Paper 15
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: July 1, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`
`ZTE CORPORATION AND ZTE (USA) INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`CONTENTGUARD HOLDINGS INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00133
`U.S. Patent No. 7,523,072
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, MICHAEL W. KIM, and
`MICHAEL R. ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judge
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1035, p. 1
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00133
`U.S. Patent No. 7,523,072
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc. (“ZTE”) filed a corrected
`
`petition (“Pet.”) requesting inter partes review of claims 1-25 of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,523,072 (“the ’072 patent”). Paper 10. In response, Patent Owner,
`
`ContentGuard Holdings Inc. (“ContentGuard”), filed a preliminary response
`
`(“Prel. Resp.”). Paper 13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
`
`The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides:
`
`THRESHOLD -- The Director may not authorize an inter partes
`review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the
`information presented in the petition filed under section 311
`and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a
`reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with
`respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.
`
`For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that the information
`
`presented in the petition demonstrates that there is a reasonable likelihood
`
`that ZTE will prevail in establishing claims 1-25 as unpatentable. Pursuant
`
`to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we hereby authorize an inter partes review to be
`
`instituted as to claims 1-25 of the ’072 patent.
`
`A. Related Matters
`
`ZTE indicates that the ’072 patent was asserted against it in
`
`ContentGuard Holdings Inc. v. ZTE Corp. et al., Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-
`
`0206-CMH-TCB, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
`
`Virginia on February 27, 2012. Pet. 1. According to ZTE, this patent
`
`infringement lawsuit was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
`
`2
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1035, p. 2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00133
`U.S. Patent No. 7,523,072
`
`
`Southern District of California on May 21, 2012. Id. ContentGuard does
`
`not dispute that it asserted the ’072 patent against ZTE.
`
`ZTE also filed five other petitions seeking inter partes review of the
`
`following patents: U.S. Patent No. 7,225,160 (IPR2013-00134); U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,359,884 (IPR2013-00136); U.S. Patent No. 6,963,859
`
`(IPR2013-00137); U.S. Patent No. 7,139,736 (IPR2013-00138); and U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,269,576 (IPR2013-00139). Pet. 1.
`
`B. The Invention of the ’072 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`The invention of the ’072 patent generally relates to distributing and
`
`enforcing usage rights for digital works. Ex. 1001, 1:27-28. A digital work
`
`refers to any work that has been reduced to a digital representation,
`
`including any audio, video, text, or multimedia work, and any accompanying
`
`interpreter, e.g., software, which may be required to recreate or render the
`
`content of the digital work. Ex. 1001, 6:3-7. Usage rights refer to rights
`
`granted to a recipient of a digital work that define the manner in which a
`
`digital work may be used and distributed. Ex. 1001, 4:13-16; 6:9-12.
`
`According to the ’072 patent, the disclosed invention: (1) provides the
`
`owner of a digital work the flexibility to distribute the digital work as
`
`desired; and (2) includes a distribution system that transports a means for
`
`billing with the digital work. Ex. 1001, 3:15-17; 4:1-3.
`
`The ’072 patent discloses permanently attaching usage rights to the
`
`digital work. Ex. 1001, 6:16-17. Copies of the digital work also will have
`
`the usage rights attached thereto. Ex. 1001, 6:17-18. Therefore, any usage
`
`3
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1035, p. 3
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00133
`U.S. Patent No. 7,523,072
`
`
`rights and associated fees assigned by the creator and subsequent distributor
`
`of the digital work always will remain with the digital work. Ex. 1001, 6:18-
`
`21. The ’072 patent further discloses that repositories enforce the usage
`
`rights of digital works. Ex. 1001, 4:26-27; 6:22-23. In particular,
`
`repositories store digital works, control access to digital works, bill for
`
`access to digital works, and maintain the security and integrity of the digital
`
`works stored therein. Ex. 1001, 6:23-26.
