Paper No.
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`
`v.
`
`MEMORYWEB, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 11,017,020
`
`Post Grant Review No. PGR2022-00006
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`PGR2022-00006
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`OVERVIEW OF THE ‘020 PATENT ............................................................ 1 
`A. 
`The ‘020 Patent “Views” ....................................................................... 2 
`B. 
`The Claimed Methods Provide Easy Navigation of These
`Views ..................................................................................................... 6 
`  LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART ................................................................... 7 
`  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 7 
`A. 
`Limitations 1[b] and 31[b]: “responsive to an input . . . causing
`a first person view to be displayed on the interface” ............................ 8 
`Claims 1 and 31, 13-14 and 45-46: the “[first/second] map
`image” limitations ............................................................................... 12 
`Limitation 1[d]: “responsive to an input . . . causing a slideshow
`to be displayed” ................................................................................... 15 
`Claims 11 and 43: “group image” ....................................................... 16 
`D. 
`SUMMARY OF REFERENCES IDENTIFIED BY PETITIONER ............ 18 
`A.  A3UM .................................................................................................. 18 
`1. 
`The Browser/Viewer ................................................................. 19 
`2. 
`The Toolbar ............................................................................... 21 
`3. 
`The Inspector Pane .................................................................... 21 
`4. 
`Places and Faces Views ............................................................ 22 
`5. 
`The Apple Human Interface Guidelines ................................... 29 
`  PETITIONER HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT ANY CHALLENGED
`CLAIM IS UNPATENTABLE ..................................................................... 29 
`A. 
`Petitioner Has Not Established That A3UM Qualifies as Prior
`Art ........................................................................................................ 30 
`1. 
`Petitioner Has Not Established that the Website Version of
`A3UM was Publicly Accessible to a POSITA ......................... 31 
`Petitioner Has Not Established That Ex. 1005 Accurately
`Represents What Was Shown on the Aperture 3 User Manual
`Page Before June 2010 .............................................................. 37 
`
`2. 
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`6. 
`
`7. 
`
`2. 
`
`Petitioner’s “Evidence” of Sales Fails to Establish Public
`Accessibility .............................................................................. 40 
`Petitioner’s Reliance on the Aperture 3 Installation DVD Falls
`Short .......................................................................................... 41 
`Aperture 3 Installed on a Mac Computer is Not a Printed
`Publication ................................................................................ 52 
`6.  Mr. Birdsell’s Testimony Lacks Credibility ............................. 55 
`Petitioner Has Not Met its Burden to Prove Claims 1-59 Are
`Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 .................................................. 57 
`1. 
`A3UM does not disclose or render obvious the claimed
`limitations related to the “first person view” ............................ 57 
`Limitation 1[d]: A3UM does not disclose the claimed
`“slideshow” ............................................................................... 78 
`Dependent claims 3 and 35: A3UM does not disclose or render
`obvious “wherein the first set of digital files and the second set
`of digital files are associated with the first person” .................. 84 
`Dependent claims 13-16 and 45-48: A3UM does not disclose a
`“second map image” distinct from the “first map image” ........ 87 
`Dependent claims 7 and 39: A3UM does not render obvious a
`“first map image” positioned below the “first digital file” ....... 90 
`Dependent claims 11 and 43: A3UM does not disclose a “first
`group image” ............................................................................. 93 
`Dependent claim 24: A3UM does not disclose or render
`obvious displaying videos in the Faces browser ....................... 95 
`Petitioner Has Not Established Claims 6-7 and 38-39 Are
`Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ................................................100 
`1. 
`Petitioner’s § 112 arguments are based on an erroneous claim
`interpretation ...........................................................................101 
`Claims 6-7 and 38-39 are self-supported and not unpatentable
`under § 112 ..............................................................................104 
`  CONCLUSION ............................................................................................105 
`
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc.,
`908 F.3d 765 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .....................................................................passim
`ACTV, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co.,
`346 F.3d 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ...................................................................... 9, 12
`
`
`Am. Calcar, Inc. v. Am. Honda Motor Co.,
`651 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .................................................................... 10, 11
`
`
`Application of Ratti,
`270 F.3d 810 (C.C.P.A. 1959) ............................................................................ 75
`
`
`Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Prod. Inc.,
`876 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ........................................................................ 100
`
`
`B/E Aerospace, Inc. v. C & D Zodiac, Inc.,
`709 F.App’x 687 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ...................................................................... 40
`
`
`Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Group, LP,
`616 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................... 13
`
`
`Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc.,
`815 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 31
`Capsugel Belgium NV v. Innercap Techs., Inc.,
`IPR2013-00331, Paper 9 (PTAB Dec. 9, 2013) ................................................. 55
`Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`847 F. App'x 869 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ................................................................ 35, 36
`
`
`Checkpoint Sys., Inc. v. All-Tag Sec.; S.A.,
`412 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 56
`
`
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.,
`IPR2018-01436, Paper 40 (PTAB Jan. 23, 2020) ........................................ 50, 51
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`C.R. Bard, Inc. v. M3 Systems, Inc.,
`
`157 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ........................................................................ 103
`
`Electronic Frontier Foundation v. Personal Audio, LLC,
`IPR2014-00070, Paper 21 (PTAB Apr. 18, 2014) ....................................... 38, 39
`
`
`Ex Parte Stuart A. Nelson,
` No. 2020-004978, 2020 WL 8186425 (PTAB Dec. 31, 2020) .......................... 55
`
`Fujitsu Ltd. v. Belkin Int’l, Inc.,
` No. 10-CV-03972, 2012 WL 4497966 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2012) .................... 10
`
`Gillette Co. v. Energizer Holdings, Inc.,
`405 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 13
`
`
`GoPro, Inc. v. Contour IP Holding LLC,
`908 F.3d 690 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................................................ 36
`
`
`Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc.,
`527 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 10
`
`
`Hyatt v. Boone,
`146 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ........................................................................ 104
`
`
`In re Cronyn,
`
`890 F.2d 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1989) .......................................................................... 43
`
`In re Fritch,
`972 F.2d 1260 (Fed. Cir. 1992) .......................................................................... 75
`
`Instradent USA, Inc. v. Nobel Biocare Services AG,
`IPR2015-01786, Paper 106 (PTAB Feb. 15, 2017) ...................................... 30, 52
`
`
`Intel Corp. v. Broadcom Corp.,
` No. CIV.A.00-796-SLR, 2003 WL 360256 (D. Del. Feb. 13, 2003) ........... 10, 11
`
`Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc.,
`
`21 F.4th 784 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ............................................................................. 16
`
`Intel Corp. v. VLSSI Tech. LLC,
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
` No. IPR2018-01040, 2020 WL 719058 (PTAB Feb. 12, 2020) ......................... 13
`
`Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC,
`870 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ........................................................................ 103
`
`
`Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
`688 F.3d. 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ......................................................................... 76
`
`
`Linear Tech. Corp. v. Impala Linear Corp.,
`379 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 56
`
`
`Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc.,
`851 F.3d 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ........................................................................ 104
`
`
`Micron Tech., Inc. v. N. Star Innovations, Inc.,
` No. IPR2018-00989, 2019 WL 5423610 (PTAB Oct. 22, 2019) ....................... 11
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Icon Health Fitness Inc.,
`IPR2017-01363, Paper 33 (PTAB Nov. 28, 2018) ............................................. 34
`
`
`Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp.,
`350 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ........................................................................ 103
`
`
`Ohio Willow Wood v. Alps South,
`735 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 56
`
`
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. Semiconductor Components Indus., LLC,
`No. IPR2018-00180, 2019 WL 2237863 (PTAB May 23, 2019) ...................... 11
`
`
`Power Mosfet Techs., L.L.C. v. Siemens AG,
`378 F.3d 1396 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 14
`
`
`Progressive Semiconductor Sols. LLC v. Qualcomm Techs., Inc.,
` No. 8:13-CV-01535, 2014 WL 4385938 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 4, 2014) ................... 10
`
`Salesforce.com, Inc. v. WSOU Investments, LLC,
`
`IPR2022-00428, Paper 10 (PTAB July 13, 2022) ........................................ 34, 35
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Infobridge Pte. Ltd.,
`929 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ..................................................31, 37, 48, 49, 52
`Sprint Commc’ns Co. L.P. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns LLC,
` No. 11-2684-JWL, 2014 WL 5089402 (D. Kan. Oct. 9, 2014) .......................... 10
`
`Supercell Oy v. GREE, Inc.,
`IPR2021-00501, Paper 7 (PTAB Aug. 17, 2021) ............................................... 55
`Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Google LLC,
` Case No. 2:18-cv-00503, 2020 WL 512605 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 30, 2020) ............. 13
`
`Federal Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................ 57
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ................................................................................ 29, 100, 101, 104
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 1.115(1) .............................................................................................. 104
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) ................................................................................................. 71
`Other
`MPEP 608.04(b) ..................................................................................................... 104
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`PGR2022-00006
`
`
`
`Patent No. 11,017,020
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`LISTING OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`2014
`
`2015
`
`WITHDRAWN
`
`RESERVED
`
`RESERVED
`
`RESERVED
`
`RESERVED
`
`Feb. 8, 2022 eBay Order Confirmation for “Apple Aperture 3
`Upgrade for Mac Brand New Photography”
`
`Apple Inc. Aperture Software License Agreement
`
`Declaration of John Leone, Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Centripetal
`Networks, Inc., IPR2018-01436, Ex. 1005 (July 20, 2018)
`
`Aperture 3 User Manual,
`http://documentation.apple.com/aperture/usermanual (Archive.org:
`July 26, 2010)
`
`Aperture 3 User Manual,
`http://documentation.apple.com/aperture/usermanual (Archive.org:
`Feb. 17, 2010)
`
`RESERVED
`
`RESERVED
`
`Apple, Inc., www.apple.com, (Archive.org: Mar. 12, 2010)
`
`RESERVED
`
`RESERVED
`
`i
`
`

