Docket No: 1202549-0003
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________________________
`
`AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY, AMERICAN EXPRESS TRAVEL RELATED
`SERVICES COMPANY, INC., COMPASS BANK, DISCOVER FINANCIAL
`SERVICES, DISCOVER BANK, DISCOVER PRODUCTS INC., NAVY FEDERAL
`CREDIT UNION, AND STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
`COMPANY
`Petitioner,
`v.
`MAXIM INTEGRATED PRODUCTS, INC.
`Patent Owner.
`Case No. To Be Assigned
`Patent No. 5,940,510
`
`DECLARATION OF PETER ALEXANDER, PH.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`AMEX 1016 - Page 1 of 52
`
`

`

`Docket No: 1202549-0003
`
`I, Peter Alexander, declare and state as follows:
`1.
`The petition names American Express Company, American Express Travel Related Services
`Company, Inc., Compass Bank, Discover Financial Services, Discover Bank, Discover Products
`Inc., Navy Credit Federal Credit Union, and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company as
`real parties-in interest. I have been retained by American Express Company, American Express
`Travel Related Services Company, Inc., Compass Bank, Discover Financial Services, Discover Bank,
`Discover Products Inc., Navy Credit Federal Credit Union, and State Farm Mutual Automobile
`Insurance Company (collectively “Petitioner”) as an expert witness in this case to offer my opinions
`on U.S. Patent No. 5,940,510 (“’510 Patent”). I am being retained at my customary rate of
`$525/hour. I have no financial interest in, or affiliation with, Petitioner, real parties-in-interest, or
`the patent owner, which I understand to be Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. My compensation is
`not dependent upon the outcome of the present covered business method patent review or any
`related litigation proceedings.
`2.
` As preparation for forming opinions expressed in this declaration, I reviewed the ’510
`Patent prosecution history, specification, and claims, and the materials discussed below.
`I.
`QUALIFICATIONS
`3.
`My academic credentials include a Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in
`Electrical Engineering, a Masters degree from the University of Illinois (Urbana) in Electrical
`Engineering, and a Bachelors degree in Electrical Engineering from the University of Canterbury
`(New Zealand). My Curriculum Vitae, attached separately as Ex. 1017 to the petition, lists my prior
`engagements where I have testified as an expert witness for at least the last 4 years, and a list of my
`publications authored in at least the last 10 years.
`4.
`My academic degrees are all in Electrical Engineering. While undertaking my Doctorate
`work at MIT I worked in the Research Lab. for Electronics that has for decades contributed to basic
`research in information theory, coding, and statistical estimation theory. My Ph.D. thesis was in the
`field of statistical estimation theory as applied to communications systems.
`5.
`As indicated in my Curriculum Vitae, my experience in computer technology design and
`development spans more than 35 years. I have been a designer of computer systems for processing,
`storage, and display of data since 1974. In the 1970s, I worked with, among others, products in
`Intel’s various lines of microprocessors and microcontrollers. In the first few years I was a
`university professor teaching graduate and undergraduate electrical engineering courses - including
`the design and programming of computers. Along with a group of young graduate students I
`developed a microprocessor system for industrial control applications in 1974 using the Intel 4004
`CPU chip as the base component.
`6.
`When I entered the computer industry in the mid-1970s I developed special software and
`custom hardware systems for government agencies such as the Defense Communications Agency,
`Naval Research Labs, and National Security Agency. For most of that period I held a Secret security
`clearance and programmed microprocessor computers for use in defense systems. Typically these
`systems were used for radar and sonar systems deployed by the military. My design efforts involved
`both software and computer hardware architecture and involved custom hardware implementations
`using commercial CPU and digital signal processing (“DSP”) chips. During this phase I developed
`
`1
`
`
`AMEX 1016 - Page 2 of 52
`
`

