`CBM2016-00064
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION,
`
`
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`v.
`
`NADER ASGHARI-KAMRANI and KAMRAN ASGHARI-KAMRANI,
`
`Patent Owners
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,266,432
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00063 and CBM2016-00064
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER MOTION FOR OBSERVATION REGARDING CROSS
`EXAMINATION OF REPLY WITNESS DR. SETH NIELSON
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT
`
`Exhibit 2014 Deposition Transcript of Seth Nielson, Ph.D., March 28, 2017
`
`CBM2016-00063
`CBM2016-00064
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00063
`CBM2016-00064
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to the Scheduling Order (Paper 15) in CBM2016-00063 and the
`
`Scheduling Order (Paper 15) in CBM2016-00064, Patent Owner respectfully
`
`submits the following observations regarding the March 28, 2017, cross-
`
`examination testimony of Petitioner’s (“Petitioner”) Reply declarant, Dr. Seth
`
`Nielson.
`
`1. In Exhibit 2014, Deposition Transcript of Seth Nielson Ph.D., on page 16
`
`line 13 to page 17, line 7, Dr. Nielson testified (with emphasis added):
`
`Q. So then it would be my understanding that these CBMs involve two
`
`CBMs, and patent owner filed Patent Owner’s Responses in both
`
`CBMs, and as far as you can remember, you only considered one of
`
`the responses; is that correct?
`
`…
`
`A. So the primary focus that I took in this document was to respond to
`
`the report of Dr. Weaver, and I felt that I had sufficient analysis to do
`
`so.
`
`Q. Why did you focus on Dr. Weaver and not Patent Owner’s
`
`Responses?
`
`A. So I was -- so part of my answer to that is that I was asked to
`
`evaluate Dr. Weaver's report, and so this is an opinion I was asked to
`
`-- this is what I was asked to opine about, and that is also what I
`
`understood this declaration to be focused on, is a rebuttal declaration
`
`to that expert report primarily.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00063
`CBM2016-00064
`
`
`
`
`This testimony is relevant to the arguments on pages 2-27, Appendix 1, and
`
`Appendix 2 of the Patent Owner Response in CBM2016-00063 (Paper 22) and
`
`pages 2-27, Appendix 1, and Appendix 2 of the Patent Owner Response in
`
`CBM2016-00064 (Paper 22). The testimony is relevant as to whether a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would reasonably conclude that the inventors
`
`has possession of the invention claimed in the ‘432 patent in view of the claim
`
`constructions, arguments, or mappings of claim features asserted in the Patent
`
`Owner Response in CBM2016-00063 or the Patent Owner Response in CBM2016-
`
`00064 (hereinafter, “Patent Owner’s Responses”).
`
`
`
`2. In Exhibit 2014, on page 17, line 20 to page 18, line 4, Dr. Nielson
`
`testified (with emphasis added):
`
`Q. … [T]he patent owner filed two Patent Owner’s Responses, one in
`
`each CBM, and you considered one of them. Do you know which one
`
`you considered? Did you consider the one from CBM2016 tack 0063
`
`or the one from tack 0064?
`
`A. Without looking at the one that is cited in paper 22, I'm not sure.
`
`
`
`This testimony is relevant to the arguments pages 10, and16-35 in both the
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response in both CBM2016-00063 and
`
`CBM2016-00064 (hereinafter, “Petitioner’s Replies”). The testimony is relevant
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00063
`CBM2016-00064
`
`
`
`to the credibility of the Declaration of Seth Nielson (Exhibit 1054) (hereinafter,
`
`“Nielson Declaration”), which is relied on by the Petitioner’s Replies.
`
`
`
`3. In Exhibit 2014, on page 22, line 16 to page 23, line 1, Dr. Nielson
`
`testified (with emphasis added):
`
`Q. Does your declaration include any citations to any pages or tables
`
`inside of this document -- inside of the patent owners' response?
