`571-272-7822 Entered: 6 May 2014
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ZTE CORPORATION AND ZTE (USA) INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CONTENTGUARD HOLDINGS INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2013-00133 (Patent No. 7,523,072)
`IPR2013-00137 (Patent No. 6,963,859)
`IPR2013-00138 (Patent No. 7,139,736)
`IPR2013-00139 (Patent No. 7,269,576)
`____________
`
`
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`
`
`Before: JAMESON LEE, MICHAEL W. KIM, and
`MICHAEL R. ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`(Sessions 1 and 2)
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`JON H. BEAUPRE, ESQ.
`
`
`MIYOUNG SHIN, ESQ.
`
`
`Brinks Gilson & Lione
`
`
`NBC Tower, Suite 3600
`
`
`455 North Cityfront Plaza Drive
`
`
`Chicago, Illinois 60611-5599
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1060, p. 1
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00133, IPR2013-00137, IPR2013-00138, and IPR2013-00139
`Patents 7,523,072; 6,963,859; 7,139,736; and 7,269,576
`
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`JON E. WRIGHT, ESQ.
`
`
`ROBERT GREENE STERNE, ESQ.
`
`
`Sterne Kessler Goldstein Fox
`
`
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`
`
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Wednesday,
`February 26, 2014, commencing at 10:00 a.m., at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE LEE: Good morning. Please be seated.
`Welcome to the Board. This morning, we have what's
`actually a combined hearing for four cases. They are
`IPR2013-00133, 137, 138 and 139. The joint or
`consolidated hearing will be spread out over four sessions,
`and this is session 1 of the four, and we will be focusing on
`the specific issues of the 133 case in this session. Although,
`because some of the issues overlap, whatever you argue, to
`the extent that it applies to the other cases, it will apply, but
`we will primarily be focusing on the issues in the 133 case
`this morning.
`May I have counsel introduce themselves, please.
`
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1060, p. 2
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00133, IPR2013-00137, IPR2013-00138, and IPR2013-00139
`Patents 7,523,072; 6,963,859; 7,139,736; and 7,269,576
`
`
`MR. BEAUPRE: Your Honor, Jon Beaupre and
`Miyoung Shin on behalf of ZTE Corporation and ZTE USA.
`JUDGE LEE: Thank you.
`MR. WRIGHT: Jon Wright, Your Honor, and my
`partner Rob Sterne on behalf of ContentGuard.
`JUDGE LEE: Thank you. Good morning.
`Whenever you're ready, we will begin with Petitioner's
`counsel.
`
`MR. BEAUPRE: Thank you.
`MS. SHIN: Your Honor, we have prepared for
`the judges copies of the slide, would you like to have that?
`JUDGE LEE: I would appreciate that, thank you.
`MR. WRIGHT: Your Honor, would you like the
`Patent Owner's demonstratives now as well?
`JUDGE LEE: Please.
`MR. BEAUPRE: Thank you and good morning,
`Your Honors, as I mentioned, my name is Jon Beaupre, and I
`will be providing a brief summary of the case and then
`speaking about claim construction, and then co-counsel,
`Miyoung Shin, will address the remaining issues regarding
`the 133 case.
`And, Your Honors, if it would please the Court,
`ZTE would like to save 15 minutes for rebuttal time.
`JUDGE LEE: Yes.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1060, p. 3
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2013-00133, IPR2013-00137, IPR2013-00138, and IPR2013-00139
`Patents 7,523,072; 6,963,859; 7,139,736; and 7,269,576
`
`
`MR. BEAUPRE: Thank you. As a brief summary
`of the trial, claims 1 through 25 in the '072 patent were all
`instituted and found likely to be anticipated by EP 139,
`under Section 102(b). Looking at Claim 1, there are three
`independent claims of the '072 patent: claims 1, 10 and 18.