`
`Figure 1 of the ’072 patent illustrates the basic operations of the
`
`disclosed invention. Ex. 1001, 4:52-54; 6:38-40. Figure 1 of the ’072 patent
`
`is reproduced below:
`
`Figure 1 illustrates the basic operations of repositories 1 and 2.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1035, p. 4
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00133
`U.S. Patent No. 7,523,072
`
`
`At step 101, a creator creates a digital work. Ex. 1001, 6:40-41. At
`
`step 102, the creator determines the appropriate usage rights and fees,
`
`attaches them to the digital work, and stores the digital work with the
`
`associated usage rights and fees in repository 1. Ex. 1001, 6:41-43. At step
`
`103, repository 1 receives a request to access the digital work from
`
`repository 2. Ex. 1001, 6:46-48. Such a request, or session initiation,
`
`includes steps that help ensure that repository 1 and repository 2 are
`
`trustworthy. Ex. 1001, 6:48-51. At step 104, repository 2 requests access to
`
`the digital work stored in repository 1 for a stated purpose, e.g., to print the
`
`digital work or obtain a copy of the digital work. Ex. 1001, 6:51-55. At step
`
`105, repository 1 checks the usages rights associated with the digital work
`
`stored therein to determine if access to the digital work may be granted. Ex.
`
`1001, 6:56-58. At step 106, if access is denied, repository 1 terminates the
`
`session with repository 2 by transmitting an error message. Ex. 1001, 6:62-
`
`63. At step 107, if access is granted, repository 1 transmits the digital work
`
`to repository 2. Ex. 1001, 6:63-65. At step 108, both repository 1 and 2
`
`generate billing information prior to transmitting the billing information to a
`
`credit server. Ex. 1001, 6:65-7:1. The use of both repositories 1 and 2 for
`
`billing prevents attempts to circumvent the billing process. Ex. 1001, 7:1-2.
`
`Figure 2 of the ’072 patent illustrates the various types of repositories
`
`and the transaction flow between them. Ex. 1001, 4:55-57; 7:3-6. Figure 2
`
`of the ’072 patent is reproduced below:
`
`5
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1035, p. 5
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00133
`U.S. Patent No. 7,523,072
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2 illustrates various types of repositories and
`their corresponding functions.
`
`Repository 201 represents the general instance of a repository having
`
`
`
`two modes of operation: (1) a server mode; and (2) a requester mode. Ex.
`
`1001, 7:8-10. When repository 201 is in server mode, it receives and
`
`processes access requests for digital works. Ex. 1001, 7:11-12. When
`
`repository 201 is in requester mode, it initiates requests to access digital
`
`works. Ex. 1001, 7:12-14
`
`
`
`During the course of operation, repository 201 may communicate with
`
`a plurality of other repositories, including rendering repository 203. Ex.
`
`1001, 7:16-21. Communication with rendering repository 203 occurs in
`
`connection with rendering a digital work. Ex. 1001, 7:31-32. According to
`
`the ’072 patent, rendering repository 203 is coupled to a rendering device,
`
`e.g., a printer device, to comprise a rendering system. Ex. 1001, 7:32-35.
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1035, p. 6
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00133
`U.S. Patent No. 7,523,072
`
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`
`
`
`Claims 1, 10, and 18 are independent claims. Independent claim 1,
`
`which is illustrative, is reproduced below:
`
`rendering digital
`
`for
`
`securely
`
`A method
`1.
`
`documents, comprising:
`
`retrieving, by a document platform, a digital document
`and at least one usage right associated with the digital
`document from a document repository, the at least one usage
`right specifying a manner of use indicating the manner in which
`the digital document can be rendered;
`
`storing the digital document and the at least one usage
`right in separate files in the document platform;
`
`determining, by the document platform, whether the
`digital document may be rendered based on the at least one
`usage right; and
`
`if the at least one usage right allows the digital document
`to be rendered on the document platform, rendering the digital
`document by the document platform.
`
`Ex. 1001, Claims—52:8-22 (emphasis added).
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`ZTE relies upon the following prior art references:
`
`US 4,868,736
`US 5,986,690
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1014
`Sept. 19, 1989
`Ex. 1013
`Nov. 16, 1999
`(filed Nov. 7, 1994)
`
`
`
`Ex. 1012
`
`Ex. 1010
`
`Ex. 1011
`
`
`Walker
`Hendricks
`
`
`
`
`EP 0268139 A2 May 25, 1988
`Comerford
`(hereinafter “EP ’139”)
`Hartrick
`EP 0464306 A2
`(hereinafter “EP ’306”)
`Hartrick
`EP 0567800 A1 Nov. 3, 1993
`(hereinafter “EP ’800”)
`
`Jan. 8, 1992
`
`7
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1035, p. 7
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00133
`U.S. Patent No. 7,523,072
`
`
`
`
`E. Alleged Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`ZTE seeks to cancel claims 1-25 of the ’072 patent based on the
`
`following alleged grounds of unpatentability:
`
`1.
