain a correspondence between the separated components of
`electronic message 330.”). The ’886 patent describes an example in which
`the message ID is included both in an Extensible Markup Language (XML)
`file storing the header information and in an XML file storing the message
`content. Id. at col. 13, l. 38–col. 14, l. 26.
`To retrieve the message, the recipient first logs in to the system at
`step 550. Id. at col. 14, ll. 27–29. At step 555, the server communicates to
`the recipient user computer a display image showing header information for
`multiple messages. Id. at col. 14, ll. 33–49, Fig. 10. For example, the
`display image may show a display name and date/time for each message, but
`not show the content itself for any of the messages. Id. In one embodiment,
`the header information may include “a sequence number (ex: 1, 2, 3, etc.)
`assigned to each electronic message,” where each sequence number is
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00397
`Patent 9,306,886 B2
`
`associated with a corresponding message ID for the respective message. Id.
`at col. 14, ll. 54–65. At step 560, the user selects one of the electronic
`messages to be displayed by, for example, selecting a “read” link displayed
`with the respective header information. Id. at col. 14, l. 66–col. 15, l. 2.
`At step 565, the server communicates to the recipient user computer a
`display image with the content of the chosen message (but not header
`information for the message). Id. at col. 15, ll. 21–30, Fig. 11. At step 570,
`the message is automatically and permanently deleted from the server at a
`predetermined time. Id. at col. 15, ll. 47–49. At step 575, the user closes the
`display image, returns to the message listing, or chooses to respond to the
`message. Id. at col. 16, ll. 36–39. At step 585, the message content is
`automatically deleted from the recipient user computer after viewing. Id. at
`col. 16, ll. 45–53. According to the ’886 patent, displaying header
`information and message content separately, and automatically deleting
`message content, reduce the traceability of electronic messages. Id. at col. 3,
`l. 58–col. 4, l. 13.
`
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Claim 1 of the ’886 patent recites:
`1. A computer-implemented method of handling an
`electronic message at a recipient user device in a networked
`environment, the electronic message including a message
`content and a header information that corresponds to the
`message content, the recipient user device having access to
`electronic instructions, the method comprising:
`providing a plurality of reduced traceability displays via
`the recipient user device using a display generator that acts
`upon a display element of the recipient user device to provide
`the plurality of reduced traceability displays, the display
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00397
`Patent 9,306,886 B2
`
`
`generator including the electronic instructions, the plurality of
`reduced traceability displays including a first display presenting
`a header information of an electronic message received at the
`recipient user device and a second display presenting a message
`content of the electronic message, the message content
`including a media component, the message content and the
`header information having been related to each other using a
`correlation previously assigned to each of the message content
`and the header information;
`receiving a selection by the recipient user via the first
`display, the selection directed to a portion of a message list
`corresponding to the header information; and
`in response to the selection, providing the second display
`via the recipient user device such that the second display does
`not include a display of the header information via the second
`display such that a single screen capture of both the header
`information and the media component is prevented.
`
`
`D. Prior Art
`The pending grounds of unpatentability in the instant inter partes
`review are based on the following prior art:
`U.S. Patent No. 7,054,905 B1, filed Mar. 30, 2000, issued
`May 30, 2006 (Ex. 1005, “Hanna”);
`U.S. Patent No. 5,958,005, issued Sept. 28, 1999
`(Ex. 1006, “Thorne”);
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0021803
`A1, published Jan. 27, 2005 (Ex. 1003, “Wren”); and
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0152203
`A1, published Aug. 14, 2003 (Ex. 1004, “Berger”).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00397
`Patent 9,306,886 B2
`
`
`E. Pending Grounds of Unpatentability
`The instant inter partes review involves the following grounds of
`unpatentability:
`References
`
`Basis
`
`Claim(s) Challenged
`
`Wren and Berger
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)1 1, 4, and 5
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`9–11
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`13
`
`Wren, Berger, and
`Hanna
`Wren, Berger, and
`Thorne
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Interpretation
`According to the rules applicable to this proceeding, we interpret
`claims in an unexpired patent using the “broadest reasonable construction in
`light of the specification of the patent in which [they] appear[].” 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.100(b) (2017).2 In the Decision on Institution, based on the record at
`the time, we preliminarily interpreted “reduced traceability displays”
`
`
`1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011) (“AIA”), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. Because the challenged claims
`of the ’886 patent have an effective filing date before the effective date of
`the applicable AIA amendment, we refer to the pre-AIA version of
`35 U.S.C. § 103.
