EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`TO PETITIONER GOOGLE INC.’S
`PETITION FOR COVERED BUSINESS
`METHOD REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,334,720
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TO PETITIONER GOOGLE INC.’S
`PETITION FOR COVERED BUSINESS
`METHOD REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,334,720
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`
`
`GOOGLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SMARTFLASH LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,334,720
`
`_____________________
`
`Covered Business Method Review Case No. Unassigned
`
`_____________________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. JUSTIN DOUGLAS TYGAR
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Google Exhibit 1002 Page 00001
`
`
`
`I, Dr. Justin Douglas Tygar, declare as follows:
`
`I have been retained as an expert witness on behalf of Google Inc. (“Google”
`
`or “petitioner”) in connection with the instant Covered Business Method
`
`(“CBM”) review petition.
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated for my time in connection with this CBM review at
`
`my standard consulting rate, which is $500 per hour up to a maximum of
`
`$5,000 per day. My compensation is not dependent on the substance of my
`
`opinions, my testimony, or the outcome of this CBM review.
`
`3.
`
`I understand that the petition for CBM review involves U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,334,720 (“the ’720 patent”), Ex. 1001.1
`
`4.
`
`I have reviewed and am familiar with the ’720 patent, including claims 1 and
`
`15 (the “challenged claims”). I have reviewed and am familiar with six
`
`patents related to the ’720 patent: U.S. Patent Nos. 7,942,317, 8,033,458,
`
`8,061,598, 8,118,221, 8,336,772, and 8,794,516. I have reviewed and am
`
`familiar with the file histories for the ’720 patent and the six related patents.
`
`5.
`
`I am familiar with the general state of the technology at issue in the ’720
`
`patent as of October 25, 1999, its purported priority date.
`
`
`1 All references to “Ex. __” in this declaration refer to the Google Exhibits
`
`concurrently filed with Google’s CBM petition.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`Google Exhibit 1002 Page 00002
`
`
`
`In preparing this declaration, I have considered each of the documents cited
`
`herein. I have also relied on my experience in the relevant art in connection
`
`with forming my opinions.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS
`Since 1998, I have been a Full Professor at the University of California,
`
`Berkeley. I hold a professor position in two departments at U.C. Berkeley:
`
`the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences (Computer
`
`Sciences Division) and the School of Information. Before joining U.C.
`
`Berkeley, I was a tenured professor at Carnegie Mellon University in
`
`Computer Science, where I had a faculty appointment since 1986. I received
`
`my Ph.D. in Computer Science from Harvard University in 1986. I have
`
`extensive research, teaching, and industry experience in the areas of
`
`computer security and electronic commerce, with a special research interest
`
`in digital rights management as it relates to those areas.
`
`
`
`6.
`
`I.
`7.
`
`8.
`
`I have helped build a number of security and electronic commerce systems.
`
`Together with my colleague at Carnegie Mellon, Marvin Sirbu, I developed
`
`Netbill, a patented electronic payment system that was licensed to
`
`CyberCash (now part of Verisign). For the U.S. Postal Service, I designed
`
`the two dimensional “Information Based Indicia” postage indicia that have
`
`now become a widely used standard. Together with my graduate students, I
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`Google Exhibit 1002 Page 00003
`
`
`
`
`
`designed the architecture and a foundational operating system used on
`
`secure coprocessors, Dyad. Together with my graduate students, I designed
`
`Micro-Tesla, a light-weight cryptographic architecture that ultimately
`
`became a standard of the Internet Engineering Task Force and is widely used
`
`in sensor webs.
`
`9.
`
`I served as chair of the Defense Department’s ISAT Study Group on
`
`Security with Privacy and was a founding board member of the Association
`
`for Computing Machinery’s Special Interest Group on Electronic Commerce.
`
`10.
`
`I have written three books, including Secure Broadcast Communication in
`
`Wired and Wireless Networks (with Adrian Perrig), which has become a
`
`standard reference. My fourth book, Adversarial Machine Learning, is
`
`scheduled to be published by Cambridge University Press in 2015.
`
`11.
`
`I have been an active researcher in the fields of computer security and
`
`electronic commerce continuously since 1982.
