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. IPR2015-01628
`Patent 7,149,510
`__________
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,149,510
`
`SMRH:440008698.3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,149,510
`(IPR2015-01628)
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................ i
`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) ....................................... 2
`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 .......... 4
`A.
`State of the Art ...................................................................................... 4
`B.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) ......................................... 7
`C.
`Overview Of The ’510 Patent ............................................................... 8
`1.
`Technology of the ’510 Patent .................................................... 8
`1.
`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” .............................................. 16
`2.
`“an interface component” ......................................................... 17
`
`SMRH:440008698.3
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`3.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,149,510
`(IPR2015-01628)
`“an interception module for receiving a request from the
`requesting application domain software to access the
`software services component” .................................................. 18
`“a decision entity” ..................................................................... 19
`4.
`VIII. PRECISE REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED .................................... 20
`A. Usui in View of Gong and Ramamurthy Renders Obvious
`Claim 11 .............................................................................................. 20
`1.
`Overview of Usui ...................................................................... 20
`2.
`Overview of Gong ..................................................................... 24
`3.
`Overview of Ramamurthy ......................................................... 27
`4. Motivation to Combine ............................................................. 29
`5.
`Usui in view of Gong and Ramamurthy Invalidates
`Claim 11 .................................................................................... 34
`Usui in view of Gong, Spencer, and Ramamurthy Renders
`Obvious Claim 11 ................................................................................ 53
`1.
`Overview of Spencer ................................................................. 53
`2. Motivation to Combine ............................................................. 54
`3.
`Usui, Gong, Spencer, and Ramamurthy Invalidate Claim
`11 ............................................................................................... 56
`IX. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 58
`
`B.
`
`SMRH:440008698.3
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,149,510
`(IPR2015-01628)
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`Cases
`
`In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr
`367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 16
`
`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) .......................................................................... 39
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
`550 U.S. 398 (2006) .....................................................................................passim
`
`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) ..................................................................... 20
`
`35 United States Code Section 102(b) ............................................................... 24, 53
`
`SMRH:440008698.3
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,149,510
`(IPR2015-01628)
`35 United States Code Section 102(e) ..................................................................... 27
`
`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) ..................................................... 2
`
`37 Code of Federal Regulations Section 42.100(b) ................................................. 15
`
`37 Code of Federal Regulations Section 42.103 ....................................................... 2
`
`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:440008698.3
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,149,510
`(IPR2015-01628)
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1001
`
`Description
`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. 2:15-cv-00011-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)
`
`Identifier
`’510 Patent
`
`Date
`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
`
`SMRH:440008698.3
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,149,510
`(IPR2015-01628)
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`Description
`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
`
`Identifier
`Date
`June 3, 2014 Ericsson v.
`TCL I
`Complaint
`
`Oct. 21,
`2014
`
`Jan. 29,
`2015
`Oct. 2001
`
`
`
`
`
`Usui
`
`Sept. 26,
`2000 (Issue
`Date)
`n/a
`
`2000
`
`Gong
`
`’756
`Continuity
`Data
`Venners
`
`2d ed. 2006 Tanenbaum
`
`Last Visited
`May 12,
`2015
`
`IBM
`Dictionary
`
`1999
`
`Flanagan
`
`SMRH:440008698.3
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,149,510
`(IPR2015-01628)
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1017
`
`Description
`United States Patent No. 6,317,742 to
`Nagaratnam et al.
`
`Date
`Nov. 13,
`2001 (Issue
`Date)
`2007
`
`Aug. 23-26,
`1999
`
`Identifier
`Nagaratnam
`
`Webster’s
`Dictionary
`Spencer
`
`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
`
`Comp. Eng.
`Dictionary
`
`1019
`
`1020
`1021
`
`1022
`1023
`
`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
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`SMRH:440008698.3
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,149,510
`(IPR2015-01628)
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1401
`
`Description
`Tineke M. Egyedi, Why Java Was—
`Not—Standardized Twice, Proceedings
`of the Hawai’i Int’l Conference on
`System Sciences, IEEE
`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
`United States Patent No. 7,080,077 to
`Ramamurthy et al.