`

`PGR2022-00006
`
`
`
`Patent No. 11,017,020
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`Description
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`2021
`
`2022
`
`2023
`
`2024
`
`2025
`
`2026
`
`2027
`
`2028
`
`2029
`
`2030
`
`2031
`
`RESERVED
`
`RESERVED
`
`Declaration of Angelo J. Christopher
`
`RESERVED
`
`RESERVED
`
`Apple, Inc., “Apple Human Interface Guidelines” (Aug. 20, 2009)
`
`Wilbert O. Galitz, “The Essential Guide to User Interface Design:
`An Introduction to GUI Design Principles and Techniques,” Wiley
`Publishing, Inc. (3rd Ed.) (2007)
`
`Transcript of Deposition of Dr. Loren Terveen (Vol. I)
`
`Transcript of Deposition of Dr. Loren Terveen (Vol. II)
`
`Declaration of Rajeev Surati, Ph.D
`
`Transcript of Deposition of Matthew Birdsell
`
`Affidavit of Nathaniel E Frank-White
`
`Cambridge English Dictionary, definition of “responsive”
`
`Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, definition of
`“responsive”
`
`Jeff Johnson, Designing with the Mind in Mind: Simple Guide to
`Understanding User Interface Design Rules, Morgan Kaufmann
`Publishers (2010)
`
`Layout – Foundations – Human Interface Guidelines – Design –
`Apple Developer (https://developer.apple.com/design/human-
`interface-guidelines/foundations/layout)
`
`ii
`
`