`

`many systems based on commercial microprocessor and DSP chips from Motorola, Intel, and Texas
`Instruments.
`7.
`My contract work with the DSP systems developed for the National Security Agency
`resulted in the commercialization of a high speed computer system. During the 1980s I founded a
`company that sold these high performance machines as commercial products, a company called
`Numerix Corporation. I formulated the system design and programmed a significant portion of the
`application software that ran on the machines. During this decade I was also spearheading efforts to
`migrate the discrete integrated circuits (“IC”) hardware implementations into gate arrays – a form of
`custom chip that was in vogue during that time period. I was the chief architect of the systems that
`we built and personally formulated all the key bus, memory, and processor interconnections. At that
`time I had roughly 20 hardware engineers and 30 software engineers reporting to me.
`8.
`The high-performance processor products were sold to companies like Standard Oil of Ohio
`in Dallas, Texas to process seismic field data collected for oil exploration as well as to US
`government agencies as commercial off-the-shelf products. For example, some of our systems
`provided processing for sonar systems used to track Soviet submarines in the Pacific Ocean. Others
`were used in military radar systems for missile tracking by RCA. Numerix Corporation was acquired
`in 1989 by a Boston company called Mercury Computer Systems that continues to sell digital signal
`processing solutions to US government agencies.
`9.
`In the mid-1990s I focused my career more on business–oriented software development.
`For example I directed the efforts of approximately 100 software developers and Quality Assurance
`personnel while employed at Platinum Software in the mid to late 1990s. The software systems were
`“client-server” business applications such as finance, manufacturing, and sales force automation. At
`that time those applications were being adapted to web server implementations in order to allow our
`customers to access the same content through a web browser running on a client computer.
`10.
`Then in the period 1999-2003 I was responsible for teams of 50 or more web site developers
`at companies such as CareerPath.com (now merged with the CareerBuilder.com site). As such I
`have had a rich and in-depth exposure to many forms of computer applications involving the display
`of web pages on client computers. My work in web site design led to a hands-on knowledge of
`cryptographic systems for secure access and user authentication. My experience in this domain
`results from having designed and created two different commercial web sites that required extensive
`engineering effort to support secure e-commerce transactions. For example while running a
`development team of about 15 people at InfrastructureWorld.com as Chief Technology Officer I
`engineered a hardened web site that provided extraordinary levels of security for the high-dollar
`business transactions. The web server implementations were designed to support authentication
`through Public Key certificates, user access control via authenticated account login, Secure Sockets
`Layer (“SSL”) extranet connections, and document encryption.
`11.
`Similarly, while at Syntricity, Inc. in San Diego, CA as Vice President, Technical Operations,
`I designed and developed a secure Application Services Provider (“ASP”) Internet system to host a
`hundred or so corporate customers, allowing them secure access to tools for transfer of data files
`and analysis of semiconductor yield data. This web site used secure FTP for high-speed data
`transfers, secure sockets layer (“SSL”) for secure web site access, and user authentication.
`12.
`In addition I have served as a technical expert in several contract and patent lawsuits
`involving cryptographic components. Briefly, these include Dongjin Semichem Co., Ltd. v.
`EmailFund,Inc., which involved an effort to implement wireless security software technology in
`handheld wireless devices. The concept was to use the Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm
`2
`
`
`
`AMEX 1016 - Page 3 of 52
`
`