`Claim 1 generally recites the method for securely rendering
`digital documents, including retrieving a digital document,
`in at least one usage right from the document repository,
`storing the digital document and usage right in separate
`files, determining whether the digital document may be
`rendered, and, if so, rendering the digital document.
`Claim 10 and Claim 18 are similarly method
`claims, reciting some of the same elements, but also there
`are some differences between the two, which we will point
`out when relevant.
`Under claim construction, this slide or this
`demonstrative highlights the use of the term "repository"
`throughout the claims. As you can see, it appears in each of
`the claims: claims 1, 10 and 18. And the Board's
`construction of the term "repository" is a trusted system
`which maintains physical, communications, and behavioral
`integrity, and supports usage rights."
`Going into that a little in more detail, physical
`integrity, communications integrity, and behavioral integrity
`were all construed by the Board and the parties do not
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1060, p. 4
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00133, IPR2013-00137, IPR2013-00138, and IPR2013-00139
`Patents 7,523,072; 6,963,859; 7,139,736; and 7,269,576
`
`disagree regarding physical integrity or communications
`integrity. But ContentGuard has objected to the Board's or
`disagreed with the Board's construction of behavioral
`integrity to a certain extent. ZTE agrees with the Board's
`construction with respect to behavioral integrity.
`So, going into behavioral integrity in a little more
`detail, the description of the term "repository software" is
`one of the two points where the parties disagree as to the
`term "behavioral integrity." ContentGuard asserts that the
`construction of behavioral integrity was too broad because it
`is not limited to the term "repository software," as
`ContentGuard reads that term. However, as I mentioned,
`ZTE does agree with the Board's construction.
`Going into the term "repository software," now in
`a little more detail, for two main reasons, it's ZTE's position
`that the Board's construction with respect to repository
`software is proper. The term "repository software" appears
`only once in the specification of the four patents, and if it
`will please the Court, I will give cites for the '072 patent
`with respect to claim construction issues, so that we have
`consistent cites. Our papers have cites for the other four
`cases as well.
`JUDGE LEE: Counsel, to what extent does the
`specification, do they differ between the four patents?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 5
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1060, p. 5
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00133, IPR2013-00137, IPR2013-00138, and IPR2013-00139
`Patents 7,523,072; 6,963,859; 7,139,736; and 7,269,576
`
`
`MR. BEAUPRE: You mean generally, Your
`
`Honor?
`
`JUDGE LEE: Well, let me ask, are they
`identically the same?
`MR. BEAUPRE: They are not identical, there are
`some differences. None of those differences, in ZTE's
`position, address the construction of the term "behavioral
`integrity."
`JUDGE LEE: So, whatever citations you have to
`the '072 patent, we can expect to find the same language in
`the specification of the other three?
`MR. BEAUPRE: Yes, Your Honor. It will be in
`slightly different columns or lines, but it will be in the same
`general location. In each of our papers, we took care to try
`to cite to the specific locations, so our papers do include all
`of those cites.
`JUDGE LEE: Thank you.
`MR. BEAUPRE: Thank you.
`So, the term "repository software," as I
`mentioned, it appears only once in the specification for all
`four patents, that is, and it states, "Behavioral integrity is
`maintained by requiring that repository software be certified
`and be distributed with proof of such certification, i.e. a
`digital certificate."
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 6
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1060, p. 6
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00133, IPR2013-00137, IPR2013-00138, and IPR2013-00139
`Patents 7,523,072; 6,963,859; 7,139,736; and 7,269,576
`
`
`That is in Exhibit 1001, which is the '072 patent,
`column 12, lines 46 through 48.
`Therefore, under this cite, the specification
`discloses that the repository software is distributed with the
`digital certificate, as with any other digital work that is
`discussed in the '072 patent. Dr. Madisetti opined that a
`person of ordinary skill would not find that the software
`controls the operation of the repository -- would not find
`that the software that controls the operation of the repository
`would be distributed to other systems in the manner
`described in the '072 patent.