`
`12. My complete curriculum vitae is submitted as Google Exhibit 1003.
`
`13. My findings explained in this declaration are based on my years of education,
`
`research, and industry experience in computer security and e-commerce
`
`technologies, including as applied to digital rights management.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Google Exhibit 1002 Page 00004
`
`
`
`
`
`II. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`14. Counsel for the petitioner asked me to provide an opinion regarding the skill
`
`level of a person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’720 patent as of October
`
`25, 1999.2
`
`15. Counsel for the petitioner has informed me that the hypothetical person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art is presumed to have knowledge of all references that
`
`are sufficiently related to one another and to the pertinent art, and to have
`
`knowledge of all arts reasonably pertinent to the particular problem that the
`
`claimed inventions address. A person of ordinary skill is capable of drawing
`
`inferences and taking creative steps.
`
`16.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art with respect to the ’720
`
`patent would have had at least a Bachelor’s degree in computer science or
`
`equivalent experience.
`
`17. My understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art is based on my
`
`education and professional experience. Since 1986, I have been a computer
`
`2 All opinions that I express in this Declaration with respect to the ’720
`
`Patent, its disclosure, the construction and scope of its claims, the validity of its
`
`claims, and the scope and content of the prior art are from the perspective and view
`
`of what a person skilled in the art would have understood, regardless of whether I
`
`expressly identify it as such.
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`Google Exhibit 1002 Page 00005
`
`
`
`
`
`science professor and I have been teaching undergraduate, masters, and
`
`doctoral students in computer science, and I am familiar with the abilities of
`
`students at those levels of education. A person with a computer science
`
`degree would understand and be able to practice the teachings of the asserted
`
`patents, including understanding their descriptions of systems and devices
`
`and associated hardware and functionality.
`
`18.
`
`I received my doctoral degree in computer science in 1986, and have
`
`actively been a computer science professor researching topics in computer
`
`security, electronic commerce, and distributed systems since that time, so in
`
`the late 1990s, I had far exceeded the education and experience of a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`III. STATE OF THE ART
`19. By October 25, 1999, both e-commerce and anti-piracy methods for digital
`
`content were well understood concepts. For example, WO 99/07121 A2 (Ex.
`
`1004), describes fundamental aspects and features of e-commerce including
`
`browsing content for purchase, payment verification, and digital delivery of
`
`purchased content. Ex. 1004 at Abstract. As another example, U.S. Patent
`
`No. 5,790,423, which was filed on June 13, 1995, and which issued on
`
`August 4, 1998, is directed to anti-piracy methods in the context of digital
`
`content distribution systems and discloses a system for distributing audio
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`Google Exhibit 1002 Page 00006
`
`
`
`
`
`content from a remote source over the Internet in which use rules for
`
`satisfying copyright protection criteria are coded into the control program.
`
`Ex. 1005 at 11:60-12:59.
`
`20. By October 1999, I had personally worked on e-commerce and anti-piracy
`
`projects such as the NetBill project, the Dyad project, and the development
`
`of electronic postage metering services for the USPS.
`
`21. By October 1999, multiple commercial services combining e-commerce and
`
`anti-piracy elements had launched.
`
`22. For example, from 1998 on, the Softbook ebook system was commercially
`
`available. Ex. 1006 (SOFTBOOK PRESS Secure Information Delivery to a
`
`Distributed Workforce, CIO Magazine, Aug. 1, 1999) at 4. This system
`
`involved a handheld ebook-reader device that could be plugged into a phone
`
`line to download material available from Softbookstore, an e-commerce site
`
`from which books and trade journals could be purchased. Id.; see also Ex.
`
`1007 (Electronic books to hit the shelves, New Straits Times, Aug. 24, 1998,
`
`Computimes) at 27. In the Softbook system, “[i]nformation is encrypted to
`
`prevent duplication, and the system is secure to prevent unauthorized use.”
`
`Ex. 1006 at 4.
`
`23. Similarly, prior to 1999, Liquid Audio developed, licensed, and deployed
`
`software and systems for the sale, delivery, and playback of digital music.