`
`Claims 1-25 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by EP
`
`’139. Pet. 11-27.
`
`2.
`
`Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10, 13-16, 18, and 21-24 as anticipated under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) by Hendricks. Id. at 27-36.
`
`3.
`
`Claims 1-9 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Walker.
`
`Id. at 36-40.
`
`4.
`
`Claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 15, 16, 18, 21, 23, and 24 as
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of EP ’306 and
`
`EP ’800. Id. at 40-53.
`
`
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Consistent with the statute and legislative history of the Leahy-Smith
`
`America Invents Act, Pub. L. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 329 (2011) (“AIA”), we
`
`construe claims by applying the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of
`
`the specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also Office Patent Trial
`
`Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48766 (Aug. 14, 2012). There is a
`
`“heavy presumption” that a claim term carries its ordinary and customary
`
`meaning. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2002). However, a “claim term will not receive its ordinary meaning if
`
`the patentee acted as his own lexicographer and clearly set forth a definition
`
`8
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1035, p. 8
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00133
`U.S. Patent No. 7,523,072
`
`
`of the disputed claim term in either the specification or prosecution history.”
`
`Id. “Although an inventor is indeed free to define the specific terms used to
`
`describe his or her invention, this must be done with reasonable clarity,
`
`deliberateness, and precision.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1994).
`
`A. “Repository” (Claims 1, 10, and 18)
`
`
`
`ZTE does not provide a claim construction for the claim term
`
`“repository.” However, ContentGuard contends that the claim term
`
`“repository” should be construed as a “trusted system for supporting usage
`
`rights.” Prel. Resp. 18-19. ContentGuard then cites to several portions of
`
`the specification of the ’072 patent that allegedly support its proposed claim
`
`construction. Id. at 19-21 (citing to Ex. 1001, 11:58-67; 12:63-64; 13:15-20;
`
`51:33-37).
`
`
`
`The specification of the ’072 patent provides a glossary that explicitly
`
`sets forth a definition for the claim term “repository.” For convenience, that
`
`glossary definition is reproduced below:
`
`Conceptually a set of functional specifications defining core
`functionality in support of usage rights. A repository is a
`trusted system in that it maintains physical, communications
`and behavioral integrity.
`
`Ex. 1001, 51:34-37. By setting forth the term in a glossary and using the
`
`verb “is” following “repository” in the second sentence, we find that the
`
`specification explicitly sets forth a definition of “repository” as “a trusted
`
`system in that it maintains physical, communications and behavioral
`
`integrity.” However, the first sentence is also relevant to the definition of
`
`9
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1035, p. 9
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00133
`U.S. Patent No. 7,523,072
`
`
`“repository” because it elaborates that the repository supports usage rights.
`
`Accordingly, we construe “repository” as “a trusted system, which maintains
`
`physical, communications and behavioral integrity, and supports usage
`
`rights.”
`
`Our analysis does not end here. In order to understand “a trusted
`
`system,” it is necessary to construe “physical integrity,” “communications
`
`integrity,” and “behavioral integrity.” These terms are described in a section
`
`of the specification labeled “Repositories.” Ex. 1001, 11:58-14:32. For
`
`“physical integrity,” the specification discloses the following:
`
`Physical integrity refers to the integrity of the physical
`devices themselves. Physical integrity applies both to the
`repositories and to the protected digital works. Thus, the
`higher security classes of repositories themselves may have
`sensors that detect when tampering is attempted on their secure
`cases. In addition to protection of the repository itself, the
`repository design protects access to the content of digital
`works. In contrast with the design of conventional magnetic
`and optical devices–such as floppy disks, CD-ROMs, and
`videotapes–repositories never allow non-trusted systems to
`access the works directly. A maker of generic computer
`systems cannot guarantee that their platform will not be used to
`make unauthorized copies. The manufacturer provides generic
`capabilities for reading and writing information, and the general
`nature of the functionality of the general computing device
`depends on it. Thus, a copy program can copy arbitrary data.
