`UNITED  STATES  PATENT  AND  TRADEMARK  OFFICE  
`_______________  
`BEFORE  THE  PATENT  TRIAL  AND  APPEAL  BOARD  
`Petitioner,  
`v.  
`Patent  Owner.  
`______________  
`
`ACHATES  REFERENCE  PUBLISHING,  INC.  
`
`_______________  
`
`APPLE,  INC.  
`
`Case  No.:  IPR2013-­‐00080  &  IPR2013-­‐00081  
`
`Patents  6,173,403  &  5,289,889  
`
`Before  HOWARD  B.  BLANKENSHIP,  JUSTIN  T.  ARBES,  AND  THOMAS  L.  
`GIANNETTI,  Administrative  Patent  Judges.  
`  
`  
`
`Declaration  of  Dmitry  Radbel  
`
`Apple v. Achates
`IPR2013-00080
`Achates Ex. 2013
`
`

`
`I,  Dmitry  Radbel,  do  hereby  declare  and  state,  that  all  statements  made  
`herein  of  my  own  knowledge  are  true  and  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.  
`Dated:  September  17,  2013  
`  
`/Dmitry  Radbel/  
`  
`  
`  
`  
`  
`  
`Dmitry  Radbel  
`  
`  
`
`
`
`2  
`
`Apple v. Achates
`IPR2013-00080
`Achates Ex. 2013
`
`

`
`I.  
`II.  
`III.  
`IV.  
`V.  
`
`T  A  B  L  E      O  F      C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S  
`
`Introduction  ............................................................................................................  4  
`Qualifications  .........................................................................................................  4  
`Summary  of  Conclusions  ...................................................................................  6  
`Legal  Standards  of  Validity  ..............................................................................  7  
`Person  of  Ordinary  Skill  in  the  Art  at  the  Time  of  Invention  ..........  10  
`
`
`
`3  
`
`Apple v. Achates
`IPR2013-00080
`Achates Ex. 2013
`
`

`
`I.  
`
`Introduction  
`
`I  have  been  retained  as  an  expert  by  Achates  Reference  Publishing,  
`1.
`Inc.,  in  connection  with  the  above-­‐captioned  matter.    This  declaration  
`represents  my  testimony  in  relation  to  U.S.  Patent  Nos.  5,982,889  (“’889  
`patent”)  and  6,173,403  (“’403  patent”)  and  specific  matters  that  I  was  asked  
`to  address.    In  making  this  declaration,  I  relied  upon  the  Exhibits  entered  in  
`the  above  matter  or  submitted  with  this  declaration.    I  also  relied  upon  certain  
`assumptions  concerning  patent  law  standards  and  concerning  Grounds  for  the  
`Initial  Decisions,  which  I  point  out.    I  also  reviewed  the  declarations  of  Mr.  
`Schneier  as  well  as  some  portions  of  his  deposition,  both  of  which  I  may  
`reference  in  my  declaration.    For  ease  of  reference,  when  I  refer  to  the  
`“Grounds”  I  refer  to  the  rationale  set  forth  in  the  Initial  Decisions  for  
`instituting  this  proceeding.  
`2.
`I  am  currently  running  my  own  consulting  company.    My  primary  
`client  is  the  UltraViolet  Consortium,  where  I  lead  deployment  of  the  new  
`format  for  secure  distribution  of  movies  over  the  internet.    The  UltraViolet  
`system  includes  multiple  DRMs  and  is  supported  by  major  content  and  
`4  
`
`Qualifications  and  Compensation  
`
`II.  
`
`
`
`Apple v. Achates
`IPR2013-00080
`Achates Ex. 2013
`
`