`

`(“ECDSA”) to perform the functions of user authentication, non-repudiation, integrity and
`cryptographic primitives in a single integrated circuit that could be integrated into a smart phone. I
`have also contributed as a technical expert in cases such as: Adobe Systems, Inc. v. Wowza Media Systems,
`Inc. that involved Diffie-Hellman key exchange for flash media delivery; VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems,
`Inc. and Apple Computer, Inc. that involved the SSL protocol, IPSec Internet packet encryption, Public
`Key cryptography authentication and encryption techniques using Digital Certificates; and, Leon
`Stambler v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al. that involved Point of Sale authentication systems in the early
`1990s.
`13.
`In those efforts I frequently relied on documents referred to or directly related to those used
`to support this petition, namely Diffie-Hellman key exchange and the Diffie-Hellman U.S. Patent
`4,200,770 from 1977 (“DH Key Exchange”), the Rivest Shamir Adleman (“RSA”) U.S. patent
`4,405,829, also from 1977, and numerous documents and books published by Price and Davies, the
`British POS terminal authentication pioneers.
`14.
`In summary, I believe I am qualified to testify on the subjects of secure financial transactions
`and the implementation of cryptographic applications such as authentication, non-repudiation, and
`message integrity programmed into physical devices such as smart cards and tokens using
`microprocessors or application specific ICs.
`II. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`15.
`I have reviewed each of the following:
`a.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,940,510 (“the ’510 Patent”), including the claims, description, and
`prosecution history (which are identified in the Petition respectively as Exhibits 1001
`and 1002);
`International Patent Application Publication No. WO 1983/003018 to Cremin at al.
`(Ex. 1003; hereinafter “Cremin”);
`Integrated Circuit Cards, Tags, and Tokens by P.L. Hawkes, et al. (Ex. 1004;
`hereinafter “Hawkes”), which includes:
`i.
`Preface by P.L. Hawkes (hereinafter, “Hawkes Preface”);
`ii.
`Chapter 1: Introduction to Integrated Circuit Cards, Tags and Tokens for Automatic
`Identification by P.L. Hawkes (hereinafter, “Hawkes Chapter 1”);
`Chapter 6: Secure Transactions with an Intelligent Token by W.L. Price and Bernard
`J. Chorley (hereinafter, “Hawkes Chapter 6”); and
`Chapter 8: Cryptography and the Smart Card by D.W. Davies (hereinafter,
`“Hawkes Chapter 8”);
`U.S. Patent No. 5,210,846 to R.D. Lee (Ex. 1008; hereinafter “Lee”);
`Rivest, et al., A method for obtaining digital signatures and public key crypto-
`systems, Communications of ACM, Volume 21, Number 2 (1978) (Ex. 1005;
`hereinafter “Rivest”);
`Martin Marshall, Motorola Unveils Details of 68040, INFOWORLD, April 3, 1989
`(Ex. 1014);
`Erik Sandberg-Diment, The Executive Computer; How To Improve A PC's Math
`Skills, THE NEW YORK TIMES, January 19, 1986 (Ex. 1015);
`3
`
`d.
`e.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`iii.
`
`iv.
`
`
`
`AMEX 1016 - Page 4 of 52
`
`

