throbber

`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`
`TCL CORPORATION; TCL COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS
`LTD.; TCT MOBILE LIMITED; TCT MOBILE INC.; and TCT MOBILE (US),
`INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON,
`Patent Owner
`__________
`
`IPR Case No. IPR2015-01622
`Patent 7,149,510
`__________
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,149,510
`
`SMRH:439835754.4
`062515
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`20SE-209539
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,149,510
`(IPR2015-01622)
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iii
`EXHIBIT LIST .......................................................................................................... v
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ................................... 1
`A.
`Real Parties-In-Interest (§ 42.8(b)(1)) ................................................... 1
`B.
`Related Matters (§ 42.8 (b)(2)) ............................................................. 1
`C.
`Lead And Backup Counsel (§ 42.8(b)(3)) ............................................. 2
`D.
`Service Information (§ 42.8(b)(4)) ........................................................ 2
`FEE FOR IPR (37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) and § 42.103) ....................................... 3
`III.
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ............................ 3
`A. Grounds for Standing (§ 42.104(a)) ...................................................... 3
`B.
`Identification of Challenged Claims (§ 42.104(B)) .............................. 3
`C.
`Grounds of Challenge (§42.104(b)(2)) ................................................. 3
`THE PROPOSED GROUNDS ARE NOT REDUNDANT ........................... 4
`V.
`VI. RELEVANT INFORMATION CONCERNING THE ’510 PATENT .......... 5
`A.
`State of the Art ...................................................................................... 5
`B.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) ......................................... 7
`C.
`Overview Of The ’510 Patent ............................................................... 8
`1.
`Technology of the ’510 Patent .................................................... 8
`2.
`Effective Filing Date And Prosecution History Of The
`’510 Patent ................................................................................ 14
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION – 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) .............................. 15
`1.
`“a software services component” (Claims 1 and 10) ................ 16
`2.
`“an interface component” (Claims 1 and 10)............................ 16
`3.
`“an interception module for receiving a request from the
`requesting application domain software to access the
`software services component” (Claims 1 and 10) .................... 18
`
`SMRH:439835754.4
`062515
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`20SE-209539
`
`

`

`6.
`
`B.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,149,510
`(IPR2015-01622)
`“a decision entity” and “a security access manager”
`(Claims 1-5 and 10)................................................................... 19
`“identification of requesting application domain
`software” (Claims 2-3) .............................................................. 20
`“non-native application domain software” (Claims 7, 8)
`and “non-native application software” (Claim 10) ................... 21
`VIII. PRECISE REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED .................................... 22
`A. Usui in View of Gong Renders Obvious Claims 1-3, 5, and 7-
`10 ......................................................................................................... 22
`1.
`Overview of Usui ...................................................................... 22
`2.
`Overview of Oaks ..................................................................... 26
`3. Motivation to Combine ............................................................. 28
`4.
`Usui in view of Oaks Invalidates Claims 1-3, 5, and 7-10 ....... 31
`a.
`Claim 1 ............................................................................ 32
`b.
`Claim 2 ............................................................................ 46
`c.
`Claim 3 ............................................................................ 49
`d.
`Claim 5 ............................................................................ 51
`e.
`Claim 7 ............................................................................ 52
`f.
`Claim 8 ............................................................................ 53
`g.
`Claim 9 ............................................................................ 54
`h.
`Claim 10 .......................................................................... 54
`Usui in view of Oaks, in Further View of Spencer Renders
`Obvious Claim 4 .................................................................................. 55
`1.
`Overview of Spencer ................................................................. 55
`2. Motivation to Combine ............................................................. 57
`3.
`Usui and Oaks, in Further View of Spencer Invalidate
`Claim 4 ...................................................................................... 58
`a.
`Claim 4 ............................................................................ 58
`IX. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 59
`
`SMRH:439835754.4
`062515
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`20SE-209539
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,149,510
`(IPR2015-01622)
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`Cases
`
`In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr
`367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 15
`
`In re Cuozzo Speed Tech.