`
`Date
`Jan. 3-6,
`2001
`
`Identifier
`Egyedi
`
`1998
`
`Personal Java
`
`Feb. 1996 Medvidovic
`
`Dec. 15,
`2000
`
`JSR-37
`
`May 19,
`2000
`Feb. 26,
`2001 (Filing
`Date)
`5th ed.,
`2002
`no. 2, Feb.
`1999
`
`CLDC
`
`Ramamurthy
`
`Microsoft
`Dictionary
`Peir
`
`Mar. 30,
`1999
`2002
`
`Hunnicutt
`
`Silberschatz
`
`n/a
`
`Malek
`
`1403
`
`1404
`
`1402 Microsoft, Microsoft Computer
`Dictionary
`Jih-Kwon Peir et al., Functional
`Implementation Techniques for CPU
`Cache Memories, 48 IEEE Transactions
`on Computers 100
`United States Patent No. 5,889,952 to
`Hunnicutt et al.
`Abraham Silberschatz, Operating
`System Concepts
`Declaration of. Sam Malek, Ph.D. and
`Curriculum Vitae
`
`1405
`
`1406
`
`SMRH:440008698.3
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,149,510
`(IPR2015-01628)
`
`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 claim 11 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 the claim challenged in this petition. Therefore, Petitioners
`
`respectfully request cancellation of claim 11 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.
`
`Cal. 2015). Before transfer, Ericsson moved to add a claim for infringement of the
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`SMRH:440008698.3
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,149,510
`(IPR2015-01628)
`’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:
`
`858.509.3691.
`
`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-
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`
`
`4562.
`
`SMRH:440008698.3
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,149,510
`(IPR2015-01628)
`
`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.
`Petitioners requests inter partes review of claim 11 of the ’510 patent and
`
`requests the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) cancel claim 11 as
`
`unpatentable.
`
`C. Grounds of Challenge (§42.104(b)(2))
`The grounds of unpatentability presented in this petition is as follows:
`
`Ground Basis
`
`References
`
`Claim(s) Challenged
`
`1
`
`2
`
`§ 103 Usui in view of Gong and Ramamurthy
`
`§ 103 Usui in view of Gong, Spencer and
`
`11
`
`11
`
`Ramamurthy
`
`Neither Gong (Ex. 1011), Spencer (Ex. 1019), nor Ramamurthy (Ex. 1401)
`
`was cited during the prosecution of the ’510 patent. And while Usui (Ex. 1010)
`
`was cited, it was never applied.
`
`The Declaration of Dr. Sam Malek (Ex. 1406) confirms and supports the
`
`unpatentability grounds set forth in this Petition.
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`SMRH:440008698.3
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,149,510
`(IPR2015-01628)
`
`V. THE PROPOSED GROUNDS ARE NOT REDUNDANT
`The obviousness grounds presented herein are not vertically redundant with
`
`concurrently filed related petitions IPR2015-01605 and IPR2015-_____. There is
`
`no commonality of challenged claims between the related petitions.
`
`Moreover, the obviousness grounds presented herein are not horizontally
`
`redundant. The first ground argues that the combination of Usui, Gong, and
`
`Ramamurthy sufficiently renders obvious the limitations of claim 11. Although
`
`Petitioners believe that the combination of the first ground is sufficient,
`
`Ramamurthy may not precisely show an interception module including a cache.
`
`However, Spencer—relied upon in the second ground—explicitly shows an entity
`
`equivalent to the interception module including a cache. To the extent the Board
`
`believes Ramamurthy is weak in showing an interception module including a
`
`cache, Spencer explicitly shows that element.
`
`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. 1406 at ¶ 51–53.1 The concept as applied to computer systems is similar to
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`SMRH:440008698.3
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,149,510
`(IPR2015-01628)
`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. 1406 at ¶ 53. The relationship between subjects, objects, and permissions are
`
`commonly in the form of an access control matrix or access control list (“ACL”).
`
`Id. at ¶¶ 53–54; see Ex. 1014 at 164–65.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`SMRH:440008698.3
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,149,510
`(IPR2015-01628)
`In the 1980’s, access control expanded beyond authorization of users to
`
`account for the use of mobile code in interconnected distributed networks. Ex.