`This copying issue is not limited to general purpose computers.
`It also arises for the unauthorized duplication of entertainment
`“software” such as video and audio recordings by magnetic
`recorders. Again, the functionality of the recorders depends on
`their ability to copy and they have no means to check whether a
`copy is authorized. In contrast, repositories prevent access to
`
`10
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1035, p. 10
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00133
`U.S. Patent No. 7,523,072
`
`
`the raw data by general devices and can test explicit rights and
`conditions before copying or otherwise granting access.
`Information is only accessed by protocol between trusted
`repositories.
`
`Ex. 1001, 12:1-26 (emphasis added). Many of the above aspects that are
`
`associated with “physical integrity” are described using permissive terms
`
`such as “may” and “can” and, thus, are inappropriate to include in this
`
`broadest reasonable construction as necessary limitations. The specification
`
`also appears to use the terms or phrases in each of the following three groups
`
`interchangeably:
`
`(1)
`
`data, content, digital work, information;
`
`(2)
`
`non-trusted system, general device; and
`
`(3)
`
`“never allow access” and “prevent access.”
`
`When referring to the relationship between the repository and data, the
`
`specification uses absolute terms such as “never” and “only.” In light of the
`
`foregoing, we construe “physical integrity” as “preventing access to
`
`information by a non-trusted system.”
`
`For “communications integrity,” the specification discloses the
`
`following:
`
`Communications integrity refers to the integrity of the
`communications channels between repositories.
` Roughly
`speaking, communications integrity means that repositories
`cannot be easily fooled by “telling them lies.” Integrity in this
`case refers
`to
`the property
`that repositories will only
`communicate with other devices that are able to present proof
`that they are certified repositories, and furthermore, that the
`repositories monitor the communications to detect “impostors”
`and malicious or accidental interference. Thus the security
`11
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1035, p. 11
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00133
`U.S. Patent No. 7,523,072
`
`
`exchange of digital
`encryption,
`involving
`measures
`certificates, and nonces described below are all security
`measures aimed at reliable communication in a world known
`to contain active adversaries.
`
`Ex. 1001, 12:27-39 (emphasis added). We construe “communications
`
`integrity” as “only communicates with other devices that are able to present
`
`proof that they are trusted systems, e.g., by using security measures such as
`
`encryption, exchange of digital certificates, and nonces.” The Encyclopedia
`
`of Cryptography defines “nonce” as “[a] number used in a cryptographic
`
`protocol to indicate the unique character of a message.” Newton, David E.,
`
`Encyclopedia of Cryptography 197 (1997).
`
`For “behavioral integrity,” the specification discloses the following:
`
`Behavioral integrity refers to the integrity in what
`repositories do. What repositories do is determined by the
`software that they execute. The integrity of the software is
`generally assured only by knowledge of its source. Restated, a
`user will trust software purchased at a reputable computer store
`but not trust software obtained off a random (insecure) server
`on a network. Behavioral integrity is maintained by requiring
`that repository software be certified and be distributed with
`proof of such certification, i.e. a digital certificate. The
`purpose of the certificate is to authenticate that the software has
`been tested by an authorized organization, which attests that the
`software does what it is supposed to do and that it does not
`compromise the behavioral integrity of a repository. If the
`digital certificate cannot be found in the digital work or the
`master repository which generated the certificate is not known
`to the repository receiving the software, then the software
`cannot be installed.
`
`Ex. 1001, 12:40-56 (emphasis added). We construe “behavioral integrity” in
`
`12
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1035, p. 12
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00133
`U.S. Patent No. 7,523,072
`
`
`the context of a repository as “requiring software to include a digital
`
`certificate in order to be installed in the repository.”
`
`The record is not without evidence contrary to our interpretation. The
`
`nature of interpretation is to come to the appropriate conclusion in light of
`
`all of the evidence. All of the evidence does not have to point uniformly in a
`
`single direction.