`
`technology  companies,  such  as  Sony,  Warner,  Fox,  Paramount,  NBC  Universal,  
`Microsoft,  Intel,  Samsung,  etc.    Prior  to  that,  I  served  as  a  Vice  President  of  
`Advanced  Technology  for  Universal  Music  Group  (UMG),  where  I,  amongst  
`other  things,  evaluated  and  approved  proposed  technologies  and  systems  for  
`distribution  of  UMG’s  content  over  the  internet  and  represented  UMG  in  a  
`number  of  standards  groups  dealing  with  content  distribution  and  security.    
`From  1998  to  2000,  I  worked  on  building  secure  content  distribution  systems  
`based  on  the  InterTrust  technology,  which  in  turn  was  based  on  Ginter’s  
`specification:  I  led  the  development  lab  at  UMG  and  then  was  a  CTO  of  a  
`startup  that  was  partially  funded  by  InterTrust.    My  initial  experience  with  
`secure  distribution  of  content  dates  to  1992,  when  I  was  manager  of  systems  
`engineering  at  DirecTV.    In  addition  to  years  of  experience  of  building  content  
`distribution  systems,  I  have  graduate  degrees  in  engineering  and  in  business.    
`I  co-­‐authored  two  patents  titled  “Electronic  music/media  distribution  system”  
`that  deal  with  internet  distribution  of  content.  
`3. My  qualifications  are  stated  more  fully  in  my  curriculum  vitae,  
`which  is  Exhibit  2025.  
`4.
`I  am  being  compensated  for  my  time  spent  reviewing  materials,  
`forming  my  opinions  and  in  preparing  this  declaration  at  the  rate  of  $375  per  
`5  
`
`
`
`Apple v. Achates
`IPR2013-00080
`Achates Ex. 2013
`
`

`
`Summary  of  Conclusions  
`
`hour.  My  compensation  is  not  contingent  upon  my  testimony  or  any  testimony  
`that  I  may  give.  
`5.
`For  the  reasons  I  set  forth  below,  I  conclude  that  the  claims  1-­‐4  of  
`the  ‘889  patent  and  claims  1-­‐12  and  17-­‐19  of  the  ‘403  patent  are  novel  and  
`non-­‐obvious  over  the  Ginter  references  as  applied  in  the  Grounds.  
`6.
`Also,  for  the  reasons  I  set  forth  below,  I  conclude  that  a  person  of  
`ordinary  skill  in  the  art  (“POSA”)  at  the  time  of  the  invention  would  not  have  
`had  reason  to  modify  the  prior  art  references  in  the  manner  stated  in  the  
`Grounds.    Without  limiting  my  more  detailed  conclusions  below,  I  determined  
`that  each  of  the  prior  art  references  embody  specialized  systems  adapted  to  
`specific  architectures  to  achieve  different  results  employing  different  levels  of  
`technical  complexity.    The  Grounds  rely  upon  the  declaration  of  Mr.  Schneier.    
`I  have  reviewed  Mr.  Schneier’s  declaration  with  respect  to  making  these  
`combinations  and  his  deposition  testimony.    I  disagree  with  Mr.  Schneier’s  
`testimony  that  the  functionality  of  any  prior  art  system  is  interchangeable  
`with  any  other  prior  art  system.    Ginter,  for  example,  is  exceedingly  complex,  
`and  I  note  that  Mr.  Schneier  testified  that  he  himself  would  not  reference  
`6  
`
`III.  
`
`
`
`Apple v. Achates
`IPR2013-00080
`Achates Ex. 2013
`
`