`778 F.3d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 15
`
`Ericsson Inc. v. Apple Inc.
`Case No. 2:15-cv-00291 (E.D. Tex. 2015) ........................................................... 2
`
`Ericsson Inc., et al. v. TCL Commc’n Tech. Holdings, LTD, et al.
` Case No. 2:15-cv-2370 (C.D. Cal. 2015) ............................................................. 1
`
`Ericsson Inc.et al. v. TCL Commc’n Tech. Holdings, LTD, et al.
` Case No. 2:15-cv-00011 (E.D. Tex. 2015) .......................................................... 2
`
`In re Gosteli
`872 F.2d 1008 (Fed. Cir. 1989) .......................................................................... 35
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
`550 U.S. 398 (2006) ................................................................................ 30, 31, 57
`
`In re Paulsen
`30 F.3d 1475 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ............................................................................ 15
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 15
`
`TCL Commc’n Tech. Holdings, LTD. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson et
`al.
` Case No. 8:14-cv-00341 (C.D. Cal. 2014) .......................................................... 1
`
`In re Translogic Tech. Inc.
`504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 15
`
`Statutes
`
`35 United States Code Section 102(a) ..................................................................... 22
`
`35 United States Code Section 102(b) ............................................................... 26, 55
`
`SMRH:439835754.4
`062515
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`20SE-209539
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,149,510
`(IPR2015-01622)
`35 United States Code Section 103 ............................................................................ 3
`
`35 United States Code Sections 311-319 ................................................................... 1
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 Code of Federal Regulations Section 42.8 ........................................................... 1
`
`37 Code of Federal Regulations Section 42.8(b)(1) .................................................. 1
`
`37 Code of Federal Regulations Section 42.8(b)(2) .................................................. 1
`
`37 Code of Federal Regulations Section 42.8(b)(3) .................................................. 2
`
`37 Code of Federal Regulations Section 42.8(b)(4) .................................................. 2
`
`37 Code of Federal Regulations Section 42.15(a) ..................................................... 3
`
`37 Code of Federal Regulations Section 42.100(b) ................................................. 15
`
`37 Code of Federal Regulations Section 42.103 ....................................................... 3
`
`37 Code of Federal Regulations Section 42.104 ....................................................... 3
`
`37 Code of Federal Regulations Section 42.104(a) ................................................... 3
`
`37 Code of Federal Regulations Section 42.104(b)(1) .............................................. 3
`
`37 Code of Federal Regulations Section 42.104(b)(2) .............................................. 3
`
`37 Code of Federal Regulations Section 42.104(b)(3) ............................................ 15
`
`77 Federal Register 48,764 at II.B.6 (August 14, 2012) .......................................... 15
`
`Manual of Patent Examination Procedure Section 2131.02(II) ............................... 35
`
`
`
`SMRH:439835754.4
`062515
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`20SE-209539
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,149,510
`(IPR2015-01622)
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`
`Date
`
`Identifier
`
`’510 Patent
`
`Sept. 19,
`2003 (Filing
`Date)
`n/a
`
`’510 Patent
`File History
`Jan. 8, 2015 Ericsson
`Complaint
`
`Mar. 24,
`2015
`
`
`
`Mar. 5, 2014 TCL FRAND
`Complaint
`
`June 20,
`2014
`
`TCL Second
`Amended
`FRAND
`Complaint
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1001
`
`United States Patent No. 7,149,510 to
`Hansson et al.
`
`1002
`
`File History for the ’510 Patent
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`Complaint, Ericsson Inc., and
`Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.
`TCL Communication Technology
`Holdings, LTD., TCT Mobile Limited,
`and TCT Mobile (US), Inc., Case No.
`2:15-cv-00011-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.
