Match Group, LLC v. Bumble Trading Inc.

Western District of Texas, txwd-6:2018-cv-00080

Exhibit D

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

76 Exhibit D 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD BUMBLE TRADING, INC., Petitioner v. MATCH GROUP, LLC, Patent Owner Case No. IPR2019-1000 U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 Filing Date: February 5, 2016 Issue Date: May 1, 2018 Title: MATCHING PROCESS SYSTEM AND METHOD DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER M. SCHMANDT BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 1 of 175 76 Table of Contents Page I. INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS ..............................................1 A. Qualifications and Experience .............................................................1 B. Materials Considered............................................................................4 II. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .........................................9 III. STATEMENT OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES ...................................................11 A. Claim Construction ............................................................................11 B. Obviousness........................................................................................13 IV. RELEVANT TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND .......................................18 A. The Rise of Mobile Web Browsing and the Advent of Mobile User Interfaces and Mobile Applications ...........................................18 B. The History of "Swiping" ..................................................................21 C. Online Dating and Mobile Dating Apps ............................................28 V. THE '023 PATENT ......................................................................................31 A. Overview of the Specification ............................................................31 B. The Challenged Claims ......................................................................36 VI. APPLICATION OF THE PRIOR ART TO ASSERTED CLAIMS ........... 37 A. Brief Summary of Prior Art ...............................................................39 1. Wernick [Ex. 1003] ..................................................................39 2. Morris [Ex. 1005].....................................................................43 3. Kulas [Ex. 1006] ......................................................................48 4. Norena [Ex. 1004] ....................................................................49 5. Chang [Ex. 1007] .....................................................................53 B. Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are obvious ...............................................57 1. Wernick as the Primary Reference: Wernick in Combination with Norena or Chang Renders Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 Obvious ...............................58 (a) Claim 1...........................................................................58 -i- BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 2 of 175 76 Table of Contents (continued) Page (1) Claim 1[a] ............................................................62 (2) Claim 1[b]............................................................84 (3) Claim 1[c] ............................................................90 (4) Claim 1[d]............................................................92 (5) Claim 1[e] ............................................................97 (b) Claim 3...........................................................................99 (c) Claim 5.........................................................................105 (d) Claim 2.........................................................................109 (e) Claim 4.........................................................................110 (f) Claim 6.........................................................................111 2. Morris as the Primary Reference: Morris in Combination with Norena or Chang and Morris in Combination with Kulas in Further Combination with Norena or Chang Renders Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 Obvious ....112 (a) Claim 1.........................................................................112 (1) Claim 1[a] ..........................................................115 (2) Claim 1[b]..........................................................127 (3) Claim 1[c] ..........................................................140 (4) Claim 1[d]..........................................................141 (5) Claim 1[e] ..........................................................144 (b) Claim 3.........................................................................148 (c) Claim 5.........................................................................155 (d) Claim 2.........................................................................156 (e) Claim 4.........................................................................159 (f) Claim 6.........................................................................160 VII. NO SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS OF NON-OBVIOUSNESS ....161 VIII. CONCLUSION...........................................................................................164 -ii- BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 3 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 I, Christopher M. Schmandt, declare as follows: I. INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS A. Qualifications and Experience 1. I have recently retired from my position as a Principal Research Scientist at the Media Laboratory at Massachusetts Institute of Technology ("M.I.T."), after 40 years of employment by MIT. In that role, I also served as faculty for the M.I.T. Media Arts and Sciences academic program. I have more than 40 years of experience in the field of Media Technology, and was a founder of the M.I.T. Media Laboratory. 2. I received my Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science from M.I.T in 1978, and my Master of Science degree in Visual Studies (Computer Graphics), also from M.I.T. I have been employed at M.I.T. since 1980, initially at the Architecture Machine Group, which was an early computer graphics research lab. In 1985 I helped found the Media Laboratory and continued to work there until my retirement. I ran a research group titled "Living Mobile." My research spans distributed communication and collaborative systems, with an emphasis on multi-media and user interfaces; I have more than 70 published conference and journal papers and one book in these fields. 1 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 4 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 3. In my faculty position, I taught courses and directly supervised student research and theses at the Bachelors, Masters, and Ph.D. level. I oversaw the Masters and Ph.D. thesis programs for the entire Media Arts and Sciences academic program. Based on the above experience and qualifications, I have a solid understanding of the knowledge and perspective of a person of ordinary skill in this technical field since at least 1980. 4. During my career, a number of aspects of my research were directly relevant to the matter in the contested patent. When I worked at the predecessor to the Media Lab, the Architecture Machine Group, I worked on very early interactive computer graphics systems. As this was before the widespread presence of the computer mouse, much of our work used touch sensitive surfaces and screens, much as modern mobile phones use. My EECS BS thesis, titled "Pages Without Paper," was perhaps the first e-book reader, and allowed a user to swipe on a touch pad to turn pages; right-to-left to move forward a page and left-to-right to move to the previous page. Although the thesis refers to these as "flipping," it is the same gesture as is sometimes called "swiping." 5. Some years later, in the mid-1990s, I was a member of the Media Lab News in the Future project. In this area, I worked on matching user interests in news articles, based on personal preference profiles as well as learning from the history of 2 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 5 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 what the users read. Similar techniques were also applied to filtering email and voice messages. This is related to matching algorithms that may allow people to meet others who meet personal criteria. 6. For many years my research included pioneering work in location based services, such as learning where one traveled and who or what resources such might be found en route, as well as sharing location information with others in various ways. Additionally, in 1988 with my grad students I developed the first real time spoken driving direction system, a very early precursor to the common in-vehicle voice navigation systems in use today. 7. My Curriculum Vitae is submitted herewith as Exhibit A. 8. I have been retained by counsel for Petitioner to provide my expert opinion in connection with the above-captioned proceeding. More particularly, I have been asked to provide my opinion about the state of the art of the technology described in U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 ("'023 patent" or "'023") [Ex. 1001] and on the patentability of certain claims of this patent in light of certain prior art references discussed below. I am being compensated at a rate of $450 per hour for my study and other work in this matter. I am also being reimbursed for reasonable and customary expenses associated with my work in this investigation. My 3 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 6 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 compensation is not contingent on the outcome of this matter or the specifics of my testimony. The following is my written report on these topics. 9. Throughout my Declaration, all of my opinions about obviousness are expressed from the point of view of a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the priority date of the claims of the ʼ023 patent. B. Materials Considered 10. The analysis that I provide in this Declaration is based on my education, research and experience, as well as the documents I have considered, including U.S. the ʼ023 patent and its prosecution history [Ex. 1008]. The '023 patent states on its face that it issued from a continuation-in-part of an application filed on October 21, 2013 which is a continuation-in-part of an application filed on December 19, 2008. I understand that the '023 patent also claims priority to a provisional application filed on March 15, 2013. I understand that during prosecution, Applicant swore behind U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2014/0040368 to Janssens, which has a priority date of August 6, 2012. I also am informed that during the concurrent litigation between the Patent Owner and the Petition, the Patent Owner has identified the date of the alleged invention as no later than June 6, 2012. For the 4 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 7 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 purposes of this Declaration, I have assumed June 6, 2012 as the priority date.1 I have cited to the following documents in my analysis below: Exhibit Description of Document No. 1001 U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 to Sean Rad, et al. (filed Feb. 5, 2016, issued May 1, 2018) ("'023" or "'023 patent") 1002 Declaration of Chris Schmandt ("Schmandt") 1003 U.S. Patent No. 9,122,757 B1 to Grant Wernick et. al. (filed May 23, 2012, published Sept. 1, 2015) ("Wernick") 1004 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0246231 A1 to Sebastian Norena (filed Jan. 12, 2012, published Sept. 27, 2012) ("Norena") 1 I am not offering an opinion that the '023 patent should be entitled to this earlier priority date. I have formed no opinion as to whether the challenged claims can properly be afforded this invention date, as the prior art on which I rely predates both August 6, 2012 and June 6, 2012. Moreover, my opinions as to the level of ordinary skill in the art, and all of the opinions presented in my Declaration, would remain the same whether August 6, 2012 or June 6, 2012 was established as the date of invention for purposes of the challenged claims. In the event the Patent Owner later asserts an even earlier date in an attempt to predate the prior art, I reserve my right to respond to such assertion as appropriate. 5 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 8 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 Exhibit Description of Document No. 1005 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0072470 A1 to Scott Morris, et al. (filed Sept. 22, 2009, published Mar. 24, 2011) ("Morris") 1006 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0087974 A1 to Charles Kulas (filed Dec. 17, 2010, published Apr. 14, 2011) ("Kulas") 1007 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0143779 A1 to Chia- Ming Chang (filed Apr. 8, 2011, published Jun. 7, 2012) ("Chang") 1008 File History of '023 Patent 1009 Plaintiff Match Group, LLC's Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions, Match Group LLC. v. Bumble Trading Inc., Case No. 6:18-cv-00080-ADA (W.D. Tex.) (January 21, 2019) (cover document) 1013 U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/498,599 to Grant M. Wernick et al. (filed June 19, 2011) 1014 U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/621,524 to Grant M. Wernick et al. (filed April 8, 2012) 1015 U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/650,868 to Grant M. Wernick et al. (filed May 23, 2012) 1016 U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/466,394 to Sebastian Norena (filed March 22, 2011) 1017 Michael J. Rosenfeld & Reuben J. Thomas, Searching for a Mate: The Rise of the Internet as a Social Intermediary, 77(4) AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW 523 (2012) 1018 Charles Newark-French, Mobile Dating Apps: The Second (Lady) Killer App Category, FLURRY (Aug. 2011), https://web.archive.org/web/20110811173903/http:/blog.flurry.com/bi d/68668/Mobile-Dating-Apps-The-Second-Lady-Killer-App-Category 6 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 9 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 Exhibit Description of Document No. 1019 Julie Spira, The CyberDating Expert Top 10 Mobile Dating Apps, CYBER-DATING EXPERT (Sept. 23, 2010), https://web.archive.org/web/20100926124154/http:/cyberdatingexpert. com/the-cyberdating-expert-top-10-mobile-dating-apps 1020 Excerpt of Plaintiff Match Group, LLC's Infringement Contentions -- Claim Chart for the '023 Patent 1021 Match's Proposed Constructions 1022 Bumble's proposed Constructions 1023 Charles Newark-French, Mobile Apps Put the Web in Their Rear-view Mirror, FLURRY (June 20, 2011), https://web.archive.org/web/20110924031931/http:/blog.flurry.com/bi d/63907/Mobile-Apps-Put-the-Web-in-Their-Read-view-Mirror 1024 Gordon P. Kurtenbach, Abigail J. Sellen & William A.S. Buxton, An Empirical Evaluation of Some Articulatory and Cognitive Aspects of Marking Menus, 8 HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION 1 (1993) 1025 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0272186 A1 to Joel Kraut (filed Mar. 8, 2012, published Oct. 25, 2012) ("Kraut") 1026 U.S. Patent No. 8,606,297 B1 to Joel Simkhai, et al. (filed Mar. 24, 2011, issued Dec. 10, 2013) ("Simkhai") 1027 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0026521 A1 to Steve Hotelling, et al. (filed July 30, 2004, published Feb. 2, 2006) ("Hotelling") 1028 U.S. Patent No. 8,059,101 B2 to Wayne Westerman, et al. (filed June 22, 2007, published Nov. 15, 2011) ("Westerman") 1029 U.S. Patent No. 7,479,949 B2 to Steven Jobs, et al. (filed Apr. 11, 2008, published Jan. 20, 2009) ("Jobs") 7 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 10 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 Exhibit Description of Document No. 1030 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0047115 A1 to Charles Migos, et al. (filed Aug. 17, 2012, published Feb. 21, 2013) ("Migos") 1031 U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879 B2 to Magnus Goertz (filed Dec. 10, 2002, issued Jan. 10, 2012) ("Goertz") 1032 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0017180 A1 to Dominic Flik, et al. (filed Jul. 25, 2011, published Jan. 19, 2012) ("Flik") 1033 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0146462 A1 to Mayasuki Ishizawa (filed Nov. 9, 2009, published June 10, 2010) ("Ishizawa") 1034 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0002335 A1 to Imran Chaudhri (filed June 26, 2008, published Jan. 1, 2009) ("Chaudhri") 1035 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0290978 A1 to John Devecka (filed May 14, 2012, published Nov. 15, 2012) ("Devecka") 1036 Julie Spira, Top 10 Best Mobile Dating Apps of 2012, CYBER-DATING EXPERT, https://cyberdatingexpert.com/mobiledating2012/ (last visited April 29, 2019) 1037 File History of '811 Patent 1038 U.S. Patent No. 8,108,414 B2 to David Stackpole (filed Nov. 28, 2007, issued Jan. 31, 2012) ("Stackpole") 1039 U.S. Patent No. 7,203,674 B2 to Morgan Cohen (filed Feb. 15, 2002, issued April 10, 2007) ("Cohen") 1040 U.S. Patent No. 7,545,784 B2 to Richard Mgrdechian & Man-Ho Lawrence Lee (filed Feb. 10, 2005, issued June 9, 2009) ("Mgrdechian") 8 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 11 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 Exhibit Description of Document No. 1041 Anne McLaughlin, An Introduction to Cupid; Former Lewiston Radio Personality Launches a Social Network for Single Adults Looking for Friends, LEWISTON MORNING TRIBUNE (April 9, 1995) 1042 Lukas Brozovsky & Vaclav Petricek, Recommender System for Online Dating Service (March 9, 2007), available at https://arxiv.org/pdf/cs/0703042.pdf 1043 Affidavit of C. Butler (Internet Archive) 1044 Declaration of Sylvia D. Hall-Ellis, PH.D. II. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART 11. I understand that an assessment of claims of the '023 patent should be undertaken from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the earliest claimed priority date, which I understand is alleged to be June 6, 2012.2 12. I have also been advised that to determine the appropriate level of a person having ordinary skill in the art, the following factors may be considered: (1) the types of problems encountered by those working in the field and prior art 2 As explained in footnote 1, all of the opinions presented in my Declaration would remain the same whether June or August 2012 was the date of invention for purposes of the challenged claims. 9 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 12 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 solutions thereto; (2) the sophistication of the technology in question, and the rapidity with which innovations occur in the field; (3) the educational level of active workers in the field; and (4) the educational level of the inventor. 13. In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art as of June 2012 (the alleged priority date of the '023 patent) would have possessed at least a bachelor's degree in computer science or an equivalent field requiring learning computation principles, and two years of experience in building software applications employing client/server communication architectures, database queries and graphical user interfaces. A person could also have qualified as a person of ordinary skill in the art with some combination of (1) more formal education (such as a master's of science degree) and less technical experience, or (2) less formal education and more technical or professional experience in the fields listed above. 14. My opinions regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art are based on, among other things, my over 40 years of experience in the field of computer science, multimedia, and Web technology, my understanding of the basic qualifications that would be relevant to an engineer or scientist tasked with investigating methods and systems in the relevant area, and my familiarity with the backgrounds of colleagues, co-workers, and employees, both past and present. I also note that the '023 patent itself confirms that the underlying technology is not overly 10 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 13 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 sophisticated. The specification notes that the alleged invention of the ʼ023 patent "may include software and/or algorithms to achieve the operations for processing, communicating, delivering, gathering, uploading, maintaining, and/or generally managing data," (ʼ023, 4:46-49), and users may use a "cellular telephone, an electronic notebook, a laptop, a personal digital assistant (PDA), or any other suitable device." (ʼ023, 4:4-5.) Additionally, the alleged invention "may be achieved by any suitable hardware, component, device, application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), additional software, field programmable gate array (FPGA), server, processor, algorithm, erasable programmable ROM (EPROM), electrically erasable programmable ROM (EE-PREOM), or any other suitable object that is operable to facilitate such operations." (ʼ023, 4:50-57.) 15. Although my qualifications and experience exceed those of the hypothetical person having ordinary skill in the art defined above, my analysis and opinions regarding the '023 patent have been based on the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art as of June 2012. III. STATEMENT OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES A. Claim Construction 16. I have been instructed by counsel that a purpose of claim construction is determine what a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the 11 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 14 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 claim terms to mean. Claim terms are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning, which is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application. Additionally, the person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification. I am further informed that the patent specification may be highly relevant to the claim construction, and has been described as the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term. For terms that do not have a customary meaning within the art, the specification usually supplies the best context for understanding the meaning of those terms.3 3 I understand that, in Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings filed after November 13, 2018, claims are generally construed according to the "Phillips" claim construction standard, and not the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) standard that previously governed IPRs. The description of the legal principles set forth in the text, therefore, provides my understanding of the "Phillips" claim construction standard as provided by counsel. 12 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 15 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 17. I am further informed that other claims of the patent in question can also be valuable sources of information as to the meaning of a claim term. Because claim terms are normally used consistently throughout the patent, the usage of a term in one claim can often illuminate the meaning of the same term in other claims. Differences among claims can also be a useful guide in understanding the meaning of particular claim terms. 18. I understand that the prosecution history can further inform the meaning of the claim language by demonstrating how the inventors understood the invention and whether the inventors limited the invention in the course of prosecution, making the claim scope narrower than it otherwise would be. Extrinsic evidence may also be consulted in construing the claim terms, such as my expert testimony. 19. In my analysis of the claims and the prior art below, I have applied the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim terms in light of the specification and prosecution history. B. Obviousness 20. Counsel has advised me that under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103, effective before March 16, 2013, a patent claim may be found invalid as obvious if, at the time when the invention was made, the subject matter of the claim, considered as a whole, 13 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 16 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the field of the technology (the "art") to which the claimed subject matter belongs. 21. I understand that the following factors should be considered in analyzing obviousness: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences between the prior art and the claims; and (3) the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. I also understand that certain other factors known as "secondary considerations" such as commercial success, unexpected results, long felt but unsolved need, industry acclaim, simultaneous invention, copying by others, skepticism by experts in the field, and failure of others may be utilized as indicia of nonobviousness. I understand, however, that secondary considerations should be connected, or have a "nexus", with the invention claimed in the patent at issue. 22. I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art is assumed to have knowledge of all prior art. I understand that one skilled in the art can combine various prior art references based on the teachings of those prior art references, the general knowledge present in the art, or common sense. I understand that a motivation to combine references may be implicit in the prior art, and there is no requirement that there be an actual or explicit teaching to combine two references. Thus, one may take into account the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ to combine the known elements in the prior 14 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 17 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 art in the manner claimed by the patent at issue. I understand that one should avoid "hindsight bias" and ex post reasoning in performing an obviousness analysis. But this does not mean that a person of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of the obviousness inquiry does not have recourse to common sense. 23. I understand that when determining whether a patent claim is obvious in light of the prior art, neither the particular motivation for the patent nor the stated purpose of the patentee is controlling. The primary inquiry has to do with the objective reach of the claims, and that if those claims extend to something that is obvious, then the entire patent claim is invalid. 24. I understand one way that a patent can be found obvious is if there existed at the time of the invention a known problem for which there was an obvious solution encompassed by the patent's claims. I understand that a motivation to combine various prior art references to solve a particular problem may come from a variety of sources, including market demand or scientific literature. I understand that a need or problem known in the field at the time of the invention can also provide a reason to combine prior art references and render a patent claim invalid for obviousness. I understand that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purpose, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art will be able to fit the teachings of multiple prior art references together like the pieces of a puzzle. I 15 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 18 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 understand that a person of ordinary skill is also a person of at least ordinary creativity. I understand when there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If these finite number of predictable solutions lead to the anticipated success, I understand that the invention is likely the product of ordinary skill and common sense, and not of any sort of innovation. I understand that the fact that a combination was obvious to try might also show that it was obvious, and hence invalid, under the patent laws. I understand that if a patent claims a combination of familiar elements according to known methods, the combination is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. Thus, if a person of ordinary skill in the art can implement a predictable variation, an invention is likely obvious. I understand that combining embodiments disclosed near each other in a prior art reference would not ordinarily require a leap of inventiveness. 25. I have been advised by counsel that obviousness may be shown by demonstrating that it would have been obvious to modify what is taught in a single piece of prior art to create the patented invention. Obviousness may also be shown by demonstrating that it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of more than one item of prior art. I have been advised by counsel that a claimed invention 16 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 19 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 may be obvious if some teaching, suggestion, or motivation exists that would have led a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the invalidating references. Counsel has also advised me that this suggestion or motivation may come from the knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art, or from sources such as explicit statements in the prior art. Alternatively, any need or problem known in the field at the time and addressed by the patent may provide a reason for combining elements of the prior art. Counsel has advised me that when there is a design need or market pressure, and there are a finite number of predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill may be motivated to apply common sense and his skill to combine the known options in order to solve the problem. 