`
`Legal  Standards  of  Validity  
`
`Ginter  for  guidance  in  designing  a  digital  rights  management  system.    Ex.  1046  
`at  392:7-­‐18.    For  reasons  that  I  explain  below,  a  POSA  in  1996  or  1997  would  
`not  reference  Ginter  for  guidance  in  designing  a  software  distribution  system  
`methodology  that  did  not  utilize  a  full  DRM  framework  architecture.  
`7.
`In  this  section,  I  set  forth  the  legal  standards  for  validity  I  applied  
`in  forming  the  opinions  in  this  declaration.    Attorneys  for  the  Patent  Owner  
`asked  me  to  assume  and  apply  these  standards.  .  
`8.
`I  understand  that  claims  in  U.S.  patents  have  a  presumptive  
`invention  date  that  is  the  priority  date  for  the  claim.    For  the  purposes  of  my  
`declaration,  I  assume  the  invention  date  for  both  the  ‘889  and  ‘403  patents  is  
`the  filing  date  of  the  ‘889  patent,  April  30,  1997.  When  I  refer  to  the  “time  of  
`the  invention”  I  refer  to  the  time  in  or  around  the  date  of  invention  I  have  
`assumed  for  this  declaration.  
`9.
`I  understand  that  claims  are  to  be  understood  from  the  
`perspective  of  a  person  having  ordinary  skill  in  the  art  at  the  time  of  the  
`invention.  I  am  aware  that  the  Patent  Trial  and  Appeal  Board  (PTAB  or  Board)  
`issued  decisions  setting  forth  claim  constructions  for  both  the  ‘889  and  ‘403  
`7  
`
`IV.  
`
`
`
`Apple v. Achates
`IPR2013-00080
`Achates Ex. 2013
`
`

`
`A.  
`
`Anticipation  (35  U.S.C.  §102)  
`
`patents.  I  have  reviewed  these  claim  constructions  and  applied  them  in  
`forming  my  opinions.  
`10.
`I  understand  that  to  anticipate  a  claim  under  35  U.S.C.  §102,  each  
`and  every  element  of  a  claim,  as  properly  construed,  must  be  found  either  
`explicitly  or  inherently  in  a  single  prior  art  reference,  as  arranged  in  the  claim.    
`Even  if  such  a  reference  did  contain  each  and  every  element  of  a  claim,  the  
`reference  must  be  an  enabling  disclosure,  with  enough  information  to  enable  
`a  person  skilled  in  the  art  to  reproduce  the  claimed  invention  without  undue  
`experimentation.    For  the  purposes  of  my  declaration,  I  assume  that  each  of  
`the  references  applied  in  the  Grounds  are  prior  art  to  the  ‘889  and  ‘403  
`patents.  
`11.
`I  understand  that  a  patent  claim  is  invalid  under  35  U.S.C.  §103  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.    I  understand  that  the  Grounds  set  forth  specific  prior  art  
`combinations  which  I  have  been  asked  to  consider  in  light  of  the  rationales  the  
`8  
`
`Obviousness  (35  U.S.C.  §103)  
`
`B.  
`
`
`
`Apple v. Achates
`IPR2013-00080
`Achates Ex. 2013
`
`

`
`Grounds  discuss.  
`12.
`I  also  understand  that,  when  considering  a  reference  for  purposes  
`of  an  obviousness  analysis,  the  reference  must  be  taken  for  everything  it  
`teaches.    (See  Ashland  Oil,  Inc.  v.  Delta  Resins  &  Refractories,  Inc.,  776  F.2d  
`281,  296  (Fed.Cir.  1985)  (“A  reference,  however,  must  have  been  considered  
`for  all  it  taught,  disclosures  that  diverged  and  taught  away  from  the  invention  
`at  hand  as  well  as  disclosures  that  pointed  towards  and  taught  the  invention  
`at  hand.”)  13.
`It  is  further  my  understanding  that  it  is  impermissible  to  simply  
`engage  in  hindsight  reconstruction  of  the  claimed  invention,  using  the  
`applicant's  invention  as  a  template  and  selecting  elements  from  the  references  
`to  fill  the  gaps.    (See  In  re  Gorman,  933  F.2d  982,  18  USPQ2d  1885  (Fed.  Cir.  
`1991))  “A  fact  finder  should  be  aware,  of  course,  of  the  distortion  caused  by  
`hindsight  bias  and  must  be  cautious  of  arguments  reliant  upon  ex  post  
`reasoning.”  (See  KSR,  127  S.  Ct.1727,  1742  (2007))  
`14. Obviousness,  as  I  understand,  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  at  the  relevant  time,  and  any  objective  evidence  
`(secondary  indicia)  of  non-­‐obviousness,  to  the  extent  they  exist.  
`9  
`
`
`
`Apple v. Achates
`IPR2013-00080
`Achates Ex. 2013
`
`

