UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` ____________
`
`DISTINCTIVE DEVELOPMENTS, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC USA, INC. and UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S. A.
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00391
`Patent 6,857,067
` ____________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. JUSTIN DOUGLAS TYGAR
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS EX. 1015 PAGE 1
`
`
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` ____________
`
`DISTINCTIVE DEVELOPMENTS, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC USA, INC. and UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S. A.
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00391
`Patent 6,857,067
` ____________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. JUSTIN DOUGLAS TYGAR
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS EX. 1015 PAGE 1
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Justin Douglas Tygar, hereby declare the following:
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`1. My background, education and experience were detailed in my
`
`original declaration (Exhibit 1008) submitted with the Petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review and are incorporated by reference here.
`
`2.
`
`I am submitting this declaration to offer my independent expert
`
`opinion concerning certain issues raised by the Patent Owner in its Response
`
`(Paper No. 22). I was not previously asked to consider any of these issues. My
`
`compensation for this declaration is not based on the substance of the opinions
`
`rendered here. As part of my opinion here, I have carefully considered the
`
`following references:
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 6,857,067 to Edelman, filed February 26, 2001, and
`issued on February 15, 2005 (the “’067 Patent”). [Exhibit 1001]
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 6,008,737 to Deluca, et al. filed on June 24, 1996, and
`issued on December 28, 1999 (“Deluca ”). [Exhibit 1004]
`
`• Michele Zorzi and Silvano Pupolin, Slotted ALOHA for High-
`Capacity Voice Cellular Communications, IEEE Trans. On Vehicular
`Technology, vol. 43, no. 4 (Nov. 1994) (“Zorzi”). [Exhibit 1016]
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 5,612,682 to Deluca, et al. filed on May 30, 1995, and
`issued on March 18, 1997 (“Deluca Parent”). [Exhibit 1017]
`
`• Patent Owner (“PO”) Response dated March 14, 2014.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS EX. 1015 PAGE 2
`
`
`
`II. OPINION
`I have been asked to consider whether Deluca teaches “providing [or
`3.
`
`provides] updated license data” as that phrase is used throughout the claims and
`
`specification of the ‘067 Patent. It is my opinion that is does.
`
`4.
`
`From reviewing Patent Owner’s Response, I understand that the
`
`Patent Owner has taken the position that “deleting” an internal authorization record
`
`or “creating” a new internal authorization record in Deluca does not constitute
`
`“providing updated license data.” PO Response at 26-27. I disagree with this
`
`narrow characterization of the ‘067 Patent and its application to Deluca.
`
`5.
`
`In the context of providing updated license data, the ‘067 Patent
`
`describes a couple of scenarios. For example, the ‘067 Patent states: “The
`
`registration authority sends new smart card data to the user reflecting the removal
`
`of the software license. Rather than deleting the entry on the smart card, the
`
`registration authority may change the software license expiration date to a date in
`
`the past.” Ex. 1001, ‘067 Patent at 11:29-33. As one of ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the time, I read this passage to indicate two alternatives for updating a license that
`
`is no longer valid or expired. In the first, the software license is removed by
`
`deleting the license record from the licensing medium. Alternatively, the software
`
`license expiration date may, but need not be, backdated to a time in the past. As
`
`such, it is my opinion that this passage does not teach away from “deleting” license
`
`
`
`2
`
`PETITIONERS EX. 1015 PAGE 3
`
`
`
`data. In fact, it expressly teaches the opposite – the license data may be updated by
`
`deleting the license data entry or it may be updated by backdating the expiration
`
`date.
`
`6.
`
`It is also my understanding that PO maintains that “providing updated
`
`license data” means to “modify existing data with new data in such a way that the
`
`existing data is brought up to date or made more current.” PO Response at p. 27.
`
`While I do not see such an absolute requirement in the ‘067 Patent claims, it is my
`
`opinion that deleting license data from a licensing medium does, in fact, make the
`
`license data on the licensing medium more current by removing license records
`
`that are no longer valid. The same logic applies to creating a new license record on
`
`a licensing medium in that the license data would subsequently reflect that a user
`
`has access to software that it did not previously have – in other words, the license
`
`data is updated to reflect additional and new rights. This understanding would
`
`have been apparent to any person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`7.
