IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES
`REVIEW PURSUANT TO 37
`C.F.R. § 42.100 ET SEQ.
`
`In re U.S. Patent No. 6,857,067
`
`Currently in Litigation Styled: Uniloc USA, Inc. and
`Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. v. Distinctive Developments,
`Inc., Case No. 6:12-cv-00462-LED
`
`Issued: February 15, 2005
`
`Filed: February 26, 2001
`
`Applicant: Martin S. Edelman
`
`Title: System and Method for Preventing
`Unauthorized Access to Electronic Data
`
`Mail Stop Inter Partes Review
`Commissioner for Patents
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,857,067
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,857,067
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioners Distinctive Developments, Ltd., Electronic Arts Inc., Gameloft S.E., Halfbrick
`
`Studios Pty Ltd., Laminar Research LLC, Mojang AB and Square Enix, Inc. (collectively
`
`“Petitioners”) request an Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of claims 1, 20-22, 30, 31, 35, 67, 107,
`
`and 108 (collectively, the “Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,857,067 (the “’067 Patent”)
`
`issued on February 15, 2005 to Martin S. Edelman (“Applicant”). Exhibit 1001, ‘067Patent.
`
`The ‘067 Patent is generally directed to digital rights management (“DRM”) and
`
`describes a system for preventing unauthorized access to electronic data stored on an electronic
`
`device. Id. at Abstract. DRM technology has been available for decades to control access to
`
`copyrighted electronic data. The video game industry, for example, has made extensive use of
`
`DRM technology since at least the mid 1980’s in an effort to control illegal copying and
`
`distribution of video games. Early examples of DRM in the video game space include: physical
`
`protection appearing on floppy disks, compact discs, and game cartridges, and requiring users to
`
`register games online via a server. As such, by the early 2000’s—the timeframe from which the
`
`‘067 Patent emerged—the DRM space was well developed. See e.g., Exhibit 1008, Expert
`
`Declaration of Dr. Justin Douglas Tygar (“Tygar Declaration”) at ¶¶ 20-23.
`
`Numerous references were not considered by or presented to the Patent Office during the
`
`prosecution of the ‘067 Patent. For instance, U.S. Patent No. 7,032,240 to Cronce, et al.
`
`(“Cronce”) discloses a removable, portable authorization device for authorizing an electronic
`
`device to use protected information. Exhibit 1002, Cronce at Abstract, 1:15-19, 3:44-55 and Fig.
`
`1. Cronce further details the exact communications between a licensing medium, an electronic
`
`device and a registration authority as described in claims 1, 35, 67, 107, and 108. This Petition
`
`demonstrates that Cronce—and several other prior art references—anticipate and/or render
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`obvious claims 1, 20-22, 30, 31, 35, 67, 107, and 108 of the ‘067 Patent; accordingly, they are
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,857,067
`
`invalid.
`
`II.
`
`REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104, each requirement for IPR of the ’067 Patent is satisfied.
`
`A.
`
`Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`
`Petitioners certify that the ’067 Patent is available for IPR and that the Petitioner is not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting IPR challenging the claims of the ’067 Patent. Specifically,
`
`Petitioners state: (1) Petitioners are not the owner of the ’067 Patent; (2) Petitioners have not
`
`filed a civil action challenging the validity of any claim of the ’067 Patent; (3) this Petition is
`
`filed less than one year after the Petitioners were served with a complaint alleging infringement
`
`of the ’067 Patent; and (4) this Petition is filed more than nine months after the ‘067 Patent
`
`issued and the ‘067 Patent was not the subject of a post-grant review.
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and
`Relief Requested
`
`In view of the prior art, evidence, and claims charts, claims 1, 20-22, 30, 31, 35, 67, 107,
`
`and 108 of the ’067 Patent are unpatentable and should be cancelled. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1).
`
`1.
`
`The Grounds For Challenge
`
`Based on the prior art references identified below, IPR of the Challenged Claims should
`
`be granted. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2).