`For example, the specification states that if a
`digital certificate is not 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. That is the '072 patent, column
`12, lines 52 through 56.
`Additionally, the '072 patent states that it is
`fundamental to the present invention that the usage rights
`are treated as part of the digital work, as the digital work is
`distributed, the scope of the granted usage rights will remain
`the same or may be narrowed. That is column 10, lines 49
`through 52.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`
`
` 7
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1060, p. 7
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2013-00133, IPR2013-00137, IPR2013-00138, and IPR2013-00139
`Patents 7,523,072; 6,963,859; 7,139,736; and 7,269,576
`
`
`JUDGE LEE: Mr. Beaupre, is there any
`disclosure about installing the operating system software for
`the repository?
`MR. BEAUPRE: Installing the operational
`software?
`JUDGE LEE: Operating system software, the
`software that makes the repository run?
`MR. BEAUPRE: Your Honor, there is
`operational software that is discussed later on in the '072
`patents, in column 13, and that deals with the memory, so
`the RAM and the ROM of the repository software. And, so,
`that portion of the specification states that the repository
`may include operational software, or its position; it’s ZTE's
`position that that section states that the repository may
`include operational software for performing its functions;
`however, behavioral integrity is maintained by checking and
`by requiring that the repository be certified and that the
`repository software is content.
`Nothing in the section dealing with operational
`software in column 13 discusses behavioral integrity; it's
`limited to the memory discussion. The memory of the
`repository.
`JUDGE LEE: Yeah, I ask the question only
`because I wonder why it is that the operating system
`software is not already running when you're doing all of
`
`
`
`
` 8
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1060, p. 8
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00133, IPR2013-00137, IPR2013-00138, and IPR2013-00139
`Patents 7,523,072; 6,963,859; 7,139,736; and 7,269,576
`
`these activities. It's our -- it seems to be already installed
`for anything to have happen in the system.
`MR. BEAUPRE: Yes, Your Honor, thank you for
`the clarification. Yes, I agree that before the -- before the --
`for example, the authorization object could be checked, or
`before behavioral integrity could be checked more generally,
`that operational software likely would need to be running,
`and by operational software, I mean whatever is required to
`run that repository, rather than content. However, as I
`mentioned, behavioral integrity - the discussion on
`behavioral integrity is limited to digital works and content,
`rather than anything that could be considered operational
`software.
`And then, another -- the second main point
`supporting ZTE's construction of the fact that repository
`software includes digital work and is limited to digital work,
`is the specification expressly discloses that digital works are
`stored in repositories, and repositories enforce the usage
`rights of digital works.
`Now, when we asked Dr. Goodrich about this, he
`acknowledged, and Dr. Goodrich is ContentGuard's expert,
`as Your Honors may know, Dr. Goodrich acknowledged that
`the repository software is an example of digital work.
`Accordingly, as ZTE's expert Dr. Madisetti opined, the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 9
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1060, p. 9
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2013-00133, IPR2013-00137, IPR2013-00138, and IPR2013-00139
`Patents 7,523,072; 6,963,859; 7,139,736; and 7,269,576
`
`repository software includes digital works stored in the
`repository, i.e., content.
`And then briefly going back to the second point,
`not repository software, but digital certificate being the
`second point that the parties disagree about with respect to
`behavioral integrity, as I mentioned, ZTE agrees with the
`Board's construction and application. ContentGuard asserts
`that the Board's interpretation of behavioral integrity was
`too narrow because it specifically requires a digital
`certificate to be included with the software.
`Now, we agree with ContentGuard that the digital
`certificate does assure that the software does what it's
`supposed to do, and that the specification states that this
`means that the software is checked to make sure that it came
`from a trustworthy source. However, the key difference is
`that the only example that is disclosed in the specification
`dealing with behavioral integrity is the digital certificate,
`and ContentGuard's own papers do not point to any other
`examples.