`
`I  also  understand  that  "[R]ejections  on  obviousness  grounds  
`15.
`cannot  be  sustained  by  mere  conclusory  statements;  instead,  there  must  be  
`some  articulated  reasoning  with  some  rational  underpinning  to  support  the  
`legal  conclusion  of  obviousness."  (See  In  re  Kahn,  441  F.3d  977,  988  (CA  Fed.  
`2006))    As  I  understand,  it  may  be  necessary  to  assess,  among  other  things,  
`the  interrelated  teachings  of  patents  as  well  as  the  background  knowledge  of  
`the  ordinarily  skilled  person  in  order  to  determine  an  apparent  reason  to  
`combine  known  elements  as  claimed.    Further,  I  understand  that  “it  can  be  
`important  to  identify  a  reason  that  would  have  prompted  a  person  of  ordinary  
`skill  in  the  relevant  field  to  combine  the  elements  in  the  way  the  claimed  new  
`invention  does.”  (See  KSR  Int'l  Co.  v.  Teleflex  Inc.,  127  S.  Ct.  1727,  1740-­‐1741  
`(2007)).  16.
`I  understand  that  secondary  considerations  of  non-­‐obviousness  
`can  be  relied  upon  in  determining  whether  a  claim  is  patentable.  I  was  not  
`asked  to  consider  any  secondary  considerations  and  so  I  have  not  set  forth  a  
`discussion  of  the  requirements  for  secondary  considerations.  
`17.
`In  my  opinion,  a  POSA  relevant  to  the  ‘889  and  ‘403  patents  would  
`10  
`
`Person  of  Ordinary  Level  of  Skill  In  the  Art  at  the  Time  of  Invention  
`
`V.  
`
`
`
`Apple v. Achates
`IPR2013-00080
`Achates Ex. 2013
`
`

`
`have  had  in  or  around  late  1996  and  early  1997  an  undergraduate  degree  in  
`engineering  or  computer  science  plus  two  years  of  experience  in  software  
`engineering.    The  POSA’s  training  and/or  experience  would  include  the  ability  
`to  select  and  make  use  of  well-­‐known  cryptographic  techniques  at  a  high  level,  
`so  that,  for  example,  he  would  be  capable  of  selecting  cryptographic  
`algorithms  appropriate  to  his  purpose,  and  writing  software  that  calls  library  
`routines  that  implement  them  without  necessarily  understanding  how  such  
`routines  work.  
`18. To  determine  the  appropriate  level  of  skill  in  the  art,  I  considered  
`the  education  level  of  those  working  in  the  field  of  the  patents,  the  
`sophistication  of  the  technology,  the  types  of  problems  encountered  in  the  art,  
`my  knowledge  of  prior  art  solutions  to  those  problems,  and  the  level  of  skill  of  
`the  inventor,  Jason  DeMont.    I  have  worked  with  those  who  would  qualify  as  
`POSA  in  software  distribution  and  digital  rights  management  at  around  the  
`time  of  the  invention.    I  worked  in  fields  related  to  the  invention  beginning  in  
`1998  through  the  present,  and,  at  the  time  of  the  invention,  I  was  aware  of  
`skills  of  POSA.    I  have  relied  on  and  applied  my  knowledge  and  experience  for  
`purposes  of  determining  a  POSA  and  I  make  this  declaration  from  the  
`perspective  of  one  having  ordinary  skill  in  the  art  at  around  the  time  of  the  
`11  
`
`
`
`Apple v. Achates
`IPR2013-00080
`Achates Ex. 2013
`
`