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`Google Exhibit 1002 Page 00007
`
`
`
`
`
`In October 1997, it published through its website a document entitled
`
`“Music on the Net,” which describes its platform for selling copy-protected
`
`files over the Internet. Ex. 1008 (Image of Liquidaudio.com cached October
`
`10, 1997; Linked “Music on the Net” Research Report) at 19. The document
`
`also describes competing services such as Cerberus and Eurodat, which also
`
`sold digital music in 1997. Id. The Eurodat service incorporated “an anti-
`
`piracy mechanism that ensures that downloaded music can only be played
`
`from the server it was encoded on.” Id.
`
`24. Liquid Audio extensively promoted its platform in 1998 through programs
`
`such as its Indie 1000 program, which provided artists with a turn-key
`
`solution for secure sales of digital content. Ex. 1009. This program
`
`emphasized the combination of anti-piracy measures with e-commerce
`
`functionality: “The Liquid Audio system combines sophisticated multi-layer
`
`encryption with inaudible digital watermarking technology to protect your
`
`intellectual property. This advanced system provides the most
`
`comprehensive, anti-copy and anti-piracy technology available today . . .
`
`When a music fan wants to buy your music they just click on ‘Buy
`
`Download’ in the Liquid MusicPlayer and enter the necessary payment
`
`information. You determine the price for the songs.” Id. at 2.
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`Google Exhibit 1002 Page 00008
`
`
`
`
`
`25. The examples above show that the combination of e-commerce systems with
`
`anti-piracy measures was well-established both in theory and in commercial
`
`practice by October 25, 1999.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’720 PATENT
`26. The ’720 patent states that its alleged invention “relates to a portable data
`
`carrier for storing and paying for data and to computer systems for providing
`
`access to data to be stored.” Ex. 1001 at 1:5-8. The ’720 patent states that
`
`the alleged “invention is particularly useful for managing stored audio and
`
`video data, but may also be applied to storage and access of text and
`
`software, including games, as well as other types of data.” Id. at 1:11-14.
`
`The stated goal of the ’720 patent is to respond to the “urgent need to find a
`
`way to address the problem of data piracy.” Id. at 1:35-41.
`
`27. The ’720 patent describes the core of its supposed invention as “a method of
`
`providing portable data comprising providing a portable data storage device
`
`comprising downloaded data storage means and payment validation means;
`
`providing a terminal for internet access; coupling the portable data storage
`
`device to the terminal; reading payment information from the payment
`
`validation means using the terminal; validating the payment information;
`
`and downloading data into the portable storage device from a data supplier.”
`
`Id. at 1:46-55.
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`Google Exhibit 1002 Page 00009
`
`
`
`
`
`28. Data storage means and data encryption were conventional technologies as
`
`of October 1999. The ’720 patent provides various suggestions for the data
`
`storage means and the optional data encryption used in its system. Id. at
`
`2:30-3:30. The specification identifies FLASH RAM as a known example
`
`of data storage means; the specification identifies Pretty Good Privacy and
`
`PKI (Public Key Infrastructure) as known examples of data encryption. Id.
`
`29. The ’720 patent also describes a portable data carrier that could be integrated
`
`into mobile communications devices. Portable data carriers were also
`
`known and conventional hardware as of October 1999. The ’720 patent
`
`specification identifies a “standard smart card” as an example of known
`
`portable data carriers. Id. at 11:38.
`
`30. The ’720 patent also describes the use of rules to govern access to stored
`
`data. Id. at 4:33-5:11. The specification identifies known examples of such
`
`rules, including “specify[ing] . . . a predetermined number of accesses” and
`
`allowing “unlimited plays but only on specified players.” Id. at 23:60-24:2.
`
`31. The specification of the ’720 patent also discloses that the alleged invention
`
`uses e-payment systems known at the time of its filing, such as MONDEX,
`
`Proton, and Visa, for payment and payment verification functions. Id. at
`
`13:35-55.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`Google Exhibit 1002 Page 00010
`
`
`
`
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`32. Counsel for the petitioner has informed me that terms in the challenged
`
`claims must be given their broadest reasonable construction in light of
`
`the ’720 patent’s specification, which means that the words of the claims
`
`should be given the broadest possible meaning that is consistent with the
`
`statements of the specification.