`JUDGE ZECHER: Counsel, let me ask you a
`question about this digital certificate example. Let's say,
`hypothetically, we broaden this definition out to not include
`the digital certificate for behavioral integrity. Would
`EP 139 still read on something that would certify that the
`repository software is what it is, I guess, verify that it is -
`
`
`
`
` 10
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1060, p. 10
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2013-00133, IPR2013-00137, IPR2013-00138, and IPR2013-00139
`Patents 7,523,072; 6,963,859; 7,139,736; and 7,269,576
`
`it's been certified, without, you know, something a little
`broader than a digital certificate? Would EP 139 still read
`on that?
`
`MR. BEAUPRE: Yes, Your Honor, thank you for
`that question, and yes, it's ZTE's position that even under
`ContentGuard's construction of the term "digital certificate,"
`within behavioral integrity, that EP 139 still discloses the
`digital certificate. That's included, the very last section in
`our reply brief, and Ms. Shin can address that, the details of
`that, in more detail, if Your Honor would like to hear about
`it.
`
`JUDGE ZECHER: Yeah, I mean, when she gets
`the opportunity, we would love to hear an example of how
`that would work.
`MR. BEAUPRE: Thank you, Your Honor. And
`with that, unless there are any further questions for me about
`claim construction or anything I've talked about, I will turn
`things over to Ms. Shin.
`JUDGE LEE: Mr. Beaupre, can I take you back
`to digital works. Do I understand you as saying the
`operating system software of the repository is not considered
`digital work in the context of the specification?
`MR. BEAUPRE: In the context of the
`specification -- that is correct, Your Honor, that the
`operational software is not considered a digital work. It is
`
`
`
`
` 11
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1060, p. 11
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2013-00133, IPR2013-00137, IPR2013-00138, and IPR2013-00139
`Patents 7,523,072; 6,963,859; 7,139,736; and 7,269,576
`
`part of -- to the extent that operational software is even
`discussed in the specification, it's only discussed with
`respect to RAM; it's never discussed with respect to
`behavioral integrity or digital works in any way, and that's
`why it's --
`JUDGE LEE: So, what would be the best
`example you can point to in showing when the specification
`talks about digital works, it's not talking about the operating
`system software?
`MR. BEAUPRE: Okay, thank you, Your Honor.
`I think that in the '072 patent, column 12, lines 46 through
`48, where it states, "Behavioral integrity is maintained by
`requiring that the repository software be certified and be
`distributed with proof of such certification, i.e. a digital
`certificate."
`JUDGE LEE: Why does that mean it doesn't
`include operation software?
`MR. BEAUPRE: Because the way that -- thank
`you, Your Honor, that's a very good question. The
`specification, the way it discusses digital works, or
`discusses anything being distributed with proof of
`certification, it's that discussion is limited to digital works,
`i.e. content. Anything that is -- that could be considered
`operational software is not discussed as being distributed in
`that -- in the same manner. And for that, to support that, I
`
`
`
`
` 12
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1060, p. 12
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2013-00133, IPR2013-00137, IPR2013-00138, and IPR2013-00139
`Patents 7,523,072; 6,963,859; 7,139,736; and 7,269,576
`
`would refer back to the Dr. Madisetti cite that I read earlier,
`talking about how the specification states that if digital
`works -- if a digital certificate is not found in the digital
`work, then the software cannot be installed, and also, it is
`fundamental to the present invention that usage rights are
`treated as part of the digital work, and as the digital work is
`distributed, the scope of granted usage rights will remain the
`same.
`
`So, in other words, every time there's a discussion
`about distribution, and usage rights, it is limited to the
`digital work, and not discussed with respect to any
`operational software.
`JUDGE LEE: Thank you. What about the term
`"certificate?" It's not in the claim, but I'm wondering what
`evidence do we have about what is a -- what constitutes a
`certificate. Can you elaborate on that?