`2 The Petition in this proceeding was filed on December 26, 2017, prior to
`the effective date of the rule change that replaces the broadest reasonable
`interpretation standard with the federal court claim interpretation standard.
`See Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in
`Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg.
`51,340, 51,340 (Oct. 11, 2018) (amending 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) effective
`November 13, 2018).
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00397
`Patent 9,306,886 B2
`
`in claim 1 to mean “an arrangement of displays that enables reduced
`traceability of electronic messages (e.g., by separately displaying identifying
`information and message content).” Dec. on Inst. 8–9. Patent Owner
`proposed this interpretation in the related litigation, and Petitioner applies it
`in the Petition. See Ex. 2002, 15–17; Pet. 28–29. The parties do not dispute
`our preliminary interpretation of “reduced traceability displays,” and we do
`not perceive any reason or evidence that compels any deviation from that
`interpretation. See PO Resp. 7. We adopt the previous analysis for purposes
`of this Decision.
`In addition, we preliminarily interpreted “correlation” in the Decision
`on Institution, and Patent Owner in its Response proposes an interpretation
`for the phrase “message content including a media component.” See Dec. on
`Inst. 8–9; PO Resp. 7–11. Because we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s
`arguments with respect to the “reduced traceability displays” limitation
`recited in claim 1, though, we need not interpret any other terms to resolve
`the parties’ disputes over the asserted grounds of unpatentability in this
`proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co.,
`868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Because we need only construe
`terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the
`controversy,’ we need not construe [a particular claim limitation] where the
`construction is not ‘material to the . . . dispute.’” (citations omitted)).
`
`B. Principles of Law
`To prevail in challenging claims 1, 4, 5, 9–11, and 13 of the
`’886 patent, Petitioner must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence
`that the claims are unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d).
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00397
`Patent 9,306,886 B2
`
`
`A claim is unpatentable for obviousness if, to one of ordinary skill in
`the pertinent art, “the differences between the subject matter sought to be
`patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would
`have been obvious at the time the invention was made.” KSR Int’l Co. v.
`Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)). The
`question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual
`determinations, including “the scope and content of the prior art”;
`“differences between the prior art and the claims at issue”; and “the level of
`ordinary skill in the pertinent art.”3 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,
`17–18 (1966).
`A patent claim “is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that
`each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR,
`550 U.S. at 418. An obviousness determination requires finding “both ‘that
`a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the
`prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled
`artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.’”
`Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359,
`1367–68 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted); see KSR, 550 U.S. at 418
`(for an obviousness analysis, “it can be important to identify a reason that
`would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to
`combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does”).
`
`
`3 Additionally, secondary considerations, such as “commercial success, long
`felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc., might be utilized to give light
`to the circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject matter sought to
`be patented. As indicia of obviousness or nonobviousness, these inquiries
`may have relevancy.” Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18. Patent Owner, however,
`has not presented any such evidence.
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00397
`Patent 9,306,886 B2
`
`A petitioner’s assertion of obviousness “cannot employ mere conclusory
`statements. The petitioner must instead articulate specific reasoning, based
`on evidence of record, to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re
`Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing
`KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).