`
`Proposed Statutory Rejections
`for the ‘067 Patent
`Claims 1, 20, 31, 35, 67, 107, and 108 are anticipated under §
`102(e) by U.S. Patent No. 7,032,240 to Cronce et al. (“Cronce”),
`entitled “Portable Authorization Device for Authorizing Use of
`Protected Information and Associated Method,” filed on February
`14, 2000, and issued on April 18, 2006.
`Claims 1, 20, 31, 67, and 107 are anticipated under § 102(b) by
`U.S. Patent No. 5,910,987 to Ginter et al. (“Ginter”) entitled
`
`Reference
`Exhibit No.
`1002
`
`1003
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,857,067
`
`Proposed Statutory Rejections
`for the ‘067 Patent
`“Systems and Methods for Secure Transaction Management and
`Electronic Rights Protection,” filed on December 4, 2006, and
`issued on June 8, 1999.
`Claims 1, 20-22, 30, 31, 67, 107, and 108 are anticipated under §
`102 (b) by U.S. Patent No. 6,008,737 to Deluca, et al. (“Deluca”),
`entitled “Apparatus for Controlling Utilization of Software Added
`to a Portable Communication Device,” filed on June 24, 1996, and
`issued on December 28, 1999.
`Claims 1, 67, 107, and 108 are obvious under § 103(a) over U.S.
`Patent No. 7,036,011 to Grimes, et al. (“Grimes”), entitled “Digital
`Rights Management,” filed on June 29, 2001 and issued on April
`25, 2006 and claiming priority to U.S. Prov. Appln. No. 60/214,726
`filed on June 29, 2000, in view of Cronce.
`
`Reference
`Exhibit No.
`
`1004
`
`1002 and
`1005
`
`
`
`
`In Section IV below, Petitioners identify where each element of the Challenged Claims is found
`
`in the prior art patents. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). The exhibit numbers of the supporting
`
`evidence relied upon to support the challenges are provided above and the relevance of the
`
`evidence to the challenges raised are provided in Section IV. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5).
`
`Exhibits 1001 – 1005 are also attached.
`
`2.
`
`Construction of the Challenged Claims Under 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104(b)(3)
`
`A claim subject to IPR receives the “broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Unless otherwise noted,
`
`Petitioners propose, for purposes of IPR only, that the claim terms of the ‘067 Patent are
`
`presumed to take on their ordinary and customary meaning that the term would have to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art.1 However, Petitioners propose the following function and structure for
`
`
`1 It should be noted that, while Petitioners believe the interpretation reflected below is accurate for purposes of IPR,
`Petitioners are applying the “broadest reasonable construction” of the claims for purposes of IPR only, and the
`analysis is not, and should not be viewed as, a concession by Petitioners as to the proper scope of any claim term in
`any litigation. These assumptions are not a waiver of any argument in any litigation that claim terms in the ‘067
`Patent are indefinite or otherwise invalid.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`the “means-plus-function” limitations of claim 35 of the ‘067 Patent based upon 35 U.S.C. § 112
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,857,067
`
`¶ 6:
`
`Term
`
`Function(s)
`
`Structure2
`
`data
`“license
`storage means”
`“registration
`authorization
`means”
`“verification
`means”
`
`Storing license data, communicating with an
`electronic device.
`Communicating with the electronic device,
`providing updated license data to the license
`data storage means.
`Verifying license data stored on the licensing
`medium.
`
`
`
`Structures described in the specification at
`7:13-32, and equivalents thereof.
`Structures described in the specification at
`7:62-66, and equivalents thereof.
`
`Structures described in the specification at
`4:10-26,
`4:37-39,
`and
`11:63-12:4,
`and
`equivalents thereof.
`
`3.
`
`Level of a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ‘067 Patent would have a B.S.
`
`in computer science or related engineering discipline or equivalent experience and at least two
`
`years in the software development industry or equivalent experience or education. The person
`
`would also have some knowledge of data encryption/decryption techniques, networking of
`
`computers, databases, programming of microprocessors/microcontrollers, and digital rights
`
`management systems and their implementation. See, Exhibit 1008, Tygar Declaration at ¶ 19.