`
`…
`
`A. Off the top of my head, I don't remember if I cited to any of the
`
`appendices. Again, I – I focused primarily on Dr. Weaver's report and
`
`rebutting it.
`
`
`
`This testimony is relevant to the mapping of claim terms stated in
`
`Appendices 1 and 2 of the Patent Owner’s Responses and on pages 22-27 and 31-
`
`33 of the Petitioner’s Replies. The testimony is relevant as to whether a POSITA
`
`would reasonably conclude that the inventors had possession of the claimed
`
`invention in view of the mapping of claim terms presented in Appendices 1 and 2
`
`of Patent Owner’s Responses.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00063
`CBM2016-00064
`
`
`
`
`4. In Exhibit 2014, on page 28, line 18 to page 29, line 5, Dr. Nielson
`
`testified:
`
`Q. In the paragraph you read at page 11 of the patent owners'
`
`response, do you know what is meant by a prior-filed co-pending
`
`application?
`
`…
`
`A. I don't have a legal understanding of co-pending.
`
`
`
`This testimony is relevant to the arguments at pages 11-12 and 20 of Patent
`
`Owner’s Responses. The testimony is relevant as to whether the application for
`
`the ‘837 Patent qualifies as a prior-filed copending application upon which the
`
`‘432 Patent is entitled to claim benefit of priority pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 120 and
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.78 (a)(1) and (d).
`
`
`
`5. In Exhibit 2014, on page 40, lines 11-18, Dr. Nielson testified (with
`
`emphasis added):
`
`Q. So given that the disclosures of the '837 patent and the '432 patent
`
`are the same, is there any question as to whether the inventors had
`
`possession of the subject matter disclosed in the '432 patent when it
`
`was filed?
`
`…
`
`A. So I have not done that analysis. I don't have an opinion on that.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00063
`CBM2016-00064
`
`
`
`
`
`This testimony is relevant to the arguments at pages 11-12 and 20 of the
`
`Patent Owner’s Responses. The testimony is relevant as to whether the application
`
`for the ‘837 Patent provides written description support for the subject matter
`
`claimed by the ‘432 Patent such that Patent Owner is entitled to claim benefit of
`
`priority pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 120 and 37 C.F.R. § 1.78 (a)(1) and (d).
`
`
`
`6. In Exhibit 2014, on page 56, line 17 to page 57, line 8, Dr. Nielson
`
`testified (with emphasis added):
`
`Q. But having not evaluated the '837 patent because you didn't believe
`
`it was a parent, there's not any value to your report as to …
`
`establishing that the inventors didn't have possession of the claimed
`
`invention in the '432 patent, correct?
`
`…
`
`A. I believe most reports have a set of foundational principles, and if
`
`one of those foundational principles is wrong, there's nothing I can do
`
`about that, but I am not a lawyer and I am not making legal opinions.
`
`Based on legal principles that have been provided, I have conducted a
`
`technical analysis that I'm more than happy to discuss.
`
`
`
`This testimony is relevant to the arguments on pages 11-12 and 20 of the
`
`Patent Owner’s Responses, the arguments on pages 15-34 of the Petitioner’s
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00063
`CBM2016-00064
`
`
`
`Replies, and the arguments on page 6, para. 13, pages 7-9, paras. 16-18, page 11,
`
`para 26, page 14, para. 34, page 17, para. 41, and page 18, para. 45 of the Nielson
`
`Declaration. The testimony is relevant to (1) whether the ‘837 Patent establishes
`
`that the inventors had actual possession of the subject matter claimed in the ‘432
`
`Patent and (2) whether a POSITA at the time of the invention would reasonably
`
`conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention in view of the
`
`relevant art (e.g., the ‘837 Patent) that is presumed to be within the knowledge of
`
`the POSITA.
`
`
`
`7. In Exhibit 2014, on page 57, line 14 to page 58, line 22, Dr. Nielson
`
`testified (with emphasis added):
`
`A. … "I further understand that the fact that a parent application
`
`could support a narrower scope of the invention for the same claim
`
`term does not show that the parent application provides sufficient
`
`support for the claims in the continuation application."