`
`“Use Rule(s)” (Claim 1) and “Access Rule(s)” (Claim 15)
`
`33. The patent describes the use of “use rules” and “access rules.” According to
`
`the specification, “[t]he carrier may . . . store . . . content use rules for
`
`controlling access to the stored content.” Ex. 1001 at Abstract. “Content
`
`access rules” may correspond to a “purchased level of service.” Id. at Fig.
`
`12e. The “use rule will normally be dependent upon payment value
`
`information embodied in the payment data read from the data carrier.” Id. at
`
`8:31-32. The “content use rules” may “pertain[] to allowed use of stored
`
`data items.” Id. at 4:63-64. The “use rules . . . determine whether access is
`
`permitted to the stored data.” Id. at 9:18-19. A use rule may be associated
`
`with “a large number of data items.” Id. at 7:33. The “use rules may be
`
`linked to payments made from the card to provide payment options such as
`
`access to buy content data outright; rental access to content data for a time
`
`period or for a specified number of access events; and/or rental/purchase, for
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`Google Exhibit 1002 Page 00011
`
`
`
`
`
`example where rental use is provided together with an option to purchase
`
`content data at the reduced price after rental access has expired.” Ex. 1001
`
`at 4:63-5:3. “Content access rules” can “provide unlimited plays but only on
`
`specified players, for example set top boxes owned by a particular cable TV
`
`network.” Id. at 23:64-67. The use rules “may also comprise access control
`
`employing a user identification and password.” Id. at 9:25-26.
`
`34. The Board wrote in Apple Inc. v. Smartflash LLC, CBM2014-00104, Paper
`
`No. 9 at 8 (Sept. 30, 2014) that “use rule” and “access rule” mean “a rule
`
`specifying a condition under which access to content is permitted.”
`
`35. Although my opinion is that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “use
`
`rule” and “access rule” is broader than the Board’s prior interpretation, I
`
`have adopted the interpretation of “use rule” and “access rule” previously set
`
`forth by the Board for purposes of arriving at the opinions set forth in this
`
`declaration.
`
`“Payment Data” (Claim 15)
`
`36. The patent describes “payment data.” According to the specification,
`
`“payment data” can be used “for making a payment to the system owner”
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 21:15-16) and “a payment” can be “represented by the payment
`
`data.” Id. at 9:5-7. The specification also teaches that “payment data” can
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`Google Exhibit 1002 Page 00012
`
`
`
`
`
`store “a payment audit trail including payment amounts and data on to
`
`whom payments have been made.” Id. at 18:3-5.
`
`37. The district court wrote in its claim construction order at page 11 that
`
`“payment data” means “data that can be used to make payment for content.”
`
`Ex. 1011 at 11.
`
`38. Counsel has informed me that the district court uses a narrower interpretive
`
`standard than the standard that applies to a CBM proceeding. The broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of the term “payment data” would have been
`
`understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art to mean “any information
`
`that can be used in connection with the process of making a payment for
`
`content.”
`
`“Payment Validation System” (Claim 15)
`
`39. The patent describes “payment validation system.” According to the patent
`
`specification, the “payment validation system” is used “for validating the
`
`data and authorizing the payment” (Ex. 1001 at 8:21-23) as well as returning
`
`data such as “payment validation data.” Id. at 8:66-9:2, Claim 15
`
`(“receiving payment validation data from the payment validation system”).
`
`The patent also discloses that “[t]he payment validation system may be part
`
`of the data supplier’s computer systems or it may be a separate e-payment
`
`system.” Id. at 8:64-66.
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`Google Exhibit 1002 Page 00013
`
`
`
`
`
`40. The patent owner wrote in its claim construction brief at page 7 that
`
`“payment validation system” was a “system that returns payment validation
`
`data in response to valid payment data.” Ex. 1012 at 7.
`
`41. The district court wrote in its claim construction order at page 14 that
`
`“payment validation system” is a “system that returns payment validation
`
`data based on an attempt to validate payment data.” Ex. 1011 at 14.