`2015) (January 8, 2015)
`Amended Infringement Contentions,
`Ericsson Inc., and Telefonaktiebolaget
`LM Ericsson v. TCL Communication
`Technology Holdings, LTD., TCT
`Mobile Limited, and TCT Mobile (US),
`Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-00667-JRG-RSP
`(E.D. Tex. 2015)
`Complaint, TCL Communication
`Technology Holdings, LTD. v.
`Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and
`Ericsson Inc., Case No. 8:14-cv-00341
`(C.D. Cal. 2014)
`Second Amended Complaint, TCL
`Communication Technology Holdings,
`LTD., TCT Mobile Limited, and TCT
`Mobile (US), Inc. v. Telefonaktiebolaget
`LM Ericsson and Ericsson Inc., Case
`No. 8:14-cv-00341 (C.D. Cal. 2014)
`
`SMRH:439835754.4
`062515
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`20SE-209539
`
`

`

`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`1017
`
`Complaint, Ericsson Inc., and
`Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.
`TCL Communication Technology
`Holdings, LTD., TCT Mobile Limited,
`and TCT Mobile (US), Inc., Case No.
`2:14-cv-00667-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.
`2014)
`Ericsson Amended Motion For Leave
`To File Amended Complaint To Add
`Patents
`January 29, 2015 Order, Ericsson TCL I
`action
`Kazutoshi Usui et al., Design and
`Implementation of Java Application
`Environment and Software Platform for
`Mobile Phones, 42 NEC Res. & Dev.
`379
`United States Patent No. 6,125,447 to
`Gong
`
`U.S. Provisional Application No.
`60/412,756 Continuity Data
`
`Bill Venners, Inside the Java 2 Virtual
`Machine
`Andrew S. Tanenbaum & Maarten Van
`Steen, Distributed Systems: Principles
`and Paradigms
`IBM, Dictionary of IBM & Computing
`Terminology, IBM.com, http://www-
`03.ibm.com/ibm/history/documents/pdf/
`glossary.pdf
`David Flanagan, Java in a Nutshell
`United States Patent No. 6,317,742 to
`Nagaratnam et al.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,149,510
`(IPR2015-01622)
`June 3, 2014 Ericsson v.
`TCL I
`Complaint
`
`Oct. 21,
`2014
`
`Jan. 29,
`2015
`Oct. 2001
`
`Sept. 26,
`2000 (Issue
`Date)
`n/a
`
`2000
`
`
`
`
`
`Usui
`
`Gong
`
`’756
`Continuity
`Data
`Venners
`
`2d ed. 2006 Tanenbaum
`
`Last Visited
`May 12,
`2015
`
`IBM
`Dictionary
`
`Flanagan
`Nagaratnam
`
`1999
`Nov. 13,
`2001 (Issue
`Date)
`
`SMRH:439835754.4
`062515
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`20SE-209539
`
`

`

`1019
`
`1020
`1021
`
`1022
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1018 Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate
`Dictionary, Eleventh Edition, 2007
`Ray Spencer et al., The Flask Security
`Architecture: System Support for
`Diverse Security Policies, Proceedings
`of the 8th USENIX Security Symposium
`Scott Oaks, Java Security
`Li Gong, Java Security Architecture
`(JDK1.2)
`Gary McGraw et al., Securing Java
`Java Community Process, Mobile
`Information Device Profile for Java 2
`Micro Edition
`3GPP TS 23.057, Digital Cellular
`Telecommunications System (Phase 2+);
`Universal Mobile Telecommunications
`System (UMTS); Mobile Execution
`Environment (MExE); Functional
`Description; Stage 2
`3GPP TS 22.057, Digital Cellular
`Telecommunications System (Phase 2+);
`Universal Mobile Telecommunications
`System (UMTS); Mobile Execution
`Environment (MExE); Service
`Description; Stage 1
`Dennis M. Ritchie et al., The UNIX
`Time-Sharing System, The Bell System
`Technical Journal
`1027 McGraw Hill, Dictionary of Electrical
`and Computer Engineering
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,149,510
`(IPR2015-01622)
`Webster’s
`Dictionary
`Spencer
`
`2007
`
`Aug. 23-26,
`1999
`
`1st ed. 1998 Oaks
`v. 1.0, Oct.
