Xerox Corp. v. Snap Inc.

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
XEROX CORP.,
Appellant
v.
SNAP INC.,
Appellee
______________________
2023-1967
______________________
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2021-
00986.
______________________
Decided: April 17, 2025
______________________
ALEXANDRA F IGARI E ASLEY , McKool Smith, P.C., Dal-
las, TX, argued for appellant. Also represented by D AVID
SOCHIA; K EVIN L. BURGESS , Marshall, TX; J AMES ELROY
Q UIGLEY , Austin, TX.
YAR R. CHAIKOVSKY , White & Case LLP, Palo Alto, CA,
argued for appellee. Also represented by D AVID O KANO;
N AVEEN M ODI, J OSEPH P ALYS , Paul Hastings LLP, Wash-
ington, DC.
______________________
Case: 23-1967 Document: 50 Page: 1 Filed: 04/17/2025

-- 1 of 9 --

XEROX CORP. v. SNAP INC. 2
Before M OORE, Chief Judge, P ROST and STARK, Circuit
Judges.
Opinion for the court filed by Chief Judge MOORE.
Circuit Judge STARK joins Part II of this opinion.
MOORE, Chief Judge.
Xerox Corporation (Xerox) appeals a final written deci-
sion of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) holding
claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,208,439 unpatentable. We
affirm.
BACKGROUND
Xerox owns the ’439 patent, which is directed to a
method for receiving information about a user’s surround-
ings from a mobile device, modifying stored information,
and sending a notification of a change in that information
to apps that recommend items or activities for the user.
’439 patent at 1:7–12, 3:23–25, 9:13–29. Claim 1 is repre-
sentative:
1. A method, comprising:
[a] receiving, from a mobile device, event data de-
rived from contextual data collected using detec-
tors that detect a physical context surrounding the
mobile device;
[b] modifying a context graph that stores facts and
assertions about a user’s behavior and interests us-
ing the event data;
[c] in response to determining that there exists a
registration for notification of changes that
matches the modification to the context graph,
sending a notification of context graph change to a
recommender.
Id. at 10:30–40 (emphases added).
Case: 23-1967 Document: 50 Page: 2 Filed: 04/17/2025

-- 2 of 9 --

XEROX CORP. v. SNAP INC. 3
Snap, Inc. (Snap) challenged claims 1–20 of the
’439 patent as obvious over U.S. Patent No. 9,015,099
(Nitz) in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,714,778 (Nykänen).
J.A. 100–01. The Board held all challenged claims would
have been obvious based on the combination of Nitz and
Nykänen. J.A. 1–77. Xerox appeals. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).
D ISCUSSION
I. Claim Construction
Claim construction is a question of law that may be
based on underlying factual findings. Kamstrup A/S v. Ax-
ioma Metering UAB, 43 F.4th 1374, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
We review the Board’s claim constructions de novo and any
underlying findings for substantial evidence. Id.
The Board concluded “context graph” does not require
“the graph to store information about a user in the form of
nodes and edges” and is not “limiting as to the particular
way in which facts and assertions about a user are stored
in the model.” J.A. 15. Xerox argues the Board erred by
construing “context graph” to not require any graph-based
properties, such as nodes and edges. Appellant Br. 24–39.
We agree.
The plain language of claim 1 requires a “context
graph.” And claim 20 clarifies claim 1’s “context graph” has
graph-based properties, such as “nodes and edges.” ’439
patent at 12:52–55 (“The method of claim 1, wherein send-
ing the notification comprises notifying the recommender
of . . . changes to individual properties of nodes and edges
in the context graph.”). Snap argues the Board’s construc-
tion is correct because claim 20 is tied to a specific embod-
iment of “context graph” that has graph-based properties.
Appellee Br. 42–45. We do not agree. Claim 20 does not
limit claim 1’s “context graph” to have graph-based proper-
ties because such properties are already inherent in
claim 1’s “context graph.” Rather, claim 20 limits claim
Case: 23-1967 Document: 50 Page: 3 Filed: 04/17/2025