`

`h.
`
`i.
`
`j.
`
`k.
`
`l.
`
`Texas Instruments, TMS7000 Family Microarchitecture User’s Guide (1982) (Ex.
`1009);
`Petition for Covered Business Method Patent Review Under 35 U.S.C. §§ 321-329
`and § 18 of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Case CBM2014-179, JP Morgan
`Chase & Co., and JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“Chase”), Petitioner. (U.S. Patent
`No. 5,940,510) (Ex. 1006);
`Declaration of Stephen D. Bristow in support of Chase Petition for Covered
`Business Method Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,940,510 (Ex. 1018);
`Institution of Covered Business Method Patent Review Decision, Case CBM2014-
`179, Chase, Petitioner (Ex. 1007);
`Report and Recommendation regarding claim construction in In re: Maxim Integrated
`Prods., Inc. MDL No. 2354, Misc. No. 12-244-JFC (W.D. Pa.) (Ex 1010; hereinafter
`“R&R”) and Correction to Report and Recommendation (Ex. 1011; hereinafter
`“R&R Correction”); and
`Opinion and order regarding claim construction in In re: Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc.
`MDL No. 2354, Misc. No. 12-244-JFC (W.D. Pa.) (Ex 1012; hereinafter “CC Op.”).
`III.
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL AND RELEVANT TIME
`16.
`It is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the inventions
`claimed in the ’510 Patent would have had at least a B.S. degree in electrical engineering or computer
`engineering with at least two years of practical or post-graduate work in the areas of secure financial
`transactions and real-time microcontroller programming, or, alternatively, an additional year (at least
`three years) of postgraduate or professional experience in computer systems engineering related to
`secure data transactions, or the equivalent. I was a person of at least ordinary skill in this art in the
`time period from 1994 to 1996. I remain a person of at least ordinary skill in this art today.
`17.
`The basis for my familiarity with the level of ordinary skill is my interaction with large
`numbers of workers in the computing field who were at least at this level of skill. The pertinent art
`was the configuration and arrangement of commercially available computer components, networks,
`systems, and software to satisfy particular customer specifications, together with such programming
`as might be necessary to tie the components together and operate in the desired manner.
`18.
`In reaching my opinion as to the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art, I have
`considered the types of problems encountered in the art, the prior art solutions to those problems,
`the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology, and the
`educational level and professional capabilities of workers in the field.
`IV.
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`A.
`Anticipation
`19.
`It is my understanding that a claim may be invalid as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 if
`each and every element of a claim, as properly construed, is disclosed either explicitly or inherently
`in a single prior art reference, subject to the limitations imposed by § 102 in paragraphs a-g. Under
`the principles of inherency, if the prior art necessarily functions in accordance with, or includes the
`claimed limitations, it anticipates. Persons of ordinary skill need not recognize the inherent
`characteristics or functioning of the prior art. In addition, a new scientific explanation for the
`
`m.
`
`
`
`4
`
`AMEX 1016 - Page 5 of 52
`
`

`

`functioning of the prior art does not render the old apparatus, composition, or method patentable.
`Such a reference, if it contained each and every element of a claim, would anticipate the claim.
`B.
`Obviousness
`20.
`Regarding the legal doctrine of obviousness, my understanding is as follows. A claim may be
`invalid even if each and every claim limitation is not present or disclosed in a single prior-art
`reference. Under the doctrine of obviousness, a claim may be invalid if the differences between the
`invention and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at
`the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject
`matter pertains. A person of ordinary skill in the art is presumed to have knowledge of the relevant
`prior art at the time of the claimed invention.
`21.
`Obviousness is based on the scope and content of the prior art, the differences between the
`prior art and the claim, the level of ordinary skill in the art, and secondary indicia of obviousness and
`non-obviousness to the extent such indicia exist. The scope of the prior art comprises any prior art
`that was reasonably pertinent to the particular problems the inventor faced.
`22.
`The determination of whether the asserted claims would have been obvious to a person of
`ordinary skill in the art and, therefore, invalid, is not governed by any rigid test or formula. A
`determination that a claim is obvious is, instead, based on a common sense determination that the
`claimed invention is merely a combination of known limitations to achieve predictable results. Any
`of the following rationales are acceptable justifications to conclude that a claim would have been
`obvious: the claimed invention is simply a combination of known prior art methods to yield
`predictable results; the claimed invention is a simple substitution of one known element for another
`to obtain predictable results; the claimed invention uses known techniques to improve similar
`devices (methods, or products) in the same way; the claimed invention applies a known technique to
`a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; the claimed
`invention was “obvious to try”—choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions,
`with a reasonable expectation of success; there is known work in one field of endeavor that may
`prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives
`or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the
`art; or there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of
`ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art reference to combine prior art teachings to arrive at
`the claimed inventions.
`23.
`In addition, a claim can be obvious in light of a single reference, without the need to
`combine references, if the elements of the claim that are not found in the reference can be supplied
`by the common sense or knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art.
`24.
`An analysis of whether a claimed invention is obvious must not rely on a hindsight
`combination of prior art. The analysis must proceed in the context of the time of the invention or
`claimed priority date and consider whether the invention as a whole would have been obvious to a
`person of ordinary skill in the art, taking into consideration any interrelated teachings of the prior
`art, the effects of demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace, and the
`background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art, all in order to
`determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine any known elements in the fashion
`claimed by the patent at issue.
`
`
`
`5
`
`AMEX 1016 - Page 6 of 52
`
`