`
`III.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ‘067 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`Description of the Alleged Invention of the ‘067 Patent
`
`The ‘067 Patent describes a method and system for preventing unauthorized access to
`
`electronic data “such as for example computer software, music, movies, e-books, and the like.”
`
`Exhibit 1001, ‘067 Patent at 1:10-14. The system of the ‘067 Patent is based on the use of a
`
`smartcard or other removable storage medium as a portable licensing medium. Id. at 7:13-18.
`
`Repeated references reinforce that the ‘067 DRM system is premised on a removable licensing
`
`2 Though Petitioners cannot challenge claims on the basis of 35 U.S.C. § 112 in an IPR setting, Petitioners
`respectfully note that the written description contains no adequate disclosure for any of the means-plus-function
`limitations. Thus, Petitioners are left to guess as to what structures are included in the “means for” limitations. As
`noted above, however, Petitioners assume for purposes of applying the “broadest reasonable construction” in this
`IPR context only that the claim is adequately supported.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`medium, e.g., a smartcard-based system. See, e.g., id. at 4:43-53, 7:13-18 7:33-37, Figs. 1, 2, 4
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,857,067
`
`and 5. Fig. 1 represents the system of the ‘067 Patent with a removable smartcard licensing
`
`medium represented as 120:
`
`
`
`The independent claims challenged in this IPR generally require four essential elements.
`
`First, the removable memory stores license data and can communicate with an electronic device,
`
`such as a computer. Id. at 3:61-65, 7:48-55. Second, the electronic device determines whether
`
`to allow access to electronic data contained on the electronic device based on the license data on
`
`the removable memory. Id. at 3:63-67, 7:48-55. Third, the license data stored on the removable
`
`memory is verified by communicating with a registration authority. Id. at 3:67-4:3, 8:5-7.
`
`Finally, the license data on the removable memory is updated based on information received
`
`from the registration authority. Id. at 4:3-4, 8:7-9. In effect, the removable memory holds
`
`license data to access electronic content on a computer, and the license data can be verified and
`
`updated through communication with a registration authority. The removable memory can be
`
`used on multiple electronic devices. Id. at 16:30-34, 16:40-45. This type of DRM system was
`
`well known before the filing date of the ‘067 Patent.
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`B.
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History of the ‘067 Patent
`
`The ‘067 Patent was filed on February 6, 20013, and as-filed, the application included
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,857,067
`
`110 initial claims, which increased to 113 claims through a preliminary amendment. See Exhibit
`
`1007, ‘067 File History at As-Filed Application and March 5, 2003 Preliminary Amendment.
`
`On July 25, 2004, the USPTO mailed a first action Notice of Allowance and the patent issued on
`
`February 15, 2005 with 113 claims. The Notice of Allowance summarily states the following
`
`reasons for allowance:
`
`Applicant has claimed uniquely distinct features in the instant invention
`which are not found in the prior art either singularly or in combination. In
`the Examiner’s opinion, it would not have been obvious to a person of
`ordinary skill in the art to disclose:
`
`[listing of various claim limitations]
`
`These features are not found or suggested in the prior art.
`
`
`Id. at July 25, 2004 Notice of Allowance. However, the purportedly novel claims are clearly
`
`described in multiple prior art references that were not considered by the Examiner.
`
`IV.
`
`THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS OF THE ‘067 PATENT ARE
`UNPATENTABLE
`
`Software protection systems were prevalent well before the earliest possible priority date
`
`of the ‘067 Patent (i.e., February 26, 2001). The following prior art references disclose each
`
`limitation of the Challenged Claims. As such, these claims are unpatentable.
`
`
`
`Included in the claim charts below are exemplary citations to the prior art references.
`
`These citations are exemplary only, and are not intended to be a complete list of potentially
`
`relevant prior art teachings. For instance, the Panel might find other, non-cited, portions of these
`
`
`3 The Patent Owner has admitted that the earliest priority date for the patent is February 26, 2001, the filing date of
`the application. See Exhibit 1006, Plaintiff’s Disclosures Pursuant to Local Patent Rules 3-1 and 3-2, at 3 in Uniloc
`v. Distinctive Developments, Inc., 6:12-cv-462 (E.D. Tex.).