-- 3 of 9 --

XEROX CORP. v. SNAP INC. 4
1[c]’s “sending a notification of context graph change” ele-
ment by requiring the notification includes certain changes
to the context graph (i.e., changes to nodes and edges,
which are properties of a context graph).
The Board concluded “context graph” does not require
a graph-based model by relying, in part, on the specifica-
tion’s statement: “[a] context graph is an in-memory model
that stores facts and assertions about a user’s behavior and
interests.” J.A. 14 (quoting ’439 patent at 3:20–22). Snap
argues that statement is lexicography, which defines “con-
text graph” to encompass non-graphical models. Appellee
Br. 39–40. We do not agree. A patentee can, of course,
change the plain and ordinary meaning of a term through
lexicography. See, e.g., Thorner v. Sony Computer Ent. Am.
LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). But when it
does so, it must do so clearly and unmistakably. Luminara
Worldwide, LLC v. Liown Elecs. Co., 814 F.3d 1343, 1353
(Fed. Cir. 2016).
Throughout the claims and the written description, the
patentee repeatedly indicates that “context graph” is a
graph-based model. First, it is inherent in the term itself
which repeatedly and consistently includes the word
graph. Second, the specification describes context graph as
a “graph.” ’439 patent at 2:63–67 (“The server-side archi-
tecture stores the contextual data and uses the contextual
data to modify a graph containing user behavior and inter-
est information. Applications may use information from
the graph to modify application-specific user models and
generate recommendations.” (emphases added)), 9:28–31
(“When the graph changes, the system can send the new
graph data to relevant recommenders. The recommenders
can then form recommendations using the new graph
data.” (emphases added)). Further, the specification ex-
plains: “Context graph 406 is a per-user, in-memory,
graph-based model that stores facts and assertions about
user behavior and actions.” Id. at 7:26–28 (emphasis
added). After this qualification, the specification explains
Case: 23-1967 Document: 50 Page: 4 Filed: 04/17/2025

-- 4 of 9 --

XEROX CORP. v. SNAP INC. 5
that this “graph-based model” may store data “using a
type-less approach to data storage” and “according to dif-
ferent data models, including data models for entity-rela-
tionship data and unstructured data.” Id. at 7:36–40.
Those are examples of how the underlying data in the con-
text graph can be stored in the nodes and edges; they do
not mean context graph is no longer a graph-based model.
The statement in the specification which Snap relies
upon for lexicography where the patentee defines the con-
text graph as not limited to a graph-based model is: “[a]
context graph is an in-memory model that stores facts and
assertions about a user’s behavior and interests.” J.A. 14
(quoting ’439 patent at 3:20–22). We do not agree. This is
no more than a general descriptive statement which is com-
pletely accurate without being definitional. A context
graph is undisputedly an in-memory model. A graph-based
model is one form of an in-memory model. A context graph
is also one which stores facts and assertions about a user’s
behavior and interests. Nothing about this sentence,
which continues to employ the word “graph,” broadens
“context graph” to in-memory models that are not graph-
based. This is merely a statement of intended purpose for
the graph-based memory model. Compare the following:
A context graph A bicycle
is an in-memory model is a vehicle
that stores facts and asser-
tions about a user’s behav-
ior and interests.
that a user can ride to get
from place to place.
The bicycle has not been redefined to now include a trac-
tor/car/motorcycle/plane/boat/canoe (all of which are vehi-
cles that a user can ride to get from place to place).
Likewise, stating that a context graph is an in-memory
model does not transform it into any kind of in-memory
Case: 23-1967 Document: 50 Page: 5 Filed: 04/17/2025

-- 5 of 9 --

XEROX CORP. v. SNAP INC. 6
model. Even the Board acknowledged the need for “context
graph” to have graph-based properties, such as “nodes” and
“edges.” J.A. 16 (citing J.A. 414–15 n.2 (Snap’s Reply)).
The Board further relied on the prosecution history, in
which the applicant distinguished a prior-art reference
based on the type of data stored rather than the form in
which the data was stored. J.A. 16 (citing J.A. 1060). The
reference disclosed a “factor graph” that also stored data in
nodes and edges. J.A. 1059–60. The reference was not,
therefore, being distinguished based on the form in which
the data was stored, i.e., graph.
We conclude that the proper construction of context
graph is one which requires graph-based properties, such
as nodes and edges.
II. Obviousness
We review the Board’s ultimate determination of obvi-
ousness de novo and its underlying factual findings for sub-
stantial evidence. Pers. Web Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc., 848
F.3d 987, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2017). What a reference teaches
and whether a skilled artisan would be motivated to com-
bine references are questions of fact. In re Constr. Equip.
Co., 665 F.3d 1254, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
A. Claim 1[b]
The Board found Nitz discloses claim 1[b] under its
construction of “context graph.” J.A. 26. In the alternative,
the Board found Nitz, combined with teachings of its incor-
porated references like Donneau-Golencer,1 discloses
claim 1[b] even if “context graph” has graph-based proper-
ties. J.A. 26–27. Xerox argues the Board never explained
how or why Nitz and Donneau-Golencer would be combined
1 U.S. Patent Application No. 13/287,985, filed on
Nov. 2, 2011, later issued as U.S. Patent No. 9,245,010.
Case: 23-1967 Document: 50 Page: 6 Filed: 04/17/2025

-- 6 of 9 --

XEROX CORP. v. SNAP INC. 7
to disclose a “context graph” under the Board’s alternative
finding. Appellant Br. 41–44. We do not agree.
Substantial evidence supports the Board’s alternative
finding that Nitz, combined with teachings of Donneau-Go-
lencer, discloses claim 1[b], including a “context graph”
with graph-based properties. The Board found that “Nitz
specifically points to these references as describing ways to
organize and conceptualize real-time information about a
user” and then cited Donneau-Golencer Figure 8, which de-
picts a graph structure similar to “context graph 406” de-
picted in Figure 4 of the ’439 patent. J.A. 27; J.A. 1108
(Nitz) at 12:42–48 (“Some examples of methods and tech-
niques for extracting pertinent information from unstruc-
tured data, tagging the unstructured data with semantic
information, and drawing inferences from the information
are described in Donneau-Golencer . . . which is incorpo-
rated herein by this reference in its entirety.”); J.A. 1297
(Donneau-Golencer) at Fig. 8. That is sufficient for sub-
stantial evidence. In re Jolley, 308 F.3d 1317, 1320 (Fed.
Cir. 2002).
B. Claim 1[c]
The Board found a combination of Nitz and Nykänen
discloses claim 1[c]. J.A. 33–34. Xerox argues Nykänen’s
registration system is for access to the user’s data, so there
is no need for claim 1[c]’s “notification” or “matches” ele-
ments because the system simply grants access to the ac-
tual data. Appellant Br. 44–49. We do not agree.
Substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding. The
Board found “Nykänen teaches that there is no need to
transfer information from a knowledge base (‘context
graph’) if there is no relevant event or change in the context
of the mobile device.” J.A. 33. The Board also found a
skilled artisan “would have understood Nykänen’s teach-
ing that the registration is for changes to ‘specific context
information,’ and Nykänen’s teachings as a whole, to indi-
cate that the notification is for changes that match a
Case: 23-1967 Document: 50 Page: 7 Filed: 04/17/2025

-- 7 of 9 --

XEROX CORP. v. SNAP INC. 8
specific subset of context information that the application
is registered.” Id. The Board relied on Snap’s opening ex-
pert declaration, which accompanied Snap’s petition and
cited to Nykänen, and Snap’s reply expert declaration,
which responded directly to Xerox’s arguments and cited
additional portions of Nykänen regarding the same figure
and embodiment relied on in the opening declaration. J.A.
33–34 (citing J.A. 884–85, 888–91 ¶¶ 103, 108, 109, 111
(Op. Decl.); J.A. 2062–66 ¶¶ 116, 119 (Reply Decl.)). That
is sufficient for substantial evidence. Jolley, 308 F.3d at
1320.
C. Motivation to Combine
The Board found a skilled artisan would have been mo-
tivated to combine Nitz with Nykänen to increase the effi-
ciency of Nitz’s system. J.A. 32–33. Xerox argues a skilled
artisan would not look to Nykänen because its system has
an additional authorization layer to protect data privacy on
mobile devices, which decreases efficiency. Appellant Br.
50–54 (citing J.A. 1127–31 (Nykänen) at 2:35–38, 6:35–41,
9:40–46).
Substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding. The
Board found Nitz’s system is inefficient because it pushes
all data, changed or unchanged, to the recommender and
Nitz itself recognizes a recommender does not need access
to all data. J.A. 32–33. The Board also found Nykänen
teaches there is no need to transfer data if there is no rele-
vant change in the context. J.A. 33. The Board relied on
Snap’s opening expert declaration, which cited Nitz and
Nykänen. J.A. 32–33 (citing J.A. 884–88 ¶¶ 103, 105, 107).
Xerox’s argument amounts to “contrary evidence [that] is
insufficient to overcome substantial evidence review.”
Restem, LLC v. Jadi Cell, LLC, 130 F.4th 941, 947 (Fed.
Cir. 2025).
Case: 23-1967 Document: 50 Page: 8 Filed: 04/17/2025

-- 8 of 9 --

XEROX CORP. v. SNAP INC. 9
CONCLUSION
We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments
and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we
affirm the Board’s decision.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 23-1967 Document: 50 Page: 9 Filed: 04/17/2025

-- 9 of 9 --