`
`invention  as  I  have  defined  it  above,  unless  I  state  otherwise.  
`19.
`I  disagree  with  Mr.  Schneier’s  analysis  that  the  POSA  would  have  
`graduate  level  training,  or  comprehensive  knowledge  of  cryptography,  
`including  Mr.  Schneier’s  book  on  the  subject.    Ex.  1003  at  ¶¶36-­‐38;  Ex.  1041  at  
`¶¶37-­‐39.    As  I  explain  below,  the  ‘889  and  ‘403  patents  address  prior  art  
`problems  in  an  elegant  manner  that  does  not  introduce  a  complex  distribution  
`platform  or  require  the  development  of  fundamentally-­‐new  cryptographic  
`techniques.  
`20. The  technology  in  the  ‘889  and  ‘403  patents  is  directed  to  
`overcoming  a  common  software  distribution  problem  existing  at  the  time  of  
`the  invention  where  publishers  distributed  software  with  security  codes  
`printed  on  the  distribution  medium  or  the  packaging.    Once  the  purchaser  has  
`possession  of  the  security  code,  he  or  she  could  install  it  on  multiple  computer  
`or  share  the  code  with  his  or  her  friends.    This  resulted  in  widespread  “casual  
`copying.”  21. The  illustrative  embodiment  discloses  distributing  HTML  “law  
`libraries”  on  a  physical  medium.    In  the  illustrative  embodiment,  the  law  
`libraries  were  accessed  in  Netscape  Navigator,  a  known  web  browser  at  the  
`time  of  the  invention.    Netscape  Navigator  ran  on  then-­‐existing  commercial  
`12  
`
`
`
`Apple v. Achates
`IPR2013-00080
`Achates Ex. 2013
`
`

`
`operating  systems,  like  Windows-­‐based  systems.  The  patents  teach  using  an  
`“installer”  to  install  the  HTML  files.    The  invention  uses  cryptography,  and  
`notes  that  the  encryption  relies  on  then-­‐existing  cryptography  techniques.    
`The  exemplary  system  has  no  “external  dependencies:”  it  does  not  require  an  
`independent  license  clearinghouse,  nor  does  it  require  a  public-­‐key  
`infrastructure.    It  does  not  need  a  specialized  hardware  or  software  that  a  
`user  must  install  and  configure  beforehand.    It  relies  on  the  installer  and  the  
`publisher.  
`22.
`In  my  opinion,  the  technologies  used  in  the  exemplary  
`embodiment  show  that  the  POSA  would  have  had  the  ability  to  understand  
`and  utilize  an  “installer;”  understood  the  use  of  cryptography  to  encrypt  data  
`structures;  understood  and  could  create  a  software  product  for  distribution  
`on  a  physical  medium;  and  understood  and  could  distribute  files  using  
`existing  commercial  operating  systems.    In  my  experience,  I  would  have  
`attained  the  level  of  ordinary  skill  in  these  technology  areas  by  the  time  I  
`achieved  an  undergraduate  degree  and  two  years  of  engineering  or  computer  
`engineering  experience.    My  work  with  other  engineers  with  similar  skill  level  
`supports  this  conclusion.    Because  the  technologies  require  no  interaction  
`with  external  dependencies  and  rely  only  upon  known  cryptography  schemes,  
`13  
`
`
`
`Apple v. Achates
`IPR2013-00080
`Achates Ex. 2013
`
`

`
`no  graduate  level  expertise  would  be  necessary  for  the  ordinarily-­‐skilled  
`artisan.  
`Anticipation  Gounds  Over  Ginter  
`23.
`I  have  been  asked  to  consider  whether  Ginter,  as  applied  in  the  
`Grounds,  anticipates  claims  1-­‐7,  9-­‐12,  and  17-­‐19  of  the  ‘403  patent,  and  claims  
`1-­‐3  of  the  ‘889  patent.  I  conclude  that  none  of  the  claims  are  anticipated.    In  
`conducting  my  analysis,  I  applied  the  standard  for  anticipation  previously  
`stated  in  my  declaration.    I  conclude  that,  Petitioner  failed  to  demonstrate  that  
`Ginter  –  when  understood  from  the  perspective  of  a  POSA  at  the  time  of  the  
`invention  –  discloses  claim  1  of  the  ‘403  patent  and  its  dependent  claims.  I  
`also  conclude  that  the  Petitioner  failed  to  demonstrate  that  Ginter  discloses  
`the  claim  1  of  the  ‘889  patent  and  its  dependent  claims.  
`24.
`I  have  read  and  understand  the  claim  constructions  the  Board  has  
`rendered  in  its  Initial  Decision,  and  I  applied  them  in  my  analysis  of  Claim  1.    
`Claim  1  of  the  ‘403  patent  recites:  
`1.    A  method  comprising:  
`receiving  an  encrypted  launch  code;  
`decrypting  said  encrypted  launch  code  with  a  string,  R,  as  
`14  
`
`
`
`Apple v. Achates
`IPR2013-00080
`Achates Ex. 2013
`
`