`
`Table 2 in the specification of the ’072 patent (Ex. 1001, 14) indicates
`
`ten different levels of security for repositories, and the lowest level, i.e.,
`
`level “0,” is described as follows:
`
`Open system. Document transmission is unencrypted. No
`digital certificate is required for identification. The security of
`the system depends mostly on user honesty, since only modest
`knowledge may be needed to circumvent the security measures.
`The repository has no provisions for preventing unauthorized
`programs from running and accessing or copying files. The
`system does not prevent the use of removable storage and does
`not encrypt stored files.
`
`Ex. 1001, 14:64-15:15. Thus, according to Table 2, repositories are not all
`
`trusted systems. Level “0” security means having an open system lacking in
`
`physical, communications, and behavioral integrity and without support for
`
`managing usage rights. That is directly contrary to the meaning of
`
`“repository” as defined in the glossary. For reasons discussed below, we
`
`adhere to the definition provided in the glossary. The contrary evidence
`
`based on level “0”security shown in Table 2 is insufficient to outweigh the
`
`rest of the evidence including, in particular, the explicit definition provided
`
`in the glossary. We make our determination based on the totality of the
`
`13
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1035, p. 13
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00133
`U.S. Patent No. 7,523,072
`
`
`evidence.
`
`As noted above, the disclosed invention is directed to distributing and
`
`enforcing usage rights for digital works. The problems described in the
`
`background portion of the specification concern unauthorized and
`
`unaccounted distribution or usage of electronically published materials. See
`
`generally Ex. 1001, 1:32-3:17. The ’072 patent states that it solves
`
`preexisting problems by both permanently attaching usage rights to digital
`
`works and placing elements in repositories that enforce those usage rights.
`
`Ex. 1001, 6:16-27.
`
`Here, the definition set forth in the glossary for “repository” is
`
`consistent with the description of the acknowledged prior art and the
`
`objective or goal to be achieved by the invention of the ’072 patent. The
`
`specification also contains detailed preferred embodiments utilizing
`
`repositories that are trusted systems to provide usage control for digital
`
`works. Ex. 1001, 7:3-41; 7:60-61; 13:7-14, 21-23; 14:8-20; 18:11-13;
`
`26:40-29:20; 41:9-42:12.
`
`The bulk of the disclosure consistently is directed to repositories,
`
`which are trusted systems for providing usage control for digital works. For
`
`example, the specification states:
`
`The enforcement elements of the present invention are
`embodied in repositories. Among other things, repositories are
`used to store digital works, control access to digital works, bill
`for access to digital works and maintain the security and
`integrity of the system.
`
`
`14
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1035, p. 14
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00133
`U.S. Patent No. 7,523,072
`
`
`Ex. 1001, 6:23-27 (emphasis added). Other references to “repository” in the
`
`specification that recite necessary features of repositories also support the
`
`definition in the glossary that a repository is a trusted system. For example,
`
`the specification states:
`
`The core repository services 1302 comprise a set of
`functions required by each and every repository. The core
`repository services 1302
`include
`the session
`initiation
`transactions which are defined in greater detail below. This set
`of services also includes a generic ticket agent which is used to
`“punch” a digital ticket and a generic authorization server for
`processing authorization specifications.
`
`Ex. 1001, 14:8-14 (emphasis added). In another example, the specification
`
`discloses that “[a]s a prerequisite to operation, a repository will require
`
`possession of an identification certificate” and that “identification
`
`certificates 1306 are required to enable the use of the repository.” Ex. 1001,
`
`13:7-8, 14:18-20 (emphasis added). In yet another example, the
`
`specification states “[p]rovisions for security and privacy are part of the
`
`requirements for specifying and implementing repositories and thus form
`
`the need for various transactions.” Ex. 1001, 26:35-38 (emphasis added).
`
`Indeed, by using words such as “require” and “requirements,” these
`
`disclosures amply support the definition provided in the glossary that a
`
`repository is a trusted system.
`
`
`
`In summary, even applying the broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`consistent with the specification, the weight of the evidence supports the
`
`definition provided in the glossary. We regard as significant that the
`
`definition states in no equivocal manner that a repository “is a trusted
`
`15
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1035, p. 15
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00133
`U.S. Patent No. 7,523,072
`
`
`system.”