`
`1406 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. 1406 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. 1406 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,
`
`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. 1406 at ¶ 54, 88. Groups of related
`
`applications (e.g., manufacturer applications, third-party applications, etc.) are
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`SMRH:440008698.3
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,149,510
`(IPR2015-01628)
`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.
`
`Caching is a well-known technique utilized in all aspects of computing for
`
`improving the speed of execution. Ex. 1014 at 18; Ex. 1406 at ¶ 110. Caches can
`
`be implemented within a system to reduce access time between two components.
`
`Ex. 1405 at 56; Ex. 1406 at ¶ 110. Moreover, caches have been utilized to increase
`
`the efficiency and speed of access control systems. Ex. 1406 at ¶¶ 111–112; see
`
`generally, Ex. 1404. Caching is not limited only to binary access decisions, but is
`
`also applicable to enable faster access decisions to be made by localizing the rules
`
`and policies required to make the decision. Ex. 1406 at ¶¶ 112-113.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`SMRH:440008698.3
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,149,510
`(IPR2015-01628)
`scientific and engineering principles applicable to the pertinent art. Ex. 1406 at ¶¶
`
`49–50.
`
`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. 1406 at ¶¶ 118–120.
`
`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. 1406 at ¶ 121. 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. 1406 at ¶¶ 121–
`
`123. The ’510 patent is directed to a purportedly novel access controller to verify
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`SMRH:440008698.3
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,149,510
`(IPR2015-01628)
`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
`
`at 1:24–27, 7:36–38; Ex. 1406 at ¶ 119. 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.
`
`1406 at ¶ 119. Claim 11 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`SMRH:440008698.3
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,149,510
`(IPR2015-01628)
`terminal to meet the user’s particular needs. Ex. 1001 at 2:5–10, Fig. 2; Ex. 1406
`
`at ¶¶ 128–129.
`
`
`
`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. 1406 at ¶ 129.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`SMRH:440008698.3
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,149,510
`(IPR2015-01628)
`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.
`
`1406 at ¶ 125. Accordingly, 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 ¶¶ 125–126. Moreover, the
`
`claims and specification of the ’510 patent describe the alleged invention at a high
`
`level of generality. Ex. 1406 at ¶ 127; 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, such as object-oriented programming. Ex. 1406
`
`at ¶¶ 127, 130. To computer programmers, the APIs available for use in creating
`
`compatible programs define the term “platform.” See Ex. 1016 at 5; Ex. 1406 at ¶
`
`131. Accordingly, the “platform” recited in the claims of the ’510 patent is the
`
`software portion of the mobile terminal platform assembly. Ex. 1406 at ¶¶ 125-
`
`131.
`
`Interface Component . . . Having at Least One Interface
`
`The ’510 patent further identifies the “platform” as including an “interface
`
`component . . . include[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. 1406
`
`at ¶ 132. The interface component serves to “isolate” the platform from the
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`SMRH:440008698.3
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,149,510
`(IPR2015-01628)
`applications, allowing tailoring of the underlying platform without necessitating
`
`rewriting of the application code. See Ex. 1001 at 6:28–35; Ex. 1406 at ¶ 132.
`
`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. 1406 at ¶
`
`133; 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 access requests
`
`from the applications to utilize the native code of the mobile terminal platform
`
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`
`SMRH:440008698.3
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,149,510
`(IPR2015-01628)
`assembly. See Ex. 1001 at 7:1–2, Fig 4B; Ex. 1406 at ¶¶ 126, 134. In particular,
`
`the ’510 patent describes that the interception module 508 “intercepts non-native
`
`application service requests from the EXE environment to the native platform
`
`services[.]” Id. at 7:47–48, Fig. 7.
`
`Decision Entity
`
`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. The term “decision
`
`entity” is not found within the specification of the ’510 patent, but the “security
`
`access manager” is described as serving the same purpose as the claimed decision
`
`entity. See id. at 7:25–42; Ex. 1406 at ¶ 135.
`
`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