`
`Counsel for the petitioner has informed me that the district court uses a
`
`narrower interpretive standard than the standard that applies to a CBM
`
`proceeding. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “payment
`
`validation system” would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art to mean “any system that returns information in connection with an
`
`attempt to validate payment data” (wherein “payment data” must be
`
`construed broadly to include “any information that can be used in connection
`
`with the process of making a payment for content”).
`
`“Payment Validation Data” (Claim 15)
`
`42. The patent describes “payment validation data.” According to the patent,
`
`“payment validation data” is data that a data access terminal can receive
`
`from a “payment validation system” after “payment data” is forwarded to the
`
`“payment validation system.” Ex. 1001 at 7:62-8:9, 8:64-9:2, Claim 15.
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`Google Exhibit 1002 Page 00014
`
`
`
`
`
`43. The district court wrote in its claim construction order at page 37 that
`
`“payment validation data” should be given its plain meaning. Ex. 1011 at 15,
`
`37.
`
`44. The patent owner wrote in its claim construction brief at page 10 that “none
`
`of the claims of the patents-in-suit require that the payment validation
`
`system be used to authorize payment.” Ex. 1012 at 10.
`
`45. Counsel for the petitioner has informed me that the district court uses a
`
`narrower interpretive standard than the standard that applies to a CBM
`
`proceeding. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “payment
`
`validation data” would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art to mean “information returned in connection with an attempt to
`
`validate payment data” (wherein “payment data” must be construed broadly
`
`to include “any information that can be used in connection with the process
`
`of making a payment for content”).
`
`“Data Carrier” (Claims 1 and 15)
`
`46. The patent describes the use of a “data carrier.” “A portable data carrier has
`
`an interface for sending and receiving data, non-volatile data memory for
`
`storing received content data and non-volatile payment validation memory
`
`for providing payment validation data to an external device.” Ex. 1001 at
`
`Abstract. The data carrier may “store both payment data and content
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`Google Exhibit 1002 Page 00015
`
`
`
`
`
`data.” Id. at 4:27-28. The data carrier may comprise “non-volatile data
`
`memory and non-volatile parameter memory storing use status data and use
`
`rules.” Id. at 6:33-35. “The data carrier may also be integrated into other
`
`apparatus, such as a mobile communications device.” Id. at 4:43-44. The
`
`data carrier may “further comprise[] memory for storing data for accessing a
`
`mobile communications network, for example to receive content data over
`
`the network.” Id. at 6:7-10. In such an embodiment, “the data carrier may
`
`replace a SIM (Subscriber Identity Module) card.” Id. at 6:10-11. The data
`
`carrier may also “store[] access control data, such as a user ID and
`
`password.” Id. at 5:29-30. Figure 2 provides an example of a portable data
`
`carrier, namely a smart Flash card, and Figure 9 illustrates the “components
`
`of a data carrier.” The patent also gives as examples of data carriers a
`
`“ROM chip or disk.” Id. at 18:38.
`
`47. The patent owner wrote in its claim construction brief at page 19 that “data
`
`carrier” could be construed to mean a “medium capable of storing
`
`information.” Ex. 1012 at 17.
`
`48. The district court wrote in its claim construction order at page 22 that “data
`
`carrier” means “medium capable of storing information.” Ex. 1011 at 22.
`
`49. Counsel has informed me that the district court uses a narrower interpretive
`
`standard than the standard that applies to a CBM proceeding. The broadest
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`Google Exhibit 1002 Page 00016
`
`
`
`
`
`reasonable interpretation of the term “data carrier” would have been
`
`understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art to mean any “medium,
`
`regardless of structure, that is capable of storing information.”
`
`“Non-Volatile Data Memory” and “Non-Volatile Parameter Memory”
`
`(Claim 1)
`
`50. The patent describes the use of “non-volatile data memory” and “non-
`
`volatile parameter memory.” Non-volatile data memory is used “for storing
`
`received content data.” Ex. 1001 at Abstract. Figure 9 depicts the non-
`
`volatile data memory as storing Card ID Data, Payment Data, Card Value
`
`Data, RFM Data, CRM Data, DRM & Royalty Data, Content Index and Use
`
`Rules Data, Use Record Data, Supply Chain Data, and Mobile
`
`Communications Network Access Data. The non-volatile parameter
`
`memory stores “use status data and use rules.” Id. at 6:35.