`
`6
`
`
`

`

`
`references useful in evaluating the claims and responding to any arguments advanced by Patent
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,857,067
`
`Owner. Further, to the extent the Patent Owner contends certain concepts are missing from the
`
`prior art, Petitioners may identify portions of prior art references, in addition to the citations
`
`below, to provide a full context for the patentability analysis.
`
`1.
`
`Cronce Anticipates Claims 1, 20, 31, 35, 67, 107, and 108
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
`
`Cronce was not cited or considered during prosecution of the ‘067 Patent. Cronce
`
`discloses a portable, removable memory for storing license data that is configured to
`
`communicate with a host system. Exhibit 1002, at 4:56-64; 5:17-21; Fig. 1. Access to electronic
`
`data on the host system is determined based on the authorization data stored on the portable
`
`memory. Id. at 3:56-59; 8:3-12; Figs. 2, 10. The authorization data on the portable memory is
`
`verified and updated through communicating with an information authority over a network. Id.
`
`at 5:35-5:37; 6:10-16. As shown below, Cronce discloses every limitation of claims 1, 20, 31,
`
`35, 67, 107, and 108. Thus, there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioners will prevail with
`
`respect to claims 1, 20, 31, 35, 67, 107, and 108, and these claims should be reviewed, rejected
`
`under § 102(e) as being anticipated by Cronce, and cancelled.
`
`Claim 1
`1. A system for
`preventing
`unauthorized access
`to electronic data
`on an electronic
`device, the system
`comprising:
`
`
`Anticipated By Cronce (Ex. 1002)
`Cronce discloses “[a]n authorization system and associated method for
`selectively authorizing a host system to use one or more items of protected
`information associated with the host system. The authorization system
`includes a portable authorization device that is removably couplable to the
`host system. The portable authorization device is capable of receiving and
`storing multiple items of authorization information associated with a
`plurality of respective items of protected information from one or more
`information authorities. Preferably, the portable authorization device is
`capable of communicating with multiple types of information authorities.
`The portable authorization device selectively authorizes the host system to
`use the one or more respective items of protected information based upon
`the respective authorization information stored therein.” Exhibit 1002,
`
`Cronce at Abstract (emphasis added).    
`  
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,857,067
`
`The host system is an electronic device such as a personal computer
`storing protected information such as software. See, id. at 5:12-16. The
`host system executes access control programs to prevent unauthorized
`access to the protected information. See, id. at 4:48-5:11.
`Cronce discloses a portable authorization device for storing license data.
`Fig. 1 of Cronce shows the removable, portable authorization device 140
`that is similar to the removable, portable licensing medium described by
`the ‘067 Patent. Compare ‘067 Patent at Fig. 1 (reference numeral 120)
`with Cronce at Fig. 1 (reference numeral 140).
`
`
`[1(a)] a portable
`licensing medium
`configured to
`communicate with
`the electronic
`device and to store
`license data,
`
`
`
`
`Cronce at Fig. 1.
`
`Cronce’s portable authorization device stores authorization information
`for accessing protected information on the host system. In one
`embodiment, the host system 110 receives authorization data from an
`information authority 185 and causes the authorization data to be stored on
`the portable authorization device 140.
`
`
`“The portable authorization device 140 of the authorization system
`100 is a relatively small and simple ‘dongle-like’ device that stores
`one or more items of authorization information 171 for authorizing
`the host system 110 to use the respective items of protected
`information 115. The portable authorization device 140 includes a
`microprocessor or dedicated logic for performing secure transactions
`with the host system 110 and a memory for storing the authorization
`information 171.” Id. at 5:17-25 (emphasis added).
`
`“The networked indirect information authority 185 is connected to a
`network 187, such as the Internet, and communicates with the
`portable authorization device 140 via the network 187, the host
`system 110 and the host sytem interface circuit 145.” Id. at 7:43-47.