26. I understand the following are examples of approaches and rationales that may be considered in determining whether a piece of prior art could have been combined with other prior art or with other information within the knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art: (1) Some teaching, motivation, or suggestion in the prior art that would have led a person of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention; (2) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field or a different field based on design incentives or other market 17 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 20 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 forces if the variations would have been predictable to a person of ordinary skill in the art; (3) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; (4) Applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (5) Applying a technique or approach that would have been "obvious to try" (choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success); (6) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; or (7) Use of a known technique to improve similar products, devices, or methods in the same way. IV. RELEVANT TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND A. The Rise of Mobile Web Browsing and the Advent of Mobile User Interfaces and Mobile Applications 27. With the rise of the laptop computer in the 1980s, and the World Wide Web in the second half of the 1990s, by the turn of the century the large majority of content consumed over networks in the U.S. was through web browsers. Laptop and desktop computers ran identical or similar operating systems, browsers could run on 18 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 21 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 either, and the only significant difference, screen size, was generally handled within the browsers. So publishing on the Web was the preferred way of providing services to networked customers. 28. Especially with the introduction of hand-held mobile phones (such as Motorola's revolutionary MicroTAC in 1989) there was a surge in uptake for mobile voice services, but data lagged behind. This was in part a network issue – text messaging started in Europe in 1993 but was limited to a few characters, and deployment in the U.S. was much slower) – and early "flip" phones had very small screens. 29. Although cell phones started as a closed environment for developers, by the late 1990s the Symbian operating system, especially on Nokia phones, allowed more flexible application development, as did Java's J2ME mobile edition. Still data bandwidth was limited and often unavailable. In order to provide Internet access the WAP (Wireless Access Protocol) communication suite was developed and standardized. WAP allowed web developers to write pages in WML (Wireless Markup Language) for use on phones. But WAP never really caught on, in large part because WML was fairly limited and simply could not mimic web pages users were seeing on their laptops. 19 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 22 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 30. In part spurred by the success of its iPod music player, and based on experience with the Newton PDA (Personal Digital Assistant), Apple launched the iPhone in 2007. The next year, the first Android "smart phone", the HTC G1, became available. These phones were "all screen" (although some had fold out keyboards) and touch interaction became quickly accepted. A few years later, the iPad was released, with a much larger screen and options for both WiFi and cellular data. These developments allowed full feature browsers to be implemented on mobile devices, and ordinary web sites to be useful on phones. The HTML protocol, which underlies the World Wide Web, allows transmission of the user-agent-string between browser and web server, and the web page on the server can use the information contained within to sense the screen size available to the browser, and customize the web experience for the particular mobile device. We are still familiar with web pages which render differently, but effectively, on phones as well as our larger screens. 31. The Japanese mobile phone operator NTT DoCoMo started the push for "apps" instead of direct web browsing, by providing online "stores" where the apps could be purchased, and collecting revenue for the app vendors. This model was so successful that it spread rapidly to the rest of the world, and we saw the big switch over the last decade to apps over browser-based delivery of services. Apps 20 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 23 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 were supported in the phone operating infrastructure so they could deliver notifications or alert messages to phone users more easily than web browsers, and screens full of app icons were more accessible to a large phone user population than bookmarks in a browser. And both the Apple and Android software ecologies provided the app stores where apps could be sold and distributed over the air. B. The History of "Swiping" 32. Gestural user interfaces have a long history. In the 1970s, there were several varieties of touchscreens, as capacitive overlays on conventional CRT monitors, and they were utilized for user input. Later the mouse became the dominant interaction device; it required a generally different set of gestures because the user's finger was not directly on the screen. Fingers once again became a strong input method with the rise of the smart phone with touch screens. 33. A "swipe" is a particular type of gesture, one of many. A swipe starts by putting the finger (or cursor if mousing) on the screen, possibly on a specific target if the swipe could be applied to one of a number of candidate target objects. Focusing on the finger action, then the user moves his finger fairly steadily in a particular direction. The salient portion of the gesture is the direction of this finger motion, rather than the final position when the user lifts his finger, thus enabling fast gestures that are rather low resolution. Swipes may be unary, applying only one 21 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 24 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 possible action to an object, such as deleting an email. They may be binary, such as next or previous, or save or delete, for example. Swipes may also indicate one of a larger number of choices, such as with marking menus. 34. The earliest use of a swipe gesture that I know of personally was my own work at MIT as part of my EECS Bachelors thesis in 1979. The thesis was perhaps the first ebook reader, and was implemented as part of the rather well known Spatial Data Management System. While reading a book on a large screen, the user sat in a chair with 1.5 inch square touch pads built into each arm. The user would swipe left, or down and left, to turn to the next page, or right, or up and right, to turn to the previous page. The thesis referred to these as page "flips". When the page was flipped, an animated sequence would show the book turning to the next or previous page. 35. The rise of the personal computer, and especially the MacIntosh, pushed the mouse into the limelight, and with increasing screen resolution mice were often use for fine grained interaction techniques such as drag-and-drop. However in 1993 Kurtenbach at the University of Toronto pioneered marking menus, which also use a swipe gesture. (Ex. 1024.) During interaction, a pie menu appears on the screen, at the point of interaction, with the cursor centered on the current mouse or stylus location. A pie menu is a menu form in which a circle is sub-divided into a 22 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 25 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 number of equal slices, like a pie, and each slice is labelled with a menu item. With a marking menu, the user simply swipes through whichever slice corresponds to the desired menu selection; it does not matter where the user stops, simply the direction of the mark, or swipe. This technique allows differentiation of swipes in a variable number of directions, or choices, depending on the number of items in the pie menu. 36. Another example of a swipe on a conventional "computer screen" display is shown in U.S. Patent Application 2011/0087974 to Kulas, titled "User Interface Controls Including Capturing User Mood in Response to a User Cue" was filed in 2010 and published the following year. (Ex. 1006.) In this system a user indicates sentiment with respect to content on the screen by performing actions, including a swipe gesture. For example, when the user clicks on an item, the user can, in the same motion, swipe up to indicate positive interest and down to show negative. 37. Similarly U.S. Patent Application 2012/0272186 to Kraut, filed and published in 2012, shows data items (in this case records relating to insurance information) as a stack or deck of cards, with top edges exposed to show card titles. (Ex. 1025.) The user scrolls through these cards by "swiping" up or down to move forward or backwards through the cards. 23 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 26 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 38. Of course finger based gestures became all the rage with the introduction of touch and multi-touch based smart phones, and gestures, including the obvious swipe, were employed for almost any action which could be performed on them. 39. The Palm Pre was a smart phone from 2009, which made extensive use of swipe gestures in its user interface. Some of the swipes were unary, such as swiping right on an email to delete it. Some swipes were binary, such as swiping left or right to move forward or backwards through a series of photos in an image gallery. In one view all the current applications were shown as a row of "cards" across the main screen, and any one of them could be closed by swiping upwards on its card. The Pre also had a dedicated "gesture area" at the bottom of the phone and off the screen. Swipe gestures toward the left on this area could go back up a level in an application while swiping right would re-enter the lower level application view, such as switching between a contact list and details on a contact. Swiping up in the gesture area could launch an application. 40. Given the leadership role of the Apple iPhone staring in 2007, it is not surprising that Apple has been active in the area of touch-based gestures, including the obvious swiping. In fact, I have reviewed a video of Steve Jobs introducing the 24 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 27 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 iPhone at MacWorld 2007.4 During this presentation, he showed swiping left/right to move forward or backwards through photos in an album. A left-to-right swipe motion was also used to unlock the phone from its sleep state. 41. Of course Apple had been working on the iPhone and related technology for some time. A 2004 U.S. Patent Application 2006/0026521 A1 to Hotelling et al. describes using a swipe gesture to turn the pages of an electronic book, left or right to move forward or backward a page, exactly as I myself had done 25 years earlier. (Ex. 1027, ¶¶0117-0118.) U.S. Patent No. 8,059,101 to Westerman, et al. was filed in 2007 and is titled "Swipe Gestures for Touch Screen Keyboards." (Ex. 1028.) It describes using swipe gestures in combination with a touchscreen keyboard, with, for example, swipes up, down, left, and right performing functions such as inserting a space, backspace, carriage return, or shifting to capital letters. U.S. Patent 7,479,949 to Jobs, et al., filed in 2008, describes a number of touchscreen user interactions, including swipes. (Ex. 1029.) One use of swiping is up/down motions to rapidly scroll through items such as messages, emails, and thumbnail graphics of photographs. This patent also discloses left/right swipes to move forward or backward through a linear sequence of items, 4 This video is available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN4U5FqrOdQ. 25 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 28 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 specifically photographs in full screen mode. Note that for scrolling, the displayed objects move some number of items at a time, which could be linked to the length of the swipe gesture, while for photo browsing one swipe moves by one item, forward or back. 42. Another Apple Patent Application, U.S. 2013/0047115 to Migos et al., filed in 2012 and published the following year, displays note cards in a stack. (Ex. 1030.) The stack is slightly skewed so a user can see that there are multiple cards in the stack and glimpse some information about the mostly hidden lower cards. A horizontal "swipe" gesture is used to move the top card out of the way and expose the next card down the stack. 43. U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879 to Goertz was filed in 2002, and uses swipe gestures to launch applications or invoke functions on currently displayed objects. (Ex. 1031.) The user touches an icon for an app at the bottom of a mobile phone screen, and swipes towards the center of the screen to launch the application. U.S. Patent Application 2012/0017180 to Flik, filed in 2011, describes using swipe (referred to as "sweeping") to pull a thumbnail representation of an image from a series of thumbnails at the top of the phone screen into the main area of the screen, in which case it becomes the background image. (Ex. 1032.) 26 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 29 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 44. U.S. Patent Application 2010/0146462, filed in 2009, to Ishizawa, describes swiping as a "flick" gesture. (Ex. 1033.) Swiping is used in a device, such as a camera, to go through a set of images or photos, which are displayed as a stack, and specific which should be printed or grouped. For more complex interaction with media content, U.S. Patent Application 2009/0002335 to Chaudhri, filed in 2008, displays media browsers for content such as record albums by means of a horizontal stack of thumbnail images, on a touchscreen, and a user "swipes" on or below the thumbnail images of the album art to move through the stack. (Ex. 1034.) The motion is based on direction, length, and speed of the swipe. 45. Swipe gestures have also been used in the specific domain of dating or matchmaking services. U.S. Patent Application 2012/0290978 to Devecka, filed and published in 2012, is a dating application in which a user profile consists of a number of pre-defined icons showing interests or attributes of a subscriber. (Ex. 1035.) In configuring his or her profile, the user sees pages of possible icons to select or to add to the profile, and uses a swipe gesture to move to the next page of icons for possible selection. By 2012, the deployed dating smartphone applications Hornet and Grindr both used swipe gestures to move through representations of application selected lists of possible dates. 27 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 30 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 C. Online Dating and Mobile Dating Apps 46. Offline dating and matching services have a very long history. (Ex. 1042, 1.) As an example, in the mid-1990s, individuals could join "Best Friends," a "singles social network." (Ex. 1041, 1.) Members of Best Friends could "look through" binders holding "8 x 10 photographs and a three-page biography for every member." (Ex. 1041, 1.) They chose people they would like to meet, and if they found someone interesting, Best Friends would invite that person "to the office to learn about the one who chose him or her." (Ex. 1041, 1.) "After mutual consent," the two individuals would exchange phone numbers. (Ex. 1041, 1.) 47. The advent of the Internet "has made communications within existing social networks more efficient" and has also "dramatically improved the efficiency of searching for and finding new people outside of one's preexisting social network." (Ex. 1017, 2.) As such, over time, dating companies started to put up web sites and offer online services. (Ex. 1042, 1.) A study published by the American Sociological Review in 2012 documented "how the Internet appears to be displacing, to a certain extent, the more traditional ways of meeting partners, such as through friends, through family, in school, or in the neighborhood." (Ex. 1017, 3; see also Ex. 1044.) The results of that study indicate that for "heterosexual couples who met in 2009, the Internet was the third most likely way of meeting." (Ex. 1017, 9.) 28 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 31 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 48. As an example, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0143779 A1, entitled "Online Matchmaking System and Method," ("Chang") was filed in 2011 and published a year later. (Ex. 1007.) Chang discloses an invention relating "to a system and method for matchmaking, and more particularly to an online matchmaking system and method." (Ex. 1007, ¶0003.) Chang states that the "object of the present invention is to provide a. . . medium for all members that desire marriage to form matches quickly and smoothly." (Ex. 1007, ¶0009.) 49. In 2011, I understand that "smartphone and tablet shipments exceed[ed] those of desktop" computer and laptop shipments. (Ex. 1023, 1.) Indeed, over the course of June 2010 to June 2011, users' time on mobile applications nearly doubled from 43 to 81 minutes. (Ex. 1023, 2.) Consequently, I understand that since 2011, the popularity of social discovery mobile applications, including dating applications, has been increasing. (Ex. 1036, 1; see also Ex. 1018, 2-4.) Data from June 2010 and June 2011 also indicates that dating applications were more popular at those times than dating websites. (Ex. 1018, 2-3.) In 2012, there were several mobile applications; notable ones included Badoo, MeetMoi, and Grindr. (Ex. 1036, 1-2.) 50. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0246231 A1, entitled, "System and Method for Matching by Reciprocity Using Hidden Selections," ("Norena") was filed in 2012 and published that same year. (Ex. 1004.) Norena 29 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 32 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 recognized certain shortcomings by "existent online dating websites and applications," and discloses a dating and matching method, where users can create a profile using the data they have already entered in another social network account like Facebook, Twitter, or any other similar social network." (Ex. 1004, ¶¶0007, 0021.) Norena discloses that, after registering, users can conduct searches and pick other users whom he/she is interested in. (Ex. 1004, ¶0011.) 51. Similarly, U.S. Patent 8,606,297, titled "Systems and Methods for Providing Location-Based Cascading Displays," ("Simkhai") filed in 2011 and published in 2013, relates to the mobile dating application Grindr. (Ex. 1026.) Simkhai's mobile application enables users to seek geographically-close companions, where the user is presented with "a set of photographs representing other users," which "the user can tap or click…to see additional information about the subject." (Ex. 1026, 6:65-67, 7:4-6.) 52. Another example of a patent discussing mobile dating applications is U.S. Patent 8,108,414, titled "Dynamic Location-Based Social Networking" ("Stackpole"). Stackpole was filed in 2007 and issued in January 2012. (Ex. 1038.) Stackpole discloses providing a client dating application on a communications device of a user, such as a cellphone. (Ex. 1038, Figs. 1, 2, 3.) A user can use this dating application to create a profile and set preferences. (Ex. 1038, 1:59-2:12.) The 30 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 33 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 application then provides the user with potential members and notifies the user of these identified members. (Ex. 1038, 2:13-27.) 53. Similarly, U.S. Patent 7,203,674, titled "Method and System to Connect and Match Users in an Electronic Dating Service," ("Cohen") discloses an electronic dating service accessible by a user's computer or phone. (Ex. 1039 Abstract, 14:52-15:7.) Cohen acknowledges that "[d]evices which combine the functions of a mobile phone and Web browsing in a single device are becoming increasingly popular." (Ex. 1039, 15:2-4.) Thus, Cohen discloses embodiments that "are ideal for such devices, since they make use of both mobile communication and web browsing." (Ex. 1039, 15:4-7.) Cohen was filed in 2002 and published in 2003. 54. Likewise, U.S. Patent 7,545,784, titled "System and Method for Wireless Communication Between Previously Known and Unknown Users," ("Mgrdechian"), discusses applications for electronic dating. (Ex. 1040, Abstract.) V. THE '023 PATENT A. Overview of the Specification 55. As discussed above, the ʼ023 patent claims priority to a provisional application filed on March 15, 2013. The application that led to the '023 patent was a continuation-in-part of Patent Application No. 14/059,192, filed on October 21, 2013, which was a continuation-in-part of Patent Application No. 12/339,301, filed 31 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 34 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 on December 19, 2008. The subject matter of each claim of the ʼ023 patent, however, is directed to new matter. 56. Each independent claim of the ʼ023 patent requires "detecting a right swiping direction." (See, e.g., ʼ023, cls. 1[b], 3[b], 5[b].) Applicant never mentioned "swiping" in the initial 2008 application; indeed, the first mention of "swiping" in the specification is with respect to Figures 6-9. (ʼ023, 19:46-48 ("interface 16 may also comprise a touch screen interface operable to detect and receive input such as a tap or a swiping gesture").) Figures 7 and 8 show "the effect of a left swipe gesture (Fig. 7) and the effect of a right swipe gesture (Fig. 8)." (ʼ023, 22:5-6.) None of these figures was included in the original 2008 application. (Ex. 1037, MTCH-643.) 57. When first filing the ʼ023 patent, applicant originally claimed priority to March 15, 2013, based on the filing date of Provisional Application No. 61/793,866. (Ex. 1008, MTCH-1075.) To overcome prior art, however, applicant alleged that the "claimed technology was invented prior to August 6, 2012, which is the priority date of" the prior art. (Ex. 1008, MTCH-915.) 58. Though the ʼ023 patent generally is directed to systems and methods for profile matching on devices such as touchscreens, (ʼ023, 19:40-48), the claims of the ʼ023 patent are tailored to the user interface, the display of items of information and dating profiles, and the navigation of those profiles with gestures. 32 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 35 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 (See, e.g., ʼ023, cl. 1.) According to the ʼ023 patent, once a user is registered for the profile matching system, the system displays to the user "the profile information" of another user. (ʼ023, 21:12-13.) This "profile information is displayed as 'card' 88 representing the suggested user," and a "set of suggested users may be displayed as stack of cards 88." (ʼ023, 21:24-28.) The patent teaches that "[u]ser 14 may be presented with a summary of information regarding a suggested user. The summary may include one or more of: a picture, an icon, name, location information, gender, physical attributes, hobbies, or other profile information." ('023, 21:30-34.) 59. The user "navigate[s] through the set of presented users by swiping through stack of cards 88." (ʼ023, 22:7-8.) The user performs this "swiping gesture by moving a finger or other suitable object across a screen of terminal 10." (ʼ023, 22:11-13.) Figures 7 and 8, reproduced below, depict embodiments of the interface as a user is swiping through the stack of cards. 33 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 36 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 60. While the claims of the ʼ023 patent are limited to (a) presenting dating profiles on a user interface, (b) detecting swiping gestures, (c) storing the preference indication as provided by swiping, (d) presenting a subsequent dating profile, and (e) removing the first from the display, the specification of the ʼ023 patent discusses profile matching systems with additional features. According to the specification, the "matching server 20 creates a match between two users 14 after both users 14 have expressed a preference for each other's profiles." (ʼ023, 22:16-18.) In some embodiments of these profile matching systems, a user may "express[] a preference for each other's profiles using like button 86 or the swiping gesture associated with like button 86." ('023, 22:16-20.) When this match is created, the matching server "present[s] an option to users 14 that have been matched to engage in a communication session (e.g., a chat, an SMS message, an e-mail, a telephone call, a voice communication session, a video communication session)." (ʼ023, 22:24-27.) For example, "direct communication may be initiated by pressing 'Send a Message' button 92," as depicted in Figure 9, reproduced below. (ʼ023, 22:39-41.) 34 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 37 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 61. If, however, a user expresses disapproval of another user, the "matching server 20 will not allow communication between the two users." (ʼ023, 23:26-29.) Steps 1008-1016 of Figure 10, reproduced below, depict the process of determining whether to allow communication between two users. 35 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 38 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 B. The Challenged Claims 62. This Declaration addresses claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the '023 patent. Independent claim 1 is representative of claims 3, and 5 and recites: 1. A method of navigating a user interface, comprising: [a] presenting, on a graphical user interface, a graphical representation of a first item of information of a plurality of items of information, the first item of information comprising a graphical representation of a first online dating profile associated with a first user, wherein presenting the graphical representation of the first item of information of the plurality of items of information comprises presenting the first item of information as a first card of a stack of cards; [b] detecting a gesture associated with the graphical representation of the first item of information, the gesture corresponding to a positive preference indication associated with the first item of information, the positive preference indication associated with the first item of information comprising an expression of approval for the first user associated with the first online dating profile, wherein detecting the gesture associated with the graphical representation of the first item of information comprises detecting a right swiping direction associated with the gesture; [c] storing the positive preference indication associated with the first 36 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 39 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 item of information in response to detecting the gesture; [d] automatically presenting, on the graphical user interface, a graphical representation of a second item of information of the plurality of items of information in response to detecting the gesture, the second item of information comprising a graphical representation of a second online dating profile associated with a second user; and [e] automatically removing the graphical representation of the first item of information from the graphical user interface in response to detecting the gesture. ('023, cl. 1.) I address the claims further in my detailed analysis in Part VI below. VI. APPLICATION OF THE PRIOR ART TO ASSERTED CLAIMS 63. I have reviewed and analyzed the prior art references and materials listed in Part I.B above. In my opinion the claims of the '023 patent are rendered obvious based on the following prior art: Ground Claims Basis for Challenge under §103(a) 1 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Wernick (Ex. 1003) in view of Norena (Ex. 1004) 2 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Wernick (Ex. 1003) in view of Chang (Ex. 1007) 3 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Morris (Ex. 1005) in view of Norena (Ex. 1004) 4 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Morris (Ex. 1005) in view of Chang (Ex. 1007) 37 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 40 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 Ground Claims Basis for Challenge under §103(a) 5 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Morris (Ex. 1005) in view of Kulas (Ex. 1006) and Norena (Ex. 1004) 6 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Morris (Ex. 1005) in view of Kulas (Ex. 1006) and Chang (Ex. 1007 64. As shown above, my proposed grounds of obviousness (Grounds 1-6) can be divided into three logical groups. 65. In the first group, (Grounds 1 and 2) Wernick is relied upon as the primary reference that, in combination with either Norena or Chang renders obvious claims 1-6 of the '023 patent. Ground 1 combines Wernick with Norena. Ground 2 differs from Ground 1 in that Wernick is combined with Chang, rather than Norena. The mapping of Wernick from Ground 1 applies to Ground 2. 66. The second group (Grounds 3 and 4) differs from the first group (Grounds 1 and 2) in that Morris is relied on as a primary reference instead of Wernick. Ground 3 relies on Norena as a secondary reference and Ground 4 relies on Chang as a secondary reference. The mapping of Norena and Chang for the second group (Grounds 3 and 4) is the same as for the first Group (Grounds 1 and 2). The mapping of Morris from Ground 3 applies to Ground 4. 38 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 41 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 67. The third group (Grounds 5 and 6) is similar to the second group (Grounds 3 and 4) in that Morris is relied on as a primary reference in combination with either Norena or Chang. The third group (Grounds 5 and 6) further cites to Kulas in combination with Morris and Norena or Morris and Chang. The mapping of Morris, Norena and Chang for the third group (Grounds 5 and 6) is the same as for the second Group (Grounds 3 and 4). The mapping of Morris and Kulas for Ground 5 also applies to Ground 6. Ground 6 differs from Ground 5 in that Chang, rather than Norena is cited as a secondary reference. 68. I am informed by counsel that each of the references cited in the grounds above qualifies as prior art to the challenged claims because each reference was filed and/or published before the priority date for the '023 patent. A. Brief Summary of Prior Art 1. Wernick [Ex. 1003] 69. "Wernick", entitled "Personal Concierge Plan and Itinerary Generator," discloses technology "relat[ing] to rapid and convenient sorting through activity options." (Wernick, 1:44-46.) I am informed that Wernick qualifies as prior art because it is a patent that was filed on May 23, 2012, and claims priority to several provisional applications filed on June 19, 2011, April 8, 2012, and May 23, 2012. (Exs. 1013, 1014, 1015.) All of these filing dates are before the alleged priority date 39 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 42 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 of the ʼ023 patent. Additionally, I am informed that Wernick is entitled to at least to April 8, 2012 priority based on the filing of provisional application no. 61/621,524. 