`
`
`C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`the ’886 patent “would have possessed at least a bachelor’s degree in
`software engineering, computer science, or computer engineering with at
`least two years of experience in the design and implementation of systems
`for sending and receiving messages over a communications network, such as
`the Internet (or equivalent degree or experience),” relying on testimony from
`its declarant, Sandeep Chatterjee, Ph.D. Pet. 5–6 (citing Ex. 1002
`¶¶ 13–15). Patent Owner does not propose a different level of ordinary skill
`in the art in its Response. Patent Owner’s declarant, Kevin C. Almeroth,
`Ph.D., “generally agree[s]” with Petitioner’s characterization of the person
`of ordinary skill in the art, with the caveat that “such a person of ordinary
`skill would also have a working knowledge of design principles for software
`user interfaces. Such knowledge often would be learned in an undergraduate
`course in Human Computer Interaction (HCI).” Ex. 2009 ¶ 21. We agree,
`as the ’886 patent describes the design of a software user interface that
`purportedly provides for reduced traceability of electronic messages. See,
`e.g., Ex. 1001, Abstract, col. 1, l. 64–col. 3, l. 19. Based on the record
`developed during trial, including our review of the ’886 patent and the types
`of problems and solutions described in the ’886 patent and cited prior art,
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00397
`Patent 9,306,886 B2
`
`we agree with and adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill
`in the art, with the caveat that such an individual would have had a working
`knowledge of design principles for software user interfaces, which may be
`achieved via study of human-computer interaction (HCI).
`
`
`D. Obviousness Ground Based on Wren and Berger
`(Claims 1, 4, and 5)
`1. Wren
`Wren describes “a multimedia video messaging system that provides
`an end-user with the ability to record and send arbitrary-length audio and
`video content” as “audiovisual messages that are automatically addressed to
`recipients based on one-touch activation.” Ex. 1003, Abstract, ¶ 2. The
`sending user (referred to in Wren as the “end-user”) “initiate[s] the method
`from a menu, address-book or an active voice or audio call screen” on the
`user’s device (e.g., a mobile phone). Id. ¶¶ 10, 23. For example, the device
`may provide the end-user with a “Send” option, which “will auto-compose
`the message [to the desired recipient(s)] based on parameters submitted to
`the method from the point of initiation” or “may prompt the user for the to:
`address that will typically be a phone number or e-mail address, subject text
`and body text.” Id. ¶ 29. The device then sends the movie message in one
`of two ways. Id. ¶¶ 11, 29. If the video is less than a certain size, it is sent
`as an attachment to the message. Id. ¶ 11. If the video is above that size,
`however, “the video and audio streams to a remote disk that is available on
`the world-wide web and a message is created and sent with a [Uniform
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00397
`Patent 9,306,886 B2
`
`Resource Identifier (URI)4] to the streamed media embedded in the body of
`the message.” Id. “When the message is received, an end-user can click on
`the attachment or the URI to play the video and audio.” Id.
`Figures 9A–9C of Wren are “an illustration of the end-user experience
`receiving the one-touch message with a compatible mobile phone or
`[personal computer (PC)] with a compatible e-mail client.” Id. ¶ 22.
`Figures 9A and 9B of Wren are reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 9A depicts “a notification of a new message,” and Figure 9B depicts
`“a view of the Movie once the user selects play from a new message
`notification.” Id. ¶ 32.
`
`
`
`
`
`4 Dr. Chatterjee explains that a URI is a “sequence of characters that
`identifies a resource,” the most common example of which is a Uniform
`Resource Locator (URL), and “[t]he terms URL and URI are often used
`interchangeably when the resource being identified is accessible over the
`Internet, as is the case in Wren.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 33 n.5.
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00397
`Patent 9,306,886 B2
`
`
`Wren also includes Figure 9C, which is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 9C depicts “an e-mail message containing the Movie.” Id.
`
`
`2. Berger
`Berger describes a unified messaging (UM) system where a user can
`access different types of messages (e.g., voicemail, email, facsimile, video)
`from a remote UM messaging server with a “seamless user interface”
`presented on a mobile phone. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 1, 28. The messaging server
`converts data as necessary (e.g., text to speech, and vice versa) so that it can
`be accessed and provided to the user. Id. ¶¶ 1–4, 28–30.