`
`51. The patent describes the “non-volatile” memory. “The non-volatile memory
`
`ensures that stored content and payment data is retained in the data carrier
`
`when the data carrier is not receiving power from an external source. Thus
`
`‘nonvolatile’ encompasses, for example, low-power memory whose contents
`
`are retained by a battery back-up system.” Ex. 1001 at 4:32-38. The patent
`
`gives as examples of non-volatile memory “EEPROM and “Flash memory.”
`
`Id. at 4:39-40. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`Google Exhibit 1002 Page 00017
`
`
`
`
`
`memory that retained data when not receiving power would include flash
`
`memory, bubble memory, ROM, and EEPROM.
`
`52. The district court wrote in its claim construction order at page 19 that “non-
`
`volatile data memory” and “parameter memory” should be given their plain
`
`meanings. Ex. 1011 at 19. The district court wrote in its claim construction
`
`order at page 19 that “[t]he patent does not require that these [memories] be
`
`physically separate.” Id.
`
`53. The district court wrote in a supplemental claim construction order at page
`
`11 that:
`
`[F]or claims reciting both “data memory” and “parameter memory”
`
`or “use rule memory,” the “content data memory” or “data
`
`memory” must be logically separate from the “parameter
`
`memory” or “use rule memory.” Likewise, the claims require
`
`“use status data” and “use rules” to be stored separately from
`
`content only where the claims explicitly recite such a requirement,
`
`such as by distinctly reciting different memories.
`
`Ex. 1013 at 11 (footnote listing claims omitted) (emphasis in original).
`
`54. Counsel has informed me that the district court uses a narrower interpretive
`
`standard than the standard that applies to a CBM proceeding. The broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of “non-volatile data memory storing content and
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`Google Exhibit 1002 Page 00018
`
`
`
`
`
`non-volatile parameter memory storing use status data and use rules” would
`
`have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art to mean “any
`
`generic memory device or devices that retains stored data when not
`
`receiving power from an external source and is capable of assigning
`
`(randomly or otherwise) content and rules to different memory addresses.”
`
`VI. PATENT ELIGIBLE SUBJECT MATTER
`55. Counsel for the petitioner has informed me that laws of nature, abstract ideas,
`
`and natural phenomena cannot be patented pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`Counsel for the petitioner has informed me that the Supreme Court has
`
`endorsed a two-step approach for determining when a claim falls outside the
`
`scope of Section 101. Counsel for the petitioner has informed me that the
`
`first step is to determine whether the claim at issue is directed to a patent
`
`ineligible concept like an abstract idea. If it is, the second step is to identify
`
`“what else” is claimed so as to determine whether the claim amounts to
`
`“significantly more” than the abstract idea.
`
`56. Counsel for the petitioner has informed me that if a claim does not recite
`
`significantly more than an abstract idea, it is invalid under Section 101.
`
`Counsel for the petitioner has informed me that to constitute “significantly
`
`more,” it is not sufficient to simply apply the abstract idea with a computer.
`
`Counsel for the petitioner has informed me that neither is it sufficient to
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`Google Exhibit 1002 Page 00019
`
`
`
`limit the claim to a particular technological environment or to add to the
`
`claim insignificant post solution activity or well-understood, routine,
`
`conventional activity. Counsel for the petitioner has informed that instead, a
`
`claim directed at an un-patentable abstract idea must contain other elements
`
`or a combination of elements (an “inventive concept”) sufficient to prevent
`
`patenting the abstract idea itself. Counsel has informed me that a claim
`
`directed at overriding a routine and conventional sequence of events may
`
`also be patent eligible.
`
`A.
`
`It Is My Opinion That Claims 1 And 15 Are Directed To An
`Abstract Idea
`
`
`It is my opinion that claims 1 and 15 of the ’720 patent are directed to the
`
`
`
`57.
`
`abstract idea of controlling access to something based on one or more
`
`conditions (such as payment).