`MR. BEAUPRE: Yes, yes, thank you, Your
`Honor. So, for a digital certificate, first of all, ZTE agrees
`with the Board's application of this term, more specifically,
`ContentGuard, as I mentioned -- well, I'm sorry, Your
`Honor, maybe -- earlier when I discussed digital certificate,
`did you have a specific question? Maybe could you repeat
`your question about digital certificate?
`JUDGE LEE: I would like to have more
`explanation on what would be a certificate, what is not a
`
`
`
`
` 13
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1060, p. 13
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00133, IPR2013-00137, IPR2013-00138, and IPR2013-00139
`Patents 7,523,072; 6,963,859; 7,139,736; and 7,269,576
`
`certificate. You know, it's not in the claim, so it's not part
`of claim construction, but we like to know what is there in
`the specification that tells us what a certificate is.
`MR. BEAUPRE: Okay. Thank you for the
`clarification, Your Honor. I think the best description of the
`digital certificate is in the '072 patent, again, column 12, in
`lines 46 through 56. Within there, it specifically states,
`"The purpose of the certificate," and that's referring to the
`digital 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 the repository."
`So, that's describing the purpose of the
`certificate. And then, later on, it states what happens if the
`certificate cannot be found in the digital work - that the
`software cannot be installed.
`JUDGE LEE: Well, if we had that language
`directly in the claims, there might be some problems with
`functional claiming. I don't think we can just claim anything
`that would do this. I mean, that might be perceived as or
`turned into a means plus function element, in which case you
`have to go to the spec to see what the disclosed
`embodiments are. So, what are the disclosed embodiments
`for such a certificate?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 14
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1060, p. 14
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2013-00133, IPR2013-00137, IPR2013-00138, and IPR2013-00139
`Patents 7,523,072; 6,963,859; 7,139,736; and 7,269,576
`
`
`MR. BEAUPRE: Thank you, Your Honor, that's a
`very good question, and it raises one point that I was trying
`to make earlier, which is the only time a digital certificate is
`discussed with respect to behavioral integrity is in this
`paragraph that we pointed to. The fact that there are no
`physical descriptions of the digital certificate and no other
`examples of what a -- of what else could serve the function
`of a digital certificate, other than an actual digital certificate
`itself, supports the Board's construction and ZTE's
`agreement with the Board's construction that the term
`"behavioral integrity" affirmatively does require a digital
`certificate.
`And to make sure that I answer Your Honor's
`question as plainly as possible, I do not think there's a spot
`in the specification that states a digital certificate is X or
`has this -- has this structure, it's discussed in function only,
`Your Honor.
`JUDGE LEE: Thank you.
`JUDGE KIM: And also a quick question. Can
`you differentiate between a digital works and are you saying,
`for example, when you run a digital work, you have to have
`an underlying application, so in a sense, you have the
`application, then you have the content. Can you clarify
`which one you mean with respect to behavioral integrity?
`What has to -- what the behavioral integrity has to apply to?
`
`
`
`
` 15
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1060, p. 15
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00133, IPR2013-00137, IPR2013-00138, and IPR2013-00139
`Patents 7,523,072; 6,963,859; 7,139,736; and 7,269,576
`
`
`MR. BEAUPRE: Yes, thank you, Your Honor.
`Behavioral integrity, in the specification is only discussed
`with respect to content. It is not discussed with respect to
`any underlying operational software that is running the
`repository. As I mentioned, we acknowledge that it is likely
`that a repository does have to have some operational
`software to make it work; however, is behavioral -- the
`discussion on behavioral integrity is not tied in any way to
`that underlying operational software.
`JUDGE KIM: But what about an intermediate
`application? So, you know, let's say you have Windows
`running, that's probably, you know, the OS, and then you
`have the content, but then you have like an e-book reader in
`between. So, where does the e-book reader fall between the
`two categories?