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00397
`Patent 9,306,886 B2
`
`
`Figure 4 of Berger is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 4 depicts list of available messages 120 displayed on the user’s
`mobile phone, including email messages 122 and voice messages 124. Id.
`¶ 41. The list is provided to the user’s phone as “a web page, in a markup
`language compatible with the requesting device,” and displayed as
`“hyperlinked messages.” Id. The user selects a particular message by
`moving cursor 132 up and down and pressing SEND button 134. Id. ¶ 42.
`Upon doing so, the phone’s browser sends a Hypertext Transfer Protocol
`(HTTP) request to the messaging server, and the messaging server performs
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00397
`Patent 9,306,886 B2
`
`any necessary conversion of the message and “deliver[s] . . . the message
`(in the form of a web page, using HTTP) to the phone” for display to the
`user. Id. ¶¶ 43–44. Berger discloses that each message has an associated
`message number (displayed as 1–5 in Figure 4 above), which is included in
`each hyperlink of the displayed list and the HTTP request from the phone.
`Id. ¶¶ 45–57.
`
`
`3. Claim 1
`a. Petitioner’s Contentions
`In its Petition, Petitioner relies on Wren for the majority of the
`limitations of claim 1. Petitioner argues that Wren teaches a “recipient user
`device” (i.e., the recipient’s mobile phone) that handles an “electronic
`message” (i.e., movie message) having both “header information” and
`“message content” including a “media component,” as recited in the
`preamble of claim 1. Pet. 20–25. Claim 1 further recites the following
`limitation:
`
`providing a plurality of reduced traceability displays via
`the recipient user device using a display generator that acts upon
`a display element of the recipient user device to provide the
`plurality of reduced traceability displays, the display generator
`including the electronic instructions, the plurality of reduced
`traceability displays including a first display presenting a header
`information of an electronic message received at the recipient
`user device and a second display presenting a message content
`of the electronic message, the message content including a media
`component . . . .
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00397
`Patent 9,306,886 B2
`
`
`Petitioner argues that “[t]his limitation is also disclosed by Wren,”
`including the following chart showing how Petitioner maps Wren’s
`disclosure to the limitation:
`
`
`Id. at 25. Petitioner contends that Figure 9A is a “first display” presenting
`“header information” (i.e., sender name (“Jane Doe”) and time (“9:30AM”)),
`Figure 9B is a “second display” presenting “message content” including a
`“media component” (i.e., video), and the two displays are “reduced
`traceability displays” because they “display header information and message
`content separately.” Id. at 25–27. According to Petitioner, the text
`“New Movie” in Figure 9A does not constitute message content. Id. at
`27–28. Petitioner does not discuss Berger in its analysis of how Wren
`allegedly teaches the limitation of claim 1 above. Id. at 25–31.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00397
`Patent 9,306,886 B2
`
`
`With respect to the remaining limitations of claim 1, Petitioner argues
`that Wren teaches “receiving a selection by the recipient user via the first
`display” (i.e., the user selecting “Play” on the screen display shown in
`Figure 9A) and “in response to the selection, providing the second display”
`that “does not include a display of the header information” such that
`“a single screen capture of both the header information and the media
`component is prevented” (i.e., providing the screen display shown in
`Figure 9B that includes only message content). Id. at 44–45, 47–49
`(emphases omitted).