`JSA
`2, 1998
`1999
`v. 2.0, Nov.
`5, 2002
`
`McGraw
`MIDP
`
`v. 4.1.0,
`Apr. 11,
`2001
`
`MExE
`Functional
`Description
`
`v. 4.0.0, Oct.
`18, 2000
`
`MExE Service
`Description
`
`1978
`
`Dennis
`
`Elizabeth
`Geller et al.
`ed., 2003
`Jan. 3-6,
`2001
`
`Comp. Eng.
`Dictionary
`
`Egyedi
`
`1028
`
`Tineke M. Egyedi, Why Java Was—
`Not—Standardized Twice, Proceedings
`of the Hawai’i Int’l Conference on
`System Sciences, IEEE
`
`SMRH:439835754.4
`062515
`
`
`
`vii
`
`
`
`20SE-209539
`
`

`

`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1301
`
`Sun Microsystems, Inc., PersonalJava
`Technology White Paper, available at
`http://www.hs-
`augsburg.de/informatik/projekte/mebib/e
`miel/entw_inf/lernprogramme/java/Tool
`s/Java/API/PersonalJava/pj_white.pdf
`Neno Medvidovic, A Classification and
`Comparison Framework for Software
`Architecture Description Languages
`Sun Microsystems, Inc., Mobile
`Information Device Profile (JSR-37),
`Java Community Process Specification,
`v.1.0
`Sun Microsystems, Inc., Connected,
`Limited Device Configuration, v.1.0
`Declaration of. Sam Malek, Ph.D. and
`Curriculum Vitae
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,149,510
`(IPR2015-01622)
`Personal Java
`
`1998
`
`Feb. 1996 Medvidovic
`
`Dec. 15,
`2000
`
`JSR-37
`
`May 19,
`2000
`n/a
`
`CLDC
`
`Malek
`
`SMRH:439835754.4
`062515
`
`
`
`viii
`
`
`
`20SE-209539
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,149,510
`(IPR2015-01622)
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`TCL Corporation; TCL Communication Technology Holdings, Ltd., TCT
`
`Mobile Limited, TCT Mobile Inc., and TCT Mobile (US) Inc. (collectively,
`
`“Petitioners” or “TCL”) petition for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R., part 42, of nine claims (1-5 and 7-10) of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,149,510 (“the ’510 patent”) (Ex. 1001), and assert there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that they will prevail with respect to each of the claims challenged in
`
`this petition. Therefore, Petitioners respectfully request cancellation of each
`
`challenged claim of the ’510 patent.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`A. Real Parties-In-Interest (§ 42.8(b)(1))
`The real parties-in-interest are TCL Corporation; TCL Communication
`
`Technology Holdings, LTD.; TCT Mobile Limited; TCT Mobile Inc.; and TCT
`
`Mobile (U.S.), Inc.
`
`B. Related Matters (§ 42.8 (b)(2))
`As part of a licensing dispute, Petitioners sued Patent Owner (“PO”) and its
`
`U.S. subsidiary (collectively, “Ericsson”), in an action styled TCL Commc’n Tech.
`
`Holdings, Ltd. et al. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson et al., No. 8:14-cv-341
`
`(C.D. Cal. 2014). Ex. 1005; Ex. 1006. Ericsson then sued TCL for patent
`
`infringement. Ex. 1007. That case was transferred and is now styled Ericsson
`
`Inc., et al. v. TCL Commc’n Tech. Holdings, Ltd., et al., No. 2:15-cv-2370 (C.D.