`
`“The authorization process involves two basic steps. First, the
`information authority 160/180/185
`transfers
`the authorization
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`[1(b)] the license
`data configured to
`be used by the
`electronic device to
`determine whether
`to allow access to
`the electronic data;
`and
`
`
`
`[1(c)] a registration
`authority
`configured
`
`to
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,857,067
`
`information 171 to the portable authorization device 140 for storage
`therein (step 210).” Id. at 8:13-16.
`
`
`The host system communicates with the portable authorization device via
`a communicatons port.
`
`“Like a conventional dongle, the portable authorization device 140 is
`readily transportable and can be used with a number of different host
`systems. To use the portable authorization device 140 with a host
`system 110, the end-user may simply connect the device to a
`communications port of the host system such as a parallel port or
`USB port.” Id. at 5:25-31.
`
`
`See also id. at 3:44-55; 5:17-34.
`Authorization software on the host system determines whether to permit
`access to protected information based on the authorization information
`stored on the portable authorization device.
`
`“FIG. 2 illustrates the overall process employed by the authorization
`system 100 in a presently preferred embodiment of the invention to
`selectively authorize the host system 10 to use an item of protected
`information 115 associated with the host system.” Id. at 8:3-7
`(emphasis added).
`
`
`
`
`
`“Second, the portable authorization device 140 authorizes the host
`system 110 to use the item of protected information 115 (step 210).”
`Id. at 8:22-24.
`
`invention
`the present
`“The portable authorization device of
`selectively authorizes the host system to use the one or more
`respective items of protected information based upon the respective
`authorization information stored therein.” Id. at 3:56-59.
`
`
`See also id. at 4:65-5:11; 18:24-20:9; Fig. 10.
`The host system verifies the authorization information stored on the
`portable authorization device by communicating with an information
`authority.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,857,067
`
`“The information authorities 160, 180 and 185 provide respective
`authorization information 171 for transmission to the portable
`authorization device 140 to authorize use of the items of protected
`information.” Id. at 5:55-59.
`
`
`
`
`
`communicate with
`the
`electronic
`device,
`the
`registration
`having
`authority
`verification data for
`verifying
`the
`license data stored
`on
`the
`licensing
`medium,
`
`
`“The authorization system 100 may support multiple types of
`information authorities. The
`types of
`information authorities
`supported may include a physical direct information authority 160, a
`physical indirect information authority 180 and a networked indirect
`information authority 185. The multiple types of information
`authorities 160, 180 and 185 each communicate with the portable
`authorization device 140 in a different manner, as explained below.”
`Id. at 6:17-24.
`
`
`Specifically, the authorization software on the host system controls the
`communications between the information authorities and the portable
`authorization device.
`
`“The access control programs 117, in conjunction with the host
`system 110, are also used to control communications between the
`indirect information authorities 180 and 185 and the host system
`110.” Id. at 5:4-8.
`
`“The access control programs 117 of the host system 110 may be
`used to control which of the information authorities 160, 180 and
`185 are permitted to communicate with the portable authorization
`device 140.” Id. at 6:32-35.
`
`See also, id. at 7:43-47; Fig. 1.
`
`The information authority has identification information used to uniquely
`identify an item of protected information and verify the authorization
`information stored on the portable authorization device. Specifically, the
`host system receives the identification information corresponding to a
`specific item of protected information from the information authority. The
`received identification information is compared to the identification
`information associated with the authorization information stored in the
`portable authorization device.