`

`PGR2022-00006
`
`
`
`Patent No. 11,017,020
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`2032
`
`2033
`
`2034
`
`Description
`
`eBay Receipt (August 15, 2022)
`
`RESERVED
`Devin Coldewey, Review: Aperture 3, CrunchGear
`(https://techcrunch.com/2010/03/19/review-aperture-3/) (last
`accessed Feb. 2, 2022) (Ex. 2034)
`
`iii
`
`

`

`PGR2022-00006
`
`
`
`Patent No. 11,017,020
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner has not shown any challenged claim is unpatentable in relation to
`
`either ground raised.
`
` OVERVIEW OF THE ‘020 PATENT
`As the ‘020 patent explains, digital photography/video was experiencing
`
`“explosive growth” at the time of invention. Ex. 1001, 1:40-47, 12:63-67. The
`
`inventors recognized that existing technology failed to provide people with a way to
`
`easily organize, view, and display their exploding number of digital photos and
`
`videos. Ex. 1001, 1:62-67, 13:17-21. While entities such as Facebook, Flickr, and
`
`Shutterfly provided certain functionality, those solutions lacked the ability to easily
`
`organize and navigate through these digital files. Id., 1:50-56, 13:6-12. Accordingly,
`
`the ‘020 patent discloses and claims methods of organizing and displaying digital
`
`files “allow[ing] people to organize, view, preserve and share these files with all the
`
`memory details captured, connected and vivified via an interactive interface”; i.e.
`
`create an easy to navigate a web of memories. Id., 1:62-67, 13:17-21. As such, the
`
`claimed methods “save[] a user significant time, provide[] significant information
`
`with minimal screen space, and provide[] an appealing and customizable interface
`
`that will enhance the user experience.” Id., 2:55-59, 13:24-28.
`
`1
`
`

`

`PGR2022-00006
`
`
`
`Patent No. 11,017,020
`
`A. The ‘020 Patent “Views”
`The ‘020 patent discloses and claims methods “allow[ing] people to organize,
`
`view, preserve and share” memories contained in digital files such as photos and
`
`videos, and to seamlessly cause these digital files to be displayed in various manners
`
`and views, such as people, person, location, slideshow, and timeline views. Ex. 1001,
`
`1:60-64, 35:42-45; Ex. 2025, ¶53.1
`
`For example, the ‘020 patent discloses and claims a “people view,” such as
`
`the example shown in FIG. 6. Ex. 2025, ¶54.
`
`
`
`
`1 Pursuant to p. 51 of the Trial Practice Guide, Patent Owner withdraws its reliance
`
`on the Declaration of Rajeev Surati, Ph.D (Ex. 2001) submitted with the preliminary
`
`response.
`
`2
`
`

`

`PGR2022-00006
`
`
`
`Patent No. 11,017,020
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG. 6 (annotated)
`
`The “people view” shown above includes “thumbnail photos of all the people in the
`
`system that can be clicked in [sic] for a people profile view.” Ex. 1001 at 6:24-30;
`
`Ex. 2025, ¶54.
`
`Selecting a thumbnail in the “people view,” such as the thumbnail labeled
`
`“Clint Firestone” in the upper left corner, causes a “first person view” to be
`
`displayed, such as the one shown in FIG. 7. Ex. 1001, 6:24-30; Ex. 2025, ¶55.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, FIGS. 6-7 (annotated)
`
`
`
`FIG. 7 includes a “profile picture of an individual” (in this example, Clint Firestone)
`
`along with additional images and information, such as the name of the person. Ex.
`
`1001, 6:24-30; Ex. 2025, ¶55.
`
`The ‘020 patent discloses that this “first person view” (e.g., FIG. 7) includes
`
`“links to other views that contain that individual in the system.” Ex. 1001, 6:24-30;
`
`3
`
`