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`20SE-209539
`
`SMRH:439835754.4
`062515
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,149,510
`(IPR2015-01622)
`Cal. 2015). Before transfer, Ericsson moved to add a claim for infringement of the
`
`’510 patent, but was denied. Ex. 1007; Ex. 1008. On January 8, 2015, Ericsson
`
`filed a second action—Ericsson Inc., et al. v. TCL Commc’n Tech. Holdings, Ltd.,
`
`et al., No. 2:15-cv-11 (E.D. Tex. 2015)—asserting the ’510 patent. Ex. 1003.
`
`Ericsson is also asserting the ’510 patent in Ericsson Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 15-cv-
`
`00291 (E.D. Tex. 2015).
`
`C. Lead And Backup Counsel (§ 42.8(b)(3))
`TCL appoints Stephen S. Korniczky (Reg. No. 34,853) of Sheppard Mullin
`
`Richter & Hampton LLP as lead counsel, and appoints Martin R. Bader (Reg. No.
`
`54,736), David A. Randall (Reg. No. 37,217), Nam H. Kim (Reg. No. 64,160), and
`
`Hector A. Agdeppa (Reg. No. 58,238) of the same firm as back-up counsel. An
`
`appropriate Power of Attorney is filed concurrently herewith.
`
`Service Information (§ 42.8(b)(4))
`
`D.
`Service of any documents to lead and back-up counsel can be made via
`
`hand-delivery to Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, 12275 El Camino
`
`Real, Suite 200, San Diego, California 92130. Petitioners consent to service by e-
`
`mail at LegalTm-TCL-IPRs@sheppardmullin.com. Tel: 858.720.8900; Fax:
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`20SE-209539
`
`858.509.3691.
`
`
`
`SMRH:439835754.4
`062515
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,149,510
`(IPR2015-01622)
`
`III. FEE FOR IPR (37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) and § 42.103)
`Petitioners paid the required fees upon filing. The Office is authorized to
`
`charge any fee deficiency, or credit any overpayment, to Deposit Account No. 50-
`
`4562.
`
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`A. Grounds for Standing (§ 42.104(a))
`Petitioners certify that (i) the ’510 patent is available for IPR; and (ii)
`
`Petitioners are not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review of the
`
`claims of the ’510 patent on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`Identification of Challenged Claims (§ 42.104(B))
`B.
`Petitioner requests inter partes review of claims 1-5 and 7-10 of the ’510
`
`patent and requests the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) cancel those
`
`claims as unpatentable.
`
`C. Grounds of Challenge (§42.104(b)(2))
`The grounds of unpatentability presented in this petition are as follows:
`
`Ground Basis
`
`References
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`1
`
`2
`
`§ 103 Usui in view of Oaks
`
`1-3, 5, 7-10
`
`§ 103 Usui in view of Oaks and Spencer
`
`4
`
`Oaks (Ex. 1020) and Spencer (Ex. 1019) were not cited during the
`
`prosecution of the ’510 patent. Usui (Ex. 1010) was cited, but it was not applied.
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`20SE-209539
`
`SMRH:439835754.4
`062515
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,149,510
`(IPR2015-01622)
`The unpatentability grounds set forth in this Petition are confirmed and
`
`supported by the Declaration of Dr. Sam Malek (Ex. 1301), which accompanies
`
`this Petition.
`
`V. THE PROPOSED GROUNDS ARE NOT REDUNDANT
`The obviousness grounds presented herein are not vertically redundant with
`
`the grounds presented in concurrently filed related petition IPR2015-01605. The
`
`secondary reference relied upon in IPR2015-01605 (U.S. Patent No. 6,125,447 to
`
`Gong (“Gong”)) discloses a method of controlling access to system resources by
`
`remotely downloaded software code. The primary embodiment is directed towards
`
`controlling access by code written in an object-oriented programming language,
`
`using Java as one example of an object-oriented program language to which Gong
`
`is applicable. In the instant petition, Oaks discloses the specific components of the
`
`Java security architecture, from its initial release to the release of Java 2 in 1998.
