PTAB

IPR2019-00714

Snap Inc v. BlackBerry Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System and Method for Determining Action Spot Locations Relative to the Location of a Mobile Device
  • Brief Description: The ’084 patent describes a system for determining and displaying "action spots" on a map on a first mobile device. These action spots represent locations where other mobile devices have engaged in "documenting actions" (e.g., messaging, posting, recording) within a predetermined distance and time period relative to the first mobile device.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-2, 5-6, 9-10, 12-13, and 15 are obvious over Winkler in view of Altman.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Winkler (Patent 8,750,906) and Altman (Application # 2007/0281716).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Winkler taught a server-based system for displaying dynamic "map elements" on a mobile device's map, where these elements correspond to locations of "events" such as another user posting comments. Winkler was said to disclose updating these map elements and indicating activity levels using color or "heat maps," which corresponds to the ’084 patent's "action spots" and "level of activity" based on transmitted messages. However, Petitioner contended Winkler only taught determining these spots within a general "region" or "pre-selected range." Altman was introduced to supply the limitation of a specific, predetermined distance. Altman disclosed a location-based social network that alerts a user when a friend's device enters a specific, user-defined distance (e.g., 0.5 miles) from the user’s location or a point of interest (POI).
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Winkler and Altman to improve the usability and precision of Winkler’s mapping application. Replacing Winkler's vague "general geographic region" with Altman's specific, user-definable distance filter would have been an obvious improvement to provide more relevant results (e.g., a short distance for a user on foot versus a larger distance for a user driving). This was presented as a simple substitution of one known geographic filtering method for another to achieve predictable results.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because both Winkler and Altman operated in the same field of location-based mobile applications and addressed similar problems. Integrating a known specific-distance filter from Altman into Winkler’s system for displaying location-based activity was described as a predictable combination of known elements.

Ground 2: Claims 1-2 and 5-6 are obvious over Lemmela in view of Crowley.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Lemmela (Application # 2008/0250337) and Crowley (Patent 7,593,740).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Lemmela disclosed a server that determines "interesting locations" by grouping other users' location-based electronic posts. These groups, equivalent to "action spots," were displayed on a map, and their activity level could be indicated using "heat maps" or varying icon sizes based on post density. Similar to Winkler, Lemmela was said to teach determining these spots within a general "area" around the user, not a specific distance. Crowley was introduced to provide the "predetermined distance" limitation, as it taught a system for sending messages to users based on their proximity to a first user, using a specific, set distance parameter (e.g., "ten blocks").
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to modify Lemmela with Crowley's teachings to enhance its functionality. Combining Crowley's method for determining all users within a specific distance with Lemmela's system for grouping posts would predictably result in a system that finds action spots within a defined radius. This would improve Lemmela's system by allowing users to control the scope of their search, making the results more relevant and potentially reducing processing load.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was argued to be predictable, requiring only the application of a known distance-filtering technique (from Crowley) to a known system for grouping location-based data (from Lemmela).

Ground 3: Claims 9-10, 12-13, and 15 are obvious over Lemmela in view of Crowley, in further view of Winkler.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Lemmela (Application # 2008/0250337), Crowley (Patent 7,593,740), and Winkler (Patent 8,750,906).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground primarily addressed the non-transitory computer program product claims. Petitioner relied on the combination of Lemmela and Crowley, as established in Ground 2, to teach most claim limitations, including determining action spots within a specific distance. Winkler was added to teach the limitation of displaying a direction in which to travel to arrive at the action spot. While the Lemmela/Crowley combination identified relevant spots, Petitioner argued Winkler taught the subsequent, logical step of providing navigational directions to such a spot on a map.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to combine the direction-finding feature of Winkler with the action-spot-finding system of Lemmela/Crowley to create a more complete and useful application. Once a user identifies an "interesting location" using the Lemmela/Crowley system, providing directions to it would be a desirable and obvious improvement. This modification would integrate known mapping features to yield a predictable enhancement in functionality.
    • Expectation of Success: Given that displaying real-time map updates and directions was a well-known feature in the art (as disclosed in Winkler and Lemmela), a POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in adding this feature to the combined Lemmela/Crowley system.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued for a specific construction of the phrase "determine at least one action spot within a predetermined distance from the current location of the first mobile device."
  • Proposed Construction: "determine each action spot within a specific distance from the current location of the first mobile device, the specific distance being set prior to the determining step."
  • Rationale: Petitioner contended this construction was necessary because the ’084 patent specification exclusively described the "predetermined distance" with examples of specific, fixed values (e.g., "five blocks," "ten miles") and never as a range or the output of an algorithm. Petitioner argued this interpretation was required for the claim to have a reasonably certain scope and avoid being indefinite, and it framed the need to use prior art like Altman and Crowley that taught a specific, defined distance.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and the cancellation of claims 1-2, 5-6, 9-10, 12-13, and 15 of the ’084 patent as unpatentable.