`
`B. “Digital Document” (Claims 1, 10, and 18)
`
`
`
`ZTE contends that the claim term “digital document” may be
`
`construed as software. Pet. 6 (citing to Ex. 1001, 6:3-7; 8:21-25; see also
`
`Ex. 1015, ¶ 85). ContentGuard does not challenge ZTE’s claim construction
`
`with respect to that claim term. Because ZTE’s claim construction is
`
`consistent with the specification of the ’072 patent, we agree with ZTE’s
`
`claim construction.
`
`C. “Document Platform” (Claims 1, 10, and 18)
`
`
`
`ZTE contends that the claim term “document platform” does not
`
`appear in the specification of the ’072 patent, other than in the claims
`
`themselves. Pet. 6. ZTE then proceeds to construe the claim term
`
`“document platform” based on the claim limitations recited in independent
`
`claim 1. Id. In response, ContentGuard does not provide a claim
`
`construction for the claim term “document platform.” For purposes of this
`
`decision, it is necessary to construe the claim term “document platform.”
`
`
`
`ZTE’s argument with respect using the claim limitations recited in
`
`independent claim 1 to construe the claim term “document platform” is
`
`misplaced. While a claim may recite other claim features which further limit
`
`a “document platform,” the pivotal issue is the meaning of the claim term
`
`“document platform.” The additional claim features recited in independent
`
`claim 1 narrow the scope of that claim, but do not convey a definition for the
`
`claim term “document platform.” At issue is the meaning of claim term
`
`16
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1035, p. 16
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00133
`U.S. Patent No. 7,523,072
`
`
`“document platform,” not the methods steps performed by the document
`
`platform that fall within the scope of independent claim 1.
`
`
`
`Upon reviewing the disclosure of the ’072 patent in its entirety, we
`
`note that the term “document platform” only is discussed in the abstract and
`
`the original claims as filed. The discussion of a “document platform” in the
`
`abstract does not provide sufficient context for construing the claim term
`
`“document platform,” because the abstract merely summarizes the claim
`
`limitations recited in independent claims 1, 10, and 18.
`
`
`
`The specification of the ’072 patent does, however, discuss “a
`
`document playback platform” in the section labeled “Repository
`
`Transactions.” That section of the specification discloses the following:
`
`Transactions occur between two repositories (one acting as a
`server), between a repository and a document playback
`platform (e.g. for executing or viewing), between a repository
`and a credit server or between a repository and an authorization
`server.
`
`Ex. 1001, 26:25-29 (emphasis added). In our view, the discussion of “a
`
`document playback platform” set forth above provides sufficient context for
`
`construing the claim term “document platform.”
`
`
`
`Accordingly, applying the broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`consistent with the specification, we construe the claim term “document
`
`platform” as “any computing system that holds a digital document, such as
`
`software.” For example, a “document platform” may be a computing system
`
`that executes or views software.
`
`
`
`17
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1035, p. 17
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00133
`U.S. Patent No. 7,523,072
`
`
`D. Remaining Claim Terms
`
`
`
`All remaining claim terms recited in claims 1-25 are given their
`
`ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one with
`
`ordinary skill in the art and need not be further construed at this time.
`
`
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`
`A. 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) Ground of Unpatentability—EP ’139
`
`Claims 1, 10, and 18
`
`ZTE contends that claims 1-25 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(b) by EP ’139. Pet. 11-27. In particular, ZTE relies upon claim charts
`
`to explain how EP ’139 allegedly describes the subject matter recited in
`
`these claims, and the Declaration of Dr. Vijay K. Madisetti (Ex. 1015) to
`
`support its positions. Id. We are persuaded by ZTE’s analysis and
`
`supporting evidence.
`
`EP ’139 is directed to data processing in connection with a software
`
`copy protection mechanism. Ex. 1012, 1:4-6. In order to implement the
`
`software copy protection mechanism, EP ’139 discloses that each computer
`
`or host that runs a protected software application is associated with a
`
`logically and physically secure coprocessor. Ex. 1012, 1:25-29. For
`
`instance, EP ’139 discloses a source composite processor that includes
`
`source host 10 and source coprocessor 20, and a sink composite processor
`
`that includes sink host 110 and sink coprocessor 120. Ex. 1012, 25:49-52.