`
`Oaks is directed to the actual security system available within the Java API of the
`
`Java programming language. Accordingly, the proposed grounds of the instant
`
`petition and related petition IPR2015-01605 are not vertically redundant.
`
`Moreover, the obviousness grounds presented here are not horizontally
`
`redundant. Both grounds presented herein are directed to different claims of the
`
`’510 patent. Accordingly, there is no horizontal redundancy.
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`20SE-209539
`
`
`
`SMRH:439835754.4
`062515
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,149,510
`(IPR2015-01622)
`VI. RELEVANT INFORMATION CONCERNING THE ’510 PATENT
`State of the Art
`A.
`Access control is one of the key mechanisms for securing computer systems.
`
`Ex. 1301 at ¶ 51–53.1 The concept as applied to computer systems is similar to
`
`that employed for physical security, such as security checkpoints. A decision
`
`maker checks to see whether an entity requesting to enter an area has the required
`
`access permissions. Id. at ¶ 51. At its core, access control is environment
`
`agnostic—the implementation may take different forms, but the underlying
`
`algorithm remains the same. Id.
`
`Since the introduction of multiuser operating systems in the late 1960’s (e.g.,
`
`Unix), access control has followed the same basic model, relying on three main
`
`elements: a subject; an object; and a reference monitor. Id. at ¶ 53; see Ex. 1014
`
`at 163–64. A reference monitor intercepts access requests from subjects (i.e.,
`
`application programs) to access an object (i.e., system resources, like software,
`
`hardware or data), and determines whether the request should be granted by
`
`checking one or more permissions associated with the subject relative to the object.
`
`Ex. 1301 at ¶ 53. The relationship between subjects, objects, and permissions are
`
`1 Format for citations to patents is “Ex. * at column:line.” For non-patent
`
`references, the citation format shall be “Ex.* at [Exhibit pagination].” Unless
`
`indicated, any bolding, italicizing, or other emphasis of text is added by Petitioner.
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`20SE-209539
`
`SMRH:439835754.4
`062515
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,149,510
`(IPR2015-01622)
`commonly in the form of an access control matrix or access control list (“ACL”).
`
`Id. at ¶¶ 53–54; see Ex. 1014 at 164–65.
`
`
`
`In the 1980’s, access control expanded beyond authorization of users to
`
`account for the use of mobile code in interconnected distributed networks. Ex.
`
`1301 at ¶ 54. Mobile code could be downloaded from one system to be executed
`
`on another. Id. at ¶¶ 55–56. A common type of mobile code was a Java applet,
`
`designed to add functionality to other programs, such as a web browser. Id. at ¶¶
`
`56–57. A method of controlling access to system resources by downloaded applets
`
`included an access control mechanism within the host program (e.g., web browser)
`
`to intercept access requests from the applets and enforce access policies of the
`
`system. Id. at ¶¶ 58–61; see, e.g., Ex. 1017. This is analogous to the basic access
`
`control model. Ex. 1301 at ¶¶ 61–62.
`
`Another method of controlling access to resources by downloaded programs
`
`was the sandbox model, whereby all access by untrusted code was controlled and
`
`restricted. Ex. 1301 at ¶¶ 76–78. Such a model is implemented within the Java
`
`Platform to control access during execution of Java programs. Id. at ¶ 76. In 1998,
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`20SE-209539
`
`SMRH:439835754.4
`062515
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,149,510
`(IPR2015-01622)
`Sun overhauled its security architecture to allow more fine-grained access control,
`
`introducing the concept of protection domains. Id. at ¶¶ 81–82, 88–90; Ex. 1021 at
`
`7–10. Protection domains is an identification of the permissions assigned to
`
`programs associated with the protection domain, serving to limit the number of
`
`ACL entries, making it easier to search. Ex. 1301 at ¶ 54, 88. Groups of related
`
`applications (e.g., manufacturer applications, third-party applications, etc.) are
`
`associated with the same protection domain, requiring only that the permissions be
`
`assigned to the particular protection domain, easing the burden of managing the
`
`ACL. Id. at ¶¶ 88–90.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA)
`
`B.