`
`
`“[T]he portable authorization device 140 optionally verifies that it is
`authorized to receive the dynamic key selector 171 from the
`information authority 160/180/185 (step 214). During this step, the
`information
`authority
`160/180/185
`transmits
`identification
`information (not shown) associated with the dynamic key selector
`171 to the portable authorization device 140. In a preferred
`embodiment of the invention, the identification information is a
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`[1(d)] wherein the
`registration
`authority provides
`updated
`license
`for
`data
`the
`licensing medium.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,857,067
`
`number used to uniquely identify the item of protected information
`115 authorized by the dynamic key selector 171. In this embodiment,
`the fixed key ID 151 stored in the storage medium 144 is used to
`identify
`the portable authorization device 140. The portable
`authorization device 140 then determines, based on a comparison of
`the identification information with the fixed key ID 151, whether the
`item of protected information 115 identified by the identification
`information is authorized for use with the portable authorization
`device. Depending on the outcome of this determination, the portable
`authorization device 140 then authorizes or declines receipt of the
`dynamic key selector 171.” Id. at 15:39-58 (emphasis added).
`
`See also id. at Figs. 9, 10.
`
`This verification process described by Cronce is analogous to the
`verification process described in the ‘067 patent where license data is
`verified by comparing the license data stored on the portable licensing
`medium with the licensing data received from a registration authority.
`See, ‘067 patent at 4:10-26.
`
`In the embodiment where the networked indirect information authority
`185 is used, the host system provides updated authorization information to
`the portable authorization device based on information received from the
`information authority.
`
`
`“Furthermore, the portable authorization device 140 can be updated
`with new authorization information 171 from information authorities
`160/180/185, as explained below. An advantage provided by this
`feature is that it is relatively inexpensive for a software vendor to
`authorize the use of a new version of software. The vendor can
`update
`the portable authorization device 140 with
`the new
`authorization information by providing a relatively simple and
`inexpensive information authority, rather than a dongle, to the end-
`user.” Cronce at 5:35-43 (emphasis added).
`
`
`“The information authorities 160, 180 and 185 are trusted devices for
`transmitting and receiving information, such as messages, from the
`portable authorization device 140. The information authorities 160,
`180 and 185 provide respective authorization information 171 for
`transmission to the portable authorization device 140 to authorize the
`use of the items of protected information 115. In a presently
`preferred embodiment, the information authorities 160, 180 and 185
`comprise message authorities for
`transmitting and receiving
`messages from
`the portable authorization device 140. The
`information authorities 160, 180 and 185 may be used, for example,
`by software vendors as a means to deliver software, upgrades,
`to end-users.” Id. at 5:53-65
`authorization
`information, etc.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Claim 20
`20. A system
`according to claim 1,
`wherein the licensing
`medium is a random
`access memory.
`
`Claim 31
`31. A system
`according to claim 1,
`wherein the licensing
`medium is configured
`to communicate with
`the electronic device
`through a wired
`connection.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,857,067
`
`
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`“The networked indirect information authority 185 is connected to a
`network 187, such as the Internet, and communicates with the
`portable authorization device 140 via the network 187, the host
`system 110 and the host sytem interface circuit 145.” Id. at 7:43-47.
`
`Anticipated By Cronce (Ex. 1002)
`As show above, Cronce anticipates claim 1. See, Cronce applied to
`Claim 1. Cronce also discloses that the portable authorization device
`includes a random access memory 143.
`
`
`“The portable authorization device 140 includes a processing unit
`141, a storage medium 144, the host system interface circuit 145
`and the direct information authority interface circuit 147. In this
`embodiment, the processing unit 141 comprises a microcontroller
`including a program ROM 142 and a program/data RAM 143.” Id.
`at 8:48-53 (emphasis added).
`
`See also, id. at Fig. 3.
`
`Anticipated By Cronce (Ex. 1002)
`As show above, Cronce anticipates claim 1. See, Cronce applied to
`Claim 1. Cronce also discloses that the portable authorization device is
`configured to communicate with the host system via a wired USB or
`parallel port connection.
`
`
`“Like a conventional dongle, the portable authorization device 140
`is readily transportable and can be used with a number of different
`host systems. To use the portable authorization device 140 with a
`host system 110, the end-user may simply connect the device to a
`communications port of the host system such as a parallel port or
`USB port.” Id. at 5:25-31.