`
`…
`
`Q. … [H]ypothetically, are you saying that if a parent application
`
`disclosed a steel rivet, that a person -- a POSITA would not consider
`
`that disclosure to support the claim of a metal rivet?
`
`…
`
`A. Well, my understanding is that when you disclose a steel item, you
`
`are disclosing a metal item.
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00063
`CBM2016-00064
`
`
`
`
`Q. But metal is more general, more broad than steel, correct?
`
`A. So again, my understanding is that the general -- so the -- the steel
`
`and the metal are disclosed, but not necessarily -- in other words,
`
`whatever descriptions of the metal are used with the steel, right, all of
`
`those are still disclosed, but things that are beyond, that are
`
`additional, that are broader in terms of application or functionality,
`
`are not.
`
`
`
`This testimony is relevant to the claim construction standard stated at pages
`
`2-3 of the Patent Owner’s Responses, the arguments on page 10, para. 23, page 11,
`
`para. 26, page 12, para. 28, page 14, paras. 34 and 36, page 17, para. 41, page 18,
`
`paras. 44-45, page 20, and para. 49 to page 22, para. 52 of the Nielson Declaration,
`
`and the arguments on pages 16, 19, 20, 21, and 30 of the Petitioner’s Replies.
`
`The testimony is relevant to the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard for
`
`claim construction applied when evaluating whether a POSITA would reasonably
`
`conclude that the inventor established possession of the claimed invention pursuant
`
`to the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
`
`
`
`8. In Exhibit 2014, on page 65, line 3 to page 67, line 4, Dr. Nielson
`
`testified (with emphasis added):
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00063
`CBM2016-00064
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A. … [I]n the opinions I set forth, they're all based on these legal
`
`principles as I've been given them. That's why they're included in the
`
`report.
`
`Q. But the legal principle is whether or not a POSITA would
`
`reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed
`
`invention at the time the application was filed, correct? ...
`
`But I don't see here anywhere where you've addressed what would be
`
`reasonable, what a POSITA would consider, or as we've discussed,
`
`that a POSITA has knowledge of the relevant art, and you don't even
`
`discuss the relevant art. All I can tell is you took claim '432 -- '432
`
`and '129 in a vacuum and determined whether or not one word was
`
`broader than another, and said, and I quote at paragraph 26, "I
`
`conclude that the user disclosed and claimed in the '432 patent is
`
`broader than an individual as disclosed in the '129, and therefore,
`
`does not provide written description support. …
`
`So your conclusion at paragraph 26 only says that the term "user" is
`
`broader than "individual" in the '129 patent, correct?
`
`…
`
`A. So 26 focuses on broader. That's what it says there.
`
`This testimony is relevant to the arguments on pages 2-27, Appendix 1, and
`
`Appendix 2 of the Patent Owner Responses, the arguments on pages 16-22 of the
`
`Declaration of Alfred Weaver (Exhibit 2010), the arguments on pages 15-34 of the
`
`Petitioner’s Replies, and the arguments on page 6, para. 13, pages 7-9, paras. 16-
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00063
`CBM2016-00064
`
`
`
`18, page 11, para 26, page 14, para. 34, page 17, para. 41, page 18, para. 45 of the
`
`Nielson Declaration. The testimony is relevant to how a POSITA would interpret
`
`the claim terms of the ‘432 Patent when evaluating whether the inventor
`
`established possession of the claimed invention pursuant to the written description
`
`requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
`
`
`
`9. In Exhibit 2014, on page 68, line 3, to page 69, line 3, Dr. Nielson
`
`testified (with emphasis added):
`
`Q. Does the term "user" in the '837 patent -- is that broader than the
`
`term "user" in the '432 patent?
`
`…
`
`A. Given that they're from the same specification and figures, I would
`
`imagine not.