`

`PGR2022-00006
`
`
`
`Patent No. 11,017,020
`
`Ex. 2025, ¶56. For instance, within the “first person view,” one can navigate to a
`
`“location view” (e.g., by selecting the “Locations” image including the map in FIG.
`
`7), such as the shown in FIG. 5. Ex. 1001, 6:18-24; Ex. 2025, ¶¶55-56.
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG. 5 (annotated)
`
`
`
`The locations where digital files were taken are shown by pins on the interactive
`
`geographic map. Id.
`
`The ‘020 patent also discloses and claims a “slideshow” that can be accessed
`
`from the “first person view” discussed above. Ex. 1001, 7:15-18, 21:57-60, FIG. 17;
`
`Ex. 2025, ¶58. Specifically, in the first person view, “the user can click on the digital
`
`file to start a slideshow feature,” as shown in FIG. 17. Ex. 1001, 7:15-18, 21:57-60,
`
`FIG. 17; Ex. 2025, ¶58. FIG. 31 illustrates another exemplary “slideshow.” Ex. 1001,
`
`22:14-20; Ex. 2025, ¶59.
`
`4
`
`

`

`PGR2022-00006
`
`
`
`Patent No. 11,017,020
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG. 31 (annotated)
`
`
`
`The ‘020 patent discloses and claims the ability to display a “timeline view”
`
`such as the one shown in FIG. 9. Ex. 1001, 6:36-42; Ex. 2025, ¶60. This view allows
`
`users to display digital files by inputting date ranges sorted “by year, month, and
`
`day.” Id.
`
`5
`
`

`

`PGR2022-00006
`
`
`
`Patent No. 11,017,020
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG. 9 (annotated)
`
`
`
`B.
`The Claimed Methods Provide Easy Navigation of These Views
`The claimed methods of the ‘020 patent allow a user to easily create and
`
`navigate an interconnected web of these growing numbers of digital files, i.e., their
`
`memories. Ex. 2025, ¶62.
`
`The claims require arranging the views in a particular manner with each view
`
`having particular selectable elements. Id., ¶63. The claims then require a particular
`
`flow through the views based on selection of identifying elements, allowing the user
`
`to see only the desired useful information, e.g., photo/video files of particular people
`
`in the user’s web of memories, particular locations where digital files were taken,
`
`and/or the numbers of those photos associated with people and/or locations. Id. The
`
`6
`
`

`

`PGR2022-00006
`
`
`
`Patent No. 11,017,020
`
`claimed flow of views and methods provide the ease of navigation and organization
`
`previously lacking in the prior art as discussed below. Id.
`
` LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART
`Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would
`
`have (1) at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or
`
`electrical engineering, and (2) at least one year of experience designing graphical
`
`user interfaces for applications such as photo management systems. Petition, 12.
`
`For purposes of this proceeding, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s
`
`proposed level of skill.
`
` CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Petitioner asserts that “the Board need not expressly construe the claims”
`
`because they are allegedly “unpatentable under any interpretation consistent with
`
`their plain and ordinary meaning.” Petition, 15. Patent Owner agrees that the claims
`
`should be afforded their plain and ordinary meaning, but offers a discussion of that
`
`meaning in connection with certain terms and phrases below in the event the Board
`
`determines that is necessary to resolve Petitioner’s patentability challenges.
`
`7
`
`