`MR. BEAUPRE: Well, I think that if the e-book
`reader was -- it had its own software that ran it, and it was
`an independent -- independent program, then I don't know
`that you would need to look at the Windows application. So,
`maybe I'll start there, with just the e-book, the reader itself,
`the digital work, the content of each book is what the '072
`patent discusses with respect to behavioral integrity, and
`whatever is running the e-book, that software, which
`probably could be considered operational software, is not
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 16
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1060, p. 16
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2013-00133, IPR2013-00137, IPR2013-00138, and IPR2013-00139
`Patents 7,523,072; 6,963,859; 7,139,736; and 7,269,576
`
`discussed as having to have behavioral integrity under the
`'072 patent.
`Another way to maybe looking at that e-book at a
`different point in time, when the e-book is being sent from
`wherever it came from, maybe a master repository, to the
`consumer, to the customer. While it is being transferred, the
`operational software for that e-book is not acting as
`operational software at that point. It may be running, but
`it's not operating the system.
`So, at that point in time, even if you look at that
`e-book file as one entire file, the only thing that the '072
`patent is looking to check the behavioral integrity of is the
`content, and not the underlying operational software.
`JUDGE KIM: Thank you.
`MR. BEAUPRE: Thank you. Thank you, Your
`
`Honors.
`
`MS. SHIN: Good morning, Your Honor, my name
`is Miyoung Shin on behalf of ZTE Petitioner. My
`co-counsel just discussed the claim construction and I would
`like to discuss the ground of unpatentability on this case.
`As you all know, the ground of unpatentability is
`anticipation based on EP 139, with respect to Claim 1
`through 25.
`Before I jump to the anticipation analysis
`limitation by limitation, I would like to briefly discuss
`
`
`
`
` 17
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1060, p. 17
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00133, IPR2013-00137, IPR2013-00138, and IPR2013-00139
`Patents 7,523,072; 6,963,859; 7,139,736; and 7,269,576
`
`overview of EP 139 disclosure. As you see from the slide,
`EP 139 discloses a symmetric composite computing system
`that includes the source and sink computing system. And a
`source computing system, for example, includes a host, and
`a coprocessor, and coprocessor, as EP 139 discloses,
`logically and physically secure. And the host and
`coprocessors are associated with each other, and then they
`form a composite computing system. And coprocessor has
`internal memory and permanent memory, as you see.
`In the permanent memory of coprocessor, there
`are two types of key stored in there: AK is right to execute
`key, and then CSK is a hardware vendor key. So, hardware
`vendor provides a coprocessor to a user and then at the time
`of providing coprocessor, at least one hardware vendor key,
`CSK is loaded into a coprocessor, and then a CSK is a secret
`to software vendor and a user, and AK, as I discussed
`earlier, is a software vendor key.
`So, AK is used to encrypt a protected software,
`and AK is also used to install and execute software, and AK
`is also able to be conditioned by a software vendor. So, a
`software vendor, when selling their software - they can
`condition a right to execute to put certain restrictions, such
`as transferring AK to another composite computing systems,
`things like that.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 18
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1060, p. 18
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00133, IPR2013-00137, IPR2013-00138, and IPR2013-00139
`Patents 7,523,072; 6,963,859; 7,139,736; and 7,269,576
`
`
`So, that's a brief discussion of the structure of the
`EP 139 system. And I already mentioned that EP 139
`discloses that the coprocessor is logically and physically
`secure, and it is ZTE's position that coprocessing hosted
`together forms a composite computing system, and the
`composite computing system is a secure system, in light of
`the coprocessors being -- coprocessor being logically and
`physically secure.
`JUDGE LEE: What is the repository?
`MS. SHIN: That's a really good question, Your
`Honor. Repository for '072 patent composite computing
`system, as a whole, teaches the claimed repository. That's
`ZTE's position, but we're going to go back to this point for
`other IPR -- other patents. In other patents, the repository is
`taught by coprocessor. So, we relied upon a composite
`computing system to teach the claimed repository for '072,
`but for other patents, coprocessor alone teaches the claimed
`repository.
