PTAB

IPR2019-00715

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 ’327 patent relates to a system for determining and displaying locations of mobile device activity, termed "action spots," on a map relative to a user's mobile device. The technology aims to automate the identification of nearby events and happenings to avoid the "tedious" manual process of comparing event locations to the user's location.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-3, 8, 10-11, and 13-15 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 teaches the core limitations of claim 1, disclosing a system that determines and displays dynamic "map elements" on a mobile device based on "events" such as user activity. These map elements, which can change color to reflect activity levels, correspond to the claimed "action spots." Petitioner asserted that Winkler discloses determining these spots based on activity occurring within a predetermined time period and a "pre-selected range." While Winkler teaches a general range, Altman discloses a location-based social network that determines when a second user enters a specific, predetermined distance from a first user's location or a point of interest (POI), and sends an alert.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Winkler with Altman to improve the functionality and precision of Winkler’s mapping application. Altman's use of a specific, user-defined distance is a more precise and useful filtering method than Winkler's general "range" or "region." A POSITA would be motivated to substitute Altman’s specific distance filter for Winkler's less-defined method to yield more predictable and relevant results, such as finding all venues within a one-mile radius rather than a general neighborhood.
    • Expectation of Success: Combining Altman's known geographic filtering method with Winkler’s mapping system would have been a straightforward integration of known elements to achieve a predictable improvement in user experience.

Ground 2: Claims 1-3, 8, and 13-15 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 contended that Lemmela discloses a system for determining "interesting locations" by identifying and grouping location-based electronic postings from other users. These groups of posts, which are displayed on a map and can be visualized as a "heat map" to show density, correspond to the claimed "action spots." Lemmela discloses displaying these spots within a general area based on the user's current location. Crowley discloses a location-based social messaging system that determines whether to send a message to other users based on their proximity, which is defined by a specific, predetermined distance (e.g., "ten blocks").
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the teachings of Lemmela and Crowley to enhance Lemmela's system. Modifying Lemmela to determine and filter action spots based on Crowley's specific distance parameter, rather than a general area, would improve the application's usefulness by allowing a user to define a precise search radius for relevant activity. This would predictably provide the user with posts that are "most interesting from their point of view," an advantage identified in Lemmela.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have reasonably expected success in applying Crowley's specific distance determination to Lemmela's system for grouping location-based posts, as it involved combining known methods to achieve a predictable outcome.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including claims 10-11 over Lemmela, Crowley, and Winkler (adding directional display functionality), and claims 9 and 20 over Lemmela, Crowley, and Waldman (adding augmented reality display functionality).

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "determine... at least one action spot within a predetermined distance...": Petitioner argued this phrase should be construed to mean "determine each action spot within a specific distance from the current location of the mobile device, the specific distance being set prior to the determining step." This construction emphasizes a fixed, specific distance, which Petitioner argued is taught by secondary references like Altman and Crowley but not by the primary references alone, making the combination necessary and non-obvious.
  • "display the image with the at least one activity spot" (claims 9 and 20): Petitioner proposed this phrase means "display the viewfinder image from the camera module with action spots superimposed thereupon." This augmented reality-focused construction was critical to Petitioner's obviousness argument for claims 9 and 20, which relied on combining a map-based system with Waldman's teachings on overlaying points of interest onto a live camera feed.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-3, 8-11, 13-15, and 20 of the ’327 patent as unpatentable.