`
`Q. Let's continue that train then. Is the term "central-entity" in the
`
`'432 patent broader than the term "central-entity" in the '837 patent?
`
`…
`
`A. Again, to the extent that the specifications between the '432 and the
`
`'837 are identical, I would imagine that the breadth of the term for the
`
`same name is identical.
`
`Q. Just to belabor the point, would the term "external-entity" in the
`
`'432 patent be broader than the term "external-entity" in the '837
`
`patent?
`
`
`
`…
`
`9
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00063
`CBM2016-00064
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A. I would say the same answer, which is to the extent they have the
`
`same specification and the same term names, they -- have the same
`
`scope.
`
`This testimony is relevant to the arguments on pages 11-12 and 20 of the
`
`Patent Owner’s Responses, the arguments on pages 15-34 of the Petitioner’s
`
`Replies, and the arguments on page 6, para. 13, pages 7-9, paras. 16-18, page 11,
`
`para 26, page 14, para. 34, page 17, para. 41, and page 18, para. 45 of the Nielson
`
`Declaration. The testimony is relevant to (1) whether the ‘837 Patent establishes
`
`that the inventors had actual possession of the claimed invention in the ‘432 Patent
`
`in a single prior-filed parent application and (2) whether a person having ordinary
`
`skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the invention would reasonably conclude
`
`that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention in view of the relevant art
`
`(e.g., the ‘837 Patent) presumed to be within the knowledge of a POSITA.
`
`
`
`
`
`10. In Exhibit 2014, on page 74, lines 2-10, Dr. Nielson testified:
`
`A. I believe that the individual consumes goods and services, yes.
`
`Q. And the board defines user as a person or business consuming
`
`goods or services, correct?
`
`…
`
`A. That is the board's construction, but that doesn't answer the
`
`question about written description.
`
`10
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00063
`CBM2016-00064
`
`
`
`
`
`This testimony is relevant to the arguments at pages 3 and 13-14 of the
`
`Patent Owner’s Responses, page 18 of the Weaver Declaration, and the arguments
`
`at page 10, para. 22 to page 11, para. 26 of the Nielson Declaration. The testimony
`
`is relevant to whether the “individual” disclosed in the ‘129 Patent provides written
`
`description support for the claimed “user” in the ‘432 Patent.
`
`
`
`11. In Exhibit 2014, on page 95, line 15 to page 96, line 6, Dr. Nielson
`
`testified (with emphasis added):
`
`Q. But would one of ordinary skill in the art reasonably conclude
`
`based on those overlapping embodiments that there was support for a
`
`trusted relationship implicit or otherwise in the '432 patent?
`
`A. Well, no. The '432 patent doesn't require there to be a trusted
`
`relationship.
`
`Q. I didn't say require. I said that there just exists.
`
`A. No, no, that's what I'm saying, is you don't have to have a trusted
`
`relationship for the central-entity to function as a central-entity.
`
`Q. Could you have a trusted relationship –
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. -- in '432?
`
`A. Yes, you could.
`
`Q. In some embodiments in the '432, can there be a trusted
`
`relationship?
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00063
`CBM2016-00064
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Yes, I've said there are overlapping embodiments.
`
`This testimony is relevant to the arguments on pages 13 -17 of the Patent
`
`Owner’s Responses, page 18, para. 42 to page 20, para. 48 of the Weaver
`
`Declaration, pages 20-21 of Petitioner’s Replies, and page 9, para. 22 to page 17,
`
`para. 41 of the Nielson Declaration. The testimony is relevant to whether the
`
`claimed “user,” “central-entity” and “external-entity” of the ‘432 Patent encompass
`
`the “trusted-relationship” of the “individual,” “trusted-authenticator,” and
`
`“business” in the ‘129 Patent.
`
`
`
`12. In Exhibit 2014, on page 105, line 9 to page 106, line 9, Dr. Nielson
`
`testified (with emphasis added):
`
`Q. Do both the '432 patent and the '129 patent disclose at least some
`
`embodiments in which the SecureCode is alphanumeric?
`
`A. Certainly.
`
`Q. Do both the '432 patent and the '129 patent describe the
`
`SecureCode as dynamic?
`
`A. The '432 patent says it more explicitly, but the name in the '129
`
`patent is dynamic key.
`
`Q. Uh-huh.
`
`A. So I would -- I would say that both are dynamic.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00063
`CBM2016-00064
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Q. Is the SecureCode disclosed in the '432 patent and the '129 patent
`
`both time dependent?
`
`A. The '432 patent says that it is time dependent, and the '129 patent
`
`says that it may be time dependent.
`
`Q. Is the SecureCode in the '432 patent and the '129 patent both
`
`described as being nonpredictable?
`
`A. So I'm not seeing the words in the '129 patent where I'm looking
`
`right now, but I do believe it is nonpredictable as well. I'm not -- I'm
`
`just not finding the words here though.
`
`This testimony is relevant to the arguments on pages 19-20 of the Patent
`
`Owner’s Responses, pages 22-23, para. 53 of the Weaver Declaration, pages 19-20
`
`of the Petitioner’s Replies, and page 17, para. 42 to page 18, para. 45 of the
`
`Nielson Declaration. The testimony is relevant to whether a POSITA would
`
`reasonably conclude that the “dynamic key” disclosed in the ‘129 Patent provides
`
`written description support for the “dynamic code” recited in the ‘432 Patent.
`
`
`
`13. In Exhibit 2014, on page 140, lines 7-22, Dr. Nielson testified (with
`
`emphasis added):
`
`Q. … So if you have an RPFI and you know from figure 8 that he's
`
`communicating with the receiver via computer, and if you know the
`
`RPFI is communicating with the D.I.D. operator via computer, would
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00063
`CBM2016-00064
`
`
`
`
`
`
`you assume there could be one or two computers that do the
`
`communicating as an expert? …
`
`A. Well, especially in this situation where like I said, there's
`
`processing that happens in between.
`
`…
`
`A. This isn't a pass-through. This isn't a router. So depending on how
`
`the RPFI wanted to process that data, depending on how they chose to
`
`implement that would also have some indication of how they'd want
`
`their computer systems configured.
`
`This testimony is relevant to the arguments on pages 5 and 22 of the Patent
`
`Owner’s Responses, page 13, paras. 32-33 and page 28, para. 69 of the Weaver
`
`Declaration, pages 34-35 of the Petitioner’s Replies, and page 27, para. 62 and
`
`page 48, para. 103 of Exhibit 2014. The testimony is relevant to whether a
`
`POSITA would reasonably conclude that implementations of the “trusted
`
`authenticator” in the ‘129 Patent and “DID Operator” in the ‘676 Patent provide
`
`written description support for the claimed “central-entity” of the ‘432 Patent
`
`including more than one “computer.”
`
`Date: April 7, 2017
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /Jae Youn Kim/
`Jae Youn Kim, Reg. No. 69,215
`
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00063
`CBM2016-00064
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)(4), the undersigned certifies that on April 7,
`
`2017, a complete and entire copy of this PATENT OWNER MOTION FOR
`
`OBSERVATION REGARDING CROSS EXAMINATION OF REPLY WITNESS,
`
`with Exhibit 2014, Deposition Transcript of Seth Nielson, Ph.D., March 28, 2017,
`
`was provided via electronic mail to the Petitioner’s counsel of record at the following
`
`email addresses:
`
`W. Karl Renner, Lead Counsel
`
`CBM36137-0007CP1@fr.com
`
`
`
`Thomas Rozylowicz, First Back-up Counsel
`
`PTABInbound@fr.com
`
`
`
`Timothy Riffe, Back-up Counsel
`
`riffe@fr.com
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`__/Jae Youn Kim/_____
`
`15
`
`Date: _April 7, 2017__
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`