`JUDGE LEE: I mean, for this prior art, what do
`you regard as repository?
`MS. SHIN: In this prior art, for '072 patent
`context, repository is taught by a composite computing
`system as a whole.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`
`
` 19
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1060, p. 19
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2013-00133, IPR2013-00137, IPR2013-00138, and IPR2013-00139
`Patents 7,523,072; 6,963,859; 7,139,736; and 7,269,576
`
`
`JUDGE ZECHER: So, it could be either the
`source or the sink, given that they're symmetrical, it could
`be interchangeable, is that what you're saying?
`MS. SHIN: I mean, going back to Figure 20, this
`one is one of the embodiments that describe the
`communication between a source and a sink computing
`system, but one of ordinary skill in the art would know that
`a sink computer can be also connected with another
`computing system, and that in that case, a sink computing
`system also can work as a source computing system.
`So, EP 139 specifically discloses that this is a
`library type of composite computing system across the
`network, so this is one clear good example that shows how
`two computing systems can work with each other.
`JUDGE LEE: I'm still not clear what you're
`identifying as a repository. I don't know that -- can you get
`to the screen and just point and make the circle around what
`you think is the repository that we should consider?
`MS. SHIN: Sure. Just to clarify, claims of '072
`patent require a document repository and a document
`platform. So, in our petition, we are identifying source
`computing system as a whole, teaching a document
`repository. And then sink computing system as a whole,
`teaches a document platform. That's our position in our
`petition.
`
`
`
`
` 20
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1060, p. 20
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2013-00133, IPR2013-00137, IPR2013-00138, and IPR2013-00139
`Patents 7,523,072; 6,963,859; 7,139,736; and 7,269,576
`
`
`JUDGE LEE: So, the document repository is the
`host and the coprocessor on the left?
`MS. SHIN: Correct, Your Honor.
`JUDGE LEE: And what did you argue as
`satisfying the behavioral integrity of that repository?
`MS. SHIN: It is ZTE's position that ZTE agrees
`with the Board's finding of behavioral integrity from EP
`139. We actually have a slide for that, so we -- I can jump
`onto that slide.
`So, this portion is the Board finding about how
`EP 139's repository --
`JUDGE LEE: What page is that on your slide?
`MS. SHIN: That's slide 23. Here, the Board
`relied upon EP 139, column 26, line 31 through 35
`disclosure to teach that the repository in EP 139, which is
`the source composite computing system, maintains the
`behavioral integrity. And ZTE agrees with the Board
`finding, because here, the disclosure discloses that the AK is
`transferred from the source computing system to the sink
`computing system, and this process is necessary because
`sink computing system require an AK to be in their system
`to install software.
`So, AK is a prerequisite to install software with
`the sink computing system. Also, as I briefly indicated
`earlier, AK is a software vendor key. So, we know that AK
`
`
`
`
` 21
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1060, p. 21
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00133, IPR2013-00137, IPR2013-00138, and IPR2013-00139
`Patents 7,523,072; 6,963,859; 7,139,736; and 7,269,576
`
`is coming from a trusted source. Software vendor is the one
`which provides a software to users. So, it indicates the
`source of the program - source of the integrity of the
`program by requiring AK.
`Also, AK encrypts the protected software, so
`while the software is encrypted by AK, no one can access
`and modify the software, unless the encryption is decrypted.
`So, having AK in the encrypting software with
`the AK, to certain extent, indicates that the tamper resistant
`or tamper proof mechanism is implemented in EP 139. Also,
`there's a disclosure in EP 139 that there is some message
`authentication code, which is embedded into the encryption
`of AK. So, if there's differences between encrypted message
`and then decrypted message, then the coprocessor would be
`able to identify that there is a difference which has been
`done by someone else, which is not autho