70. Wernick's invention arose from the need to conveniently provide itineraries and activity options. (Wernick, 1:20-35). Wernick accomplishes this by considering the user's criteria and past activities to better predict desired future activities. (Wernick, 1:21-25). To increase its convenience, Wernick also emphasizes "rapid and convenient sorting through activity options." (Wernick, 1:25- 27). 71. As Figure 7 (shown with 710 enlarged below) of Wernick shows, Wernick's invention can be used on mobile devices with touchscreens. 40 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 43 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 72. Consistent with its emphasis on "rapid and convenient sorting" (Wernick, 1:25-27), Wernick discloses that "[t]ouchscreens on such mobile devices as smartphones and tablets provides means for dynamic user interaction with multiple degrees of freedom." (Wernick, 9:66-10:1). 41 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 44 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 73. The form in which the options/results are provided to the user is one factor in providing a "dynamic user interaction." According to Wernick, activity options can be presented as "a stack of images," (Wernick, 10:24-26), on "[t]ouchscreens on such mobile devices as smartphones and tablets." (Wernick, 9:66-67.) Figure 7 of Wernick depicts this stack of images. 74. Reviewing the results as a "stack of images" allows the user to quickly cycle through the results, opining on the desirability or undesirability of each one. For example, Wernick discloses, "Using gestures, the user can quickly accept restaurant options by moving them downward…or…to the right and off the screen." (Wernick, 10:26-29). 42 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 45 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 75. Additionally, how the user can interact with the stack of images aids the "rapid and convenient sorting through activity options." (Wernick, 1:25-27). Wernick allows a user to interact with the stack of images/results by "dynamically sort[ing] objects into multiple groups that can be analyzed to infer user preferences and/or desired actions." (Wernick, 10:5-7.) For example, a user can quickly move an object with a swipe gesture in a particular direction. (Wernick, 10:4-10.) "The direction of movement acts as a choice or indication of the user's intent such as 'I like this,' 'Add this to my wish list' or 'Add this to the queue.'" (Wernick, 10:10- 12.) For example, users can accept options "by moving them downward." (Wernick, 10:26-28.) Users can also reject the object by moving the object in a specific direction, such as to the right. (Wernick, 10:12-14, 10:28-29.) 76. Wernick indeed "provides means for dynamic user interaction with multiple degrees of freedom." (Wernick, 9:67-10:1.) "One or more fingers can be used to fling, flick, swipe, drag, pinch, expand, or tap an object." (Wernick, 10:4-5 (emphasis added).) As well, a POSITA would have recognized that "flinging" the image "to the side" is the same as a "swipe." (Wernick, 10:45-47.) 2. Morris [Ex. 1005] 77. "Morris", entitled "Systems and Methods for Remote Web Query and Image Selection Exchange to Video Screen," discloses "devices, systems, and 43 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 46 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 methods for searching for media on a network using a handheld communications device." (Morris, ¶0008). I am informed that Morris qualifies as prior art because it was published on March 24, 2011, more than one year before the filing date of the '023 patent. 78. Morris recognizes the problem that high-functioning handheld devices, such as cellular telephones, "usually have small screens that limit the viewing capabilities." (Morris, ¶0006.) These small screens "limit[] the number of people [able to] view[] the screen at one time," thus making it difficult for a "large group to see it." (Morris, ¶0006.) These small screens can also be undesirable as the user may simply "desire a larger screen to view" the image. (Morris, ¶0006.) Additionally, Morris recognizes that the user may want someone "at a remote location to see the picture," currently on the user's handheld device, on a remote large screen. (Morris, ¶0006.) 79. Morris thus invented "devices, systems, and methods" to take "multimedia content….viewed on a handheld communications device and transfer the content to a larger screen." (Morris, ¶¶0007-0008.) In doing so, the handheld device became even more important and functional. Giving the user the ability to search and browse for media on the handheld device, and allowing the user to efficiently interact with the search results on the device, became increasingly 44 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 47 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 important. As such, Morris also accomplished an "improved way to browse multimedia search results" on the handheld device. (Morris, ¶0007.) 80. The form in which search results are displayed on the handheld device affect the efficacy of the handheld device. Thus, focused in part on remedying "the small size of displays on most handheld devices," Morris discusses that the results of a search run on the device "may be subdivided into stacks of, for instance, 10 results at a time." (Morris, ¶0026; see also id., ¶0032.) This stack of media results "is oriented in such a way that it is apparent to the user that the results are stacked." (Morris, ¶0026.) As an example, "the edges of image results may be rotated at various angles so they can be seen as if 'looking down' on top of the stack." (Morris, ¶0026.) Figure 6 of Morris is illustrative of the stack of images (center of image). 45 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 48 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 81. Furthermore, at the time the Morris application was filed, many handheld communication devices, like cellphones, were touchscreens. Indeed, Morris acknowledges the touchscreen feature of various handheld devices. (E.g., Morris, ¶0026.) Morris discloses that the user has "the ability to select and manipulate the results individually by using their finger or a stylus on a touchscreen." (Morris, ¶0026.) Figure 6 depicts a stack of images and the user's ability to manipulate the result at the top of the stack and shows various icons a user can slide the top image to: 46 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 49 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 82. Looking at how the resulting stack of images and the touchscreen interact, a user can perform various actions with the top result, such as sending it to a display on a large screen, or deleting it, with a finger gesture. (Morris, ¶0039.) The user may also simply "retrieve the next stack of results" by touching the "'next page' button" if the current stack does not provide satisfactory results. (Morris, ¶0027.) 83. Regarding the touchscreen feature, while Morris describes "dragging" and "sliding" the search result to an icon on the touchscreen, (Morris, ¶¶0028, 0039), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have realized that this "dragging" or "sliding" are, in fact, swipe gestures. This is because the screen is of limited size with few options, each of which is shown in a cardinal direction (up, down, left, right) on the display, shown in Figure 6 below. 47 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 50 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 (Morris, ¶0039, Fig. 6.) For example, a user can slide the top card to star icon 617 to save the image in the user's favorites. (Morris, ¶0039.) 84. Given the screen geometry, the relatively few choices, and the relative sizes of the cards and the target locations, it can be seen that the "dragging" is not a fine grained gesture in which it is important that the target icon be reached with some accuracy; rather a coarse motion in any of the four directions would easily move the large card image onto the selected target. Thus, Morris' "drag" is actually a swipe. 3. Kulas [Ex. 1006] 85. "Kulas", entitled "User Interface Controls Including Capturing User Mood in Response to a User Cue," discloses methods applicable to "commercial users of computers in such fields as marketing, advertising, product improvement, 48 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 51 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 business planning, etc." where "information about a user's state of mind" is of "high importance" and used to "obtain statistics and characteristics about users." (Kulas, ¶0003.) I am informed that Kulas qualifies as prior art because it was published on April 14, 2011, more than one year before the filing date of the '023 patent. 86. As Applicant acknowledged during prosecution of the related '811 patent, "Kulas discloses controls in a graphical user interface where a user's touch or swipe of the control indicates the user's state of mind." (Ex. 1037, MTCH-595 (citing Kulas, ¶0005).) Kulas thus discloses that based on a specific "user 'cue,' such as touch or swipe on the display screen," "an indication of the user's state of mind can be, conveyed to appropriate system or application hardware or software." (Kulas, ¶0005; see also Kulas, Abstract.) For example, a "user may swipe their finger downward to indicate disapproval, or upward to indicate approval." (Kulas, ¶0027.) Kulas further discloses that "swipes left or right can be used instead of up/down." (Kulas, ¶0027.) When a user "does not swipe their finger in either direction then the system may register no mood or intent with the action." (Kulas, ¶0027.) 4. Norena [Ex. 1004] 87. "Norena", entitled "System and Method for Matching by Reciprocity Using Hidden Selections," discloses a system and method for online dating. 49 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 52 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 (Norena, ¶¶0009-0010.) I am informed that Norena qualifies as prior art because it is a published application filed on January 12, 2012, which claims priority to a provisional application filed on March 22, 2011. Both of these filing dates are before the alleged priority date of the ʼ023 patent. I understand that the provisional application includes a nearly identical disclosure to the non-provisional application. (Compare Ex. 1004 with Ex. 1016.) 88. Norena recognized certain shortcomings with the online dating sites available at the time of the invention. First, the then-existing dating sites often required a user to obtain a subscription, spend hours entering significant amounts of personal details, and run their own searches using subjective descriptions which may differ depending on the user. (Norena, ¶0007.) Then, the profile results obtained from the search may not even contain a photograph. (Norena, ¶0008.) If two users are interested in each other, communications between the two may take days, weeks, or months due to inefficient methods of communication provided by the dating sites. (Norena, ¶0008.) Moreover, dating sites using algorithms implement arbitrary factors and weightings, which disregard the personal preferences of the users. (Norena, ¶0009.) 89. Norena's invention remedies all these issues. For example, all that is required for a user to create a profile is a cellular phone number, picture, email, and 50 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 53 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 password and optionally name and gender. (Norena, ¶¶0010, 0021-0022, 0033-0034, 0045.) 90. As well, users can easily supplement their profiles by linking their already-existing social network account. (Norena, ¶0010.) In the invention disclosed in Norena, users "have the option to create a profile using the data they have already entered in another social network account like Facebook, Twitter, or any other similar social network." (Norena, ¶0010.) If a user opts to do so, "he/she can enter his/her Facebook's login information so his profile picture, name, gender, and cell phone number are automatically downloaded to the user's profile in the system." (Norena, ¶0021.) 91. A user of the system disclosed in Norena is presented with the profiles of other users and asked to indicate if they want to meet each of the other users as shown in Figure 3: 51 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 54 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 (Norena, ¶¶0024, 0035, 0047, Fig. 3.) If two users like each other they will be notified of the match. (Norena, ¶¶0025-0027, 0036-0038, 0048-0050.) Users may view a list of users they have indicated they want to meet (Norena, ¶¶0028, 0039, 0052, Fig. 4.) 92. Norena discusses that the notification of a match can take the form of an "SMS message with the contact information of the user," (Norena, ¶0026). Norena further notes that "[i]t would be readily understood by those skilled in the art that also a picture and any other type of data stored on the system memory could 52 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 55 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 be sent to users when using other notification methods different to SMS." (Norena, ¶0027.) Steps 516 and 518 of Figure 5 of Norena illustrate these steps. 5. Chang [Ex. 1007] 93. "Chang", entitled "Online Matchmaking System and Method," discloses "[a]n online matchmaking management system [that] includes a member database for storing a plurality of member data files, an account management module configured to process login data of a user, and a matching module configured to receive a matching condition and to select at least one candidate member." (Chang, Abstract.) According to Chang, "[t]he invention relates to a system and method for matchmaking, and more particularly to an online matchmaking system and method." 53 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 56 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 (Chang, ¶0003). Chang states that the "object of the present invention is to provide a. . . medium for all members that desire marriage to form matches quickly and smoothly." (Chang, ¶0009.) I am informed that Chang qualifies as prior art because it is a published application filed on April 8, 2011, which is before the alleged priority date of the '023 patent. 94. The system in Chang comprises, among other things, "a matching module," "a matching database," "an interaction module," "an interaction database," and "a member database." (Chang, ¶0018.) The preferred embodiment of the system in Chang may be "established on at least one server for providing service to a plurality of users, each establishing connection with the server over a network using an electronic device." (Chang, ¶0017.) The system "is used to match the users." (Chang, ¶0017.) 95. The member database claimed by Chang "stores a plurality of member data files." (Chang, ¶0018.) A user's data file "includes the basic data of the corresponding user." (Chang, ¶0027.) Once a user completes registration and logs in, "[t]he user 91 can [] determine matching conditions." (Chang, ¶0030.) 96. According to Chang, "[t]he matching module 2 is configured to receive a matching condition established by the user 91, and to select at least one candidate member from the member database 5 that satisfies the matching condition." (Chang, 54 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 57 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 ¶0020.) After the user selects a "target member" from the candidate members, the matching module "asks whether the user 91 is interested in the target member." (Chang, ¶0021.) Figure 7 of Chang depicts, at step S34, the system displays a dialog box illustrating a selected target member's basic data "and a YES/NO option for the user 91 to indicate interest in the user 92." (Chang, Fig. 7, ¶0034.) 97. Chang discloses that if the user "selects NO and another selected matched candidate exists, the basic data of the next one of the selected matched candidates is shown." (Chang, ¶0034.) If the user "selects YES, the matching module 2 receives the corresponding instruction and notifies the user 92 that someone is interested in her." (Chang, ¶0034; see also Chang, ¶0021 (Once the system receives "an indication of interest of the user 91 in the target member" from 55 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 58 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 the user, "the matching module 2 issues a notification to the target member of someone's interest and asks the target member whether the target member is interested in further interaction.").) 98. As Figure 3 of Chang depicts, at step S34A, the system confirms that "the user and the selected candidate member are mutually interested." (Chang, Fig. 3.) The process flow in Figure 3 continues only if the "matching module 2 receives the reply of the user 92 that shows she is also interested in the user 91." (Chang, ¶0034.) 56 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 59 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 99. If both parties are mutually interested, Chang describes that "the name of user 92 is recorded in the matching database 6 corresponding to the user 91" and the "interaction module 3 provides an option to create a marriage suitability questionnaire" to user 91 such that "user 91 may become better acquainted with the user 92." (Chang, ¶¶0035-0037.) For example, as depicted in Figure 8, user 91 can select the option to "ask her a question." (Chang, ¶0037, Fig. 8.) B. Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are Obvious 100. As mentioned, this Declaration addresses claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, which all are obvious. The claims can be divided into two groups, which are all very similar to each other. Independent claims 1, 3, and 5 are all very similar. Dependent claims 2, 4, and 6 are all very similar. The independent claims are discussed first, 57 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 60 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 followed by dependent claims 2, 4, and 6. In this petition I address two primary references: Wernick and Morris. I first address how Wernick and secondary references Chang and Norena render obvious claims 1-6. Second, I address how Morris, Chang, Norena, and Kulas render obvious claims 1-6. 1. Wernick as the Primary Reference: Wernick in Combination with Norena or Chang Renders Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 Obvious (a) Claim 1 101. I have reproduced independent claim 1 below, and divided up the limitations using bracketed notations (e.g., "[a]," "[b]," etc.) to facilitate identification of the limitations in my analysis below: 1. A method of navigating a user interface, comprising: [a] presenting, on a graphical user interface, a graphical representation of a first item of information of a plurality of items of information, the first item of information comprising a graphical representation of a first online dating profile associated with a first user, wherein presenting the graphical representation of the first item of information of the plurality of items of information comprises presenting the first item of information as a first card of a stack of cards; [b] detecting a gesture associated with the graphical representation of the first item of information, the gesture corresponding to 58 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 61 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 a positive preference indication associated with the first item of information, the positive preference indication associated with the first item of information comprising an expression of approval for the first user associated with the first online dating profile, wherein detecting the gesture associated with the graphical representation of the first item of information comprises detecting a right swiping direction associated with the gesture; [c] storing the positive preference indication associated with the first item of information in response to detecting the gesture; [d] automatically presenting, on the graphical user interface, a graphical representation of a second item of information of the plurality of items of information in response to detecting the gesture, the second item of information comprising a graphical representation of a second online dating profile associated with a second user; and [e] automatically removing the graphical representation of the first item of information from the graphical user interface in response to detecting the gesture. ('023, cl. 1.) 102. In the paragraphs below I will explain that each limitation of claim 1 is disclosed and rendered obvious by Wernick in combination with Norena or Chang. Claim 1 is obvious over Wernick in view of Norena or Chang. Wernick discloses 59 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 62 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 each limitation of claim 1, except the "online dating profile" related limitations of steps 1[a], 1[b], and 1[d]. Norena and Chang, however, disclose these "online dating profile" limitations. As discussed below, a POSITA would have been motivated to combine Wernick with Norena or Chang and claim 1 is obvious over these references. 103. The preamble of claim 1 recites, "a method of navigating a user interface." To the extent the preamble is limiting, it is disclosed and rendered obvious by Wernick. The preamble recites "a method of navigating a user interface, comprising." Wernick discloses a method of navigating a user interface, specifically the user interface shown in Figure 7 below: 60 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 63 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 104. Figure 7 "is a series of GUI [graphical user interface] panels that illustrate an example interface for initial loading, selecting, rejecting and receiving activity options. (Wernick, 1:63-65.) Wernick discloses that a "user sorts screen objects 711 using gestures 721, 732. . . . Using gestures, the user can quickly accept restaurants options by moving them downward into a collection 721 or reject restraints [sic] by moving their images to the right and off the screen 732." (Wernick, 10:21-29 (emphasis added).) This sorting is a method of navigating the 61 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 64 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 user interface shown in Figure 7. Wernick therefore discloses the subject matter of the preamble of claim 1 the '023 patent. (1) "presenting, on a graphical user interface, a graphical representation of a first item of information of a plurality of items of information, the first item of information comprising a graphical representation of a first online dating profile associated with a first user, wherein presenting the graphical representation of the first item of information of the plurality of items of information comprises presenting the first item of information as a first card of a stack of cards;" (Claim 1[a]) 105. Wernick discloses "presenting, on a graphical user interface, a graphical representation of a first item of information of a plurality of items of information". As discussed above, Figure 7 of Wernick discloses a graphical user interface. Figure 7 "is a series of GUI [graphical user interface] panels", specifically for mobile devices. (Wernick, 1:63-65, Fig. 7.) Figure 7 of Wernick discloses "a graphical representation of a first item of information of a plurality of items of information." Specifically, Wernick discloses displaying objects 711, which in one embodiment correspond to items of information regarding activity options. (Wernick, 10:21-33 (objects 711 correspond to restaurant options), 10:42-44 ("In one implementation, this is a stack of labeled images of activity options."), 23:22- 24 ("In one implementation, a method is described that includes receiving at least 62 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 65 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 first and second items that are real-world places, services, or upcoming events"), Fig. 7) 106. As shown in Figure 7, Wernick discloses presenting the graphical representation of the first item of information of a plurality of items of information as a first card in a stack of cards: (Wernick, 10:25-26 ("user is presented with a collection of several restaurants in a stack of images"), Fig. 7.) 107. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have viewed the "stack of images" shown in Wernick Figure 7 as a stack of cards. Wernick illustrates a user 63 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 66 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 interface for managing preference items in Figure 7, at 711. This is clearly meant to indicate a stack ("stack of images" is the phrase used) which are slightly skewed with each other, to provide to the user the understanding that there are multiple objects to be manipulated, by providing a sense of depth. These are described as "images" and one could easily see the metaphor with a stack of printed photos. Photo prints have enough stiffness in themselves to be considered as "cards" (a term never described in any detail in the specification of the '023 patent). Similarly, one could see a metaphor to cards handed out for promotional purposes, for example promotional cards handed out regarding an upcoming concert or event. Of course a graphical user interface on a touchscreen has no three dimensional physicality, but the appearance and operation ("swiping gestures") of Wernick both suggests and is indistinguishable from a "stack of cards". 108. In the related litigation, PO has asserted that "graphical representation" should be construed as "pictorial portrayal". (Ex. 1021, 4-5.) Petitioner has asserted that if "graphical representation" is construed, it should be construed as "summary of information displayed on a graphical user interface." (Ex. 1022, 5.) It is my opinion that the cards disclosed in Wernick are "graphical representations" under either of these constructions. 64 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 67 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 109. Wernick describes a system designed to help a user choose future activities, based on the user making some choices to indicate preferences: "The technology disclosed relates to identification of future activity options. In particular, it relates to identifying future activity options that are similar to a selected future activity." (Wernick, 1:20-21.) One example given is offering suggestions for restaurant dining. In the discussion of Figure 7 Wernick considers: "For example, suppose the user is presented with a collection of several restaurants in a stack of images. Using gestures, the user can quickly accept restaurants options by moving downward into a collection 721 or reject restraints [sic] by moving their images to the right and off the screen". (Wernick, 10:24-29.) From this description, it obvious that each of the images or cards stands for ("represents") a particular restaurant and the user performs choice operations by acting on them; the images are "representations". The images are clearly graphical both because they include at least an image, and because they are objects in the graphical user interface as shown in Figure 7. 110. With respect to PO's proposed construction, the image of the activity option card shown in Wernick is itself a "pictorial portrayal" of the activity option, or first item of information. In addition, Wernick discloses that these cards may contain images. (Wernick, 8:35-36.) Wernick describes the "objects. . . presented 65 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 68 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 to the user for selection/rejection" as "images, and/or information." (Wernick, 8:35- 36.) In the discussion of Figure 7, Wernick describes objects 711 as "a stack of images" representing restaurant options. (Wernick, 10:26.) Wernick teaches that "[i]n one implementation, this is a stack of labeled images of activity options")." (Wernick, 10:42-44.) Wernick therefore discloses a "graphical representation of a first item of information" under PO's proposed construction. 111. Wernick similarly discloses a "summary of information displayed on a graphical user interface." The objects 711 are a summary of information, regarding for example an activity option, presented on the graphical user interface shown in Figure 7. (Wernick, 10:21-33, 23:22-24, Fig. 7.) 112. Combination with Norena: Norena discloses a graphical representation of a first online dating profile associated with a first user. Norena discloses a system and method for online dating. (Norena, ¶¶0006-10 (discussing prior art online dating systems and how Norena improves on these systems), 0057 (the system disclosed in Norena can be used "to date someone".) Norena discloses that all users of the online dating system create online profiles including a picture, cellular phone number, e-mail, password, and optionally name and gender, which are online dating profiles. (Norena, ¶¶0010, 0021-22, 0033-34, 0045.) 66 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 69 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 113. Norena describes "online dating profiles." Norena is an "online" system, in that it supports multiple users each on their own computer and networked together. Norena is clearly motivated by the desire to improve online dating systems, which are discussed at some length in the Background and Summary section. (Norena, ¶¶0006-10.) Norena uses the term "match" extensively, and match-making is the desired outcome of successful online dating systems. Norena describes the elements of a profile including "cellular phone number, picture, email, and password" (Norena, ¶¶0010) with options to add additional information. Clearly the purpose of the information so entered is to facilitate matching and communication with other users as possible dates. 114. Norena further discloses "a graphical representation of a first online dating profile associated with a first user" as shown in Figure 3. (Norena, Fig. 3; see also id., ¶¶0010, 0021-22, 0033-34, 0045.) 67 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 70 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 For example, Figure 3 of Norena show a graphical representation of the online dating profile of "user 2" which would correspond to graphical representation of a first online dating profiles associated with a first user". (Norena, Fig. 3.) 