`
`the  key  to  recover  a  first  candidate  authentication  code  and  an  
`indicium  of  a  first  information  product;  and  
`installing  said  first  information  product  onto  said  computer  
`when  said  candidate  authorization  code  matches  a  first  known  
`authorization  code.  
`I  analyzed  the  Grounds  to  determine  whether  the  cited  portions  of  
`25.
`Ginter  disclosed  and  enabled  the  ordered  steps  of  receiving,  decrypting,  and  
`installing;  whether  the  cited  portions  of  Ginter  disclosed  the  recited  launch  
`code  structure  as  used  in  these  ordered  steps,  and  whether  the  cited  portion  
`of  Ginter  showed  placing  the  purported  information  product  in  position  so  as  
`to  be  ready  for  use,  as  required  pursuant  to  the  Board’s  construction  of  
`installing.  26. Petitioner  relies  upon  Ginter’s  disclosure  of  a  permission  record  
`(PERC)  as  disclosing  the  recited  launch  code.    The  claim’s  launch  code  
`limitations  include  that  it  is  encrypted  and  that  decrypting  the  launch  code  
`recovers  a  first  candidate  authentication  code  and  an  indicium  of  a  first  
`information  product.  
`27. Mr.  Schneier  did  not  apply  the  “password”  construction,  and  
`instead  stated  that  the  permission  record  is  a  launch  code  because  it  
`15  
`
`
`
`Apple v. Achates
`IPR2013-00080
`Achates Ex. 2013
`
`

`
`“contains”  the  elements  of  a  launch  code  and  is  encrypted.    Ex.  1041  ¶185.    
`This  is  incorrect,  however,  because,  as  Mr.  Schneier  makes  clear  elsewhere,  
`the  structures  that  he  contends  imply  that  a  permission  record  is  a  launch  
`code  are  optionally  included  in  the  permission  record.  Ex.  1041  ¶¶154-­‐180.    
`The  validation  tag  and  digital  signature  relied  upon  to  show  an  authentication  
`code  are  optional  elements,  according  to  Mr.  Schneier.    Ex.  1041  ¶¶160-­‐174.  
`28. A  POSA  at  the  time  of  the  invention  would  not  infer  that  a  data  
`structure  was  a  password  just  because  it  embodied  or  optionally  embodied  an  
`authentication  code  and  an  indicium  of  an  information  product.    In  my  
`opinion,  a  POSA  at  the  time  of  the  invention  would  not  have  considered  a  
`permission  record  to  be  a  password  because  the  permission  record  is  part  of  a  
`comprehensive,  hermetically-­‐sealed  DRM  framework  where  it  functions  as  a  
`complex  data  structure  to  control,  among  other  things,  executable  processes  
`in  Ginter’s  virtual  distribution  environment.    Ginter  is  clear  that  the  
`permission  record  functions  as  a  run-­‐time  control  mechanism  in  the  VDE  of  
`Ginter:  
`
`
`
`16  
`
`Apple v. Achates
`IPR2013-00080
`Achates Ex. 2013
`
`

