Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 17
`
`Entered: July 1, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00137
`Patent 6,963,859
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, MICHAEL W. KIM, and MICHAEL R. ZECHER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`KIM, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1036, p. 1
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00137
`Patent 6,963,859
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc. (“ZTE”) filed a corrected petition
`
`requesting an inter partes review of claims 1-84 of U.S. Patent No. 6,963,859 (Ex.
`
`1001, “the ’859 patent”). (Paper 12, “Pet.”) The patent owner, ContentGuard
`
`Holdings, Inc. (“ContentGuard”) filed a preliminary response. (Paper 16, “Prel.
`
`Resp.”) 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 as follows:
`
`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.
`
`Upon consideration of the petition and ContentGuard’s preliminary
`
`response, we determine that the information presented in the petition establishes
`
`that there is a reasonable likelihood that ZTE would prevail in showing the
`
`unpatentability of claims 1-5, 9-11, 15-17, 19, 21-33, 37, 38, 42-44, 46, 48-62, 66,
`
`67, 71-73, 75, and 77-84 of the ’859 patent. Accordingly, we grant the petition and
`
`institute an inter partes review of those claims of the ’859 patent.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`
`ZTE indicates that the ’859 patent is involved in co-pending litigation
`
`captioned ContentGuard Holdings Inc. v. ZTE Corp. et al., Case No. 3:12-cv-
`
`01226 (S.D. Cal.). (Pet. 1.)
`
`2
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1036, p. 2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00137
`Patent 6,963,859
`
`
`ZTE also filed five other petitions seeking inter partes review of the
`
`following patents: U.S. Patent No. 7,523,072 (IPR2013-00133); U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,225,160 (IPR2013-00134; U.S. Patent No. 7,359,884 (IPR2013-00136); U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,139,736 (IPR2013-00138); and U.S. Patent No. 7,269,576 (IPR2013-
`
`00139). (Pet. 1.)
`
`B. The ’859 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`The subject matter of the ’859 patent relates to distribution of and usage
`
`rights enforcement for digitally encoded works. (Ex. 1001, 1:12-13.) According
`
`to the ’859 patent, an issue facing the publishing and information industries is how
`
`to prevent the unauthorized and unaccounted distribution or usage of electronically
`
`published materials. (Ex. 1001, 1:16-19.) In particular, a major concern,
`
`according to the ’859 patent, is the ease in which electronically published works
`
`can be “perfectly” reproduced and distributed. (Ex. 1001, 1:30-31.) According to
`
`the ’859 patent, one way to curb unaccounted distribution is to prevent
`
`unauthorized copying and transmission. (Ex. 1001, 1:49-51.) Another way,
`
`according to the ’859 patent, is to distribute software, which requires a “key” to
`
`enable its use. (Ex. 1001, 1:65-66.) However, the ’859 patent discloses that while
`
`such distribution and protection schemes prevent unauthorized distributions, it
`
`does so by sacrificing the potential for subsequent revenue bearing uses.
`
`(Ex. 1001, 2:61-65.) For example, the ’859 patent discloses that it may be
`
`desirable to allow the lending of a purchased work to permit exposure of the work
`
`to potential buyers, permit the creation of a derivative work for a fee, or permit
`
`copying the work for a fee. (Ex. 1001, 2:65-3:3.) The ’859 patent discloses that it
`
`3
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1036, p. 3
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00137
`Patent 6,963,859
`
`
`solves these problems by both permanently attaching usage rights to digital works,
`
`and by placing elements in repositories, which store and control the digital works,
`
`that enforce these usage rights. (Ex. 1001, 6:11-21.)
`
`C. Exemplary Claims
`
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 29, and 58 are independent claims.
`
`Independent claims 1, 29, and 58 are respectively directed to a system, a method,
`
`and a computer readable medium. Claims 2-28 directly or indirectly depend from
`
`claim 1, claims 30-57 directly or indirectly depend from claim 29, and claims 59-
`
`84 directly or indirectly depend from claim 58. Claims 1, 29, and 58 are
`
`reproduced below, with similar and key features bolded for emphasis:
`
`A rendering system adapted for use in a distributed
`1.