`

`PGR2022-00006
`
`
`
`Patent No. 11,017,020
`
`A. Limitations 1[b] and 31[b]: “responsive to an input . . . causing a
`first person view to be displayed on the interface”
`Claim Term/Phrase
`Patent Owner’s Construction
`
`“responsive to an input that is
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning: a cause-
`
`indicative of a selection associated
`
`effect relationship between (i) an input
`
`with the first person, causing a first
`
`that is indicative of a selection associated
`
`person view to be displayed on the
`
`with the first person and (ii) causing a
`
`interface” (claims 1, 31)
`
`first person view to be displayed on the
`
`interface
`
`
`
`Limitations 1[b] and 31[b] recite: “responsive to an input that is indicative of
`
`a selection associated with the first person, causing a first person view to be
`
`displayed on the interface.” Ex. 1001, 35:32-35, 37:64-66 (emphasis added). These
`
`limitations require that that the first person view—which includes the first digital
`
`file, the first name, and first map image—is caused to be displayed “responsive to”
`
`the input that is indicative of a selection associated with the first person. Ex. 1001,
`
`35:32-35, 37:64-66; Ex. 2025, ¶¶123-25.
`
`The plain and ordinary meaning of the phrase “responsive to . . . causing”
`
`requires a causal relationship between the cause, i.e., the input indicative of a
`
`selection of the first person and the effect, i.e., causing the first person view to be
`
`displayed on the interface. Ex. 2025, ¶¶125-27. This is consistent with the ‘020
`
`8
`
`

`

`PGR2022-00006
`
`
`
`Patent No. 11,017,020
`
`patent specification, which discloses an exemplary “people view” in FIG. 6 and an
`
`exemplary “first person view” in FIG. 7 as discussed above. Ex. 1001, 6:24-30; Ex.
`
`2025, ¶128. Clicking one of the thumbnails in FIG. 6 causes the view in FIG. 7 to
`
`be displayed, i.e., there is a cause-effect relationship between (i) clicking a thumbnail
`
`in the people view (an input)2 and (ii) causing the first person view to be displayed
`
`on the interface. Ex. 1001, 6:24-26; Ex. 2025, ¶128.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, FIGS. 6-7 (annotated)
`
`The surrounding claim language also confirms this construction. See ACTV,
`
`Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., 346 F.3d 1082, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“the context of the
`
`surrounding words of the claim also must be considered in determining the ordinary
`
`and customary meaning”). Starting with the “people view,” limitations 1[a] and
`
`
`2 Claims 28 and 58 specify that the “input” is “a touch or click of the first thumbnail
`
`image” in the people view. Ex. 1001, 37:41-44.
`
`9
`
`

`

`PGR2022-00006
`
`
`
`Patent No. 11,017,020
`
`31[a] recite “causing an interface to display a people view.” Ex. 1001, 35:18-19,
`
`37:57-58. The claims do not require any specific input to arrive at the “people view.”
`
`Ex. 2025, ¶126. By contrast, the “first person view” is caused to be displayed
`
`“responsive to” a particular input. Id. The differing claim language makes clear that
`
`there is a difference between causing a view to be displayed and causing the view to
`
`be displayed responsive to a specific input. Id.; Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom
`
`Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“different claim terms are
`
`presumed to have different meanings”).
`
`Numerous courts have understood the plain meaning of “responsive to” or “in
`
`response to” as requiring a cause-effect relationship. The Federal Circuit has
`
`construed the phrase “in response to” as defining a “cause-and-effect relationship”
`
`between two events, where the second event occurs in reaction to the first event. Am.
`
`Calcar, Inc. v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 651 F.3d 1318, 1339-40 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
`
`District courts have also construed similar language to require causation. See, e.g.,
`
`Sprint Commc’ns Co. L.P. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns LLC, No. 11-2684-JWL,
`
`2014 WL 5089402, at *25 (D. Kan. Oct. 9, 2014) (declining to construe the phrase
`
`“in response to” because the plain meaning already includes “the concept of
`
`causation”); Progressive Semiconductor Sols. LLC v. Qualcomm Techs., Inc., No.
`
`8:13-CV-01535-ODW, 2014 WL 4385938, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 4, 2014) (holding
`
`that “[t]he plain meaning of ‘in response to’ conveys a stimulus and an effect”);
`
`10
`
`