`
`PERC  808  includes  control  structures  that  define  high  level  
`categories  or  classifications  of  operations.  These  high  level  
`categories  are  referred  to  as  "rights."  The  "right"  control  
`structures,  in  turn,  provide  internal  control  structures  that  
`reference  "methods"  1000.  The  internal  structure  of  preferred  
`embodiment  PERC  808  organizes  the  "methods"  that  are  required  
`to  perform  each  allowable  operation  on  an  object  or  associated  
`control  structure  (including  operations  performed  on  the  PERC  
`itself).    For  example,  PERC  808  contains  decryption  keys  for  the  
`object,  and  usage  of  the  keys  is  controlled  by  the  methods  that  are  
`required  by  the  PERC  for  performing  operations  associated  with  
`the  exercise  of  a  “right.”  
`Ex.  1005  at  147:60-­‐148:5.  
`29. The  permission  record,  therefore,  is  not  a  password  in  the  Ginter  
`system,  but  a  highly  complex,  hierarchical  data  structure  deployed  to  control  
`processes  at  execution.    Ex.  1005  at  148:11-­‐55.    As  Ginter  states,  “A  ‘right’  
`represents  a  major  functional  partitioning  desired  by  a  participant  of  the  basic  
`architecture  of  VDE  100.”  Ex.  1005  at  148:60.    Mr.  Schneier’s  analysis  
`separates  the  permission  record  from  its  context,  calls  one  of  its  fields  an  
`authentication  code,  calls  another  an  indicium  of  an  information  product,  and  
`announced  that  the  record  is  a  launch  code.    A  POSA  at  the  time  of  the  
`17  
`
`
`
`Apple v. Achates
`IPR2013-00080
`Achates Ex. 2013
`
`

`
`invention  would  not  understand  the  permission  record  in  this  manner.  
`30. A  POSA  also  would  not  understand  the  permissions  record  
`structure  and  function  to  be  a  password  because  the  permission  record  
`hierarchical  data  structure  (Ex.  1005  at  148:15)  does  not  suggest  it  is  a  
`password.    Referring  to  the  permission  record,  Ginter  states,  “All  of  the  
`structures  shown  represent  (or  reference)  collections  of  methods  required  to  
`process  a  corresponding  object  in  some  specific  way.”  Ex.  1005  at  148:13-­‐15.        
`A  POSA  would  not  have  considered  this  to  describe  a  password.    To  call  the  
`permission  record  a  password,  Mr.  Schneier  disconnects  the  permission  
`record  from  its  reliance  upon  the  VDE  for  functionality.  
`31. Mr.  Schneier  states  that  the  permission  record  is  a  launch  code  
`because  it  “specifies  the  rights  associated  with  the  object”  and  “may  specify  a  
`user’s  rights  to  use.”    Ginter  shows,  however,  that  the  permission  record  only  
`contains  potential  rights  subject  to  the  user  paying  for  the  right.    Ginter  states,  
`“PERCS  808  specify  a  set  of  rights  that  may  be  exercised  to  use  or  access  the  
`corresponding  VDE  object  300.”    Ex.  1005  at  155:50.  
`32. To  exercise  the  paid-­‐for  rights,  additional  processing  and  data  
`structures  are  required:    
`“secure  database  610  stores  at  least  one  PERC  808  
`18  
`
`
`
`Apple v. Achates
`IPR2013-00080
`Achates Ex. 2013
`
`

`
`corresponding  to  each  registered  VDE  object  300.  PERCS  808  
`specify  a  set  of  rights  that  may  be  exercised  to  use  or  access  the  
`corresponding  VDE  object  300.  The  preferred  embodiment  allows  
`user  to  "customize"  their  access  rights  by  selecting  a  subset  of  
`rights  authorized  by  a  corresponding  PERC  808  and/or  by  
`specifying  parameters  or  choices  that  correspond  to  some  or  all  of  
`the  rights  granted  by  PERC  808.  These  user  choices  are  set  forth  
`in  a  user  rights  table  464  in  the  preferred  embodiment.  User  
`rights  table  (URT)  464  includes  URT  records,  each  of  which  
`corresponds  to  a  user  (or  group  of  users).  Each  of  these  URT  
`records  specifies  user  choices  for  a  corresponding  VDE  object  300.  
`These  user  choices  may,  either  independently  or  in  combination  
`with  a  PERC  808,  refer