`Petitioner relies on Berger for two limitations of claim 1. First, claim
`1 recites a “selection directed to a portion of a message list corresponding to
`the header information.” Because Wren displays only a single message at
`a time, Petitioner relies on Berger for this limitation, citing the list of
`messages shown in Figure 4 of Berger, which displays “header information”
`for individual messages and allows the user to select a particular message by
`moving the cursor. Id. at 44–47. Petitioner explains that in the asserted
`combination,
`Figure 9A of Wren (“first display”) would be further adapted to
`display a message list containing multiple messages, each item
`in the list listing header information as disclosed in Berger. The
`selection in Wren, under this combination, would thus be
`“directed to a portion of a message list corresponding to the
`header information” because the user would select the message
`by placing the cursor on the header information corresponding to
`that message (e.g., “George Smith,” “11:00A”), as disclosed in
`Berger . . . .
`Id. at 47 (emphases omitted).
`Second, claim 1 recites “the message content and the header
`information having been related to each other using a correlation previously
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00397
`Patent 9,306,886 B2
`
`assigned to each of the message content and the header information.”
`According to Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`understood that Wren must have a previously assigned correlation between
`the header information and message content because, when the user selects
`“Play” on the screen with the header information shown in Figure 9A, Wren
`plays the video corresponding to that information, as shown in Figure 9B.
`Id. at 31–33. Petitioner acknowledges, though, that “Wren does not disclose
`the details of how the correlation between the header information and the
`message content was assigned,” and thus also relies on Berger. Id. at 34–38.
`Specifically, Petitioner contends that in Berger, a message number is
`“previously assigned by the server . . . to each row of displayed header
`information” and included in the URL that is “used to retrieve the
`corresponding message content.” Id. at 34–36. Petitioner also points to
`Berger’s alternative embodiment, which combines the message number and
`user ID into a single cryptographic hash value that is similarly included in
`the URL. Id. at 36–37.
`
`b. Petitioner Has Not Shown That Wren Teaches “Providing a Plurality of
`Reduced Traceability Displays Via the Recipient User Device”
`Claim 1 recites “providing a plurality of reduced traceability displays
`via the recipient user device.” As explained above, we interpret “reduced
`traceability displays” in claim 1 to mean an arrangement of displays that
`enables reduced traceability of electronic messages (e.g., by separately
`displaying identifying information and message content). See supra
`Section II.A. Petitioner’s position, as argued in the Petition, is that the
`screen displays shown in Figures 9A and 9B of Wren are “reduced
`traceability displays” because they “display header information and message
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00397
`Patent 9,306,886 B2
`
`content separately.” Pet. 27, 29 (arguing that the limitation is “satisfied by
`the separate display of identifying information and message content as
`disclosed in Figures 9A and 9B of Wren”). In particular, Petitioner asserts
`that “Figure 9A displays only header information and not any of the movie
`message content.” Id. at 27. Certain text in Figure 9A is undisputedly
`“header information,” namely the sender name (“Jane Doe”) and time of the
`message (“9:30AM”). See id. at 25–26; Ex. 1001, col. 12, l. 42–col. 13, l. 5
`(describing “a display name representing a sender of the electronic message”
`and “a date/time associated with the electronic message” as “header
`information”); Tr. 42:16–20 (Patent Owner acknowledging that “Jane Doe”
`and “9:30AM” are “header information”). Figure 9A, however, also
`includes the text “New Movie.” Petitioner argues that “New Movie” is not
`“message content.” Pet. 27–28; Reply 16–23. Patent Owner argues that
`Petitioner fails to provide sufficient proof that “New Movie” is not “message
`content,” and thus, has not shown that Wren teaches providing “reduced
`traceability displays.” PO Resp. 36–46; Sur-Reply 14–19. For the reasons
`explained below, we agree with Patent Owner.
`Initially, we note that Petitioner does not point to—and we do not
`find—any express disclosure in Wren of the concept of separating header
`information and message content for display to a message recipient. Indeed,
`the vast majority of the reference is directed to functionality at the
`sender-side, such as how the messaging functionality is initiated, how a
`message is created, and how video content is sent as a message. See
`Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 2, 8–12, 23–31, Figs. 1–8. Only one paragraph of Wren’s
`written description pertains to what happens at the receiver-side:
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00397
`Patent 9,306,886 B2
`
`
`FIG. 9 is an illustration of a recipient receiving the
`one-touch arbitrary length movie message with video and audio.