`Based on expert opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art with respect to
`
`the ’510 patent would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer engineering,
`
`computer science, or a related field, and one to two years of experience with
`
`mobile software code security architecture or equivalent education and experience.
`
`This represents the level of skill a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`possessed on September 22, 2002, the alleged priority date of the ’510 patent.
`
`Such a person would, of necessity, have the capability of understanding the
`
`scientific and engineering principles applicable to the pertinent art. Ex. 1301 at ¶¶
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`20SE-209539
`
`49–50.
`
`SMRH:439835754.4
`062515
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,149,510
`(IPR2015-01622)
`
`C. Overview Of The ’510 Patent
`Technology of the ’510 Patent
`1.
`
`The ’510 patent notes that “[t]raditionally, mobile terminal manufacturers
`have designed, fabricated and marketed substantially complete mobile terminal
`
`systems,” including the hardware and software necessary to provide all available
`
`features and services based on the manufacturer’s perception of what the user
`
`would want. See Ex. 1001 at 1:62–2:1. The increased services of advanced
`
`telecommunications networks—like 3G networks—highlighted the inflexibility of
`
`the traditional fabrication approach. See id. at 1:62–2:4; Ex. 1301 at ¶¶ 110–112.
`
`To address extra demands from increased-functionality communications
`
`systems, the ’510 patent identifies a “platform system” enabling later-developed
`
`applications to be installed on a mobile terminal platform assembly to provide a
`
`tailored system, meeting the demands and requirements of the network or the end-
`
`user. Ex. 1001 at 2:5–7, 2:10–17; Ex. 1301 at ¶ 113. In order to provide the
`
`available services, the later-developed applications must rely on the software code
`
`of the mobile terminal platform assembly to utilize the underlying hardware and
`
`resources of the platform. See Ex. 1001 at 2:18–32, 2:37–44; Ex. 1301 at ¶¶ 113–
`
`115. The ’510 patent is directed to a purportedly novel access controller to verify
`
`that a requesting application software has the required permissions to utilize the
`
`underlying native code of the platform to provide services to users. See Ex. 1001
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`20SE-209539
`
`SMRH:439835754.4
`062515
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,149,510
`(IPR2015-01622)
`at 1:24–27, 7:36–38; Ex. 1301 at ¶ 111. Although described with respect to a
`
`mobile terminal platform, the access controller of the ’510 patent may be used in
`
`conjunction with platforms for other products. Ex. 1001 at 1:26–28, 10:63–64; Ex.
`
`1301 at ¶ 111. Claim 1 is representative, and recites:
`
`
`
`Platform
`
`The ’510 patent discloses a “mobile terminal platform assembly” for
`
`enabling a user to download and run an application in order to tailor the mobile
`
`terminal to meet the user’s particular needs. Ex. 1001 at 2:5–10, Fig. 2; Ex. 1301
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`20SE-209539
`
`at ¶¶ 120–121.
`
`SMRH:439835754.4
`062515
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,149,510
`(IPR2015-01622)
`
`
`
`As illustrated in Figure 2 of the ’510 patent, the mobile terminal platform
`
`assembly includes a hardware component (24, green box) and a software
`
`component (22, red box). The software component 22 includes software stacks 30-
`
`38 and hardware device software, which work together with hardware drivers 60-
`
`68 to operate the associated hardware units of the hardware component 24. Ex.
`
`1001 at 4:67–5:2; Ex. 1301 at 121.
`
`Although the mobile terminal platform assembly identified in the ’510
`
`patent includes both hardware and software, the focus of the specification of the
`
`’510 patent is on the software aspects of the platform system. Ex. 1001 at 5:47–55
`
`(“The logical drivers layer 90 [of the software services component] provides a
`
`logical mapping to the hardware, i.e., this layer provides a bridge between the
`
`hardware and software parts of the mobile terminal platform assembly.”); Ex.