`system for managing use of content, said rendering system being
`operative to rendering content in accordance with usage rights
`associated with the content, said rendering system comprising:
`
` a
`
` rendering device configured to render the content; and
`
`
`
` a
`
` distributed repository coupled to said rendering device and
`including a requester mode of operation and server mode of operation,
`
`wherein the server mode of operation is operative to enforce
`usage rights associated with the content and permit the rendering
`device to render the content in accordance with a manner of use
`specified by the usage rights,
`
`the requester mode of operation is operative to request access
`to content from another distributed repository, and
`
`said distributed repository is operative to receive a request to
`render the content and permit the content to be rendered only if a
`
`4
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1036, p. 4
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00137
`Patent 6,963,859
`
`
`manner of use specified in the request corresponds to a manner of use
`specified in the usage rights.
`
`29. A rendering method adapted for use in a distributed system
`for managing use of content, and operative to render content in
`accordance with usage rights associated with the content, said method
`comprising:
`
`configuring a rendering device to render the content;
`
`configuring a distributed repository coupled to said rendering
`device to include a requester mode of operation and server mode of
`operation;
`
`the content and
`enforcing usage rights associated with
`permitting the rendering device to render the content in accordance
`with a manner of use specified by the usage rights, when in the server
`mode of operation;
`
`to content from another distributed
`requesting access
`repository, when in the requester mode of operation; and
`
`receiving by said distributed repository a request to render the
`content and permitting the content to be rendered only if a manner of
`use specified in the request corresponds to a manner of use specified
`in the usage rights.
`
`58. A computer readable medium including one or more
`computer readable instructions embedded therein for use in a
`distributed system for managing use of content, and operative to
`render content in accordance with usage rights associated with the
`content, said computer readable instructions configured to cause one
`or more computer processors to perform the steps of:
`
`configuring a rendering device to render the content;
`
`
`5
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1036, p. 5
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00137
`Patent 6,963,859
`
`
`configuring a distributed repository coupled to said rendering
`device to include a requester mode of operation and server mode of
`operation;
`the content and
`enforcing usage rights associated with
`permitting the rendering device to render the content in accordance
`with a manner of use specified by the usage rights, when in the server
`mode of operation;
`
`to content from another distributed
`requesting access
`repository, when in the requester mode of operation; and
`
`receiving by said distributed repository a request to render the
`content and permitting the content to be rendered only if a manner of
`use specified in the request corresponds to a manner of use specified
`in the usage rights.
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`
`
`ZTE relies upon the following prior art references:
`
`(Ex. 1013)
`(Ex. 1014)
`(Ex. 1011)
`(Ex. 1015)
`
`Hendricks U.S. Patent 5,986,690 Nov. 16, 1999
`Walker
`U.S. Patent 4,868,736
`Sept. 19, 1989
`Leroux
`U.S. Patent 5,588,146 Dec. 24, 1996
`Wyman
`U.S. Patent 5,260,999 Nov. 9, 1993
`European Patent Pub. 0 268 139 A2 (“EP ’139”)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`May 25, 1988
`European Patent Pub. 0 464 306 A2 (“EP ’306”)
`(Ex. 1010)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`June 29, 1990
`Henry H. Perritt Jr., “Knowbots, Permissions Headers and Contract Law,”
`Papers for the Conference on Technological Strategies for Protecting
`Intellectual Property in the Networked Multimedia Environment, (Retrieved
`from http://archive.ifla.org/documents/infopol/copyright/perh2.txt on
`January 4, 2013) (“Perritt”)
`
`Apr. 30, 1993
`(Ex. 1006)
`
`(Ex. 1012)
`
`6
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1036, p. 6
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00137
`Patent 6,963,859
`
`
`E. The Asserted Grounds
`
`ZTE contends that the challenged claims are unpatentable based on the
`
`following grounds:
`
`1. Claims 1-5, 8-11, 13-15, 19-33, 36-38, 40-42, 46-62, 65-67, 69-71, and 75-
`
`84 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Hendricks1;
`
`2. Claims 1-5, 9-11, 15-17, 21-33, 37, 38, 42-44, 48-62, 66, 67, 71-73, and 77-
`
`84 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by EP ’139;
`
`3. Claims 1-5, 7-23, 25-33, 35-50, 52-62, 64-80, and 82-84 are unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Walker;
`
`4. Claims 1-5, 9-11, 15-17, 19, 21-33, 37, 38, 42-44, 46, 48-62, 66, 67, 71-73,
`
`75, and 77-84 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by
`
`Leroux2;
`
`
`
`1 The ’859 patent claims priority to application No. 08/344,760, filed Nov. 23,
`1994. Hendricks was published on Nov. 16, 1999, and was filed on Nov. 7, 1994.
`Accordingly, even though the Petition contends that Hendricks is prior art to the
`’859 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), Hendricks is actually only prior art to the
`’859 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Accord Pet. 11-12 (confirming that
`Hendricks only qualifies as prior art to the ’856 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)).
`
` 2
`
` The ’859 patent claims priority to application No. 08/344,760, filed Nov. 23,
`1994. Leroux was published on December 24, 1996, and was filed on Oct. 21,
`1993. Accordingly, even though the Petition contends that Leroux is prior art to
`the ’859 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), Leroux is actually only prior art to the
`’859 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Accord Pet. 11, 40 (confirming that Leroux
`only qualifies as prior art to the ’859 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)).
`
`7
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1036, p. 7
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00137
`Patent 6,963,859
`
`
`5. Claims 1-7, 9-12, 14-16, 18-23, 25-35, 37-39, 41-43, 45-50, 52-64, 66-68,
`
`70-72, 74-80, and 82-84 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
`
`anticipated by EP ’306; and
`
`6. Claims 1-3, 5-11, 15-17, 21, 22, 25, 27-31, 33-38, 42-44, 48, 49, 52, 54-60,
`
`62-67, 71-73, 77-78, and 82-84 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
`
`obvious over Perritt and Wyman.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`As a first step in our analysis for determining whether to institute a review,
`
`we determine the meaning of the claims. In an inter partes review, claim terms in
`
`an unexpired patent are given their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under
`
`that standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning as
`
`would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire
`
`disclosure. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en
`
`banc). An inventor may rebut that presumption by providing a definition of the
`
`term in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In
`
`re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`
`ContentGuard submits its proposed construction for the claim term
`
`“repository.” (Prel. Resp. 17-20.) ZTE provides its construction for three terms
`
`recited in dependent claims, all of which are in a means-plus-function format:
`
`“means for storing the content,” “means for communicating with an authorization
`
`repository for authorizing a condition,” and “means for communication with a
`
`8
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1036, p. 8
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00137
`Patent 6,963,859
`
`
`master repository for obtaining an identification certificate.” (Pet. 7.) For this
`
`decision, we will construe each of these claim limitations in turn.
`
`1. “Repository” (Independent Claims 1, 29, and 58)
`
`ContentGuard contends that the term “repository” should be construed as “a
`
`trusted system for supporting usage rights.” (Prel. Resp. 17.) ContentGuard cites
`
`several portions of the specification which support that construction. (Prel. Resp.
`
`17-21 citing Ex. 1001, 3:57-62, 6:17-21, 11:52-61, 12:57-59, 13:10-15, 50:47-52.)
`
`ZTE does not provide a claim construction for “repository.” See generally Pet. 5-6
`
`and 15, FN 2.
`
`The specification provides a glossary which recites the following for
`
`“repository”:
`
`Conceptually a set of functional specifications defining core
`functionality in the support of usage rights. A repository is a trusted
`system in that it maintains physical, communications and
`behavioral integrity.
`
`(Ex. 1001, 50:47-51, emphasis added.) By setting forth the term in a glossary and
`
`using the verb “is” following “repository” in the second sentence, we find that the
`
`specification sets forth an explicit 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 “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
`
`9
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1036, p. 9
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00137
`Patent 6,963,859
`
`
`is necessary additionally to construe “physical integrity,” “communications
`
`integrity,” and “behavioral integrity.” These terms are described in a section of the
`
`specification specifically labeled “[r]epositories.” (Ex. 1001, 11:51-14:28.) 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 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, 11:62-12:20; 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
`
`10
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1036, p. 10
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00137
`Patent 6,963,859
`
`
`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:
`
`the
`integrity of
`the
`to
`refers
`integrity
`Communications
`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 measures
`involving encryption, exchange of digital
`certificates, and nonces described below are all security measures
`aimed at reliable communication in a world known to contain active
`adversaries.
`
`(Ex. 1001, 12:21-33; emphasis added.) We construe “communications integrity”
`
`as “only communicating 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.” 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).