`FIG. 9A shows a notification of a new message. FIG. 9B shows
`a view of the Movie once the user selects play from a new
`message notification. FIG. 9C shows an e-mail message
`containing the Movie. This illustration is of an image that is
`automatically played inline with the e-mail reader.
`Id. ¶ 32. Paragraph 32 includes little detail about what is shown in the
`figures, and does not reference the “New Movie” text in particular. Also,
`as both parties and their declarants agree, Wren is silent as to where
`“New Movie” originated—whether from the sending device, the recipient
`mobile phone, or something else. See PO Resp. 37; Reply 22; Ex. 2009
`¶¶ 66–67; Ex. 2012, 43:2–45:16; Tr. 38:6–11. Thus, what we must
`determine is how a person of ordinary skill in the art, reading paragraph 32
`and the cited figures in context with the rest of Wren, would have
`understood “New Movie” in Figure 9A. See Life Techs., Inc. v. Clontech
`Labs., Inc., 224 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (obviousness is “assessed
`from the perspective of the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art”).
`According to Petitioner, the “most reasonable inference” is that “New
`Movie” is generated and displayed by the recipient device. Reply 20. Patent
`Owner responds that nothing in Wren supports Petitioner’s reading, and in
`fact the reference suggests the opposite, i.e., that the text is part of the
`message sent by the sending device. PO Resp. 37; Sur-Reply 16. We
`address each of Petitioner’s contentions, and Patent Owner’s responses,
`in turn.
`First, Petitioner argues that “nothing in Wren suggests that [the ‘New
`Movie’] text was part of the message sent from Jane Doe.” Pet. 27–28.
`As explained above, however, neither does Wren disclose the opposite.
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00397
`Patent 9,306,886 B2
`
`Wren is completely silent as to whether “New Movie” came from the
`sending device as part of the message or whether it was generated by the
`recipient device on its own. In such circumstances, the fact that Wren does
`not contain an express disclosure of the former is not automatically proof of
`the latter. Petitioner bears the burden to prove unpatentability by a
`preponderance of the evidence, 35 U.S.C. § 316(e), including the articulation
`of “specific reasoning, based on evidence of record, to support the legal
`conclusion of obviousness,” Magnum Oil, 829 F.3d at 1380. Petitioner’s
`reliance on Wren’s lack of disclosure of where “New Movie” originated and
`argument that “Patent Owner points to nothing in Wren to suggest that ‘New
`Movie’ is message content originating from the sender,” therefore, are not
`persuasive. See Reply 16 (emphasis added); Pet. 27–28. It is Petitioner’s
`burden to show that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`understood Figure 9A in Wren to include no message content, not Patent
`Owner’s burden to prove the opposite. See PO Resp. 42–43; Sur-Reply 15.
`Petitioner relies on the testimony of Dr. Chatterjee, who opines that
`“[a] person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the
`recipient mobile phone generates and displays [the ‘New Movie’] text as
`part of a ‘notification of a new message.’” Ex. 1002 ¶ 63 (quoting Ex. 1003
`¶ 32). According to Dr. Chatterjee, “the ‘New Movie’ descriptor is
`generally applicable to all ‘movie messages’” in Wren, and a person of
`ordinary skill in the art “would have appreciated that generating this element
`at the recipient mobile phone is preferable to requiring that [the] sending
`device transmit it as part of each outgoing message, as this allows for the
`communication of smaller messages and hence decreased burdens on
`network bandwidth and device memory.” Id. ¶ 63 n.6.
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00397
`Patent 9,306,886 B2
`
`
`We do not find these points persuasive because they are not supported
`sufficiently by the disclosure of Wren (or any other evidence in the record).
`Dr. Chatterjee cites only paragraphs 8, 22, and 32 of Wren in support of his
`opinions.
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