`
`The source host 10 and source coprocessor 20 are connected via
`
`communication link or path 14. Ex. 1012, 22:5-6. The source and sink
`
`18
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1035, p. 18
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00133
`U.S. Patent No. 7,523,072
`
`
`processors 10, 120 are interconnected via communication link 200. Ex.
`
`1012, 26:5-6. EP ’139 provides that only coprocessors that are “member[s]
`
`of the family” are capable of decrypting and recognizing the information
`
`transmitted thereto. Ex. 1012, 26:7-10, 20-23. EP ’139 then proceeds to
`
`disclose that source coprocessor 20 and sink coprocessor 120 exchange
`
`encrypted information. Ex. 1012, 26:10-20. EP ’139 also discloses that the
`
`source coprocessor 20 can encrypt a right to execute and send it to the sink
`
`coprocessor 120. Ex. 1012, 26:32-35.
`
`ContentGuard contends that EP ’139 does not disclose a “repository,”
`
`as recited in independent claim 1, 10, and 18. Prel. Resp. 31-33. ZTE
`
`proposes two alternative readings of EP ’139, only one of which properly
`
`accounts for the claimed “repository.” Pet. 13-14, 18. In particular, ZTE
`
`takes the position that either disk 16 or, alternatively, source computing
`
`system 10, 20 constitutes the claimed “repository.” Id. We agree with the
`
`latter position.
`
`As set forth above, we have construed a “repository” as “a trusted
`
`system which maintains physical, communications and behavioral integrity,
`
`and supports usage rights.” According to our claim construction, physical
`
`integrity is “preventing access to information by a non-trusted system;”
`
`communications integrity is “only communicates with other devices that are
`
`able to present proof that they are trusted systems, for example, by using
`
`security measures such as encryption, exchange of digital certificates, and
`
`nonces;” and behavioral integrity is “requiring software to include a digital
`
`certificate in order to be installed in the repository.”
`
`19
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1035, p. 19
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00133
`U.S. Patent No. 7,523,072
`
`
`EP ’139 discloses that source computing system 10, 20 possesses
`
`physical integrity by “preventing access to information by a non-trusted
`
`system.” That is, EP ’139 discloses that each computer or host that runs a
`
`protected software application is associated with a logically and physically
`
`secure coprocessor—in this case, source computing system 10, 20. Ex.
`
`1012, 1:25-29. EP ’139 also discloses that source computing system 10, 20
`
`possesses communications integrity because it “only communicates with
`
`other devices that are able to present proof that they are trusted systems, e.g.,
`
`by using security measures such as encryption, exchange of digital
`
`certificates, and nonces.” Source coprocessor 20 ensures that sink
`
`coprocessor 120 is a “member of the family” by exchanging encrypted
`
`information therebetween. Ex. 1012, 26:7-23. EP ’139 further discloses that
`
`source computing system 10, 20 possesses behavioral integrity by “requiring
`
`software to include a digital certificate in order to be installed.” Source
`
`coprocessor 20 encrypts a right to execute the protected software application
`
`prior to sending it to sink coprocessor 120. Ex. 1012, 26:32-35.
`
`ContentGuard also contends that EP ’139 does not disclose a
`
`“document platform” that performs the “determining” method step recited in
`
`independent claims 1 and 10. Prel. Resp. 33-35. ZTE proposes two
`
`alternative readings of EP ’139, each of which properly accounts for the
`
`claimed “document platform” that performs the “determining” method step
`
`recited in independent claims 1 and 10. Pet. 15-16, 18-19. In particular,
`
`ZTE takes the position that source computing system 10, 20 or, alternatively,
`
`sink computing system 110, 120 constitutes the claimed “document
`
`20
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1035, p. 20
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00133
`U.S. Patent No. 7,523,072
`
`
`platform” that performs the “determining” method step. We agree with both
`
`positions.
`
`As set forth above, we have construed a “document platform” as “any
`
`computing system that holds a digital document, such as software.” For
`
`example, a “document platform” may be a computing system that executes
`
`or views software. EP ’139 discloses that as long as the right to execute
`
`associated with the protected software application is retained in the memory
`
`of either source