`

`PGR2022-00006
`
`
`
`Patent No. 11,017,020
`
`Fujitsu Ltd. v. Belkin Int’l, Inc., No. 10-CV-03972-LHK, 2012 WL 4497966, at *28
`
`(N.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2012) (construing the phase “in response to” as “connoting a
`
`cause-and effect relationship rather than a straight temporal sequence”); Intel Corp.
`
`v. Broadcom Corp., No. CIV.A. 00-796-SLR, 2003 WL 360256, at *7 (D. Del. Feb.
`
`13, 2003) (stating that “the term ‘responsive’ means to respond or react”).
`
`The Board has also defined “in response to” or “responsive to” language
`
`similarly. See, e.g., Micron Tech., Inc. v. N. Star Innovations, Inc., No. IPR2018-
`
`00989, 2019 WL 5423610, at *14 (PTAB Oct. 22, 2019) (finding that “[t]he phrase
`
`‘in response to’ connotes a cause-and-effect relationship”) (citing Am. Calcar, 651
`
`F.3d at 1340); see also Power Integrations, Inc. v. Semiconductor Components
`
`Indus., LLC, No. IPR2018-00180, 2019 WL 2237863, at *8 (PTAB May 23, 2019)
`
`(collecting cases holding that “in response to” defines a causal relationship).
`
`The plain meaning of “responsive to” is also supported by extrinsic evidence.
`
`The word “responsive” is defined by dictionaries as “saying or doing something as
`
`a reaction to something or someone” and “constituting a response or made in
`
`response to something.” Ex. 2028; Ex. 2029; Ex. 2025, ¶¶129-30. To illustrate its
`
`meaning, the Webster’s Third New International Dictionary uses “responsive” in the
`
`following example: “prairie fires sprang up [responsive] to the drought.” Ex. 2029;
`
`Ex. 2025, ¶130. This confirms that the plain meaning of “responsive to” defines a
`
`11
`
`

`

`PGR2022-00006
`
`
`
`Patent No. 11,017,020
`
`cause-effect relationship where in the dictionary example, the drought is the “cause”
`
`and prairie fires are the “effect.” Id.
`
`B. Claims 1 and 31, 13-14 and 45-46: the “[first/second] map image”
`limitations
`Claim Term/Phrase
`
`Patent Owner’s Construction
`
`“selection of the first map
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning: first map image
`
`image” (claims 1, 31)
`
`that is selectable
`
`“second map image” (claims
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning: second map image
`
`13, 45)
`
`that is different than the first map image
`
`“selection of the second map
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning: second map image
`
`image” (claims 14, 46)
`
`that is selectable and different than the first
`
`map image
`
`
`
`Limitations 1[b] and 31[b] recite that the “first person view” includes, inter
`
`alia, a “first map image.” Ex. 1001, 35:31, 38:3. Limitations 1[c] and 31[c] further
`
`recite “responsive to an input that is indicative of a selection of the first map image
`
`in the first person view, causing a first location view to be displayed on the
`
`interface.” Id., 35:32-33, 38:4-5 (emphasis added). Dependent claims 13 and 45
`
`include similar limitations directed to a “second map image.” Ex. 1001, 36:22-28,
`
`39:9-15.
`
`12
`
`