`
`58. Each of claims 1 and 15 is expressly directed to that abstract idea. Claim 1
`
`begins “[a] method of controlling access . . .” Claim 15 recites a “method”
`
`in which there is “at least one condition for accessing . . ., the at least one
`
`condition being dependent upon the amount of payment.”
`
`59. The specification of the ’720 patent also teaches that the “invention” is
`
`directed to the same abstract idea. The specification states that the
`
`“invention” relates to “providing access” and “paying.” Ex. 1001 at 1:5-8.
`
`B.
`
`It Is My Opinion That Claims 1 And 15 Do Not Disclose An
`20
`
`
`
`
`Google Exhibit 1002 Page 00020
`
`
`
`Inventive Concept That Is Significantly More Than An Abstract
`Idea
`
`It is my opinion that neither of the challenged claims adds anything of
`
`significance to the underlying abstract idea of controlling access to
`
`something based on one or more conditions (such as payment). The claims
`
`simply apply the abstract idea to “data” and recite generic computer
`
`components and functionality.
`
`
`
`60.
`
`61. The computer hardware recited in claims 1 and 15—namely, a “data carrier”
`
`and “non-volatile memory”—is generic and conventional. Such hardware
`
`has long been routinely used in general purpose computers.
`
`62. Alan Turing’s celebrated idealized computing automaton (now called a
`
`“Turing Machine” in his honor) was introduced in 1937 in the paper “On
`
`Computable Numbers, with an application to the Entscheidungsproblem”
`
`Ex. 1014 (Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, vol s2-42, pp.
`
`230-265). On page 231, Turing notes “The machine is supplied a ‘tape’ (the
`
`analogue of paper) running through it, and divided into sections (called
`
`‘squares’) each capable of bearing a ‘symbol.’” Id. Turing’s “tape” serves
`
`as a data carrier. Id. A “standard smart card,” which is the “data carrier”
`
`referenced in the ’720 patent specification (Ex. 1001 at 11:36-39), is a
`
`generic hardware device that was well known in the prior art to the ’720
`
`patent.
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`Google Exhibit 1002 Page 00021
`
`
`
`
`
`63. The functions recited in each of the method steps of claims 1 and 15 (namely
`
`receiving, reading, evaluating, displaying, forwarding, retrieving, and
`
`writing) can be performed without a computer. Performing these functions
`
`with a computer is routine and conventional. Storing information in non-
`
`volatile memory, storing information on a standard smart card (or “data
`
`carrier”), receiving a data access request from a user, reading data from
`
`memory, evaluating data according to rules, displaying data to a user,
`
`forwarding data, retrieving data, and writing data into memory are all
`
`generic, conventional, routine computer functions that were well known in
`
`the prior art to the ’720 patent.
`
`64. Reading and writing data in the context of computational machines dates
`
`back at least to Charles Babbage’s and Lady Augusta Ada Lovelace’s
`
`pioneering work on the “Analytical Engine” in the mid-1800s. Transmitting,
`
`receiving, and responding to data among a network of multiple computing
`
`devices dates back at least to the ARPANET project of the late 1960s.
`
`65. To be clear, claims 1 and 15 of the ’720 patent do not recite the use of
`
`generic computer hardware and functions to override some routine or
`
`conventional sequence of events. Instead, claims 1 and 15 recite the use of a
`
`general purpose computer to perform routine, conventional, well-known
`
`computer functions.
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`Google Exhibit 1002 Page 00022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`It Is My Opinion That Claims 1 And 15 of The ’720 Patent Are
`Patent Ineligible
`In light of the above, it is my opinion that claims 1 and 15 are not directed to
`
`66.
`
`patent eligible subject matter and are thus invalid.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`23
`
`Google Exhibit 1002 Page 00023
`
`
`
` hereby declare that all statements made herein of my own knowledge are true and
`
` I
`
`that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true; and
`
`further that these statements were made with the knowledge that willful false
`
`statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both,
`
`under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
`
`
`
`
`
`DATE:____________________
`
`
`DR. JUSTIN DOUGLAS TYGAR
`
`
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6 May 2015
`
`Google Exhibit 1002 Page 00024
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