`

`V.
`OVERVIEW OF THE ’510 PATENT
`25.
`The ’510 patent entitled “Transfer of valuable information between a secure module and
`another module” issued to Stephen M. Curry et al on August 17, 1999. The application that resulted
`in the ’510 patent, Appl. No.: 08/594,975 was filed on Jan. 31, 1996.
`26.
`The claims of the ’510 Patent include “a portable module reader that can be placed in
`communication with said first portable module, said portable module reader can be connected to a
`plurality of other devices” and “a secure microcontroller based module in electronic communication
`with said portable module reader.” See ’510 Patent at 24:15-18 and 24:20-22.
`27.
`From my reading of the specification I understand the “first portable module” to be a
`portable device that, for example, contains information used in a transaction, such as units of
`exchange or a currency equivalent. The portable device can be read using a “portable module
`reader,” such as the “microprocessor based device 104.” According to the specification, the
`portable module, communicating through the portable device reader, allows a user to exchange data
`with a “secure module 108.” The communication allows, for example, “units of exchange” to be
`added to the portable module or to be extracted from the portable module to pay for a good,
`service, or credit card bill. See id. at 3:18-21. For example, the portable module reader may be
`connected to an ATM to permit units of exchange to be added or removed from the portable
`module. The specification states:
`
`The credit card reader 114, and ATM 112 can also be attached to the microprocessor based device 104.
`The credit card reader 114 could be used to read a user's credit card and then, when authorized, either
`communicate to the microprocessor based device 104 that units of exchange need to be added to the
`portable module or that units of exchange need to be extracted from the portable module to pay for a
`good, service or credit card bill.
`’510 Patent at 3:14-21.
`
`The user of the portable module touches, or somehow puts the portable module 102 into communication
`with the microprocessor based device 104. For explanation purposes, suppose the portable module 102 is
`being used as a token used to pay for a train fare. Thus, the microprocessor based device 104 could be, in
`this case, a turn style that allows the user to enter a train platform. The cost of entering the train platform
`is known by the microprocessor based device 104.
`’510 Patent at 7:28-35.
`28.
`The microprocessor based device 104, may include any device, such as a portable module
`reader that accepts transactions from the portable module, such as fare tokens at a subway station.
`The specification states:
`
`The microprocessor based device 104 can be any of an unlimited number of devices. For example, the
`microprocessor based device 104 could be a personal computer, an add-a-fare machine at a train or bus
`station (similar to those in today's District of Columbia metro stations), a turn style, a toll booth, a bank's
`terminal, a ride at a carnival, a washing machine at a Laundromat, a locking device, a mail metering device
`or any device that controls access, or meters a monetary equivalent, etc.
`Id. 2:35-44.
`29.
`Figure 1 of the ’510 patent is an illustrative block diagram showing the components of the
`system for communicating data securely between a portable module (portable module 102) and a
`secure module (secure microprocessor based device 108) through a portable module reader
`(microprocessor based device 104):
`
`
`
`6
`
`AMEX 1016 - Page 7 of 52
`
`

`

`
`
`’510 Patent Figure 1.
`30.
`Portable module 102 communicates with a microprocessor based device 104 through a
`communication means 106, and microprocessor based device 104 in turn relays those
`communications to secure microprocessor based device 108. In addition to the secure
`microprocessor based device 108, the microprocessor based device 104 can be connected to a
`number of other systems, such as a credit card reader 114 or phone line 116.
`31.
`The structure of a portable module 102 is shown in Figure 2 of the ’510 Patent:
`
`
`
`’510 Patent Figure 2.
`32.
`Figure 2 illustrates components described in the specification that include a memory 202,
`input/output circuit 212, timer 208, counter 206, and an identification number 210 that “uniquely
`identifies the portable module from any other portable module.” A memory circuit 204 controls
`reading and writing to and from these various components. See, ’510 Patent at 3:40-4:9
`33.
`In the claims, the “portable module” is recited as having the following components, all of
`which would be readily understood by a person of ordinary skill to be components of generic
`computers or portable integrated circuit devices that predate the filing date of the ‘510 Patent:
`a.
`The “nonvolatile memory for storing a first data” is described in the specification as
`being “for storing and retrieving vital information pertaining to the system to which
`the module 102 may become attached to.” Id. at 3:57-60. The claim references that
`7
`
`
`
`AMEX 1016 - Page 8 of 52
`
`

