Trials@uspto.gov Paper 54
`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
`
`
`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
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