115. Rationale and Motivation to Combine Wernick and Norena: A POSITA would have been motivated to combine the card-based user interface and swiping disclosed in Wernick with the online dating profile disclosed in Norena. The predictable result would have been a card-based graphical user interface where positive preference decisions are made regarding online dating profiles using a swiping gesture. 68 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 71 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 116. Wernick explicitly teaches that the graphical user interface design disclosed in Figure 7 of Wernick can be applied in other contexts where there is an assessment of "user attitudes" regarding a displayed item. (Wernick, 10:65-11:15.) For example, Wernick discloses that "this style of interface can be used" in other contexts, such as "attitudes towards a candidate." (Wernick, 10:65-68.) Wernick further discloses that "[t]he objects displayed may represent anything tangible or intangible including but not limited to: . . . friends to invite to party. . . and photos." (Wernick, 11:5-11.) Expressing an attitude towards a candidate or determining friends to invite to a party both involve making judgments regarding individuals, that is, expressing positive or negative preferences about them. 117. It would have been obvious to a POSITA to consider applying such a preference-indicating interface in other situations, analogous to those disclosed, where a user is asked to indicate preferences. One such similar situation is the decision making done in the online dating context. For example, by expressing an attitude towards a candidate a person is indicating whether they are interested in a candidate, this is similar to someone indicating whether they are interested in a dating match. In another example, by determining which friends you would like to invite to a party, you are determining individuals you would like to spend time with, much like determining whether you are interested in an individual as a potential 69 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 72 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 dating partner. Wernick therefore teaches that this interface can be used in other contexts that are similar to online dating. This would have motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply Wernick in the online dating context and combine Wernick with Norena. 118. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been especially motivated to combine Wernick with an online dating reference such as Norena given the growing popularity of online dating and particularly online dating mobile applications prior to the alleged invention of the '023 patent. For example, a study published by the American Sociological Review found that by 2009 the internet was the third most common way for heterosexual couples to meet (Ex. 1017, 8; see also Ex. 1044.) In the years that followed, online dating traffic began to shift to mobile applications. An August 2011 study indicated that "the number of people using dating apps is growing faster than the number using all apps." (Ex. 1018, 4; see also Ex. 1043, 17.) That same study found that the time users spent on dating mobile apps increased from 3.7 minutes per day in June 2010 to 8.4 minutes per day in June 2011, surpassing web-based dating for the first time. (Ex. 1018, 3; see also Ex. 1043, 19.) In a September 2010 blog post, a cyber-dating commentator wrote "[t]he year 2010 will go down in history for mobile dating becoming mainstream with many of 70 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 73 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 the traditional online dating sites launching their apps." (Ex. 1019, 1; see also Ex. 1043, 11.) 119. That online dating apps were growing in popularity at this time is not surprising. As discussed above in the technology background section, mobile apps in general were becoming increasingly popular around the time of the alleged invention of the '023 patent. For example, in a June 20, 2011 study conducted by Flurry in June 2011 found for the first time that U.S. user's mobile app consumption exceeded traditional and mobile web consumption. (Ex. 1023.) Additionally, the uptake in mobile phones over conventional computers was spearheaded by younger people, who are also those more likely to be seeking help finding dates. This would have further led a POSITA to recognize the growing market for online dating mobile apps. 120. Given the swift rise in popularity of mobile dating applications in the years prior to the alleged invention of the '023 patent, a POSITA would have had strong motivation to apply the mobile user interface disclosed in Wernick in the online dating context and combine Wernick with an online dating reference, such as Norena. Wernick discloses an easy-to-use graphical user interface specifically designed for a mobile device that a POSITA would have recognized could be successfully applied in online dating to reach the growing online dating app market. 71 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 74 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 121. Because, as discussed above, a POSITA would have recognized the value of the user interface of Wernick in the online dating context where a user indicated preferences, a POSITA would have turned to online dating references like Norena which disclosed online dating systems that were to be usable with cell phones as well as computers, where the Wernick interface could be advantageous. Norena discloses that client 204 may be a computer or a cell phone and that an application or web browser may be used to access the system. (Norena, ¶¶ 0043.) The user interface figures in Norena, however, disclose a more traditional computer- based interface. (Norena, Figs. 3-4.) For example, as shown above in Figure 3, these interfaces have small icons in list format and have numerous tabs that would be difficult to navigate through on a smartphone. Notably, the user interface is shown horizontally, which is more characteristic of a laptop or desktop computer than a mobile device. A POSITA would have understood that the user interface illustrated in Norena was more user-friendly for a traditional computer, and would see the advantage that Wernick's interface could bring to a mobile-phone interface. 122. Other similarities between Wernick and Norena would also have motivated a POSITA to combine these two references. 123. A POSITA would have understood that the cards in Wernick could each represent an individual user shown in Figure 3 of Norena. For example, as discussed 72 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 75 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 above, Wernick explicitly contemplates that the displayed objects disclosed in Wernick could correspond to people (e.g., a candidate or friends to invite to a party). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that these cards could correspond to online dating profiles like those disclosed in Norena. 124. Furthermore, both Norena and Wernick involve expressing interest in an individual or activity. Norena discloses that a user may indicate which other users she would like to meet. (Norena, ¶¶0024, 0035, 0047, Fig. 3.) Wernick discloses a computer-based application where users indicate which activities they are interested in. (Wernick, 10:8-20.) Rather than press the "I want to meet this person" buttons disclosed in Norena a user could instead perform the swiping gesture corresponding to the positive preference indication disclosed in Wernick. 125. At the time of the alleged invention, a swiping gesture was a known substitution for a button. For example, Kulas, published on April 14, 2011, disclosed that "a "user may swipe their finger downward to indicate disapproval, or upward to indicate approval." (Kulas, ¶0027.) Kulas also disclosed expressing approval or disapproval with a button click. (Kulas, ¶0022; Fig. 1.) Kulas discloses that "[i]n addition to, or instead of, button or control operation with a mouse and pointer, a user may achieve similar results with touch-screen movements [or] gestures. . . ." 73 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 76 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 such as swiping. (Kulas, ¶¶0026, 0027.)5 Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a POSITA at the time of the alleged invention of the '023 patent that the swipe gesture disclosed in Wernick could be used in place of the "I want to meet this person button" in Norena. 126. Moreover, both Wernick and Norena disclose saving profiles or activities a user has expressed interest in on a list that may be viewed later. (Wernick, 10:10-12; Norena, ¶¶0028, 0039, 0052, Fig. 4.) This similarity would have further motivated a POSITA to combine these two references. 127. Alternative Combination with Chang: Chang discloses a graphical representation of a first online dating profile associated with a first user. Chang is directed to an "Online Matchmaking System and Method." (Chang, Title). Users who match with each other may, after meeting certain criteria, go out on a date. 5 For the purposes of the combinations of Wernick with Norena or Chang, and Morris with Norena or Chang (discussed below), I rely on Kulas only to demonstrate that at the time of the alleged invention swiping was a known substitution for a button. I do not rely on the swiping disclosure of Kulas as invalidating prior art, except with respect to Grounds 5 and 6 that combine Morris and Kulas with Norena or Chang respectively. 74 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 77 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 (Chang, ¶0025.) ("[T]he scheduling module 4 issues a dating invitation for the user 91 and the target member to go out on a date."). 128. Chang is self-described as "a system 100 for online matchmaking management." (Chang, ¶0017.) Subscribers connect to the system by "establishing connection with the server over a network using an electronic device," and further "[t]he system 100 is used to match the users." (Chang, ¶0017.) It is obvious that this matchmaking is in a broad sense a "dating service" even though Chang is particularly oriented toward marriage suitability. Further, as matchmaking progresses if a pair of users are found to be compatible and mutually interested, Chang can "issue a dating invitation between the user 91 and the user 92." (Chang, ¶0044.) 129. The system and method disclosed in Chang is therefore an online dating system and method. Because members who use the system disclosed in Chang are using an online dating system a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the disclosed "plurality of member data files" to disclose the claimed "plurality of user online dating profiles." 130. Chang discloses that each user of the online dating system creates "a member data file" that "includes basic data of the corresponding user" for example basic data such as name, age, height, weight, current occupation status, academic 75 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 78 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 records, family background, economic status, a self-introduction, photos and conditions for choosing a spouse." (Chang, ¶0027, Fig. 7.) Each "member data file" is an online dating profile. 131. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that Chang's "member data files" are the same as the ʼ023 patents "online dating profile[s]." The '023 patent describes "profiles" in the context of "make matching decisions or elections," ('023, 3:62-64), and later describes such data: "As part of the registration process, matching server 20 may ask user 14 a series of questions which identifies characteristics about the user 14. Thus, matching server 20 may ask about the height, weight, age, location, and ethnicity of user 14." (ʼ023, 5:8-12.) 132. Chang indicates that "[t]he member database 5 stores a plurality of member data files," (Chang, ¶0018), and that "[t]he account management module 1 and the matching module 2 are connected to the member database 5…." (Chang, ¶0019.) Further, "[t]he matching module 2 is configured to receive a matching condition established by the user 91, and to select at least one candidate member for the member database 5 that satisfies the matching condition." (Chang, ¶0020.) Since the information about each user is stored in the member data file, which the matching module can access, this would be the information used in establishing matches. 76 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 79 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 133. The contents of this file would be populated when the user registers, and would include at least "his basic data, his current occupation status, his academic records, his family background, his economic status, his self-introduction, his photos, his conditions for choosing a spouse, etc. into the system 100." (Chang, ¶0027.) We can see further from Figure 4 that this information would include age, height, weight, location, education, and income, all of which would have to come from the member data file. 134. The contents of Chang's member data files are information about the user used for match making, and thus have similar information and the same function as the ʼ023 "profiles". 135. Chang further discloses "a graphical representation of a first online dating profile associated with a first user" as shown in Figure 7. 77 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 80 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 (Chang, Fig. 7.) Figure 7 of Chang shows a graphical representation of the online dating profile of "Miss Wong" which would correspond to graphical representation of a first online dating profile associated with a first user". (Chang, Fig. 7.) Chang discloses a "graphical representation of an online dating profile" under either PO's or Petitioner's proposed construction in the related litigation, discussed above. Figure 7 shows a pictorial portrayal of Miss Wong's online dating profile because it is portrayed pictorially as an index card. 136. Figure 7 also shows a "summary of information displayed on a graphical user interface." (Chang, Fig. 7.) In Figure 7 the graphical user interface 78 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 81 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 displays a summary of information regarding Ms. Wong, for instance her name, age, height and weight. (Chang, Fig. 7.) 137. Also called a "GUI", graphical user interfaces were developed decades ago as an advance over the previous command line interfaces. In a command line interface, the operating system displays a prompt, the user types a command, the command is executed, and output is printed on the screen. A command line interface can process only text, and from a keyboard. A command line interface produces characters from a character generator circuit as output, while a GUI displays pixels, even when displaying text. 138. Chang clearly discloses a graphical user interface, as can be seen from many details shown in Figures 6 and 7. There are a number of regions of the screen which are buttons for clicking or touching, such as "my files" "search terms" "account balance" and the "page up" "page down" and associated navigation controls at the bottom. The match criteria are shown as a separate panel at the side, with clickable pull down menus. Non-textual items are used to display each of the candidates on display. The overall display is meant to appear as a stack of tabbed index cards. There is a text "balloon" with click boxes shown in Figure. 7. It is clear that Chang runs in a browser that is capable of graphics, such as arrows, boxes, lines, different size fonts in different type faces. Additionally the match content shown in 79 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 82 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 Figure 7 is made to look like a stacked series of tabbed cards, and the selected candidate appears on one of those cards. These are all aspects of a graphical user interface. In the context of a graphical user interface, any representation would be graphical. Here, the card metaphor further demonstrates that Chang discloses a graphical representation of a first online dating profile. Information shown on a graphical user interface constitutes a graphical representation of that information. 139. Rationale and Motivation to Combine Wernick and Chang: A POSITA would have been motivated to combine the card-based user interface and swiping disclosed in Wernick with the online dating profile disclosed in Chang. The predictable result would have been a card-based graphical user interface where binary decisions are made regarding online dating profiles using a swiping gesture. 140. The motivation to combine Wernick with Chang is very similar to the motivation to combine Wernick with Norena. As discussed above in connection with the motivation to combine Wernick and Norena, Wernick explicitly teaches that the graphical user interface design disclosed in Figure 7 of Wernick can be applied in other contexts where there is an assessment of "user attitudes" regarding a displayed item, for example, expressing attitudes towards a candidate or deciding friends to invite to a party, which are similar to online dating. (Wernick, 10:65- 11:15; see ¶¶116-117, supra.) Expressing an attitude towards a candidate or 80 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 83 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 determining friends to invite to a party both involve making judgments regarding individuals, that is, expressing positive or negative preferences about them. 141. It would have been obvious to a POSITA to consider applying such a preference-indicating interface in other situations, analogous to those disclosed, where a user is asked to indicate preferences. One such similar situation is the decision making done in the online dating context. For example, by expressing an attitude towards a candidate a person is indicating whether they are interested in a candidate, this is similar to someone indicating whether they are interested in a dating match. In another example, by determining which friends you would like to invite to a party, you are determining individuals you would like to spend time with, much like determining whether you are interested in an individual as a potential dating partner. Wernick therefore teaches that this interface can be used in other contexts that are similar to online dating. This would have motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply Wernick in the online dating context and combine Wernick with Chang. 142. Just as with the combination of Wernick and Norena discussed above, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been especially motivated to combine Wernick with an online dating reference such as Chang given the growing popularity of online dating and particularly online dating mobile applications prior to the 81 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 84 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 alleged invention of the '023 patent. (See ¶¶118-120, supra.) A POSITA would have had strong motivation to apply the mobile user interface disclosed in Wernick in the online dating context and combine Wernick with an online dating reference, such as Chang. Wernick provides an easy-to-use graphical user interface specifically designed for a mobile device that a POSITA would have recognized could be successfully applied in online dating to reach the growing online dating app market. 143. Because, as discussed above, a POSITA would have recognized the value of the user interface of Wernick in the online dating context where a user indicated preferences, a POSITA would have turned to online dating references like Chang for how to apply that interface to an online dating system. Chang discloses a traditional computer-based dating website; the user interface shown in Figures 4-10 of Chang shows a traditional computer-based web browser, as illustrated, for example, by the horizontal orientation of the screen and the URL and user interface controls at the top of the screen, which were typical of desktop or laptop computers. A POSITA would have understood that the user interface of Chang was more appropriate for a traditional computer, and instead use the mobile-phone friendly interface disclosed in Wernick. By 2010, however, "many traditional online dating sites" were "launching apps." (Ex. 1019, 1.) Given the proliferation of dating apps 82 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 85 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 prior to the alleged invention of the '023 patent, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to implement the principles of a dating site like Chang on a mobile interface like Wernick. 144. Other similarities between Wernick and Chang would also have motivated a POSITA to combine these two references. 145. A POSITA would have understood that the cards in Wernick could each represent an online dating profiles of a matched candidate, for example the users shown in Figures 6 and 7 of Chang. (Chang, ¶¶0032-0034, Fig. 6, Fig. 7.) For example, as discussed above, Wernick explicitly contemplates that the displayed objects disclosed in Wernick could correspond to people (e.g., a candidate or friends to invite to a party). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that these cards could correspond to online dating profiles like those disclosed in Chang. This is particularly true given that both Wernick and Chang present choices on the interface in card form. Chang discloses that online dating profiles of selected candidate members are represented graphically on a card. (Chang, Fig. 7.) Because the graphical representation of matches disclosed in Chang resembles an index card, similar to the cards disclosed in Wernick, a POSITA looking to adapt Wernick to an online dating application would have been drawn to Chang and be motivated to combine these references. 83 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 86 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 146. Furthermore, both Wernick and Chang involve making binary choices. Wernick discloses expressing interest in an individual or activity. Wernick discloses a computer-based application where users make binary choices regarding their interest in a specific activity. (Wernick, 10:8-20.) Chang discloses an online dating system in which users make binary decisions regarding a candidate. (Chang, ¶0034, Figs. 3, 7.) Rather than press the "Yes/No" buttons disclosed in Chang, a user could instead perform the swiping gesture corresponding to the positive or negative preference indication disclosed in Wernick. As discussed above, at the time of the alleged invention swiping was a known substitution for a button. (See Kulas, ¶¶0022, 0026-0027, Fig. 1.) Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a POSITA at the time of the alleged invention of the '023 patent that the swiping gestures disclosed in Wernick could be used in place of the "Yes/No" buttons in Chang. (2) "detecting a gesture associated with the graphical representation of the first item of information, the gesture corresponding to a positive preference indication associated with the first item of information, the positive preference indication associated with the first item of information comprising an expression of approval for the first user associated with the first online dating profile, wherein detecting the gesture associated with the graphical representation of the first item of information comprises detecting a right swiping direction associated with the gesture;" (Claim 1[b]) 84 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 87 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 147. Wernick discloses "detecting a gesture associated with the graphical representation of the first item of information, the gesture corresponding to a positive preference indication associated with the first item of information. . . wherein detecting the gesture associated with the graphical representation of the first item of information comprises detecting a right swiping direction associated with the gesture." (Wernick, 9:64-10:49, Fig. 7.) 148. As discussed above with respect to step 1[a], Wernick discloses a graphical representation of the first item of information. (Wernick, 10:21-33, 23:22- 24, Fig. 7.) 149. Wernick discloses a graphical user interface in which "flinging, flicking, dragging or swiping gestures may be used to select an object [i.e., a graphical representation of the first item of information] and move it in a particular direction." (Wernick, 10:8-10) The detection of and execution of an operation in response to the swiping gesture performed on object 711 of Wernick corresponds to the claimed "detecting a gesture associated with the graphical representation of the first item of information. . . wherein detecting the gesture associated with the graphical representation of the first item of information comprises detecting a right swiping direction associated with the gesture." (Wernick, 10:10-11) 85 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 88 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 150. "The direction of movement acts as a choice or indication of the user's intent such as 'I like this'", which corresponds to the claimed "gesture corresponding to a positive preference indication associated with the first item of information". (Wernick, 10:10-11.) Although, Wernick provides one example where a user swipes down to "select[]" or "signal interest", a person of ordinary in the art would have understood that the disclosure in Wernick is not so limited. (Wernick, Fig. 7.) Rather, Wernick generally discloses the direction of a swipe "act[ing] as a choice or indication of the user's intent." (Wernick, Fig. 10:10-11.) The specific directions shown in Wernick, are only one example. (Wernick, 10:12-17 ("For instance flinging an object to the right 732 may cause the object to disappear from the screen and to be rejected. Flinging an object downward 721 may place the object in a collection, which may or may not be visible on the screen, of objects the user wishes to retain for further use.") Indeed, Wernick states "[d]epending on the number of directions, any one of several choices may be made with one gesture." (Wernick, 10:17-19.) In light of this disclosure, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that different choices could be associated different directions. 151. Graphical user interfaces support a variety of interaction metaphors and will be successful if those metaphors are internally consistent and do not violate physical conventions of the real world; it doesn't matter if one deletes a file by 86 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 89 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 moving it to the "trash" or the "recycle bin" but it is important that those objects appear consistently at the same place on the screen. Wernick describes a system in which a user has a small number of choice options, such as add to queue or reject, and indicates the option by swiping from the image stack in a direction, such as left, right, up, or down, which corresponds to the choice. Although Wernick specifically mentions swiping to the right to dispose of an object or downward to add it to the queue of selected objects, this is an arbitrary mapping. There is nothing intrinsic in swiping down to select or indicate positive preference. As long as the number of possible actions is small, a swipe in any direction can be tied to any meaning in the user interface, with appropriate instructions supplied to the user. 152. In the particular user interface shown in Figure 7, there is a section of the screen labelled "Move activity options here to signal interest". This box could certainly be put elsewhere, such as left or right, or indicated by a graphical icon instead of text, or not shown at all, as long as the user received some indication when starting to use the application to be taught which direction of swiping had which consequence. It would have been obvious to a POSITA that a right swipe could be used in place of a downward swipe. Indeed, another reference, Kulas, explicitly notes that "[n]aturally swipes left or right can be used instead of up/down." (Kulas, ¶0027.) Kulas demonstrates that during the relevant time period, a POSITA would 87 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 90 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 have readily understood that swiping in different direction is obvious. (Kulas, ¶0027.) 153. Combination with Norena: As discussed above with respect to step 1[a] Norena discloses a first user associated with a first online dating profile. (Norena, ¶¶0006-10, 0021-22, 0033-34, 0045, 0056, Fig. 3.) Norena also discloses a "positive preference indication. . . comprising an expression of approval for the first user associated with the first online dating profile." A user of the system disclosed in Norena is presented with the profiles of other users and asked to indicate if they want to meet the other users as shown in Figure 3. (Norena, ¶¶0024, 0035, 0047, Fig. 3.) Clicking the first "I want to meet this person" button shown in Figure 3 of Norena corresponds to a "positive preference indication associated with the first item of information comprising an expression of approval for the first user associated with the first online dating profile." 154. Wernick also discloses a "positive preference indication associated with the first item of information" as discussed above. As discussed above with respect to claim element 1[a] a POSITA would have been motivated to combine Wernick with Norena so that the online dating profile disclosed in Norena would be displayed on the cards disclosed in Wernick. (See ¶123, supra.) The swiping gesture 88 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 91 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 for expressing positive preference disclosed in Wernick would take the place of the button disclosed in Norena. (See ¶¶124-125, supra.) 155. Rationale and Motivation to Combine Wernick with Norena: The rationale and motivation to combine Wernick with Norena for this limitation is the same as the rationale and motivation to combine Wernick with Norena for step 1[a] discussed above. 156. Alternative Combination with Chang: As discussed above with respect to step 1[a] Chang discloses "a first user associated with a first online dating profile." (Chang, ¶¶0025, 0027, Fig. 7.) Chang also discloses a "positive preference indication. . . comprising an expression of approval for the first user associated with the first online dating profile." As shown in Figure 7 of Chang, a user is presented with the online dating profile of the first user (e.g., Miss Wong) and may express a "positive preference indication. . . comprising an expression of approval for the first user (e.g., Miss Wong) by clicking the "yes" button. (Chang, ¶¶0034, Fig. 7.) 157. Wernick also discloses a "positive preference indication associated with the first item of information" as discussed above. As described above with respect to claim element 1[a], a POSITA would have been motivated to combine Wernick with Chang so that the online dating profile disclosed in Chang would be displayed on the cards disclosed in Wernick. (See ¶145, supra.) The swiping gesture 89 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 92 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 for expressing positive preference disclosed in Wernick would take the place of the "yes" button disclosed in Chang. (See ¶146 supra.) 158. Rationale and Motivation to Combine Wernick and Chang: The rationale and motivation to combine Wernick with Chang with respect to this limitation is the same as described in the analysis of element 1[a] discussed above. (3) "storing the positive preference indication associated with the first item of information in response to detecting the gesture;" (Claim 1[c]) 159. Wernick discloses "storing the positive preference indication associated with the first item of information in response to detecting the gesture". Specifically, Wernick discloses that when a user expresses a positive preference indication by swiping, which "acts as a choice or indication of the user's intent such as. . . 'add this to my wish list' or 'Add this to my queue'." (Wernick, 10:11-12.) A user "may place the object in a collection. . . that the user wishes to retain for further use." (Wernick, 10:14-17.) "The user moves an object from the top of the stack down 720, 721 to save/select it." (Wernick, 10:45-47.) A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that for an item of information to be saved in a "collection," "wish list," or "queue" this positive preference indication would necessarily be stored. 90 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 93 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 160. The purpose of the user interface shown in Figure 7 of Wernick is to allow the user to indicate preferences which will later be used to make recommendations based on finding similar activities. For example, Figure 17 is described as "a block diagram of receiving and processing past activity examples with query parameters" (Wernick, 21:44-45), and Figure 17 includes a box 1715 "previously saved user choices and/or and a user preference history." (Wernick, 21:52-53.) This information is available because the user previously expressed interest in particular choices through the user interface just mentioned. In fact the description of Figure 7 refers to a "wish list" (10:12). The recommendation based on past choices could only occur if those choices had been saved and available for the matching algorithm. 161. In Wernick, the "wish list" or "collection" consists entirely of those items for which a user has expressed a positive preference and every item the user has expressed a positive preference for is in the wish list. Therefore, the wish list is a list of positive preferences and shows that the positive preference indication associated with the first item of information is stored. 162. This functionality is supported by Figure 18. Figure 18 discloses the components of a typical computer system, which may be a user device, like a mobile phone or a back end server. (See, e.g., Wernick, 23:10-13.) The description of the 91 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 94 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 user interface input devices 1822 (for example a touch screen incorporated into a display) and user output devices 1820 is consistent with this disclosing mobile device architecture. (Wernick, 22:32-52; Fig. 18.) In addition, a POSITA would have understood that a mobile device is a miniature computer and includes the architecture disclosed in Figure 18. Figure 18 shows both a memory subsystem 1826 with RAM (Random Access Memory) 1830, as well as file storage subsystem 1828. Wernick discloses that RAM 1830 is for "stor[ing] … data during program execution." (Wernick, 22:58-61.) It would have been obvious to a POSITA that the processor 1814, upon detecting the swipe gesture from the touchscreen (user interface input devices 1822) would save the indicated preference in the local memory (RAM) and also would likely save it in the file storage subsystem so that it would be available later after the user's computer or phone was rebooted (4) "automatically presenting, on the graphical user interface, a graphical representation of a second item of information of the plurality of items of information in response to detecting the gesture, the second item of information comprising a graphical representation of a second online dating profile associated with a second user; and" (Claim 1[d]) 163. Wernick discloses "automatically presenting, on the graphical user interface, a graphical representation of a second item of information of the plurality of items of information in response to detecting the gesture." As discussed above in 92 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 95 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 step 1[a] Wernick discloses displaying a plurality of items of information on a graphical user interface as a stack of cards shown one at a time. (Wernick, Fig. 7, 8:67-9:5; 10:45-49.) In response to the user's swipe (i.e., when the system detects a gesture) the first card moves off the screen and the second item of information (card) is automatically presented on the graphical user interface without further user involvement. (Wernick, 10:45-49, Fig. 7.) This is shown in Figure 720 of Figure 7 where the graphical representation of a second item of information is becoming visible as the first item of information is selected in response to detecting a gesture. (Wernick, 10:45-49, Fig. 7.) 164. Wernick displays a set of possible activities, such as restaurants, as images (i.e., a graphical representation) on a graphical user interface, as is clearly shown in Figure 7. The images are shown as a skewed stack, which makes it clear that there are more images or choices beneath the top image. When the user swipes on the top image to "move" (Wernick, 10:2) it is a way of indicating positive preference for example. It would have been obvious to a POSITA that "moving" the top image would reveal the image underneath; to do otherwise would have resulted in an inscrutable user interface of a big blank square in the middle. 165. Especially in light of the card-based metaphor, one would naturally understand that once the top card was sorted away by swiping into the "more" or 93 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 96 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 "not interested" directions, that the next card in the stack would be visible. The user would not need to click a button or some other control to make it appear, but it would simply appear automatically, without further human intervention, when the user acted upon the top image. 166. It is also clear that the user is presented with a stack of choices because there are multiple objects from which to choose, and the purpose of choosing is to seed the match making algorithm based on preferences. This would require that the next, e.g., restaurant, be immediately revealed as another possible preference item, i.e., displayed automatically. 167. Combination with Norena: As discussed above with respect to step 1[a], Norena generally discloses graphical representations of online dating profiles. (See ¶¶112-114, supra.) Norena further discloses "the second item of information comprising a graphical representation of a second online dating profile associated with a second user." As shown in Figure 3, a user is presented with a graphical representation of a second online dating profile associated with a second user, for example User3 shown in Figure 1. As discussed above with respect to claim element 1[a] a POSITA would have been motivated to combine Wernick with Norena so that the second online dating profiles disclosed in Norena would be displayed on the second card disclosed in Wernick. (See ¶123, supra.) 94 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 97 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 168. Rationale and Motivation to Combine Wernick and Norena: The rationale and motivation to combine Wernick with Norena for this limitation is the same as the rationale and motivation to combine Wernick with Norena for step 1[a] discussed above. 169. Alternative Combination with Chang: As discussed above with respect to step 1[a], Chang discloses graphical representations an online dating profile. (See ¶¶127-138, supra.) Chang further discloses "the second item of information comprising a graphical representation of a second online dating profile associated with a second user." As shown in Figure 6, a user is presented with a graphical representation of a second online dating profile associated with a second user, for example Miss Chen shown in Figure 6. 95 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 98 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 170. The representation of Miss Chen in Figure 6 is a graphical representation under the constructions proposed by both parties in the related litigation. 171. With respect to PO's proposed construction in the related litigation, the icon above and image of a person displayed in connection with Miss Chen in Figure 6 is a "pictorial portrayal" of Miss Chen. (Chang, Fig. 6.) 172. With respect to Petitioner's proposed construction in the related litigation, the representation of Miss Chen in Figure 6 is also a "summary of information displayed on a graphical user interface," for example it includes Miss Chen's name, age and location. (Chang, Fig. 6.) Miss Chen's online dating profile 96 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 99 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 may also be displayed in the manner shown in Figure 7. (Chang, ¶¶0033-0034, Fig. 7.) As discussed above with respect to element 1[a], Figure 6 and Figure 7 of Chang clearly disclose a graphical user interface. As discussed above with respect to claim element 1[a] a POSITA would have been motivated to combine Wernick with Chang so that the second online dating profiles disclosed in Chang would be displayed on the second card disclosed in Wernick. (See ¶145 supra.) 173. Rationale and Motivation to Combine Wernick and Chang: The rationale and motivation to combine Wernick with Chang with respect to this limitation is the same as described in the analysis of element 1[a] discussed above. (5) "automatically removing the graphical representation of the first item of information from the graphical user interface in response to detecting the gesture." (Claim 1[e]) 174. Wernick discloses "automatically removing the graphical representation of the first item of information from the graphical user interface in response to detecting the gesture." For example, Wernick discloses that "Screen 730 shows how an object may be 'flung' off the screen to reject it and present the next object." (Wernick, Fig. 7, 10:48-49.) Wernick discloses that "flinging an object to the right 732 may cause the object to disappear from the screen and to be rejected." (Wernick, 10:13-14.) 97 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 100 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 175. As shown in Figure 7 at 720, an object also moves off the screen in response to detecting a positive preference indication gesture. (Wernick, Fig. 7, 10:48-49.) For example, "[f]linging an object downward 721 may place the object in a collection, which may or may not be visible on the screen, of objects that the user wishes to retain for further use." (Wernick, 10:14-17.) Although this passage of Wernick uses the term "flinging", Wernick elsewhere discloses that "flinging, flicking, dragging, or swiping gestures may be used to select and object and move it in a particular direction. (Wernick, 10:8-10.) In addition a POSITA would have viewed "flinging" and "swiping" as the same motion. When an object is placed in a collection that is not visible on the screen it is being removed from the graphical user interface. Therefore, Wernick discloses automatically removing the graphical representation of the first item of information from the graphical user interface in response to detecting a gesture because when a user expresses a positive preference indication by swiping or flinging a card, Wernick discloses that card being removed from the screen without further involvement of the user. (Wernick, Fig. 7, 10:13- 17, 10:48-49.) 176. For the foregoing reasons, claim 1 is obvious over (1) Wernick, in view of Norena, and (2) Wernick, in view of Chang. 98 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 101 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 (b) Claim 3 177. As shown in the chart below, claim 3 is similar to claim 1 (underlining added to indicate identical language): Claim 1 Claim 3 [1] A method of navigating a user [3] A system comprising: interface, comprising: [1a] presenting, on a graphical user [3a] an interface operable to: interface, a graphical representation of present a graphical representation of a a first item of information of a plurality first item of information of a plurality of items of information, the first item of items of information, the first item of information comprising a graphical of information comprising a graphical representation of a first online dating representation of a first online dating profile associated with a first user, profile associated with a first user, wherein presenting the graphical wherein the interface is further representation of the first item of operable to present the graphical information of the plurality of items of representation of the first item of information comprises presenting the information of the plurality of items of first item of information as a first card information as a first card of a stack of of a stack of cards; cards; [1b] detecting a gesture associated with [3b] a processor coupled to the the graphical representation of the first interface and operable to: item of information, the gesture detect a gesture associated with the corresponding to a positive preference graphical representation of the first indication associated with the first item item of information, the gesture of information, the positive preference corresponding to a positive preference indication associated with the first item indication associated with the first item of information comprising an of information, the positive preference expression of approval for the first user indication associated with the first item associated with the first online dating of information comprising an profile, wherein detecting the gesture expression of approval for the first user associated with the graphical associated with the first online dating representation of the first item of profile, wherein the processor is further information comprises detecting a right operable to detect a right swiping direction associated with the gesture; 99 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 102 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 swiping direction associated with the gesture; [1c] storing the positive preference [3c] store the positive preference indication associated with the first item indication associated with the first item of information in response to detecting of information in response to detecting the gesture; the gesture; and [1d] automatically presenting, on the [3d] the interface further operable to: graphical user interface, a graphical automatically present a graphical representation of a second item of representation of a second item of information of the plurality of items of information of the plurality of items of information in response to detecting the information in response to the gesture, the second item of information processor detecting the gesture, the comprising a graphical representation second item of information comprising of a second online dating profile a graphical representation of a second associated with a second user; and online dating profile associated with a second user; and [1e] automatically removing the 3[e] automatically remove the graphical representation of the first graphical representation of the first item of information from the graphical item of information in response to user interface in response to detecting detecting the gesture. the gesture. 178. Independent claim 3 merely recites a "system" corresponding to method claim 1, having an "interface" and a "processor coupled to the interface" "operable to" perform to steps corresponding to the steps of claim 1. 179. The recitation of "a system", "an interface operable to," and a "processor coupled to the interface operable to provide no meaningful distinction when the prior art is considered. The methods disclosed in Wernick, Norena and Chang are all implemented in a computer-based system that include a server and user devices that include interfaces and necessarily include processors. (Chang, 100 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 103 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 Figs. 1, 4-10, ¶0017; Wernick; Figs. 1, 7, 18, 2:56-64, 7:30-41, 22:18-23:18; Norena, Figs. 2-4, ¶¶0019, 0031, 0042.) 180. Wernick, Chang and Norena are all "systems", in that they have multiple components (for example, a graphical user interface, processor and memory) that work in concert to achieve the desired results. They all have interfaces, i.e., user interfaces, because that is how the users interact with the underlying system, to express preferences. With no interface, no one would be able to actually use the system. These devices all require processors to control the interface, be it a microprocessor which controls the functionality and display of a mobile phone or the web browser software for a laptop or desktop computer. The components of the claimed system, for example, the interface shown in Figure 7 of Wernick, and their related functionality in combination with Norena or Chang are discussed in connection with the steps of claim 1. 181. These added claim elements provide no meaningful limitation on the previous claims, given that those claims already are to a system, which necessarily already has all these components. 182. The claimed "interface" is operable to perform elements 3[a], 3[d], and 3[e]. In the related litigation, PO has interpreted the claimed interface to be the user interface. (Ex. 1020, 19.) Based on the context of claims, Petitioner agrees that the 101 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 104 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 "interface" claimed in claim 3 refers to the graphical user interface. As the claims cover a specific graphical user interface, it is reasonable to assume that this term refers to a user interface specifically, i.e., the input (such as touchscreen) and output (such as display) components with which a user interacts. Wernick discloses a user interface (e.g., the mobile device touchscreen shown in Fig. 7) that satisfies the limitations of 3[a], 3[d], and 3[e], as discussed for steps 1[a], 1[d], and 1[e], above. 183. Elements 3[b] and 3[c] are performed by "a processor coupled to the interface". A POSITA would have understood that the user devices in Wernick, such as the mobile device in Figure 7 above, necessarily include processors, which are coupled to the user interface. A POSITA would have understood that mobile device touchscreen and mobile device processor would necessarily be coupled because the touchscreen and processor must communicate to function. 184. In addition, Figure 18 of Wernick discloses an example computer system which may be used to carry out the invention disclosed in Wernick: 102 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 105 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 (Wernick, Fig. 18.) 185. In Figure 18 Wernick illustrates components commonly found and well known in computers and mobile phones. Figure 18 discloses the components of a typical computer system, which may be a user device, like a mobile phone or a back end server. (See, e.g., Wernick, 23:10-13.) The description of the user interface input devices 1822 (for example a touch screen incorporated into a display) and user output devices 1820 is consistent with this disclosing mobile device architecture. (Wernick, 22:32-52; Fig. 18.) In addition, a POSITA would have understood that a mobile device is a miniature computer and includes the architecture disclosed in Figure 18. 103 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 106 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 186. As just mentioned, the user interface is composed primarily of a screen which shows the elements of a graphical user interface; the screen is an example of the user interface output devices 1820. Wernick Figure 18 also discloses user interface input devices 1822, which Wernick explains may be "a touchscreen incorporated into the display." (Wernick, 22:34-35, Fig. 8.) Together user interface output devices 1820 and user interface input devices 1822 may correspond to the user interface of the mobile device shown in Figure 7 of Wernick discussed above. 187. Figure 18 of Wernick shows a processor 1814, which is coupled to the user interface input and output devices 1820 and 1822 via bus subsystem 1812. (Wernick, 22:20-36, Fig. 18.) Processor(s) 1814 control what is displayed on the interface. A POSITA would have understood that the processor is operable to perform the "detect a gesture. . ." step recited in claim 3[b]. The handheld device would accept user input by means of a touchscreen for the finger or a stylus, using well known technology. This would be found as the block 1822 user interface input devices. The touch inputs would be interpreted by the processor to determine which gesture was input by the user, and how to update the display in response. Note that touchscreens only sense a series of screen locations as (x, y) coordinates and the processor must "connect the dots" to determine whether a sequence of such touches 104 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 107 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 constitutes a gesture. Therefore, the processor of the mobile device performs the "detect a gesture. . . " limitations of claim 3[b]. 188. In addition, a POSITA would have understood that the processor writes to memory, such as storage subsystem 1824 (e.g., RAM 1830 or file storage subsystem 1828), via a bus, like the bus subsystem 1812. This writing corresponds to the "stor[ing] the positive preference indication" of claim 3[c]. Accordingly, the processor is operable to perform the limitation of claim 3[c]. 189. The rationale and motivation to combine Wernick with Norena and Wernick with Chang is the same for claim 3 as it is for claim 1 discussed above and incorporated here by reference. 190. For these reasons, and the reasons stated for claim 1, claim 3 is therefore obvious over (1) Wernick, in view of Norena, and (2) Wernick, in view of Chang. (c) Claim 5 191. As shown in the chart below, claim 5 is similar to claim 1 (underlining added to indicate identical language): Claim 1 Claim 5 [1] A method of navigating a user [5] At least one non-transitory interface, comprising: computer-readable medium comprising a plurality of instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, are configured to: [1a] presenting, on a graphical user 5[a] present, on a graphical user interface, a graphical representation of interface, a graphical representation of 105 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 108 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 a first item of information of a plurality a first item of information of a plurality of items of information, the first item of items of information, the first item of information comprising a graphical of information comprising a graphical representation of a first online dating representation of a first online dating profile associated with a first user, profile associated with a first user, wherein presenting the graphical wherein the plurality of instructions are representation of the first item of configured to present the graphical information of the plurality of items of representation of the first item of information comprises presenting the information of the plurality of items of first item of information as a first card information as a first card of a stack of of a stack of cards; cards; [1b] detecting a gesture associated with 5[b] detect a gesture associated with the graphical representation of the first the graphical representation of the first item of information, the gesture item of information, the gesture corresponding to a positive preference corresponding to a positive preference indication associated with the first item indication associated with the first item of information, the positive preference of information, the positive preference indication associated with the first item indication associated with the first item of information comprising an of information comprising an expression of approval for the first user expression of approval for the first user associated with the first online dating associated with the first online dating profile, wherein detecting the gesture profile, wherein the plurality of associated with the graphical instructions are further configured to representation of the first item of detect a right swiping direction information comprises detecting a right associated with the gesture; swiping direction associated with the gesture; [1c] storing the positive preference 5[c] store the positive preference indication associated with the first item indication associated with the first item of information in response to detecting of information in response to detecting the gesture; the gesture; [1d] automatically presenting, on the 5[d] automatically present, on the graphical user interface, a graphical graphical user interface, a graphical representation of a second item of representation of a second item of information of the plurality of items of information of the plurality of items of information in response to detecting the information in response to detecting the gesture, the second item of information gesture, the second item of information comprising a graphical representation comprising a graphical representation 106 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 109 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 of a second online dating profile of a second online dating profile associated with a second user; and associated with a second user; and [1e] automatically removing the 5[e] automatically remove the graphical representation of the first graphical representation of the first item of information from the graphical item of information from the graphical user interface in response to detecting user interface in response to detecting the gesture. the gesture. 192. Independent claim 5 merely recites a "[a]t least one non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising a plurality of instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, are configured to" perform to steps corresponding to the steps in method claim 1. 193. The recitation of "[a]t least one non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising a plurality of instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, are configured to" provides no meaningful limitation. The methods disclosed in Wernick, Norena, and Chang are implemented in a computer-based system that a POSITA would have understood to necessarily include non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that would be executed by a processor. 194. Figure 18 discloses the components of a typical computer system, which may be a user device, like a mobile phone or a back end server. (See, e.g., Wernick, 23:10-13.) The description of the user interface input devices 1822 (for example a touch screen incorporated into a display) and user output devices 1820 is 107 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 110 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 consistent with this disclosing mobile device architecture. (Wernick, 22:32-52; Fig. 18.) In addition, a POSITA would understand that a mobile device is a miniature computer and includes the architecture disclosed in Figure 18. 195. In Figure 18 Wernick shows a processor 1814 connected to the other components of the phone by a bus 1812. As is well-known, a processor executes a program, i.e., a series of instructions, and the instructions must be stored in memory such that the processor can execute them. This memory would by necessity be non- transitory (i.e., non-volatile) or else the Wernick invention would be inoperable every time the phone was turned off, either intentionally or unintentionally due to battery run down. Figure 18 shows ROM (Read Only Memory) 1832 in the memory subsystem 1826, and it also shows a file storage subsystem 1828. Either or both of these would be both non-transitory and a suitable repository for the processor instructions or program. 196. The rationale and motivation to combine Wernick with Norena and Wernick with Chang is the same for claim 5 as it is for claim 1. 197. For these reasons, and the reasons stated for claim 1, claim 5 is therefore obvious over (1) Wernick, in view of Norena, and (2) Wernick, in view of Chang. 108 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 111 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 (d) Claim 2: The method of claim 1, wherein presenting the graphical representation of the first item of information of the plurality of items of information comprises presenting user interface controls such that all user interface controls configured to cause another item of information of the plurality of items of information to be displayed are associated with performing an action on the first item of information. 198. Wernick discloses the additional limitations of claim 2. As discussed above for claim 1, Wernick discloses "presenting the graphical representation of the first item of information of the plurality of items of information." 199. Figure 7 of Wernick also discloses "presenting user interface controls such that all user interface controls configured to cause another item of information of the plurality of items of information to be displayed are associated with performing an action on the first item of information." 109 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 112 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 200. The user interface disclosed in Wernick Figure 7 at 710, 720 and 730 does not show any user interface controls configured to cause a second activity card (another item of information) of the stack of activity cards (plurality of items of information) to be displayed other than performing an action (flinging, flicking, dragging swiping) on the first activity option card (first item of information). (Wernick, 10:1-17, 10:45-49, Fig. 7.) Claim 2 is therefore obvious over (1) Wernick in view of Norena, and (2) Wernick in view of Chang. (e) Claim 4 201. As shown in the chart below, claim 4 is similar to claim 2 (underlining added to indicate identical language): Claim 2 Claim 4 [2] The method of claim 1, wherein [4] The system of claim 3, wherein the presenting the graphical representation interface is further operable to present of the first item of information of the user interface controls such that ail user plurality of items of information interface controls configured to cause comprises presenting user interface another item of information of the controls such that all user interface plurality of items of information to be controls configured to cause another displayed are associated with item of information of the plurality of performing an action on the first item items of information to be displayed of information. are associated with performing an action on the first item of information. 110 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 113 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 202. Dependent claim 4 is directed to the system of claim 3, wherein the interface is further operable to perform steps corresponding to steps of the claim 2.6 The discussion of the interface element with respect to claim 3 above also applies to claim 4. As discussed above for claim 2, the user interface shown in Figure 7 of Wernick is operable to perform the additional limitations of claim 4. Considering the analysis of claim 2 taken with the analysis of the interface element of claim 3, a claim 4 is obvious over (1) Wernick in view of Norena, and (2) Wernick in view of Chang. (f) Claim 6 203. As shown in the chart below, claim 6 is similar to claim 2 (underlining added to indicate identical language): Claim 2 Claim 6 [2] The method of claim 1, wherein [6] The at least one non-transitory presenting the graphical representation computer-readable medium of claim 5, of the first item of information of the wherein the plurality of instructions are plurality of items of information further configured to present user 6 Claim 4 recites in part "wherein the interface is further operable to present user interface controls such that ail user interface controls. . . ." For the purposes of this petition, petitioner has assumed "ail" to be a typographical error and interpreted it to read "all user interface controls" consistent with the language of claim 2 and claim 6. 111 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 114 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 comprises presenting user interface interface controls such that all user controls such that all user interface interface controls configured to cause controls configured to cause another another item of information of the item of information of the plurality of plurality of items of information to be items of information to be displayed displayed are associated with are associated with performing an performing an action on the first item action on the first item of information. of information. 204. Dependent claim 6 merely recites "the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 5, wherein the plurality of instructions are further configured to" perform a corresponding to the step of claim 2. As indicated for claim 5, the recitation of the "medium" is a limitation that does not affect my analysis of the applicability of the prior art. For the reasons stated for claim 2, therefore, claim 6 is obvious over (1) Wernick, in view of Norena, and (2) Wernick, in view of Chang. 2. Morris as the Primary Reference: Morris in Combination with Norena or Chang and Morris in Combination with Kulas in Further Combination with Norena or Chang Renders Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 Obvious (a) Claim 1 205. In the paragraphs below I will explain that each limitation of claim 1 is disclosed and rendered obvious by (1) Morris in combination with Norena or Chang and (2) Morris in combination with Kulas, in further combination with Norena or Chang. Claim 1 is obvious over Morris in view of Norena or Chang. Claim 1 is also obvious over Morris in view of Kulas and in further view of Norena or Chang. 112 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 115 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 Morris discloses each limitation of claim 1, except the "online dating profile" related limitations of steps 1[a], 1[b], and 1[d]. Norena and Chang, however, disclose these "online dating profile" limitations as I have described earlier in this declaration. Although Morris discloses "right swiping direction associated with a gesture" as required by step 1[b], Kulas provides further disclosure of this limitation. As discussed below, a POSITA would have been motivated to combine (1) Morris with Norena or Chang and (2) Morris with Kulas and Norena or Chang and claim 1 is obvious over these references. 206. The preamble of claim 1 recites, "a method of navigating a user interface." To the extent the preamble is limiting, it is disclosed and rendered obvious by Morris. The preamble recites "a method of navigating a user interface, comprising." Morris sought to provide "an improved way to browse multimedia search results on the device." (Morris, ¶0007.) To achieve this goal, Morris discloses a method of navigating a user interface, specifically the user interface shown in Figure 6 below: 113 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 116 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 207. "Figure 6 shows a user interface for browsing a stack of search results on a handheld communications device 610 according" to the disclosure in Morris. As discussed below, Morris discloses a method of navigating a user interface where a user may drag or slide images 680 in various directions to add the image to the user's favorites, delete the image, or perform other operations. (Morris, ¶0039.) Morris therefore discloses the subject matter of the preamble of claim 1 the '023 patent. 114 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 117 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 (1) "presenting, on a graphical user interface, a graphical representation of a first item of information of a plurality of items of information, the first item of information comprising a graphical representation of a first online dating profile associated with a first user, wherein presenting the graphical representation of the first item of information of the plurality of items of information comprises presenting the first item of information as a first card of a stack of cards;" (Claim 1[a]) 208. Morris discloses "presenting, on a graphical user interface, a graphical representation of a first item of information of a plurality of items of information". Figure 6 of Morris discloses a graphical user interface, specifically a touchscreen interface on a mobile device. (Morris, ¶¶0038-0040, Fig. 6.) Morris discloses what is obviously a graphical user interface in Figure 6. The only text on the screen is the text label associated with the IPTV icon 63. Everything else on the screen are non- textual items which could be displayed only as part of a GUI, which of course would be likely to use icons, such as 613, 615, 617, and 621, for various functions. Additionally Morris also uses an interface controlled by either finger or stylus touch, which would also be part of only a graphical user interface. 209. Figure 6 of Morris discloses "a graphical representation of a first item of information of a plurality of items of information." Specifically, Morris discloses displaying top image 680 of the stack of images 623. (Morris, ¶¶0039-0040, Fig. 6.) 115 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 118 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 Image 680 and each image in the stack of images 623 is "a media resources or file" which Morris teaches "includes any information or data that can be represented in visual format", for example "images, animations, video, etc." (Morris, ¶0025; see also id. ¶¶0026, 0032, 0034, Fig. 6.) Morris discloses that the "visual form" is the stack of images shown as element 623 in Fig. 6, including the fully visible top image 623; this is also consistent with the requirement that a "media resource or file" includes information that can be represented visually, as there is no representation disclosed in Morris other than that shown in Fig. 6. Each of these images is therefore a "graphical representation" of an "item of information." (Morris, ¶¶0025-0026, Fig. 6.) Morris discloses searching the internet for media files. (Morris, ¶0032.) "The set of search results" may be displayed as "stacks for easy display, wherein each stack includes a plurality of media files, for instance, images." (Morris, ¶0032.) Again, this stack of images is shown as element 623 in Fig. 6. Morris therefore discloses presenting on a graphical user interface a graphical representation of a first item of information (image 680) of a plurality of items of information (stack of images 623). 210. As discussed above with respect to Wernick, in the related litigation, PO has asserted that "graphical representation" should be construed as "pictorial portrayal". (Ex. 1021, 4-5.) Petitioner has asserted that if "graphical representation" 116 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 119 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 is construed, it should be construed as "summary of information displayed on a graphical user interface." (Ex. 1022, 5.) The images disclosed in Morris are "graphical representations" under either of these constructions. 211. With respect to PO's proposed construction, Morris discloses that the images 680 and stack of images 623 may include "any information or data that can be represented in visual format." (Morris, ¶0025, Fig. 6.) These images may correspond to media files such as video files that correspond to the claimed "items of information". (Morris, ¶0025.) Figure 6 itself shows a picture on image 680, which would be an example of a "pictorial portrayal". (Morris, Fig. 6.) Morris therefore discloses a "graphical representation of a first item of information of a plurality of items of information" under PO's proposed construction. 212. Morris similarly discloses a "summary of information displayed on a graphical user interface." As discussed above, Figure 6 discloses a graphical user interface. (Morris, ¶¶0025-0026 (discussing media resources or files and displaying media resources as a stack of images), 0032 (same), 0034 (same), 0039-0040 (discussing the user interface shown in figure 6), Fig. 6.) Morris discloses that media files, may be "any information or data that can be represented in visual format," for example a "video file" (Morris, ¶0025.) Figure 6 of Morris discloses that image 680, which is a visual summary of information regarding a media file, such as a video 117 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 120 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 file, is presented on the graphical user interface (Morris, ¶¶0025-26, 0032 0034, 0038-0040, Fig. 6.) For example a video file may be represented by an image, similar to a DVD cover, which would be a summary of information regarding the video. 213. Moreover, a POSITA would have understood image 680 to be a summary of information because Morris uses a small display on a handheld device to enter search terms and display results, which are shown as small images. These images may be thought of as the thumbnails shown in an iconic view of the files in a folder of a conventional computer GUI; as such they summarize the content of the file but are not the actual file in its entirety. For example, an image would most likely consist of many more pixels than could be fully displayed on the handheld screen, which instead would show an image reduced in size and resolution. For a video file, the image would likely be a key frame or title frame for the video, again using thumbnail techniques which are quite familiar to users of web or file browsers. A POSITA would have understood these as graphical representations (i.e., a summary of information displayed on a graphical user interface.) 214. As shown in Figure 6, Morris discloses presenting the graphical representation of the first item of information of a plurality of items of information as a first card in a stack of cards: 118 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 121 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 (Morris, Fig. 6.) 215. As shown above and discussed in Morris, image 680 is shown as the first card in a stack of images 623. (Morris, ¶¶0039-0040, Fig. 6.) Morris further discloses: a set of results may be subdivided into stacks of, for instance, 10 results at a time. The stack is oriented in such a way that it is apparent to the user that the results are stacked. For instance the edges of image results 119 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 122 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 may be rotated at various angles so they can be seen as if "looking down" on top of the stacks. (Morris, ¶0026.) 216. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have viewed the "stack of images" shown in Morris Fig. 6 as a stack of cards. (See Morris, ¶0039.) Morris illustrates a user interface for managing preference items in Figure 6: "FIG. 6 shows a user interface for browsing a stack of search results…." (See Morris, ¶0039.) This is clearly meant to indicate a stack ("stack of images" is the phrase used) which are slightly offset from each other, to provide to the user the understanding that there are multiple objects to be manipulated, by providing a sense of depth. Indeed with the displayed aspect ratio of the images one could easily image the stack to be a stack of conventional playing cards. These are described as "images" and one could easily see the metaphor with a stack of printed photos. Photo prints have enough stiffness in themselves to be considered as "cards" (a term never described in any detail in the specification of the '023 patent). Of course a graphical user interface on a touchscreen has no three dimensional physicality, but the appearance and operation ("grabbing" and "sliding") of Morris both suggests and is indistinguishable from a "stack of cards". 217. Combination with Norena: As above with respect to the Wernick grounds, Norena discloses and renders obvious the online dating profile limitation 120 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 123 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 of step 1[a]. The combinations with Morris and Morris/Kulas rely on the analysis and mapping of Norena for the online dating profile limitation of step 1[a] as set forth above with respect to Wernick and which is incorporated by reference here. 218. Rationale and Motivation to Combine Morris with Norena: A POSITA would have been motivated to combine the card-based user interface and swiping disclosed in Morris with the online dating profile disclosed in Norena. The predictable result would have been a card-based graphical user interface where positive preference decisions are made regarding online dating profiles using a swiping gesture. 219. The motivation to combine Morris with Norena is very similar to the motivation to combine Wernick with Norena. Like Wernick, Morris provides a mobile-based user-friendly interface. Morris seeks to provide "an improved way to browse multimedia search results" on a handheld device. (Morris, ¶0007.) A POSITA would have recognized that the user interface elements disclosed in Morris could be more broadly applied. Morris itself teaches this because it defines "media resource or file" broadly as including "any information or data that can be represented in a visual format." (Morris, ¶0025.) A POSITA would have recognized that online dating profiles are examples of "information or data that can be represented in visual format." (Morris, ¶0025.) This would have motivated a person 121 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 124 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 of ordinary skill in the art to apply Morris in the online dating context and combine Morris with Norena. 220. As discussed above with respect to the Wernick grounds, there was a significant rise in mobile app-based online dating prior to the alleged invention of the '023 patent. (See ¶¶118-120, supra.) Recognizing the popularity of mobile dating apps, a POSITA would have had strong motivation to apply the mobile user interface disclosed in Morris in the online dating context and combine Morris with an online dating reference, such as Norena. Morris provides an easy-to-use graphical user interface specifically designed for a mobile device that facilitates a user indicating a preference by interacting with the interface. A POSITA would have recognized that such an interface could be successfully applied in online dating for showing preferences about candidate profiles to reach the growing online dating app market. 221. Other similarities between Morris and Norena would also have motivated a POSITA to combine these two references. 222. Morris and Norena both disclose performing a search, displaying search results, and making decisions regarding search results. (Morris ¶¶0026, 0039; Norena, ¶0024.) A POSITA would thus further have understood that the Morris 122 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 125 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 interface could be applied to Norena's online dating system and be motivated to combine them. 223. A POSITA would have understood that the image cards in Morris could each represent an individual user shown in Figure 3 of Norena. Norena and Morris both involve expressing interest in an individual or image. Norena discloses that a user may indicate which other users she would like to meet. (Norena, ¶¶0024, 0035, 0047, Fig. 3.) This indication is saved in a list for the user. (Norena, ¶¶0028, 0039, 0052, Fig. 4.) Morris similarly discloses that a user may express preference for an image by placing the image in a user's favorites. (Morris, ¶0039, Fig. 6.) A POSITA would have understood that Morris and Norena could be combined such that rather than pressing the "I want to meet this person" buttons disclosed in Norena, a user could instead perform the swiping gesture corresponding to the positive preference indication disclosed in Morris. As discussed above, at the time of the alleged invention swiping on the touchscreen was a known substitution for a button. (See Kulas, ¶¶0022, 0026-0027, Fig. 1.) Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a POSITA at the time of the alleged invention of the '023 patent that the swipe gesture disclosed in Morris could be used in place of the "I want to meet this person button" in Norena. 123 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 126 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 224. Alternative Combination with Chang: As above with respect to the Wernick grounds, Chang discloses and renders obvious the online dating profile limitation of step 1[a]. The combinations with Morris and Morris/Kulas rely on the analysis and mapping of Chang for the online dating profile limitation of step 1[a] as set forth above with respect to Wernick and which is incorporated by reference here. 225. Rationale and Motivation to Combine Morris and Chang: A POSITA would have been motivated to combine the card-based user interface and swiping disclosed in Morris with the online dating profile disclosed in Chang. The predictable result would have been a card-based graphical user interface where decisions are made regarding online dating profiles using a swiping gesture. 226. The motivation to combine Morris with Chang is very similar to the motivation to combine Morris with Norena. Morris provides a mobile-based user friendly interface. Morris seeks to provide "an improved way to browse multimedia search results" on a handheld device. (Morris, ¶0007.) As discussed above with respect to the combination with Norena, a POSITA would have recognized that the user interface elements disclosed in Morris could be more broadly applied. Morris itself teaches this because it defines "media resource or file" broadly as including "any information or data that can be represented in a visual format." (Morris, 124 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 127 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 ¶0025.) A POSITA would have recognized that online dating profiles are examples of "information or data that can be represented in visual format." (Morris, ¶0025.) This would have motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply Morris in the online dating context and combine Morris with Chang. 227. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been especially motivated to combine Morris with an online dating reference such as Chang given the growing popularity of online dating and particularly online dating mobile applications prior to the alleged invention of the '023 patent, discussed above and incorporated by reference here. (See ¶¶118-120, 143, supra.) 228. A POSITA would have had strong motivation to apply the mobile user interface disclosed in Morris in the online dating context and combine Morris with an online dating reference, such as Chang. Morris provides an easy-to-use graphical user interface specifically designed for a mobile device that a POSITA would have recognized could be successfully applied in online dating to reach the growing online dating app market. 229. Other similarities between Morris and Chang would also have motivated a POSITA to combine these two references. 230. Morris and Chang both disclose performing a search, displaying search results, and making decisions regarding search results. (Morris, ¶¶0026, 0039; 125 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 128 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 Chang, ¶¶0032-0034, Fig. 3.) A POSITA would have understood that the Morris interface could be applied to Chang's online dating system and be motivated to combine them. 231. A POSITA would have understood that the cards in Morris could each represent an online dating profile of a matched candidate, for example the users shown in Figures 6 and 7 of Chang. (Chang, ¶¶0032-0034, Fig. 6, Fig. 7.) This is particularly true given that both Morris and Chang present choices on the interface in card form. Chang discloses that online dating profiles of selected candidate members are represented graphically on a card. (Chang, Fig. 7.) Because the graphical representation of matches disclosed in Chang resembles an index card, similar to the cards disclosed in Morris, a POSITA looking to adapt Morris to an online dating application would have been drawn to Chang and be motivated to combine these references. 232. Furthermore, both Morris and Chang involve expressing preferences. Chang discloses an online dating system in which users make a decision regarding a candidate using "Yes/No" buttons. (Chang, ¶0034, Figs. 3, 7.) Morris similarly discloses that a user may express preference of an image by placing the image in a user's favorites or swipe in another direction to send an image to the trash. (Morris, ¶0039, Fig. 6.). Rather than press the "Yes/No" buttons disclosed in Chang, a user 126 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 129 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 could instead perform the swiping gesture corresponding to the positive or negative preference indication disclosed in Morris. As discussed above, at the time of the alleged invention swiping was a known substitution for a button. (See Kulas, ¶¶0022, 0026-0027, Fig. 1.) Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a POSITA at the time of the alleged invention of the '023 patent that the swiping gestures disclosed in Morris could be used in place of the "Yes/No" buttons in Chang. (2) "detecting a gesture associated with the graphical representation of the first item of information, the gesture corresponding to a positive preference indication associated with the first item of information, the positive preference indication associated with the first item of information comprising an expression of approval for the first user associated with the first online dating profile, wherein detecting the gesture associated with the graphical representation of the first item of information comprises detecting a right swiping direction associated with the gesture;" (Claim 1[b]) 233. Morris discloses "detecting a gesture associated with the graphical representation of the first item of information, the gesture corresponding to a positive preference indication associated with the first item of information. . . wherein detecting the gesture associated with the graphical representation of the first item of information comprises detecting a right swiping direction associated with the gesture." As discussed above with respect to step 1[a], Morris discloses a graphical 127 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 130 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 representation of the first item of information, for example top image 680 shown in Figure 6. (Morris, ¶¶0039-0040; Fig. 6.) 234. Figure 6 of Morris discloses an interface in which "[a] user of device 610 uses their finger … to manipulate stack of images 623 and slide the top image 680 to anywhere on display." (Morris, ¶0039, Fig. 6.) 235. Morris discloses that a user may save an image in "favorites" by "[s]liding image 680 to star icon 617," which is shown to the right of the stack. 128 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 131 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 (Morris, ¶0039.) For example, a user would send an image to "favorites" if he or she liked the image. Sending an image to "favorites" saves the image and may create a list of favorite images the user can later search through. (Morris, ¶0039.) 236. Sliding image 680 to the star icon 617 to the right of the stack 623 corresponds to the claimed "gesture associated with the graphical representation of the first item of information (sliding image 680 to star icon 617), the gesture corresponding to a positive preference indication associated with the first item of information (image 680 is saved in "favorites") . . . wherein detecting the gesture associated with the graphical representation of the first item of information comprises detecting a right swiping direction associated with the gesture (the user swipes to the right to slide image 680 to the right to star icon 617)." (Morris, ¶0039.) A POSITA would have known that for the image 680 to move to star 617 and be saved in favorites the processor would have to receive and analyze data from the touchscreen interface and "detect" the gesture. In fact the processor receives a sequence of touch points from the touchscreen, and the program running in the processor must "connect the dots" by analyzing the relative positions of touches in the sequence in order to detect that the finger is swiping in one direction or another, as opposed to simply touching the screen statically. 129 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 132 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 237. Although Morris uses the terms "dragging" and "sliding" rather than "swiping," a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood "sliding" or "dragging" to be another term for a swiping gesture. Morris discloses a touchscreen where cards slide to four destinations corresponding to the four cardinal directions. 238. Morris represents search results as a slightly skewed stack of cards, and a user can perform various actions with the top card, such as sending it to the IPTV box for display on a large screen or deleting it, with a finger gesture. Although Morris describes this as "dragging" or "sliding" the item to the icon on the screen, (Morris, ¶¶0028, 0039), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have realized that this "dragging" could be accomplished as a swipe gesture, because the screen is of limited size with few options, each of which is shown in a cardinal direction (up, down, left, right) on the display, shown in Figure 6. 239. Given the screen geometry, the relatively few choices, and the relative sizes of the cards and the target locations, it can be seen that the "dragging" or "sliding" is not a fine grained gesture in which it is important that the target icon be reached with some accuracy; rather a coarse motion in any of the four directions would easily move the large card image onto the selected target. Thus Morris' "drag" or "slide" is actually a swipe. 130 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 133 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 240. A person of ordinary skill would have understood that the "sliding" or "dragging" in Morris would correspond to a "swiping" gesture. At the very least, the "sliding" or "dragging" in Morris would render a "swiping" gesture obvious given how ubiquitous swiping was for touchscreen devices at the time of the alleged invention of the '023 patent, as discussed above in the technology background. 241. Moreover, the claim language does not require a right swiping gesture, but rather "detecting a right swiping direction associated with the gesture.") Even if "dragging" or "sliding" were viewed as distinct from "swiping," to drag or slide an image to the right a user would have to perform a "right swiping direction" associated with the gesture, i.e., move their finger to the right. A "swipe" would be understood as a gesture that has a distinct starting point, perhaps the object on which the gesture is to act, and a direction, to select a specific action. This was a well known practice even on desktop interfaces with pie menus, for example 242. In Morris, there are only four user actions (tv, favorites, share, and trash) so the motion gesture performed on the object at the stack of cards does not need to be at all precise, but rather express the choice as one of four cardinal directions on the handheld device. Thus the only significant aspect of the gesture is its direction, which is what is explicitly claimed. There is no need for the user to pay attention to the endpoint of the gesture, because the user is not positioning the 131 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 134 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 card with any precision, but rather simply moving it toward one of the four edges of the screen. 243. Even if the claim is understood to require a swipe gesture, As discussed above, this would have been obvious in light of the disclosure in Morris. 244. Combination with Norena: As above with respect to the Wernick grounds, Norena in combination with Morris and Morris/Kulas discloses and renders obvious the online dating profile limitation of step 1[b]: "the positive preference indication associated with the first item of information comprising an expression of approval for the first user associated with the first online dating profile." The combinations with Morris and Morris/Kulas rely on the analysis and mapping of Norena for the online dating profile limitation of step 1[b] as set forth above with respect to Wernick and which is incorporated by reference here. 245. Rationale and Motivation to Combine Morris and Norena: The rationale and motivation to combine Morris with Norena for this limitation is the same as the rationale and motivation to combine Morris with Norena for step 1[a]. 246. Alternative Combination with Chang: As above with respect to the Wernick grounds, Chang in combination with Morris and Morris/Kulas discloses and renders obvious the online dating profile limitation of step 1[b]: "the positive preference indication associated with the first item of information comprising 132 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 135 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 an expression of approval for the first user associated with the first online dating profile." The combinations with Morris and Morris/Kulas rely on the analysis and mapping of Chang for the online dating profile limitation of step 1[b] as set forth above with respect to Wernick and which is incorporated by reference here. 247. Rationale and Motivation to Combine Morris and Chang: The rationale and motivation to combine Morris with Chang with respect to this limitation is the same as described in the analysis of element 1[a]. 248. Optional Combination with Kulas: As discussed above, Morris in combination with either Norena or Chang alone discloses this limitation. Additionally, Kulas explicitly discloses "detecting a right swiping direction associated with the gesture." Kulas discloses a graphical user interface that enables a user to express approval or disapproval for search results. (See, e.g., Kulas, ¶¶0023, 0027.) Specifically, Kulas discloses that a "user may swipe their finger … upward to indicate approval." (Kulas, ¶0027.) Kulas further discloses that "[n]aturally swipes left or right can be used instead of up/down, or in addition to up/down in order to convey yet other types of mood or intent." Accordingly, the disclosures in Morris and Norena or Chang discussed above combined with the "right swiping direction" disclosure of Kulas render obvious claim element 1[b]. 133 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 136 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 249. Rationale and Motivation to Combine Morris, Norena, and Kulas: It would have been obvious to a POSITA to combine the swiping gestures, disclosed in Kulas, with the graphical user interface disclosed in Morris and the online dating system disclosed in Norena predictably resulting in a user interface where choices regarding interest in online dating profiles were made using the graphical user interface and swiping gestures such as those disclosed in Morris and Kulas. The motivation to combine Morris and Norena is discussed above. 250. It would have been obvious to combine the swiping gesture disclosed in Kulas with the graphical user interface disclosed in Morris. Morris and Kulas both disclose a method for expressing approval or disapproval regarding search results. (Kulas, ¶¶0022, 0027, 0031, 0035-0037, Figs. 3, 7-9.) As discussed above, Morris discloses that a user can interact with a touch-sensitive display to drag or slide cards in different directions to indicate positive preference or negative preference. As discussed, this discloses and renders obvious swiping. 251. At the very least, Morris's disclosure regarding moving cards on a touchscreen represents strong motivation to combine this reference with the swiping gestures disclosed in Kulas because a swiping gesture, like the one disclosed in Kulas was a known method of moving images on a touchscreen. (See, e.g., Kraut, Ex. 1025 (disclosing swiping on a touchscreen in vertical and horizontal directions 134 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 137 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 to move through a stack of cards displaying data records); Hotelling, Ex. 1027 (depicting using swiping gestures to turn an electronic page in an electronic book on a touchscreen); Jobs, Ex. 1029 (disclosing swiping on a touchscreen to scroll or browse through a sequence of items, such as thumbnail photographs); Ishizawa, Ex. 1033 (discussing using a "flick" gesture on a touchscreen to move through a set of images or photos); Chaudhri, Ex. 1034 (disclosing moving through a stack of thumbnail images on a touchscreen using a swiping gesture); Devecka, Ex. 1035 (disclosing using a swiping gesture to move to a next page of icons on a touchscreen device).) 252. Like Morris and Norena, Kulas discloses a method for expressing approval regarding search results. (Kulas, ¶¶0022, 0027, 0031, 0035-0037, Figs. 3, 7-9.) Like Norena, Kulas discloses a button-based interface. (Kulas, ¶¶0022, 0027, 0031, Fig. 3; Norena, Fig. 3.) Kulas explicitly teaches that a swiping gesture can be used in place of a button on a mobile device. (Kulas, ¶¶0026-0027.) Given Kulas's explicit teaching that a swipe may be substituted for a button when expressing approval or disapproval, a POSITA would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Kulas regarding swiping with Norena and utilize the swiping disclosed in Kulas in combination with the interface disclosed in Morris, rather than a button 135 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 138 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 to express positive preference for the online dating profiles disclosed in Norena. The results would have been entirely predictable. 253. The Kulas invention can be applied to existing user interfaces, especially those that are touch driven, as it does not override the existing touch controls, but rather augments them with an "after gesture" which adds meaning or sentiment to the action the user performs. One could readily adapt any touch-based user interface to support the additional semantics of the Kulas swipe gesture. 254. It would have been readily apparent to one who wanted to add the ability of the user of a phone-based application how to employ Kulas for expressing positive or negative sentiments such as "liking" and "disliking" because it would require simply adding straightforward simple gesture recognition to be triggered when the user made the initial touch of the screen. Kulas would have been a simple and obvious solution because the user interface of Kulas does not require the existing user interaction to be modified, but only augmented. 255. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention disclosed in the '023 patent that one could combine the graphical user interface disclosed in Morris with the swiping gesture disclosed in Kulas and that this swiping user interface could replace the "I want to meet this person" button disclosed in Norena. 136 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 139 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 256. Rationale and Motivation to Combine Morris, Chang and Kulas: It would have been obvious to a POSITA to combine the swiping gestures, disclosed in Kulas, with the graphical user interface disclosed in Morris and the online dating system disclosed in Chang predictably resulting in user a interface where choices regarding interest or lack of interest in online dating profiles were made using the graphical user interface and swiping gestures such as those disclosed in Morris and Kulas. The motivation to combine Morris and Chang is discussed above. 257. It would have been obvious to combine the swiping gesture disclosed in Kulas with the graphical user interface disclosed in Morris. Morris and Kulas both disclose a method for expressing approval or disapproval regarding search results. (Kulas, ¶¶0022, 0027, 0031, 0035-0037, Figs. 3, 7-9.) As discussed above, Morris discloses that a user can interact with a touch-sensitive display to drag or slide cards in different directions to indicate positive preference or negative preference. As discussed, this discloses and renders obvious swiping. 258. At the very least, Morris's disclosure regarding moving cards on a touchscreen represents strong motivation to combine this reference with the swiping gestures disclosed in Kulas because a swiping gesture, like the one disclosed in Kulas, was a known method of moving images on a touchscreen. (See, e.g., Kraut, Ex. 1025 (disclosing swiping on a touchscreen in vertical and horizontal directions 137 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 140 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 to move through a stack of cards displaying data records); Hotelling, Ex. 1027 (depicting using swiping gestures to turn an electronic page in an electronic book on a touchscreen); Jobs, Ex. 1029 (disclosing swiping on a touchscreen to scroll or browse through a of sequence items, such as thumbnail photographs); Ishizawa, Ex. 1033 (discussing using a "flick" gesture on a touchscreen to move through a set of images or photos); Chaudhri, Ex. 1034 (disclosing moving through a stack of thumbnail images on a touchscreen using a swiping gesture); Devecka, Ex. 1035 (disclosing using a swiping gesture to move to a next page of icons on a touchscreen device).) 259. Like Morris and Chang, Kulas discloses a method for expressing approval or disapproval regarding search results. (Kulas, ¶¶0022, 0027, 0031, 0035- 0037, Figs. 3, 7-9.) Like Chang, Kulas discloses a button-based interface for expressing approval or disapproval, but explicitly teaches that a swiping gesture can be used in place of a button on a mobile device. (Kulas, ¶¶0022, 0026-0027, 0031, Fig. 3; Chang, Fig. 7.) Given Kulas's explicit teaching that a swipe may be substituted for a button when expressing approval or disapproval, a POSITA would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Kulas regarding swiping with Chang and utilize the swiping disclosed in Kulas in combination with the interface disclosed in Morris, rather than the "yes" button to express positive preference for 138 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 141 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 the online dating profiles disclosed in Norena. The results would have been entirely predictable. 260. The Kulas invention can be applied to existing user interfaces, especially those that are touch driven, as it does not override the existing touch controls, but rather augments them with an "after gesture" which adds meaning or sentiment to the action the user performs. One could readily adapt any touch-based user interface to support the additional semantics of the Kulas swipe gesture. 261. It would have been readily apparent to one who wanted to add the ability of the user of a phone-based application how to employ Kulas for expressing positive or negative sentiments such as "liking" and "disliking" because it would require simply adding straightforward simple gesture recognition to be triggered when the user made the initial touch of the screen. Kulas would have been a simple and obvious solution because the user interface of Kulas does not require the existing user interaction to be modified, but only augmented. 262. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention disclosed in the '023 patent that one could combine the graphical user interface disclosed in Morris with the swiping gesture disclosed in Kulas and that this swiping user interface could replace the "yes" button disclosed in Chang. 139 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 142 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 (3) "storing the positive preference indication associated with the first item of information in response to detecting the gesture;" (Claim 1[c]) 263. Morris discloses "storing the positive preference indication associated with the first item of information in response to detecting the gesture". Specifically, Morris discloses that "[s]liding image 680 to star icon 617 saves image 680 to the user's favorites. This may be a list of favorite images that the user can later search through." (Morris, ¶0039.) A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that for an item of information to be saved "to the user's favorites" so that a user could later search through favorite images this positive preference indication would necessarily be stored. (Morris, ¶0039.) Adding an image to a list of favorites clearly requires "storing" the preferred selection. There would be no point in moving an image to "favorites" if it could not be retrieved later; this requires storage. In Morris a user's "favorites" corresponds to items the user has expressed a positive preference indication for, therefore it is a stored list of positive preference indications. 264. Morris provides further discussion of the "saving" limitation in connection with Figure 2. (Morris, ¶0035, Fig. 2.) Morris discloses "[t]he user may additionally wish to save a media file (S289), in which case the file is stored on a memory of the handheld communication device (S291). (Morris, ¶0035, Fig. 2.) 140 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 143 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 Indeed, as shown in Fig. 2, when the user chooses the "favorites" option (Fig. 2 S289, Y branch, where the operation is referred to as "Save") the resulting action is for the system to "Store in Memory" (Fig. 2 S291) 265. In addition, in connection with Figure 5, Morris discloses "memory 526" that "may store data collected from image searches." (Morris, ¶0038, Fig. 5.) A POSITA would have understood that the data stored on memory 526 would include the images moved to a user's favorites (i.e., a positive preference indication associated with the first item of information.") (4) "automatically presenting, on the graphical user interface, a graphical representation of a second item of information of the plurality of items of information in response to detecting the gesture, the second item of information comprising a graphical representation of a second online dating profile associated with a second user; and" (Claim 1[d]) 266. Morris discloses "automatically presenting, on the graphical user interface, a graphical representation of a second item of information of the plurality of items of information in response to detecting the gesture." As discussed above in step 1[a] Morris discloses displaying a plurality of items of information on a graphical user interface as a stack of cards. (Morris, ¶0040; Morris, ¶0032 ("[a] user of handheld communications device 110 navigates this stack by moving the images among the plurality of images from the top of the stack to see other images.").) 141 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 144 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 Morris discloses that "[w]hen top image 680 is moved off of the stack 623, the next image is [sic] becomes the top image and can be similarly manipulated." (Morris, ¶0040; see also Morris, ¶0032.) A 267. POSITA would have understood that displaying the "next image" when the "top image" is "moved off the stack" corresponds to "automatically presenting, on the graphical user interface, a graphical representation of a second item of information of the plurality of items of information in response to detecting the gesture." For example, when a user slides image 680 to the star icon, the next image in stack 623 is presented without further input from the user. (Morris, ¶0040, Fig. 6.) 268. Morris explicitly describes the images in its user interface as a "stack". To continue the stack metaphor, it is obvious that when the top element of a stack of objects is removed, the next element is exposed. This is also a well known programming construct, in which information may be temporarily "pushed" onto a block of memory organized as a "stack" (usually implemented as and internal to the processor hardware itself) and later retrieve elements from the stack in the opposite order by "popping" them off the stack, which retrieves the most recently added element and makes the next-most-recent element the top of the stack. 142 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 145 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 269. Morris is very clear about this at Paragraph 0040 "[w]hen top image 680 is moved off of the stack 623, the next image is [sic] becomes the top image and can be similarly manipulated." (Morris, ¶0040.) The user does not need to perform any other input in order to make the next element on the stack visible, so it is simply presented automatically. 270. This analysis is also consistent with the language in Morris that compares the stack to a physical stack. "This is similar to the manner by which an item may be manipulated if it was physically sitting on a table, desk, etc." (Morris, ¶0026.) 271. Combination with Norena: As above with respect to the Wernick grounds, Norena in combination with Morris (discussed above) discloses and renders obvious the online dating profile limitation of step 1[d]: "the second item of information comprising a graphical representation of a second online dating profile associated with a second user." The combinations with Morris and Morris/Kulas rely on the analysis and mapping of Norena for the online dating profile limitation of step 1[d] as set forth above with respect to Wernick and which is incorporated by reference here. 143 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 146 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 272. Rationale and Motivation to Combine Morris with Norena: The rationale and motivation to combine Morris with Norena for this limitation is the same as the rationale and motivation to combine Morris with Norena for step 1[a]. 273. Alternative Combination with Chang: As above with respect to the Wernick grounds, Chang in combination with Morris discloses and renders obvious the online dating profile limitation of step 1[d]: "the second item of information comprising a graphical representation of a second online dating profile associated with a second user." The combinations with Morris and Morris/Kulas rely on the analysis and mapping of Chang for the online dating profile limitation of step 1[d] as set forth above with respect to Wernick and which is incorporated by reference here. 274. Rationale and Motivation to Combine Morris and Chang: The rationale and motivation to combine Morris with Chang with respect to this limitation is the same as described in the analysis of element 1[a]. (5) "automatically removing the graphical representation of the first item of information from the graphical user interface in response to detecting the gesture." (Claim 1[e]) 275. Morris discloses "automatically removing the graphical representation of the first item of information from the graphical user interface in response to detecting the gesture." As discussed above, Morris discloses "[s]liding image 680 144 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 147 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 to star icon 617" which "saves image 680 to the user's favorites." (Morris, ¶0039.) Morris further discloses that "[w]hen top image 680 is moved off of the stack 623, the next image is [sic] becomes the top image and can be similarly manipulated." (Morris, ¶0040.) Morris therefore discloses that the graphical representation of the first item of information (image 680) is automatically removed from the graphical user interface (e.g., saved for later viewing in the user's favorites) in response to detecting the gesture (sliding image 680 to star icon 617) without further user input. (Morris, ¶¶ 0039-0040; Fig. 6.) 276. Based on the disclosure of Morris, a POSITA would have understood that image 680 would be removed from the graphical user interface upon a user sliding it to star icon 617 and saving it to the user's favorites for later viewing. (Morris, ¶¶0039-0040; Fig. 6.) 277. This is particularly true in light of the limited size of the user interface shown in Figure 6. (Morris, Fig. 6.) If top image 680 remained on star icon 617 when moved, and was not automatically removed from the graphical user interface, star icon 617 would be obscured. (Morris, Fig. 6.) Morris teaches that "[w]hen top image 680 is moved off of the stack 623, the next image is [sic] becomes the top image and can be similarly manipulated." (Morris, ¶0040, Fig. 6.) Obscuring the various icons as cards are moved is contrary to the teaching in Morris that the other 145 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 148 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 images of stack 623 can be "similarly manipulated" once top image 680 is moved. (See also Morris, ¶0040, Fig. 6.) 278. A POSITA would have appreciated that when the top image is moved from the stack in performing one of the four operations supported by the user interface, that image would disappear. Morris has a small screen, and indeed the connection between the handheld and the IPTV display is clearly to have a better look at the image or video, to see it in its entirety. Certainly the images as shown in the stack would fill much of the available display space, so the user could see as much as possible to aid in making the decision as to how to act upon the image. But there is clearly not room on the Morris display to hold multiple of these images. 279. Further, I note that the user in Morris is not just shuffling images around to sort them, but rather is applying operations to them, specifying an action to be performed. When the top image is moved and the action gesture performed, a responsive user interface would have indicated successful completion of the operation, and making the image then disappear would be useful feedback. It would have at least been obvious to a POSITA that the image would disappear, to make this behavior as a means of providing feedback to the user. 280. In addition, a POSITA would have reviewed Morris with knowledge that having an item disappear when it is sent to an icon was common design tool 146 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 149 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 used on graphical user interfaces prior to the alleged invention of the '023 patent. The user interface in Morris reflects some aspects of desktop graphical user interfaces of the time, adapted for a small screen with a touch surface. Desktop interface metaphors in the then-popular operating systems supported the concept of moving objects, such as files (including image files) to various destinations, such as another folder (e.g. favorites) or the "trash" or "recycle bin" for deletion. The file would be selected by clicking with the mouse (the equivalent of pressing with a finger) and then moved to the destination. When the file reached the destination and the mouse was released, the icon for the file would disappear, as affirmative feedback that the desired operation had been performed. In fact, it would have been confusing if the file icon had not disappeared, as the user interface should express that an action had been performed on it. Thus not only would it have been obvious for the swiped image in Morris to disappear, it would have been counter-intuitive for it to have remained on the screen in two places (the stack and the destination). 281. Although the desktop user interface would have informed a user interface designer when building the system disclosed in Morris, it would have been obvious to adapt the desktop interaction to the smaller and touch sensitive mobile device. On the desktop screen there would have likely been a much larger number of objects to manipulate as well as destinations, and the mouse is a high precision 147 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 150 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 device supporting careful manipulation of graphical objects. In Morris, however, there is only one object to be manipulated, the top image in the stack, and only four possible targets, while the finger on the touchscreen supports lower effective input resolution and the finger also obscures part of the display. This would have suggested the coarser finger swipe gesture, which would have also been easier to perform on the small touch-sensitive display than the careful mouse motion of the desktop user interface. 282. Reading Morris in light of this knowledge, a POSITA would have understood that image 680 would be automatically removed from the graphical user interface when a user slid it to the star icon 617. Accordingly, a POSITA would have understood Morris to teach or render obvious "automatically removing the graphical representation of the first item of information from the graphical user interface in response to detecting the gesture." (See also Morris, ¶0040, Fig. 6.) (b) Claim 3 283. As shown in the chart at Paragraph 177 supra, claim 3 is similar to claim 1. 284. Independent claim 3 merely recites a "system" corresponding to method claim 1, having an "interface" and a "processor coupled to the interface" "operable to" perform to steps corresponding to the steps of claim 1. 148 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 151 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 285. The recitation of "a system," "an interface operable to," and a "processor coupled to the interface and operable to" provide no meaningful distinction with regards to the applied prior art. The methods disclosed in Morris, Norena, Chang, and Kulas are all implemented in a computer-based system that include a server and user devices that include interfaces and necessarily include processors. (Morris, Figs. 1, 5-6, ¶¶0008-0009, 0012, 0020, 0031-0033, 0038-0040; Chang, Figs. 1, 4-10, ¶0017; Norena, Figs. 2-4, ¶¶0019, 0031, 0042; Kulas Fig. 13, ¶¶0020, 0041-0043.) 286. Claim 3 recites various components of a system. All these components would have been present in Morris. Morris, Chang, Norena, and Kulas are all "systems," in that they have multiple components (graphical user interfaces, processors and memory for example) that work in concert to achieve the desired results. They all have interfaces, i.e., user interfaces, because that is how the users interact with the underlying system, to express preferences. With no interface, no one would be able to actually use the system. These devices all require processors to control the interface, be it a microprocessor which controls the functionality and display of a mobile phone or the web browser software for a laptop or desktop computer. The components of the claimed system, for example, the interface shown 149 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 152 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 in Figure 6 of Morris, and their related functionality in combination with Norena or Chang are discussed in connection with the steps of claim 1. 287. These added claim elements provide no meaningful limitation on the previous claims, given that those claims already are to a system, which necessarily already has all these components. 288. The claimed "interface" is operable to perform elements 3[a], 3[d], and 3[e]. In the related litigation, PO has interpreted the claimed interface to be the user interface. (Ex. 1020, 19.) Based on the context of claims, Petitioner agrees that the "interface" claimed in claim 3 refers to the graphical user interface. Because the '023 patent claims are directed to a particular style of user interface, it is reasonable to associate "interface" in the claim language with "user interface" in general and "graphical user interface" in particular. Morris discloses a user interface (e.g., the mobile device touchscreen shown in Fig. 6) that satisfies the limitations of 3[a], 3[d], and 3[e], as discussed for steps 1[a], 1[d], and 1[e], above. Morris clearly shows a graphical user interface, e.g., in Figure 6, and describes a system which as a display and touchscreen which, combined, afford a user interface when in operation. 289. The processor must be "coupled" to these elements internal to the handheld device, because Morris describes a display which shows visual elements under control of a processor, e.g. in responding to a search request. The processor 150 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 153 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 draws on the display to show information. The processor also receives touch information from the interface, which it can interpret into a gesture from a sequence of touch coordinates. 290. In addition, Figure 5 of Morris shows a handheld communications device according to an exemplary embodiment of Morris: (Morris, ¶¶0017, 0038, Fig. 5.) 291. Morris Figure 5 discloses "handheld communications device 510," which "includes a touchscreen 512." (Morris, ¶0038, Fig. 5.) "Screen 512 allows a user to search for images [and] manipulate images…." (Morris, ¶0038.) This 151 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 154 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 corresponds to the user interface of the mobile device shown in Figure 6 of Wernick discussed above. Figure 5 of Morris also shows central processing unit "CPU" 524, which is a processor. (Morris, ¶0038, Fig. 5.) Because the CPU 524 and touchscreen interface 512 are part of the same mobile device and must communicate with each other for the device to operate, a POSITA would have understood these two components to be coupled. These components are all shown in Fig. 5: touchscreen 512 (screen implies visual display as well as user input), processor CPU 524, and memory MEM 526. As these are all within the same device, they would obviously be coupled in order to operate 292. Elements 3[b] and 3[c] are performed by "a processor coupled to the interface." As discussed above, Figure 5 of Morris discloses a mobile device processor. (Morris, ¶0038, Fig. 5.) A POSITA would have understood that the processor disclosed in Figure 5 of Morris is operable to perform the "detect a gesture. . ." step recited in claim 3[b] and the "store the positive preference indication associated with the first item of information in response to detecting the gesture" element recited in claim 3[c]. 293. With respect 3[b], a POSITA would have understood that the processor is operable to perform the "detect a gesture. . ." step recited in claim 3[b]. The handheld device would accept user input by means of touchscreen 512 for the finger 152 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 155 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 or a stylus, using well-known technology. The touch inputs would be interpreted by the processor (CPU 524) to determine which gesture was input by the user, and how to update the display in response. Note that touchscreens only sense a series of screen locations as (x, y) coordinates and the processor must "connect the dots" to determine whether a sequence of such touches constitutes a gesture. Therefore, the processor of the mobile device performs the "detect a gesture. . . " limitations of claim 3[b]. 294. In addition, Morris discloses that "CPU 524 executes programs or logic stored on memory 526. These programs or logic include control logic for the components of device 510, thereby allowing a user to view images, save images, send images to the television, etc." (Morris, ¶0038 (emphasis added).) As disclosed in Morris and discussed with respect to claim 1[b], detecting a gesture is how users save images in their favorites. Morris therefore makes clear that the processor performs element 3[b]. (Morris, ¶0038.) Furthermore, a POSITA would have understood that the processor necessarily performs this element. 295. With respect to claim element 1[c], the same disclosure in Morris ("CPU 524 executes programs or logic stored on memory 526. These programs or logic include control logic for the components of device 510 thereby allowing a user to view images, save images, send image to the television, etc.") makes clear 153 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 156 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 that the processor also allows a user to save an image (i.e., store an image) in memory 526. (Morris, ¶0038.) A POSITA would have understood that the CPU writes to memory 526 and therefore performs the limitations required by element 3[c]. 296. Morris discloses "storing the positive preference indication associated with the first item of information in response to detecting the gesture." Specifically, Morris discloses that "[s]liding image 680 to star icon 617 saves image 680 to the user's favorites. This may be a list of favorite images that the user can later search through." (Morris, ¶0039.) A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that for an item of information to be saved "to the user's favorites" so that a user could later search through favorite images this positive preference indication would necessarily be stored. (Morris, ¶0039.) Adding an image to a list of favorites clearly requires "storing" the preferred selection. There would be no point in moving an image to "favorites" if it could not be retrieved later; this requires storage. 297. The rationale and motivation to combine Morris with Norena and Morris with Chang is the same for claim 3 as it is for claim 1. The rationale and motivation to combine Morris and Kulas with Norena and Morris and Kulas with Chang is also the same for claim 3 as it is for claim 1. 154 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 157 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 298. For these reasons, and the reasons stated for claim 1, claim 3 is therefore obvious over (1) Morris, in view of Norena; (2) Morris, in view of Chang; (3) Morris in view of Kulas and Norena; and (4) Morris in view of Kulas and Chang. (c) Claim 5 299. As shown in the chart at Paragraph 191 supra, claim 5 is similar to claim 1. 300. Independent claim 5 merely recites a "[a]t least one non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising a plurality of instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, are configured to" perform to steps corresponding to the steps in method claim 1. 301. The recitation of "[a]t least one non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising a plurality of instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, are configured to" provides no meaningful limitation. The methods disclosed in Morris and Norena and Chang are implemented in a computer-based system that a POSITA would have understood to necessarily include non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that would be executed by a processor. 302. The rationale and motivation to combine Morris with Norena and to combine Morris with Chang are the same for claim 5 as it is for claim 1. The 155 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 158 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 rationale and motivation to combine Morris and Kulas with Norena and Morris and Kulas with Chang is also the same for claim 5 as it is for claim 1. 303. For these reasons, and the reasons stated for claim 1, claim 5 is therefore obvious over (1) Morris, in view of Norena; (2) Morris, in view of Chang; (3) Morris in view of Kulas and Norena; and (4) Morris in view of Kulas and Chang. (d) Claim 2: The method of claim 1, wherein presenting the graphical representation of the first item of information of the plurality of items of information comprises presenting user interface controls such that all user interface controls configured to cause another item of information of the plurality of items of information to be displayed are associated with performing an action on the first item of information. 304. Morris discloses the additional limitations of claim 2. As discussed above for claim 1, Morris discloses "presenting the graphical representation of the first item of information of the plurality of items of information." 305. Figure 6 of Morris also discloses "presenting user interface controls such that all user interface controls configured to cause another item of information of the plurality of items of information to be displayed are associated with performing an action on the first item of information." 306. Specifically, Morris discloses that "[a] user of device 610 uses their finger or other implement such as a stylus to manipulate stack of images 623 and slide the top image 680 to anywhere on display." (Morris, ¶0039; Fig. 6.) Morris 156 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 159 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 discloses that top image 680 may be dragged to various icons, including an IPTV icon 613, an e-mail icon 615, a star icon 617, and a trash icon 621. (Morris, ¶0039; Fig. 6.) Morris further discloses that "[w]hen top image 680 is moved off of the stack 623, the next image is [sic] becomes the top image and can be similarly manipulated." (Morris, ¶0040; Fig. 6.) 307. The user interface disclosed in Morris Figure 6 does not show any user interface controls configured to cause a second image (another item of information) 157 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 160 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 of the stack of images 623 (plurality of items of information) to be displayed other than moving image 680 off stack 623 to one of the icons 613, 615, 621, and 619 (performing an action on the first item of information). (Morris, ¶¶0039-0040, Fig. 6.) In other words, in the user interface disclosed by Morris at Figure 6, a user can only view other cards in stack 623 by moving (i.e., performing an action on) top image 680.7 308. Although the user interface in Figure 6 also shows a search bar 619, this is not a user interface control "configured to cause another item of information of the plurality of items of information to be displayed." Rather, "[s]earch toolbar 619 allows the user to enter in search terms for finding an image or other media. Entering search terms may search the memory of handheld communication device 610, the internet, etc." (Morris, ¶¶0039-0040; Fig. 6.) This would replace the information displayed on the user interface with other information that is not part of the plurality of items that has been presented as a stack of cards. It would therefore 7 To the extent that the rotating motion used to send an image to an IPTV is "a user interface control configured to cause another item of information of the plurality of items of information to be displayed" this also is "associated with performing an action on the first item of information." (Morris, ¶0042; Fig. 7.) 158 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 161 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 not "cause another item of information of the plurality of items of information to be displayed." 309. Similarly, the shaking motion discussed, for example in paragraph 0043 and shown in Figure 8, is not "configured to cause another item of information of the plurality of items of information to be displayed." Rather it is directed to displaying a new stack of cards altogether. This new stack of cards would not correspond to "another item of information of the plurality of items of information to be displayed." Rather it is an entirely new "plurality of items of information." (Morris, ¶¶0039-0040; Fig. 6.) 310. Both the search bar and shaking provide means for controlling what is being seen. But neither of these techniques will cause the next image in the stack to be displayed, but rather cause the stack to display an entirely new set of images. 311. Claim 2 is therefore obvious over (1) Morris, in view of Norena; (2) Morris, in view of Chang; (3) Morris in view of Kulas and Norena; and (4) Morris in view of Kulas and Chang. (e) Claim 4 312. As shown in the chart at Paragraph 201 supra, claim 4 is similar to claim 2. 159 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 162 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 313. Dependent claim 4 is directed to the system of claim 3, wherein the interface is further operable to perform steps corresponding to steps of the claim 2.8 The discussion of the interface element with respect to claim 3 above also applies to claim 4. As discussed above for claim 2, the user interface shown in Figure 6 of Wernick is operable to perform the additional limitations of claim 4. Considering the analysis of claim 2 taken with the analysis of the interface element of claim 3, claim 4 is obvious over (1) Morris, in view of Norena; (2) Morris, in view of Chang; (3) Morris in view of Kulas and Norena; and (4) Morris in view of Kulas and Chang. (f) Claim 6 314. As shown in the chart at Paragraph 203 supra, claim 6 is similar to claim 2. 315. Dependent claim 6 merely recites "the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 5, wherein the plurality of instructions are 8 Claim 4 recites in part "wherein the interface is further operable to present user interface controls such that ail user interface controls. . . ." For the purposes of this petition, petitioner has assumed "ail" to be a typographical error and interpreted it to read "all user interface controls" consistent with the language of claim 2 and claim 6. 160 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 163 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 further configured to" perform a corresponding to the step of claim 2. As indicated for claim 5, the recitation of the "medium" is a limitation that does not affect my analysis of the applicability of the prior art. For the reasons stated for claim 2, therefore, claim 5 is obvious over (1) Morris, in view of Norena; (2) Morris, in view of Chang; (3) Morris in view of Kulas and Norena; and (4) Morris in view of Kulas and Chang. VII. NO SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS OF NON-OBVIOUSNESS 316. I understand from counsel that the Patent Owner in the underlying district court litigation has not yet identified any evidence with respect to secondary considerations of non-obviousness. 317. To the extent the Patent Owner cites any evidence of sales or any praise or any industry recognition of products that the Patent Owner asserts implement the claimed invention, I am not aware of any information demonstrating that any commercial success, praise, or any other secondary factor (that the Patent Owner may assert) was a result of the particular features recited in the '023 patent's claims. Since the Patent Owner has not yet identified any evidence of secondary considerations for the '023 patent, the Patent Owner cannot demonstrate that the limitations of the claimed invention in particular, as opposed to other features of the 161 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 164 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 product at issue, were the factors that caused any increased sales, praise, or any other asserted secondary considerations. 318. Thus, based on my review of the evidence to date, I can summarize my opinions regarding any alleged secondary considerations of non-obviousness relating to the '023 patent, as follows: 319. No commercial success of the claimed invention. Though the applicant alleged to cite evidence of commercial success of products embodying the related '811 patent during prosecution of the ʼ811 patent, the Patent Owner has not cited any evidence proving that those products embody the '023 patent. Moreover, the Patent Owner has not cited any evidence that any commercial success of any products is particularly a result of the claimed inventions recited in the '023 patent's claims and not due to any other facts. 320. No long-felt but unsolved need. The Patent Owner has not cited any evidence of any long-felt need that remained unsolved in the prior art before the '023 patent. To the contrary, as discussed above, the prior art solved the problems that the '023 patent purported to address. 321. No failure of others. The Patent Owner has not cited any evidence of anyone who tried, but failed, to solve the problems addressed by the '023 patent. As 162 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 165 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 shown by my analysis above, there existed prior art references that successfully disclosed and rendered obvious the subject matter claimed by the '023 patent. 322. No copying of the claimed invention. The Patent Owner has not cited any evidence that any other party ever copied the claimed invention of the '023 patent. To the extent the applicant purported to cite evidence of copying during the prosecution of the related '811 patent, that evidence is lacking and is not tied to the claimed invention of the '023 patent. In addition, as the examiner stated during the prosecution of the related '811 patent, "more than the mere fact of copying" is necessary for non-obviousness. (Ex. 1037, ʼ811 patent file history, at MTCH-146.) 323. No unexpected results of the claimed invention. The Patent Owner has not cited any evidence of unexpected results achieved by the '023 patent's claimed invention. To the contrary, the prior art disclosed the predictable, expected results that show why the '023 patent's claims are obvious as discussed above. 324. No praise for the claimed invention. During prosecution of the related '811 patent, applicant cited articles in prosecution as supposed evidence of industry praise. I am not aware, however, of any information demonstrating that any praise was a result of the particular features recited in the '023 patent's claims. Moreover, the alleged inventive features of the ʼ023 patent are all found in the prior art. 163 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 166 of 175 76 Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,959,023 B2 325. No surprise or skepticism at the claimed invention. The Patent Owner has not cited any evidence that observers were surprised by, or skeptical of, the claimed invention recited in the '023 patent. 326. No departure from the wisdom of the prior art. The Patent Owner has not cited any evidence that the claimed inventions of the '023 patent departed from the wisdom of the prior art. The '023 patent claims subject matter that was already present in the prior art, including in the Wernick, Morris, Norena, Chang and Kulas references discussed in my Declaration. 327. Moreover, with respect to the considerations discussed above, I also refer to and incorporate my opinions stated throughout this Declaration, including my analysis showing that the '023 patent is directed to techniques known in the prior art and does not provide any inventive technology. 328. To the extent the Patent Owner at a later date cites or provides any evidence regarding secondary considerations, including any expert opinions, I reserve the right to supplement my analysis and opinions to comment on it. VIII. CONCLUSION 329. For at least the preceding reasons, in my opinions, claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, of the '023 patent would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art based on the prior art references that I have cited and analyzed above. 164 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 167 of 175 76 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 168 of 175 76 EXHIBIT A BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 Page 169 of 175 76 Christopher Schmandt 4 Longfellow Rd Winchester, MA 01890 Education M.I.T., Master of Science, Visual Studies (Computer Graphics), 1980 M.I.T., Bachelor of Science, Computer Science, 1978 Professional Experience -- MIT (retired) MIT Media Laboratory, Principal Research Scientist, 1985-2018 Director, Living Mobile Research Group (formerly Speech + Mobility) Architecture Machine Group, Research Associate, 1980-1984 Architecture Machine Group, Research Assistant, 1979-1980 Architecture Machine Group, Graphics Programmer, 1977-1979 Departmental Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program Coordinator, 1984-2018 Laboratory Intellectual Property Committee 2001-2017, chair 2002-2009 Departmental Committee on Graduate Studies, 1996-2001, 2007-2018 Sponsored Research Activities Alerting and Mobile Messaging, Digital Life Consortium, MIT Media Lab, 1997-2018 Acoustical Cues to Discourse Structure, National Science Foundation, Principal Investigator, 1995-1998 Parsing Radio, News in the Future Consortium, MIT Media Lab, 1993-199 Desktop Audio, SUN Microsystems, Inc., Principal Investigator, 1989-1996 Voice Interaction in Hand Held Computer, Apple Computer, Principal Investigator, 1991-1993 Voice Interfaces for Network Services, AT&T, Principal Investigator, 1989-1991 Back Seat Driver, NEC, Principal Investigator, 1988-1991 Acoustic and Visual Cues for Speech Recognition, DARPA, co-Principal Investigator, 1986-1988 Personal Computers and Telephony, NTT Public Corporation, Principal Investigator, 1984-1989 Home Telecomputing, Atari, Inc., Principal Investigator, 1983 BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 1 of 6 Page 170 of 175 76 Publications Most publications can be found at http://www.media.mit.edu/speech/publications or http://living.media.mit.edu/publications SkinMorph: Texture-Tunable On-Skin Interface Through Thin, Programmable Gel ISWC 2018. (with Cindy Kao, M. Banforth, D. Kim) ARTextiles for Promoting Social Interactions Around Personal Interests. CHI 2018. (with Anna Fuste) Technical Interventions to Detect, Communicate, and Deter Sexual Assault. ISWC 2017. (with Manisha Mohan) Exploring Interactions and Perceptions of Kinetic Wearables. DIS 2017. (with Cindy Hsin-Liu Kao, D. Ajilo, O. Anilionyte, A. Dementyev, I. Choi and S. Follmer) Rovables: On-Body Robots as Mobile Wearables. UIST 2016. (with Cindy Hsin-Liu Kao, A. Dementyev, I. Choi, D. Ajilo, M. Xu, and S. Follmer) DuoSkin: Rapidly Prototyping On-Skin User Interfaces Using Skin-Friendly Materials. ISWC 2016. (with Cindy Hsin-Liu Kao, Christian Holz, Asta Roseway, and Andres Calvo) Immersive Terrestrial Scuba Diving Using Virtual Reality (with Dhruv Jain, Misha Sra, Jingru Go, Rodrigo Margues, Raymond Wu and Justin Chiu) Proceedings, UIST 2016 Expanding social mobile games beyond the device screen (with Misha Sra) Journal of Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 2015 NailO: Fingernails as an input surface (with Cindy Hsin-Liu Kao, Artem Dementyev, Joseph Paradiso) CHI 2015 Mugshots: A mug display for front and back stage social interaction in the workplace (with Cindy Hsin-Liu Kao) TEI (Tangible and Embedded Interfaces) 2015 Mime: compact, low power 3D gesture sensing for interactionwith head mounted displays (with Andrea Colaco, Ahmend Kirmani, Hye Soo Yang, Nan-Wei Gong, and Vivek Goyal) Proceedings of UIST 2013. Spotz: A location-based approach to self-awareness (with Misha Sra) Proceedings of Persuasive 2013. Setting the stage for interaction: A tablet application to augment group discussion in a seminar class (with Drew Harry and Eric Gordon) Proceedings of CSCW 2012. Indoor Location Sensing using Geo-Magnetism (with Jaewoo Chung, Matt Donahoe, Ig-Jae Kim, Pedram Razavai and Micaela Wiseman) Proceedings of International Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications, and Services (Mobisys) 2011. My second bike: a TV-enabled social and interactive riding experience (with Jaewoo Chung, Kuang Xu, Andrea Colaco, and Victor Li) Proceedings of IEEE Communications and Networking Conference, Jan 2010. Going my way?: User-aware route planner (with Jaewoo Chung) Proceedings CHI 2009. Globetoddler: Designing for remote interataction between preschoolers and their traveling parents (with Paulina Modlitba) CHI 2008 Extended Abstracts Are we there yet? - a temporally aware media player (with Matt Adcock and Jaewoo Chung), Australian User BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 2 of 6 Page 171 of 175 76 Interface Conference (AUIC) 2008 Physical embodiments for mobile communication agents (with Stefan Marti), UIST 2005 Giving the caller the finger: collaborative responsibility for cellphone interruptions (with Stefan Marti) Extended Abstracts, CHI 2005 Active Messenger: email filtering and delivery in a heterogeneous network (with Stefan Marti) Human-Computer Interaction Journal (HCI) Volume 20 (2005) WatchMe: communication and awareness between members of a closely-knit group (with Natalia Marmasse) Proceedings of Ubicomp 2004 An audio-based personal memroy aid (with S. Vemuri, W. Bender, S.Tellex and B. Lassey) Proceedings of Ubicomp 2004 Improving speech playback using time-compression and speech recognition (with Sunil Vemuri, Philip DeCamp, and Walter Bender) Proceedings of CHI 2004 Impromptu: managing networked audio applications for mobile users (with Kwan Lee, Jang Kim, and Mark Ackerman), Proceedings of MobiSys 2004 TalkBack: a conversational answering machine (with Vidya Lakshmipathy and Natalia Marmasse) Proceedings of UIST 2003 ``ListenIn'' to domestic environments from remote locations (with Gerardo Vallejo) Proceedings of the 2003 International Conference on Auditory Display (ICAD) Safe & Sound: a wireless leash (with Natalia Marmasse) Extended Abstracts, Proceedings of CHI 2003 Mediated voice communication via mobile IP (with Jang Kim, Kwan Lee, Gerardo Vallejo, and Mark Ackerman), Proceedings of UIST 2002. The Audio Notebook: Paper and pen interaction with structured speech (with Lisa Stifelman and Barry Arons), Proceedings of CHI 2001 Synthetic News Radio (with Keith Emnett) IBM Systems Journal, Vol. 39 Nos. 3-4, pp. 646-659, 2000. Everywhere messaging (with Natalia Marmasse, Stefan Marti, Nitin Sawhney, and Sean Wheeler) IBM Systems Journal, Vol. 39 Nos. 3-4, pp. 660-677, 2000. Location-aware information delivery wth comMotion (with Natalia Marmasse), Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Handheld and Ubiquitous Computing, pp. 157-171, Springer, 2000. Nomadic Radio: Scalable and contextual notification for wearable audio messaging (with Nitin Sawhney), Proceedings of CHI 1999. Speaking and listening on the run: Design for wearable audio computing (with Nitin Sawhney), Proceedings of International Symposium on Wearable Computing, 1998. Audio Hallway: A virtual acoustic environment for browsing, Proceedings of UIST 1998. Dynamic Soundscape: Mapping time to space for audio browsing (with Minoru Kobayashi), Proceedings of CHI 1997. BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 3 of 6 Page 172 of 175 76 CLUES: Dynamic personalized message filtering (with Matt Marx), Proceedings of CSCW 1996. Using acoustic structure in a hand-held audio playback device (with Deb Roy), IBM Systems Journal, Vol 35, Nos. 3 and 4, 1996. Mailcall: Message presentation and navigation in a nonvisual environment (with Matt Marx), Proceedings of CHI 1996 AudioStreamer: Exploiting simultaneity for listening (with Atty Mullins), short paper, CHI 1995. Multimedia momadic services on today's hardware, IEEE Network, September/October 1994. Putting people first: Specifying proper names in speech interfaces (with Matt Marx), proceedings of UIST 1994. Chatter: A conversational learning speech interface (with E. Ly) AAAI Workshop on Intelligent Multi-Media Multi- Modal Systems, 1994. Voice Communication with Computers: Conversational Systems. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. 1994. Capturing, structuring, and representing ubiquitous audio (with D. Hindus and C. Horner), ACM Transactions on Information Systems, Vol. 11, No. 4, October 1993. Speech Recognition Architectures for Multimedia Environments, (with E. Ly and B. Arons), Proceedings of the 1993 AVIOS Conference, September 1993. Phoneshell: the Telephone as Computer Terminal, Proceedings of the ACM Multimedia Conference, August 1993. Voicenotes: A Speech Interface for a Hand-Held Voice Notetaker (with L. Stifelman, B. Arons, and E. Hulteen), Proceedings of INTERCHI'93, April 1993. From Desktop Audio to Mobile Access: Opportunities for Voice in Computing, book chapter in Advances in Human- Computer Interaction, Vol. 4, H.R. Hartson and D. Hix editors. 1992. Ubiquitous Audio: Capturing Spontaneous Collaboration (with D. Hindus), Proceedings of CSCW'92, November 1992. Integrating Audio and Telephony in a Distributed Workstation Environment (with S. Angebranndt, R. Hyde, D. Luong, and N. Siravara), Proceedings of the Summer 1991 USENIX Conference, June 1991. Augmenting a Window System with Speech Input (with M. Ackerman and D. Hindus), Computer, IEEE Computer Society, Vol. 23, No. 8, August 1990. Observations on Using Speech Input for Window Navigation (with D. Hindus, M. Ackerman, and S. Manandhar), Proceedings, Human-Computer Interaction, Interact '90, IFIP, August 1990. Phonetool: Integrating Telephones and Workstations (with S. Casner), Proceedings, GLOBECOM '89, IEEE Communications Society, November 1989. Desktop Audio (with B. Arons), UNIX Review, October 1989. Synthetic Speech for Real Time Direction-Giving (with J. Davis), IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics, IEEE, September 1989. The Back Seat Driver: Real Time Spoken Driving Instructions (with J. Davis), Proceedings, IEEE Vehicle Navigation BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 4 of 6 Page 173 of 175 76 and Information Systems Conference, IEEE, Toronto, Canada, September 1989. An Audio and Telephone Server for Multi-media Workstations (with M. McKenna), Proceedings, Second IEEE Conference on Workstations, IEEE, Palo Alto, CA., 1988. Employing Voice Back Channels to Facilitate Audio Document Retrieval, Proceedings, ACM Conference on Office Information Systems (COIS), Santa Clara, CA, 1988. Conversational Telecommunications Environments, Proceedings, Second International Conference on Human- Computer Interaction, 1987. Understanding Speech Without Recognizing Words, Proceedings, American Voice Input/Output Society Conference, AVIOS, 1987. A Robust Parser and Dialog Generator for a Conversational Office System (with B. Arons and C. Simmons), Proceedings, American Voice Input/Output Society Conference, AVIOS, Palo Alto, CA, 1987. Integrated Messages and Network Services for a Personal Workstation, IEEE Workshop on Telematics and Message Handling Systems, IEEE, 1986. Voice Interaction in an Integrated Office and Telecommunications Environment, Proceedings, American Voice Input/Output Society Conference, AVIOS, San Francisco, CA, 1985. Voice Communication with Computers, book chapter in Advances in Human-Computer Interaction, H. R. Hartson ed., 1985. Speech Synthesis Gives Voiced Access to an Electronic Mail System, Speech Technology, Vol. 2, No. 3, Aug/Sept 1984. A Conversational Telephone Messaging System (with B. Arons), IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics, IEEE, Vol CE-30, August 1984. Phone Slave: A Graphical Telecommunications Interface (with B. Arons), Proceedings, Society for Information Display International Symposium, SID, San Francisco, CA, June 1984. Input/Display Registration in a Stereoscopic Workstation, Displays, April 1984. Remote Access to Voice and Text Messages, Proceedings, American Voice Input/Output Society Conference, AVIOS, Washington D.C., 1984. Fuzzy Fonts: Analog Models Improve Digital Text Quality, Proceedings, National Computer Graphics Association Conference, Chicago, IL, 1983. Greyscale Fonts Designed From Video Signal Analysis, Society of Applied Learning Technology, Houston, TX, 1983. Spatial Input/Display Correspondence in a Stereoscopic Computer Graphic Work Station, Proceedings, ACM/SIGGRAPH, Detroit, MI, 1983. A Programmable Virtual Vocabulary Speech Processing Peripheral (with W. Bender), Proceedings, American Voice Input/Output Society Conference on Voice Data Entry Systems Applications, AVIOS, 1983. The Intelligent Voice Interactive Interface (with E. A. Hulteen), Proceedings, Human Factors in Computer Systems, National Bureau of Standards/ACM, Gaithersburg, MD, 1982. BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 5 of 6 Page 174 of 175 76 Interactive Three-Dimensional Computer Space, Proceedings, SPIE Conference on Processing and Display of Three- Dimensional Data, SPIE, San Diego, CA, 1982, Vol. 367. Speech Communications, a Systems' Approach, Proceedings, American Voice Input/Output Society Conference on Entry Systems Applications, 1982. Voice Interaction: Putting Intelligence into the Interface, Proceedings, IEEE International Conference on Cybernetics and Society, IEEE, Seattle, WA, 1982. The Intelligent Ear: A Graphical Interface to Digital Audio, Proceedings, IEEE International Conference on Cybernetics and Society, IEEE, Atlanta, GA, 1981. Soft Typography, Information Processing 1980, IFIPS, S. Lavington ed., North-Holland Publishing Co., 1980. BUMBLE TRADING, INC. EXHIBIT 1002 6 of 6 Page 175 of 175