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`20SE-209539
`
`SMRH:439835754.4
`062515
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,149,510
`(IPR2015-01622)
`1301 at ¶ 117. The figures within the ’510 patent (outside of Figure 2) illustrate
`
`hierarchical dependencies of different logical functions within the system, rather
`
`than distinct modular entities. Id. at ¶ 118. Moreover, the claims and specification
`
`of the ’510 patent describe the alleged invention at a high level of generality. Ex.
`
`1301 at ¶ 119; see, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 2:18–32; 4:21–32, 4:67–5:2, 7:1–60. The
`
`subject matter of the ’510 patent is not associated with any particular programming
`
`paradigm. Ex. 1301 at ¶¶ 119, 123. To computer programmers, the APIs available
`
`for use in creating compatible programs define the term “platform.” See Ex. 1016
`
`at 5; Ex. 1301 at ¶ 123. Accordingly, the “platform” recited in the claims of the
`
`’510 patent is the software portion of the mobile terminal platform assembly. Ex.
`
`1301 at ¶¶ 117–123.
`
`Interface Component . . . Having at Least One Interface
`
`The ’510 patent further identifies the “platform” as including an “interface
`
`component . . . includ[ing] at least one application programming interface (API)
`
`for installing, loading, and running one or more applications [] in the mobile
`
`terminal platform assembly[.]” Ex. 1001 at 4:33–37; see Ex. 1015 at 4; Ex. 1301
`
`at ¶ 124. The interface component serves to “isolate” the platform from the
`
`applications, allowing tailoring of the underlying platform without necessitating
`
`rewriting of the application code. See Ex. 1001 at 6:28–35; Ex. 1301 at ¶ 124.
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`20SE-209539
`
`
`
`SMRH:439835754.4
`062515
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,149,510
`(IPR2015-01622)
`
`Access Controller
`
`As discussed above, the purported novelty of the ’510 patent lies within an
`
`access controller, where the access controller comprises an interception module
`
`and decision entity (described below), the access controller being operative to
`
`grant or deny access to a software component (discussed above). Ex. 1301 at ¶
`
`125; Ex. 1001 at Fig. 4B.
`
`Interception Module
`
`
`
`The interception module is a logical component that “sits” between
`
`applications and the software component, configured to capture requests from the
`
`applications to access the native code of the mobile terminal platform assembly.
`
`See Ex. 1001 at 7:1–2, Fig 4B; Ex. 1301 at ¶ 126. In particular, the ’510 patent
`
`describes that the interception module 508 “intercepts non-native application
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`20SE-209539
`
`SMRH:439835754.4
`062515
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,149,510
`(IPR2015-01622)
`service requests from the EXE environment to the native platform services[.]” Id.
`
`at 7:47–48, Fig. 7.
`
`Decision Entity/Security Access Manager
`
`The independent claims of the ’510 patent recite that the access controller
`
`comprises “a decision entity for determining if the request should be granted.” Id.
`
`at cl. 1, 10, 11. As described in the specification of the ’510 patent, once
`
`interception occurs, the interception module “calls on the [security access
`
`manager] SAM 518 to grant access.” Id. at 7:48–52, Fig. 6A. Claim 1 defines a
`
`“decision entity” as being a “security access manager.” See id. at cl. 1.
`
`The security access manager “reviews the security policies of the native
`
`platform services to determine if access may be granted to the non-native
`
`application 250.” Id. at 8:11–13. If the application has the required access rights,
`
`“the service request is forwarded to the native platform service or services
`
`requested by the non-native application 250.” Id. at 8:15–18, Fig. 7.
`
`Accordingly, the access controller of the ’510 patent is analogous to the
`
`reference monitor of the basic a

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket