Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered:
`
`
`
`
`Paper # 34
`August 7, 2020
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`FACEBOOK, INC., INSTAGRAM, LLC, and WHATSAPP INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BLACKBERRY LIMITED,
`
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR 2019-00706
`Patent 9,349,120 B2
`____________
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: June 10, 2020
`____________
`
`Before MICHAEL R. ZECHER, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and AARON W.
`MOORE, and, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822 Entered:
`
`
`
`
`Paper # 34
`August 7, 2020
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`FACEBOOK, INC., INSTAGRAM, LLC, and WHATSAPP INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BLACKBERRY LIMITED,
`
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR 2019-00706
`Patent 9,349,120 B2
`____________
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: June 10, 2020
`____________
`
`Before MICHAEL R. ZECHER, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and AARON W.
`MOORE, and, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-00706
`Patent 9,349,120 B2
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`MARK WEINSTEIN, ESQUIRE
`HEIDI KEEFE, ESQUIRE
`ANDREW C MACE, ESQUIRE
`NIKKI BO, ESQUIRE
`Cooley, LLP
`3175 Hanover Street
`Pala Alto, California 94304-1130
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`JAMES M. GLASS, ESQUIRE
`SLOAN GLOTH, ESQUIRE
`OGNJEN ZIVOJNOVIC, ESQUIRE
`ALEX WOLINSKY, ESQUIRE
`JOHN MCKEE, ESQUIRE
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor,
`New York, New York 10010
`AND
`SAM STAKE, ESQUIRE
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
`San Francisco Office
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Wednesday,
`June 10, 2020, commencing at 11:08 a.m. EDT, by video/by telephone.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-00706
`Patent 9,349,120 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
` JUDGE MOORE: Okay. Good morning, everyone. We are here for
`a hearing in our IPR2019-00706. The case is captioned Facebook,
`Instagram and WhatsApp v. BlackBerry. I’m Judge Moore. Judges Zecher
`and Quinn are also present by video.
`Can we have appearances for the Petitioner, please? And please let us
`know where you are.
`MR. WEINSTEIN: Yes, Your Honor. My name is Mark Weinstein.
`I’m from the law firm of Cooley LLP, for the Petitioner. And also on the
`line is Lead Counsel Heidi Keffe. I’m physically located in Los Gatos,
`California.
`JUDGE MOORE: Okay. And Patent Owner?
`MR. GLASS: Thank you, Your Honor. This is Jim Glass for Patent
`Owner from Quinn Emanuel. With me today at virtual counsel table in
`Connecticut is my associate and backup Counsel Sean Gloth. He’s off
`frame, I don’t expect that he’ll be on the video. Also on the line is my
`partner Sam Stake, also a backup Counsel.
`JUDGE MOORE: Okay. Welcome everyone. We thank you for
`your flexibility and participating in this all-video hearing, and apologies for
`the delay, we had some technical difficulties at the outset. A few things.
`Our primary concern here is that we preserve your right to be heard, so if at
`any time you encounter technical problem that prevents you from
`participating please let us know immediately, speak up, raise your hand,
`send an email, whatever is appropriate.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-00706
`Patent 9,349,120 B2
`
`
`I’ll ask you to identify yourself for the Court Reporter each time you
`begin speaking, and when not speaking that you mute your connection. The
`Panel Members have the entire record including your demonstratives, but
`please be sure that when referring to the record, you identify the item that
`you’re referring to. I will also note that this hearing is open to the public, by
`audio only.
`Our Hearing Order granted each side 60 minutes, I will keep the time
`here. Please let me know at the beginning of your argument if you wish to
`reserve any time for rebuttal. And with that, Petitioner, you may begin when
`ready.
`MR. WEINSTEIN: Thank you, Your Honors. And just for the record
`we’d like -- this is Mark Weinstein for Petitioner -- I have to remember to
`keep doing that. We’d like to reserve 30 minutes for rebuttal, if that would
`be possible.
`JUDGE MOORE: Okay.
`MR. WEINSTEIN: And in going through the argument we will be
`referring to Petitioner’s demonstratives which were filed as Exhibit 1030,
`Petitioner’s Exhibit 1030. As Your Honors are aware, the Board instituted
`six grounds and they’re listed on demonstrative slide 3 of Petitioner’s
`demonstratives. Although there are six grounds, there are only two that are
`relevant to the dispute here, most of the arguments, as you know, depend on
`the primary reference, which is Dallas, the only difference between grounds
`1 through 3, and 4 through 6 is that 4 through 6 add an additional reference,
`as you know, to LeBlanc, for the notification element. Otherwise, the
`grounds 4 through 6 are essentially the same as grounds 1, 2, and 3.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-00706
`Patent 9,349,120 B2
`
`
`And although there are a number of prior art references relating to
`dependent claims, there do not appear to be any disputes about the
`dependent claims or any arguments that I could perceive off them, so we’re
`going to focus on the issues that were raised by Patent Owner and by the
`Board.
`One of the key issues, Your Honors, in this IPR is the construction of
`the term notification, and if you look at demonstrative slide 5, we wanted to
`mention this because the parties have spilled an awful lot of ink over what a
`notification is, but we wanted to make clear that the Board understands that
`this argument really is only relevant for the first three grounds of the
`institution, which is the Dallas reference.
`There is not a dispute from Patent Owner that the additional LeBlanc
`reference actually discloses notifications, that is what it manifests to the new
`message is in fact a notification under every instruction that’s been offered.
`They make other arguments for why they think the combination with
`LeBlanc may not be -- why they don’t agree with it, or why they’re
`challenging it, but as far as the core element of whether or not a notification
`is being provided, there’s not a dispute there with respect to the LeBlanc
`reference.
`So, I wanted to point that out, because although we’re going to be
`spending quite a bit of time, I imagine, both sides talking about what a
`notification is, even if they were to win the argument and we don’t think the
`argument should win, it would only distinguish at most the first three
`grounds, and possibly not even those.
`If we go to slide 7, the Board preliminarily adopted the District Court
`construction, which was some form of visual, auditory or physical cue to
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-00706
`Patent 9,349,120 B2
`
`draw attention to an incoming message that would not otherwise have been
`noticed at the time of the incoming message.
`In the next slide, slide 8, we actually highlighted what the Board
`identified as primary issue, and in fact the Board was very insightful in
`seeing this issue. The Board invited the parties to brief what is the trait that
`would otherwise -- that would not otherwise had been noticed. What does
`that actually mean in the context of the construction, and how does that
`apply to the prior art. It turns out that is in fact one of the primary issues on
`the term notification, and coincidentally that happens to be, you know, a
`major source of dispute in the District Court litigation as well.
`So if you look at slide 9 --
`JUDGE ZECHER: Mr. Weinstein?
`MR. WEINSTEIN: Yes, sir.
`JUDGE ZECHER: This is Judge Zecher. I had a question about the
`District Court’s construction of notification. I read through the claim
`construction order, and it appears that the construction that the District Court
`arrived at wasn’t one proposed by either party, but rather was culled out
`from BlackBerry’s briefing. Is that correct?
`MR. WEINSTEIN: That's exactly correct, Your Honor.
`JUDGE ZECHER: So neither party actually initially proposed this
`language that we’re struggling with, that would not otherwise have been
`noticed.
`MR. WEINSTEIN: Not as an actual construction, Your Honor, but
`BlackBerry did identify it as -- in their reasoning, they have a statement in
`their brief saying this is what the plain, ordinary meaning of the term is, but
`they actually did not ask the Court to adopt that as the construction. The
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-00706
`Patent 9,349,120 B2
`
`construction they asked the Court to adopt, if the construction was provided,
`was user alert.
`JUDGE ZECHER: Okay. So the District Court has said nothing in
`addition to what we see in this corrected Markman Order about what would
`not otherwise have been noticed, could entail?
`MR. WEINSTEIN: That’s actually true, Your Honor. The parties
`have actually briefed this issue extensively in connection with a motion for
`summary judgment that was filed many, many months later, but as Your
`Honors know, the District Court has stayed the litigation, especially with
`respect to the ’120 Patent, the claim in this IPR, so we are not expecting any
`further guidance from the District Court on what that phrase means before
`Your Honors issue a final decision.
`JUDGE ZECHER: Okay. Thank you for that clarification.
`MR. WEINSTEIN: No problem, Your Honor. So, if we go to slide 9
`of the demonstratives, what we’re proposing as a construction, as sort of a
`compromise in the District Court is, let’s just take the District Court
`construction and take out this, that would not otherwise had been noticed
`language. So, our construction, as set forth on page 9 of the demonstratives
`and in our briefing is, some form of visual, auditory, or physical cue to draw
`attention to an incoming message at the time it’s received.
`We don’t actually think that construction is materially different from
`the District Court, we think it’s consistent with the plain, ordinary meaning,
`and the specification. The main issue, it just ignores this language that the
`parties have been struggling to understand what it means, and it ignores all
`of the indefiniteness problems that have been identified, at least by us in our
`briefing.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-00706
`Patent 9,349,120 B2
`
`
`Now, when you start with the term “notification” on slide 10, we’ve
`reproduced a portion of the response brief of our petition, and the
`specification doesn’t provide a lot of guidance on what the notification is. It
`does provide three (inaudible) examples, the examples being, you know,
`audio, notifications, physical -- I mean audio cues such as ring tones,
`physical ones such as the vibration, and the visual one such as a blinking
`light. But those are all not (crosstalk) --
`JUDGE QUINN: I have a question for you. This is Judge Quinn. So,
`when I read the specification with regards to what could constitute a
`notification, I had the same struggle I think the District Court had with this
`term, in that it seems like the theme of all of the examples of notifications,
`that they all go above and beyond what you would expect from normally just
`monitoring your inbox continuously.
`And, you know, to the extent that the visual displays are a light and a
`popup screen, those don’t really convey the idea that you would get a
`notification merely by looking at your inbox, and noticing that something is
`new there, or some difference in how the inbox looks. So, how do you
`propose to capture that difference, if you contend there is a difference?
`MR. WEINSTEIN: Well, we don’t pretend there’s a difference in the
`sense that the -- all of the constructions of notification, simply require some
`form of visual cue. It includes some form of visual cue. There’s nothing in
`the claim language that, or the specification, or the proposed construction,
`that limits how that visual notification has to be manifested, it simply has to
`be one that draws the attention of the user. So, whether it shows up in the
`inbox, or whether it shows up as a pop-up, or whether it shows it as a
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-00706
`Patent 9,349,120 B2
`
`flashing light, it simply has to draw the attention to the user of the incoming
`message.
`But we agree with you, Your Honor, that it is not -- it does have me
`thinking above and beyond just displaying the message in its ordinary space.
`In the Dallas reference, for example, the notifications, what we’ve identified
`we contend with the notifications, are the different ways in which it’s called
`out and emphasized visually for the user. It differentiates those from
`messages that we received that were not new.
`JUDGE QUINN: Well, the other issue that I think I have with the
`construction of this term is that the claims are written from the perspective
`of the computer system and the code that is implemented, not so much how
`the code displays something, and not how the user perceives what the
`computer actually displays. So I don’t see how you can control that by
`programming notifications and alerts, unless you clearly intend to provide
`instructions that, you know, when this twinkles that means it’s a new
`message, but we don’t expect you to see a twinkle at any other given time,
`that would be very subjective, if indeed arbitrary. So, how do we capture the
`technology part of this, which is what we’re interested in, rather than
`focusing on what the results or the perception is by a user?
`MR. WEINSTEIN: We agree with Your Honor that the construction
`needs to exclude any aspect that is subjective for that reason. I think how
`you can -- how you can reconcile that issue is the construction should focus
`on the purpose of the notification, because as we all know, and even as Dr.
`Smith, Patent Owner’s expert, acknowledged, you may not even be around
`when the notification is there, and there’s no way for the computer system to
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-00706
`Patent 9,349,120 B2
`
`know whether or not the user received the notification, or how they reacted
`to it.
`
`So the focus should be on why does the computer program provide
`these visual, auditory, or physical cues? If the purpose of those cues is to
`draw the attention of the user to the new message, that’s a notification
`irrespective of whether or not the user has seen it, irrespective of whether the
`user was in front of their computer or not, in front of the computer at the
`time of the provision of the notification or the claim notification.
`JUDGE MOORE: So, it’s something that the computer is doing with
`the UI regardless of whether anybody sees it? That’s the idea?
`MR. WEINSTEIN: Yes. So, obviously the purpose of it is that the
`user would see it, or the user would see it at some point, either when they’re
`in the application, or when they switch back to it. But there’s no
`requirement that they actually see it, and there’s nothing in the patent that
`says that we have eye-tracker technology. There’s nothing in the patent
`suggesting the computer would even be aware of whether the user had
`received it. So, it’s whether or not what was provided was intended to draw
`the attention of the user. That should really, we think, should be the
`touchstone of what qualifies as a notification.
`JUDGE QUINN: Well, where do you draw the line between the
`display of the message in its baseline, or default manner, and a notification?
`MR. WEINSTEIN: Because if a message is displayed in its baseline -
`- in other words, let’s say it’s not going over – it’s displayed like any other
`message that was received years ago. There’s nothing in the display of that
`message that draws attention to that message as being a new message, it just
`looks like any other message that was received.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-00706
`Patent 9,349,120 B2
`
`
`When you have something in the inbox that shows, for example, in the
`Dallas reference, you have three forms of visual cues. You have the red
`flags, the sparkles, and the different color text that tells the user this message
`is different from the other ones in the list, because this one is one that is new
`and that you haven’t read it. And so the purpose of those notifications, those
`visual cues is in fact to provide that.
`And if you look at the -- if you look at the Dallas reference, I can skip
`forward to particular demonstrative slide that actually shows this, in the
`Dallas reference that actually describe the purpose of – it’s on slide 26 –
`he’s excerpted a portion of it. It says, in Dallas this quoting from Exhibit
`1003 page 55, “The red flag leads you directly to the new document, which
`has the sparkle on its icon, and it has a different color title to indicate that
`you haven’t read it yet.” So, the visual cues in Dallas, the purpose of them,
`is to differentiate messages that are old from messages that are new that you
`haven’t read. We think that qualifies them --
`JUDGE QUINN: Right, but Dallas -- but the user in Dallas in that
`situation is looking at its categories, and the threads, in order to notice the
`difference between those that are read, those that are unread, and those that
`may be ignored. But what if you’re not even looking at that? What if you’re
`working on, let’s say, an Excel spreadsheet and a message came in, you
`wouldn’t know, you would have to constantly or continuously check your
`share space or the library perhaps to look for flags.
`MR. WEINSTEIN: Well, I don’t think there’s anything in the claim
`language, or the specification, or even the parts (inaudible) construction that
`would require that you be alerted to a new message when you’re not looking
`at it, when you’re in another application; we don’t think that’s actually, a
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-00706
`Patent 9,349,120 B2
`
`part of the claim. I would note that in Dallas on the left column you can see
`the two-column display on page 55, shown in the demonstrative slide 26.
`You can actually see the category selection on the left side, which would
`indicate with a red flag if someone was new, which would let you go into it.
`But we don’t see a requirement anywhere that -- even their own construction
`would not require that you be alerted to a notification – you’re alerted to a
`new message when aren’t in the application and not looking at it.
`JUDGE QUINN: Okay. But what if we looked through all of the
`examples that are provided in the specification -- and this is just a
`hypothetical for you -- and we decide whether there is some very general
`descriptions of what a notification can be, but all of the examples point to an
`implied meaning of this term, that you’re not just staring at an inbox and
`looking for different signals within the inbox, you’re looking at something
`that alerts you outside of the norm of using that application. You then would
`have to rely on LeBlanc. Is that right?
`MR. WEINSTEIN: If you were to construe the claim to require --
`well, let me start with this. First of all, the examples in the specification
`don’t provide much in the way of guidance on what they actually do. For
`example, say the flashing light, it doesn’t say where that light is provided.
`There’s not a lot of information in the specification to really make a
`determination about how severe or jarring are these notifications, or how are
`they presented.
`They’re just simply, just like one sentence with a list of examples
`that’s repeated throughout the space in the specification, but there isn’t
`enough details that say, these examples can confidently give us that these are
`properties of the notification. The other problem with that view, is that
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-00706
`Patent 9,349,120 B2
`
`when you look at column 9 it’s (inaudible) cited in our opening papers,
`column 9 of the patent, Exhibit 1002, it describes notification in a much
`broader sense, it says, “Notifications may be initiated upon the happening of
`certain events, such as when a new message is received by communication
`system 112.”
`Later on it says, in the next sentence, “Signal notification module
`310” -- I’m reading from line 13 -- “Signal notification module 310 to
`indicate the arrival of a new message in any one more of a variety of ways.”
`So it actually says right there, that it can indicate the arrival of a new
`message in any one or more of a variety of ways. And that’s actually a more
`general descriptive language of when the system provides notification, what
`is it actually doing? It’s indicating the arrival of a new message in any one
`more of a variety of ways.
`So there isn’t any support in the specification for any sort of threshold
`of how jarring the cue has to be, or how in your face it has to be, there just
`isn’t anything in it that gives us that kind of guidance, or certainly would
`exclude something like Dallas.
`JUDGE QUINN: Can you tell me, if you can, what feature has been
`accused of infringing such a notification?
`MR. WEINSTEIN: In this report the litigation, yes, there are a
`number of -- the features in the litigation have been mostly the push
`notification is everyone who’s using iPhone knows the concept of the push
`notification, that when you get new messages it pops up a little -- very
`briefly pops up a little box, and says, hey, you’ve got a new message. That I
`think is primarily what they’re choosing, but there’s a number of – there’s a
`number of different -- alleged notifications that they’re identifying.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-00706
`Patent 9,349,120 B2
`
`
`JUDGE QUINN: Thank you.
`MR. WEINSTEIN: But then that leaves the primary (inaudible).
`Okay. So, despite -- this is the number of different notifications that they’re
`relying on, but the push notifications is one of the primary ones I believe.
`Thank you.
`And so, I think Your Honor hit on a significant issue, an issue that we
`agree with, which is the idea that the definition of notification cannot turn on
`how a human being reacts to a particular stimulus, that’s called a
`notification. Even if you look at the examples in the specification, we don’t
`even know how a user could react, an audio alert won’t distract the user if
`the user is in a crowded room, or a room without ambient noise. The
`vibration is not going to distract the user if the mobile device is in a user’s
`backpack or purse.
`And as we explained in our reply brief, those user-based differences,
`users have different perceptions, different levels of concentration, different
`levels of familiarity with the application that can all influence whether or not
`a particular stimulus if provided would actually rise to the level of
`distracting someone, and that’s why our position has consistently been, we
`need an objective standard that doesn’t require particular -- you know,
`particular (inaudible) interrupted or distracted because that’s simply an
`unnovel factor. Now in moving to the --
`JUDGE QUINN: So from the perspective of -- let me ask you this.
`From the perspective of the designer that is putting together a system like
`this, I’m envisioning something to where as long as the system is designed
`to provide an alert or a cue, or some form of attention-grabbing visual which
`-- I mean, we’re talking visual in this case, that’s why I’m focusing on that,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-00706
`Patent 9,349,120 B2
`
`but I realize there could be others. Then as long as it’s designed to go above
`and beyond the normal, then it doesn’t matter how it lands on the perceiver,
`it’s just the intention of how it was designed to be.
`So, you know, if we interpret what the District Court did with the
`perspective of, this is designed or configured to provide this notification for
`the purposes of whether it actually does notify somebody or not, you know,
`that’s like you said, it depends on the circumstances. But wouldn’t that be a
`way that we can make it more objective?
`MR. WEINSTEIN: Absolutely, Your Honor, that’s actually, that’s a
`good suggestion, that would make it objective because it would -- because
`you can tell from the design of any system whether it’s acute system or a
`prior art system, if something was -- you can intentionally -- you can
`determine the intent of the designer very clearly, like if something was
`shown in a more prominent way, because it’s a new message, that would
`give you an indication that it is in fact, a notification, would tell you it’s a
`notification, and it would not require you to know whether or not the person
`is -- is and how it lands.
`And we know that that’s actually what the Dallas, the sparkles, the
`red flags, and the different color text, that’s exactly what it’s designed to do,
`is to draw the attention of the user to the new message, because visually
`allow the user to distinguish and differentiate it from messages that have not
`been read. That’s why we believe, Your Honors, that even under the District
`Court’s construction as written, even if you simply take the construction as
`written, the sparkles, red flags, and different color text in Dallas would
`satisfy the construction.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-00706
`Patent 9,349,120 B2
`
`
`We know that in Dallas the figures are in black and white, but the text
`color would also change, so I don’t think the figures necessarily do it justice
`for it, how visually and tactical it would be. But the issue is that if you
`didn’t have these sparkles, red flags, and different color text, and you look at
`the inbox of Dallas, such as, you know, the inbox as shown in Figure 1.9 on
`slide 26, you wouldn’t be able to visually distinguish new messages from
`messages that were received long ago.
`So that, and if you look at the next page, page 27 of our slides, it even
`says right there, Figure 1.9, and here is the caption section, “Share helps you
`find the new, unread documents on your form, and there’s even a column
`that says, reply as a new reply, and they’re pointing to the red flag, and the
`higher level thread category, and it says, “This reply is new. And they’re
`pointing directly to the item that has the sparkle on it, and as we know from
`Dallas, that also has it in colored text.
`So there’s no dispute that the visual cues that Dallas provides are
`designed to call out new messages from unread messages. We know that the
`display in Dallas, and Dallas repeatedly explains that that is the reason that
`these visual cues are in fact provided.
`JUDGE QUINN: Can I ask you something. I don’t know if you have
`an answer to this. But Dallas has another notification, and I don’t know if
`you relied on it or not, which is the library itself, when you see all of the
`containers, or what do you call them, yeah, collaboration forums, that from
`the library viewpoint, you can -- it sets up a flag, a red flag on the icon for
`the entire forum to let you know that there are new messages in that forum.
`And you’re not even looking at the inbox at all there, you’re just looking at
`what’s going on, generally. But you didn’t rely on that. Is that right?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-00706
`Patent 9,349,120 B2
`
`
`MR. WEINSTEIN: We didn’t cite that specific notification because,
`primarily because that doesn’t pertain to a particular message, and the way
`that claim constructions are written, we think that does provide another
`example of a top-level notification so if you’re not in that screen, it tells you,
`go inside the screen and you’ll see other things. We have not expressly
`relied on it, because it’s not as tied to the new message specifically, as the
`ones we’ve relied on.
`So that’s why we chose the sparkles, red flags, and the text color,
`because it’s tied specifically to the receipt of the new message. The claim
`requires the receipt notification to pertain to the newly received message.
`That part relied on the ones inside the inbox.
`JUDGE ZECHER: Mr. Weinstein, I’ve got a follow-up question.
`After reading the briefing, I know counsel for Patent Owner was trying to
`draw distinction between what they’re claiming the notification entails, and
`what’s the language in the later part of the claim about a different manner,
`between the silenced and unsilenced thread. Can you address that for us,
`please?
`MR. WEINSTEIN: Absolutely, Your Honor. The argument -- and
`I’ll try to address this with their argument -- their argument seems to be that
`because the claim separately recites another element which says that when
`you display messages -- threads in the inbox you display silenced and
`unsilenced threads in a different manner. And the purpose of the limitation
`is so when you’re looking at the inbox you can visually distinguish threads
`that are silenced from threads that are not.
`Now, there’s a couple of problems with their argument in the
`licensing (phonetic), first of all there’s no conflict here, because when a
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-00706
`Patent 9,349,120 B2
`
`thread is silent and it’s displayed in this visually different manner, there are
`no notifications provided for that, neither under the Dallas reference, when
`you silence the -- when you ignore a thread, it puts the international not
`symbol next to it, and then you don’t see the notification.
`So, in those situations for a particular thread, where you’re going to
`see both the differently displayed manner limitation, and the notification at
`the same time, it’s just there’s no conflict there. The other problem with
`their argument, Your Honor, is that when you look at their own construction,
`it’s just that some form of visual, auditory or physical cue, and it goes on
`from there. There’s nothing in their construction that excludes a notification
`for a visual cue from being manifested in the inbox. So, even there were
`some merit to the argument about, you know, later language in the claim,
`their construction doesn’t even achieve that particular result.
`JUDGE QUINN: How about the limitation of display? The display
`of the newly incoming electronic message, when it says, “While silencing
`any further notifications.” Wouldn’t that seem to indicate that any
`notification has to be divorced from the actual appearance of the new
`message in the inbox?
`MR. WEINSTEIN: Well, what will happen is, well, if you had --
`well, the difference is that you actually wouldn’t have notification in the
`inbox for the new messages because, for example, in the Dallas reference, if
`you have a thread that’s ignored it puts the international not symbol; the
`flag, the sparkle, the different color text, they would no longer appear for
`that particular thread for any meaning (crosstalk) --
`JUDGE QUINN: Well, I wasn’t -- sorry -- I wasn’t talking about
`Dallas, it’s just the claim itself.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-00706
`Patent 9,349,120 B2
`
`
`MR. WEINSTEIN: Okay.
`JUDGE QUINN: This is just a follow up from my colleague’s
`question regarding the distinction between the manner of displaying a new
`message, versus the notification that you’ve received for that message, and
`that in the display limitation there seems to be a difference between the
`display of the new message, and then any further notifications. Meaning
`that the display of the message, however distinct it could be, does not really
`reflect a notification. Do you have a contention about that?
`MR. WEINSTEIN: That language is designed to provide two
`different features that are provided by the claims. One feature is the feature
`allowing you to visually distinguish silence from unsilenced threads, in the
`inboxes. The specification describes this as talking about in a reduced -- let
`me use the proper language -- and reduced, for example, in column 16, lines
`1 through 8, they talk about disp
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