`
`11
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1036, p. 11
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00137
`Patent 6,963,859
`
`
`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, 12:34-50; emphasis added.) We construe “behavioral integrity” in 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 construction. The nature
`
`of construction 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.
`
`The specification in Table 2 (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
`
`12
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1036, p. 12
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00137
`Patent 6,963,859
`
`
`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, 14:58-64.) Thus, according to Table 2, repositories are not all trusted
`
`systems. Level “0” security represents having an open system lacking in physical,
`
`communications, and behavioral security, 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 evidence.
`
`As noted above, the disclosed invention is about distribution and usage
`
`rights enforcement of digital works. The problems described in the background
`
`portion of the specification concern unauthorized and unaccounted distribution or
`
`usage of electronically published materials. The ’859 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.
`
`The glossary is an important part of the patent specification because
`
`important or key terms are defined in the glossary. Here, the definition set forth in
`
`the glossary for “repository” is fully consistent with the description of the
`
`acknowledged prior art and the objective or goal to be achieved by the invention of
`
`the ’859 patent. The specification also contains detailed preferred embodiments
`
`utilizing repositories which are trusted systems to provide usage control for digital
`
`13
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1036, p. 13
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00137
`Patent 6,963,859
`
`
`works. (Ex. 1001, 3:57-62, 6:66-7:37, 7:54-55, 13:1-9, 16-18; 14:3-15, 17:30-32;
`
`25:62-28-56; 40:42-41:44.)
`
`The bulk of the specification 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.
`
`(Ex. 1001, 6:17-21.)
`
`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, 14:3-9; 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, 13:1-2, 14:14-15;
`
`emphasis added.) In further 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, 25:59-61;
`
`14
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1036, p. 14
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00137
`Patent 6,963,859
`
`
`emphasis added.) Indeed, by using words such as “required” and “requirements,”
`
`such disclosures amply support the definition provided in the glossary that a
`
`repository is a trusted system. In summary, the weight of the evidence supports the
`
`definition provided in the glossary, even applying the rule of broadest reasonable
`
`construction consistent with the specification. We regard as significant that the
`
`definition states in no equivocal manner that a repository “is a trusted system.”
`
`2. “Means for storing the content” (Claims 3 and 4)
`
`Claim 3 recites “means for storing content.” Claim 4 depends from claim 3
`
`and recites “wherein said means for storing is means for storing ephemeral copies
`
`of the content.”
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, a claim element may be expressed
`
`as a means or a step for performing a specified function without the recital of
`
`structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such an element would cover the
`
`corresponding structure, material or acts described in the specification and
`
`equivalents thereof. To determine what is covered by a means-plus-function
`
`element, we look to the specification to identify the corresponding structure,
`
`material, or acts which are described as performing the recited function. 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 112, 6th paragraph; In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1193 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
`
`(en banc). The “means for storing . . .” recitations in claims 3 and 4 are a means-
`
`plus-function elements under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. Accordingly, we
`
`look to the specification of the ’859 patent to identify the structure, material, or
`
`acts which are described as performing the recited functions.
`
`ZTE contends the following:
`
`15
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1036, p. 15
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00137
`Patent 6,963,859
`
`
`With respect to dependent claims 3 and 4, the corresponding structure
`for performing the claimed function of means for storing the content
`is content storage 1204 (Fig. 12; 13:40-41: “The content storage will
`store the associated content.”). The specification describes that the
`content storage may be an optical disk (13:46-47), a magneto-optical
`storage system or magnetic tape (37:11-15) or a solid state storage
`(13:41-47).
`
`(Pet. 7). We agree. The “means for storing . . .” covers content storage, such as an
`
`optical disk, a magneto-optical storage system, a magnetic tape, or a solid state
`
`storage, and equivalents thereof.
`
`3. “Means for communicating with an authorization repository for authorizing
`a condition” (Claim 23) and “means for communication with a master
`repository for obtaining an identification certificate” (Claim 24)
`
`Claim 23 recites “means for communicating with an authorization repository
`
`for authorizing a condition.” Claim 24 recites “means for communication with a
`
`master repository for obtaining an identification certificate.”
`
`For corresponding structure, ZTE contends the following:
`
`Claim 23 requires means for communicating with an authorization
`repository for authorizing a condition, and claim 24 requires means
`for communication with a master repository for obtaining an
`identification certificate. The corresponding structure for performing
`the claimed function of means for communicating is external interface
`1206 (Fig. 12; 13:52-59: “The external interface means 1206 provides
`for the signal connection to other repositories.”).