`

`PGR2022-00006
`
`
`
`Patent No. 11,017,020
`
`The surrounding claim language in limitations 1[c] and 31[c] requires that the
`
`“first map image” be selectable. Ex. 2025, ¶132; ACTV, 346 F.3d at 1088. The same
`
`is true in claims 13 and 45 for the “second map image.” Ex. 2025, ¶132. A “map
`
`image” that cannot be selected is not the claimed “map image.” Id. This conclusion
`
`is bolstered by dependent claims 29 and 59, which specify “the input that is
`
`indicative of the selection of the first map image is a touch or click of the first map
`
`image.” Ex. 1001, 37:45-47, 40:39-41; Ex. 2025, ¶133.
`
`Additionally, the “second map image” is different than the “first map image.”
`
`Ex. 2025, ¶¶138-41. Courts have routinely held that numerical descriptors like
`
`“first” and “second” distinguish different elements in a patent claim. Gillette Co. v.
`
`Energizer Holdings, Inc., 405 F.3d 1367, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (finding the terms
`
`“first, second, and third” were used to distinguish three separate blades); see also
`
`Intel Corp. v. VLSSI Tech. LLC, No. IPR2018-01040, 2020 WL 719058, at *8-12
`
`(PTAB Feb. 12, 2020) (finding that claimed “‘third voltage reference’ must be
`
`separate from the ‘second voltage reference’”); Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Google LLC,
`
`Case No. 2:18-cv-00503-JRG-RSP, 2020 WL 512605, at *9 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 30,
`
`2020) (construing “first” and “second” routing devices as “separate and distinct”
`
`devices); see also Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Group, LP, 616 F.3d
`
`1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“Where a claim lists elements separately, the clear
`
`13
`
`

`

`PGR2022-00006
`
`
`
`Patent No. 11,017,020
`
`implication of the claim language is that those elements are distinct component[s] of
`
`the patent invention”) (citation and quotation marks omitted).
`
`The “people view” in claims 1 and 31 contemplates two different people: a
`
`“first person” and a “second person.” Ex. 2025, ¶140; Ex. 2024, 286:2-288:2.
`
`Similarly, the claimed “first thumbnail image” and “second thumbnail image” are
`
`different thumbnail images. Ex. 2024, 288:3-5. In claims 13 and 45, the claimed
`
`“first digital file” and “second digital file” are different digital files. Ex. 2024, 288:6-
`
`15. The same is true for the “first map image” and “second map image.” Ex. 2024,
`
`291:16-19; Ex. 2025, ¶140. Indeed, the first/second modifiers would be entirely
`
`superfluous if they did not distinguish separate persons, digital files, names, and map
`
`images. Power Mosfet Techs., L.L.C. v. Siemens AG, 378 F.3d 1396, 1410 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2004) (“interpretations that render some portion of the claim language superfluous
`
`are disfavored”).
`
`Dependent claims 14 and 46, which recite a “second location view,” further
`
`illustrate the point. The “second location view” includes “the interactive geographic
`
`map,” i.e., the same interactive geographic map as the “first location view.” Ex.
`
`2025, ¶141. This illustrates that the patentee knew how to claim the same element in
`
`two different views, but used the “first” and “second” descriptors to differentiate
`
`different elements (like the map image) in the two person views. Id.
`
`14
`
`

`

`PGR2022-00006
`
`
`
`Patent No. 11,017,020
`
`C. Limitation 1[d]: “responsive to an input . . . causing a slideshow to
`be displayed”
`Claim Term/Phrase
`
`Patent Owner’s Construction
`
`responsive to an input that is
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning: requiring a
`
`indicative of a selection of the first
`
`cause-effect relationship between (i) an
`
`digital file in the first person view,
`
`input that is indicative of a selection of
`
`causing a slideshow to be displayed on
`
`the first digital file in the first person
`
`the interface, the slideshow including
`
`view and (ii) causing a slideshow to be
`
`a plurality of images associated with
`
`displayed on the interface
`
`the first person (claim 1)
`
`
`Limitation 1[d] recites “responsive to an input that is indicative of a selection
`
`of the first digital file in the first person view, causing a slideshow to be displayed.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 35:41-45 (emphasis added). Similar to the discussion above for limitations
`
`1[b] and 31[b], the plain meaning of “responsive to” requires a causal relationship
`
`between (i) the input that is indicative of a selection of the first digital file in the first
`
`person view (the cause) and (ii) the slideshow to be displayed on the interface (the
`
`effect). Supra, § IV.A; Ex. 2025, ¶135.
`
`The plain meaning of the claim language is confirmed by the specification,
`
`which discloses that “[f]or any of the views, the user can click on the digital file to
`
`start a slideshow feature,” as sho