`

`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`b.
`
`the “nonvolatile memory” is “for storing a first data,” but does not further qualify
`what the “first data” is. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand this
`to be no different than ordinary memories that can be used to store data persistently,
`such as read-only memories (“ROM”), or random-access memory whose contents
`are preserved by a battery even after the main device is no longer receiving power.
`Generic computers often use a nonvolatile memory like a ROM for storing, for
`example, programs or data that do not need to be changed and should be the same
`every time a computer is used.
`The “real time clock circuit for time stamping data transactions” is identified in the
`specification as “timer 102” that “may be provided in the module to provide the
`ability to time stamp transactions performed by the module.” Id. at 4:2-4. I
`understand the reference to “timer 102” to be intended to refer to “timer 208”
`shown in Figure 2, although neither timer is referred to anywhere else in the patent.
`Id. at Fig. 2. A person of ordinary skill would understand that the function of “time
`stamping” can be provided by the real time clock. The “time stamping,” moreover,
`simply refers to reading and writing a value from a clock to some other data in order
`to, for example, mark when the data was generated.
`The “counter for counting a transaction count” is described as being “for keeping
`track of the number of transactions the module has performed.” Id. at 3:66-4:2. A
`person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this functional description
`could refer to hardware or software that keeps track of a value that is incremented
`for each transaction in a sequence of transactions. The person would further
`understand that this counter can be implemented by a simple location in memory
`representing a number, such as the “transaction counter objects.” Id. at 10:33-35.
`The “input/output circuit” is described as being a circuit that “controls the data flow
`into and out of the portable module 102.” Id. at 4:10-24.
`The “substantially unique electronically readable identification number” is described
`as being something that “identifies the portable module from any other portable
`module.” Id. at 4:7-9.
`The “memory control circuit” is described as a memory controller that “controls the
`reading and writing of data into and out of the memory 202.” Id. at 4:4-6.
`34. With respect to the “portable module reader” (microprocessor based device 104), the patent
`describes that it “can be any of an unlimited number of devices.” ’510 Patent at 2:37-45. The
`specification states that examples of the kind of device it can be include a “personal computer, an
`add-a-fare machine at a train or bus station (similar to those in today's District of Columbia metro
`stations), a turn style, a toll booth, a bank's terminal, a ride at a carnival, a washing machine at a
`Laundromat, a locking device, a mail metering device or any device that controls access, or meters a
`monetary equivalent, etc.” Id.
`35.
`The “portable module reader” both (1) can be placed in communication with a portable
`module, and (2) can be connected to a plurality of other devices. The specification is clear that the
`portable module reader, which it calls “microprocessor based device 104,” can be “any of an
`unlimited number of devices,” including “a personal computer.” ’510 Patent, 2:37-45. The form of
`communication between the portable module reader and the portable module is, moreover,
`described as being “preferably via a single wire or contact connection,” but could instead be
`8
`
`f.
`
`
`
`AMEX 1016 - Page 9 of 52
`
`