`
`“The host system interface 281 provides a communications
`protocol for the portable authorization device 140 to communicate
`with the host system 110. . . . Information is transmitted between
`the portable authorization device 140 and the host system 110 via
`the host system interface circuit 145. In a preferred embodiment of
`the invention that uses a USB port, the host system interface 281
`communicates with
`the host system 110 using a USB
`communications protocol.” Id. at 9:25-39.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Claim 35
`35. A system for
`preventing
`unauthorized access
`to electronic data on
`an electronic device,
`the system
`comprising:
`[35(a)] license data
`storage means
`configured to
`communicate with
`the electronic device,
`
`
`[35(b)] the license
`data configured to be
`used by the electronic
`device to determine
`whether to allow
`access to the
`electronic data; and
`[35(c)]
`registration
`authorization means
`configured
`to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,857,067
`
`Anticipated By Cronce (Ex. 1002)
`As described above with regard to independent claim 1, Cronce
`discloses this limitation. See, Cronce applied to Claim 1 at Preamble.
`
`
`The ‘067 Patent discloses that the “licensing medium 120 may be any
`type of portable electronic data storage medium that has a unique,
`unalterable serial number or other form of identification . . . .” ‘067
`Patent at 7:13-15. Cronce discloses that the portable authorization
`device is a USB/parallel port computer storage device with a unique
`serial number.
`
`
`“Like a conventional dongle, the portable authorization device 140
`is readily transportable and can be used with a number of different
`host systems. To use the portable authorization device 140 with a
`host system 110, the end-user may simply connect the device to a
`communications port of the host system such as a parallel port or
`USB port.” Cronce at 5:25-31.
`
`“The fixed user data 153 is used to store alphanumeric strings or
`other data not related to the authorization function of the portable
`authorization device 140. The fixed user data 153 may include a
`manufacturing secret key which identifies the particular product
`type of the portable authorization device 140 and a serial number
`that uniquely identifies the individual portable authorization
`device.” Id. at 11:32-39 (emphasis added).
`
`See also, id. at 9:25-39; Fig. 3.
`
`As described above with regard to independent claim 1, Cronce
`discloses that the portable authorization device is configured to
`communicate with the host system. See, Cronce applied to Claim 1 at
`1(a).
`As described above with regard to independent claim 1, Cronce
`discloses this limitation. See, Cronce applied to Claim 1 at 1(b).
`
`
`The ‘067 Patent discloses that “[t]he registration authority 110 is a
`remote server that maintains a licensing database containing information
`for all of the licensing media 120 authorized by the software protection
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,857,067
`
`administrator and all of the software licenses authorized by the software
`vendors 130.” ‘067 Patent at 7:62-66. As shown in the figure below,
`Cronce discloses a networked indirect information authority 185, which
`is a remote server configured to communicate with the host system 110:
`
`communicate with
`the electronic device,
`the
`registration
`authorization means
`having
`verification
`means for verifying
`the
`license
`data
`stored
`on
`the
`licensing medium,
`
`
`
`
`Cronce at Fig. 1.
`
`The information authority server 185 is used by the protected
`information vendor to maintain authorization data for all of the portable
`authorization devices.
`
`
`“The networked indirect information authority 185 can be a
`system, such as a computer server, that stores authorization
`information 171 and other data associated with one or more items
`of protected information 115. Unlike conventional networked
`schemes, however, the networked indirect information authority
`185 transmits the authorization information 171 to the portable
`authorization device 140, rather than to the host system 110, for
`storage. The networked indirect information authority 185 is
`connected
`to a network 187, such as
`the Internet, and
`communicates with the portable authorization device 140 via the
`network 187, the host system 110 and the host system interface
`circuit 145. The networked indirect information authority 185 is
`typically operated by the vendor of the item of protected
`information 115.” Id. at 7:36-50 (emphasis added).
`
`“[T]he portable authorization device 140 optionally verifies that it
`is authorized to receive the dynamic key selector 171 from the
`information authority 160/180/185 (step 214). During this step, the
`information
`authority 160/180/185
`transmits
`identification
`information (not shown) associated with the dynamic key selector
`171 to the portable authorization device 140. In a preferred
`embodiment of the invention, the identification information is a
`number used