`
`(Pet. 7) We agree. Each of the “means for communicating . . .” covers an external
`
`interface that provides for a signal connection with another device and equivalents
`
`thereof.
`
`16
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1036, p. 16
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00137
`Patent 6,963,859
`
`
`B. 1-5, 9-11, 15-17, 19, 21-33, 37, 38, 42-44, 48-62, 66, 67, 71-73, 75, and 77-84 –
`Anticipated by Leroux
`
`ZTE contends that claims 1-5, 9-11, 15-17, 19, 21-33, 37, 38, 42-44, 48-62,
`
`66, 67, 71-73, 75, and 77-84 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
`
`anticipated by Leroux. (Pet. 40-46.) We are persuaded by ZTE’s analysis and
`
`supporting evidence.
`
`Leroux discloses a method of acquiring software programs by
`
`microcomputers. (Ex. 1011, 1:8-9.) Leroux discloses a data base service center 1
`
`that stores application software programs 10, a microcomputer 2 connected to the
`
`service center by interface 3, and a removable electronic memory carrier 4. (Ex.
`
`1011, 3:42-46.) Leroux discloses that memory carrier 4 includes interface 40 for
`
`connecting memory 41 to the drive 24 of microcomputer 2. (Ex. 1011, 3:53-55.)
`
`Leroux discloses that microcomputer 2 is fitted with corresponding drives to read
`
`memory carrier 4. (Ex. 1011, 4:60-64.) Leroux discloses that memory 41 may
`
`comprise programmed security circuitry 410, which monitors access to memory 41
`
`and manages external access to memory carrier 4. (Ex. 1011, 4:64-5:3.) Leroux
`
`discloses that to carry out acquisition of application software program 10,
`
`communication is set up between microcomputer 2 and data base service center 1.
`
`(Ex. 1011, 3:61-66.) Leroux discloses that after the user chooses which application
`
`software programs 10 that they wish to acquire, service center 1 will check the
`
`right of access to the application software programs 10 by interrogating carrier 4
`
`through microcomputer 2. (Ex. 1011, 4:1-5.) According to Leroux, the check is
`
`made by using security methods, such as with identification and authentication
`
`procedures that use enciphering and deciphering algorithms. (Ex. 1011, 4:5-8.) If
`
`17
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1036, p. 17
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00137
`Patent 6,963,859
`
`
`the check is positive, according to Leroux, service center 1 remotely loads
`
`application software program 10 in the internal memory of the microcomputer 2.
`
`(Ex. 1011, 4:13-16.)
`
`ContentGuard contends that a combination of microcomputer 2 and
`
`removable carrier 4 of Leroux cannot correspond to a “repository.” (Prel. Resp.
`
`44-45.) We disagree. Independent claims 1, 29, and 58 each recite a “repository.”
`
`As set forth above, we have construed a “repository” as “a trusted system which
`
`maintains physical, communications and behavioral integrity, and supports usage
`
`rights,” where physical integrity is “preventing access to information by a non-
`
`trusted system,” communications integrity is “only communicating 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.”
`
`Leroux discloses that combination of microcomputer 2 and removable
`
`carrier 4 possesses physical integrity by “preventing access to information by a
`
`non-trusted system.” That is, Leroux discloses that memory 41 of removable
`
`carrier 4 may comprise programmed security circuitry 410, which monitors access
`
`to memory 41 and manages external access to memory carrier 4. (Ex. 1011, 4:64-
`
`5:3.) Leroux also discloses that combination of microcomputer 2 and removable
`
`carrier 4 possesses communications integrity by “only communicating 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.” Leroux discloses that microcomputer 2 and removable carrier 4
`
`18
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1036, p. 18
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00137
`Patent 6,963,859
`
`
`communicate with service center 1 using security methods, such as identification
`
`and authentication procedures that use enciphering and deciphering algorithms.
`
`(Ex. 1011, 3:61-4:8.) Leroux further discloses that a combination of
`
`microcomputer 2 and removable carrier 4 possesses behavioral integrity by
`
`“requiring software to include a digital certificate in order to be installed.” Leroux
`
`discloses that servic