`

`“multiple wires, a wireless communication system, infrared light, any electromagnetic means, a
`magnetic technique, or any other similar technique.” Id. at 2:52-58. All of the forms of
`communication were well known to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the ‘510 Patent.
`36.
`The specification also contemplates that the “plurality of other devices” that the portable
`module reader can be connected to “include, but are not limited to a cash acceptor 110, an
`automatic teller machine (ATM) 112, a credit card reader 114, and a phone line 116.” Id. at 2:66-3:2.
`A person of ordinary skill would understand that each of these devices would refer to systems to
`which a generic computer could be connected using, for example, a serial data connection, network
`connection, or phone connection. Generic computers at the time the ‘510 Patent was filed included
`a variety of ways to provide communication with external, peripheral devices.
`37.
`The structure of a secure microprocessor based device 108 is illustrated in Figure 3:
`
`
`Figure 3 illustrates the components including a microprocessor 12, math coprocessor 18, real time
`clock 14, memory control 16, memory 20, input/output circuit 26, and an energy circuit 34. The
`specification describes the structure of the secure module “can be a single integrated circuit,” but
`“could also be a monolithic or multiple circuits combined together.” ’510 Patent at 4:25-29.
`38.
`In the claims, the “secure module” is recited as having the following components, all of
`which are readily understood by a person of ordinary skill at the time of the ‘510 Patent to be well
`known and readily available components for use in generic computers or other integrated circuit
`devices:
`a.
`
`The “microcontroller core” is described to be a generic microprocessor, such as
`“preferably an 8-bit microprocessor, but could be 16, 32, 64 or any operable number
`of bits.” Id. at 4:56-57. The “microcontroller core” is also described to be “a general-
`
`
`
`9
`
`AMEX 1016 - Page 10 of 52
`
`

`

`c.
`
`b.
`
`purpose, 8051-compatible micro controller 12 or a reasonably similar product.” Id. at
`5:39-40.
`The “math coprocessor” is described as being “designed and used to handle very
`large numbers. In particular, the coprocessor will handle the complex mathematics
`of RSA encryption and decryption or other types of math intensive encryption or
`decryption techniques.” Id. at 4:61-65. A person of ordinary skill in the art would
`understand that at the time of the ‘510 Patent was filed generic computers and
`integrated circuit devices regularly included circuits that operated in conjunction with
`a central processing unit to provide enhanced mathematical computation ability. The
`trend towards on-chip math coprocessors is shown by, for example, Motorola’s
`announcement years earlier of its 68040 chip that included an on-board math
`coprocessor, and it was known that they would significantly improve the
`performance of encryption and decryption techniques. Martin Marshall, Motorola
`Unveils Details of 68040, INFOWORLD, April 3, 1989 at 105 (Ex. 1014). Math
`coprocessors were recognized in the field as a key component for efficiently
`processing encryption routines. Erik Sandberg-Diment, The Executive Computer;
`How To Improve A PC's Math Skills, THE NEW YORK TIMES, January 19, 1986
`(Ex. 1015).
`The “energy circuit” is described as “necessary to maintain stored information in the
`memory circuitry 20 and/or aid in powering the other circuitry in the module 108.”
`’510 Patent at 5:17-22. Since the energy circuit is described as being used to power
`any circuitry in the module, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand
`this disclosure to refer to any power source used by the module. Generic computers
`at the time of the ‘510 Patent ran off of electricity, included batteries to prevent loss
`of data, and had circuits to receive power from either a battery or a power main.
`The “memory circuit” is described as being able to “contain both read-only-memory
`and non-volatile random-access-memory” and “volatile memory, EPROM, SRAM
`and a variety of other types of memory circuitry might be used to create an
`equivalent device.” Id. at 4:66-5:4. A person of ordinary skill in the art would
`understand this to refer to any form of memory in the secure module.
`As with the portable module 102, the “real time clock circuit” is generally
`understood to be a clock that keeps track of the date and/or time.
`VI.
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`39.
`I understand that the standard for claim construction at the United States Patent and
`Trademark Office is different from the standard used in United States District Courts. I understand
`that a U.S. District Court interprets claim terms based on the plain and ordinary meaning.
`40.
`I understand also that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office interprets claim terms based on
`the broadest reasonable interpretation. I understand that the broadest reasonable interpretation may
`be broader in scope than the plain an