`
`The text of Deluca and Fig. 7 make the steps of its authorization
`
`process clear. First, a user requests execution of a process, which may occur
`
`immediately without authorization. Ex. 1004, Deluca at 15:5-9, Fig. 7 (steps 604,
`
`610). The portable communication device then checks for the presence of an
`
`internal authorization record, and if present, a check is performed to determine
`
`whether the authorization record is valid, such as whether the expiration time has
`
`
`
`3
`
`PETITIONERS EX. 1015 PAGE 4
`
`
`
`passed. Ex. 1004, Deluca at 10:2-29, Fig. 7 (steps 612, 636). If the internal
`
`authorization record is not valid, the process is denied execution (i.e., disabled) and
`
`discarded. Ex. 1004, Deluca at 10:25-29, Fig. 7 (steps 640 and 642). Internal
`
`authorization records that are invalid are subsequently deleted. Ex. 1004, Deluca
`
`at 6:46-58. If a user attempts to execute a software process for which an internal
`
`authorization record does not exist, for example where it has been deleted because
`
`it was expired, then the portable communication device requests an external
`
`authorization. Ex. 1004, Deluca at 15:19-25, Fig. 7 (step 614). If an external
`
`authorization
`
`response
`
`is
`
`received authorizing access,
`
`then an
`
`internal
`
`authorization record is created (including an expiration time), stored and the
`
`software process is executed (if not already executed at step 610). Ex. 1004,
`
`Deluca at 15:42-65, Fig. 7 (steps 622, 624, 626, 638). Thus, as a result of this
`
`process, an
`
`internal authorization record for software on
`
`the portable
`
`communication device may be deleted because it expired and a new authorization
`
`may be obtained with a new expiration time thereby updating the internal
`
`authorization record for that software.
`
`8.
`
`I also understand that Dr. Goodrich believed there is an error in Fig. 7
`
`of Deluca. I agree that there appears to be an error in Fig. 7 such that there are
`
`multiple input points for “B.” However, the source of the error is apparent and
`
`does not hinder the ability to understand Deluca’s description or render it
`
`
`
`4
`
`PETITIONERS EX. 1015 PAGE 5
`
`
`
`confusing in any way. In fact, looking to the parent of the Deluca patent – Ex.
`
`1017, U.S. Patent No. 5,612,682 (“Deluca Parent”) – the identical Fig. 7 is used,
`
`but without the error of too many “B” input points. Thus, it is clear to one of
`
`ordinary skill that in Fig. 7, if an authorization is determined to be invalid at step
`
`636, the process is discarded from memory (step 642) and the process returns to
`
`the “B” starting point such that the next time the user requests execution of the
`
`software, which may be immediate, there will no longer be an internal
`
`authorization record at step 612. At that point, the portable communication device
`
`will request authorization to access the software. If authorization is received at
`
`step 618, an internal authorization record, including the process name and
`
`expiration time, is created and stored on the portable communication device and
`
`the process is executed at step 638 upon reaching “E.”
`
`9.
`
`I have also been asked to consider whether Deluca discloses a
`
`portable communication device that is a cellular telephone. After reviewing
`
`Deluca, I do not see any requirement that its portable communication device is
`
`limited to a paging device, although such an embodiment is discussed. In fact,
`
`Deluca expressly contemplates two-way communication protocols that are used
`
`with the portable communication device, which in my opinion would include
`
`cellular telephones. Ex. 1004, Deluca at 14:2-5.
`
`
`
`5
`
`PETITIONERS EX. 1015 PAGE 6
`
`
`
`10. One of the communication protocols referred to by Deluca is the
`
`ALOHA protocol, a well-known communications protocol. Ex. 1004 Deluca at
`
`13:52-55. It was generally known at the time that the ALOHA protocol could be
`
`used in two-way cellular voice communications. For example, Zorzi discloses the
`
`use of ALOHA for high-capacity voice cellular communications. Ex. 1016, Zorzi
`
`at Abstract.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`I declare under penalty of perjury that the above statements are true
`26.
`and correct.
`
`Date: May 13, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Justin Douglas Tygar
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`PETITIONERS EX. 1015 PAGE 7
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
