IPR2015-01842
`U.S. Patent No. 8,266,432
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION,
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`v.
`
`NADER ASGHARI-KAMRANI and KAMRAN ASGHARI-KAMRANI,
`
`Patent Owners
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,266,432
`
`Case IPR2015-01842
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop: PATENT BOARD
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`P.O. Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01842
`U.S. Patent No. 8,266,432
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ‘432 PATENT ........................................................... 2
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................... 9
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`“central entity” and “external entity” ...........................................................10
`
`“first central-entity computer” and “second central-entity computer” ........19
`
`“authenticating” ...........................................................................................20
`
`“transaction” .................................................................................................21
`
`“dynamic code” ............................................................................................23
`
`IV. REASONS WHY INTER PARTES REVIEW SHOULD NOT BE
`INSTITUTED ..........................................................................................................24
`
`A. Ground 1: Petitioner Did Not Establish a prima facie Case That Brown in
`View of Myers Renders Obvious Claims 1-55 .....................................................25
`
`The combination of Brown and Myers dose not disclose the claimed
`1.
`feature “receiving electronically by the central-entity a request for authenticating
`the user from a computer associated with the external-entity …” ....................26
`
`The proposed combination of Brown and Myers fails to disclose the
`2.
`claimed features “authenticating by the central-entity the user and providing a
`result of the authenticating to the external-entity during the transaction ...” ....33
`
`The proposed combination of Brown and Myers fails to disclose claimed
`3.
`feature “generating by the central-entity … a dynamic code for the user…” ...40
`
`B. Ground 2: Petitioner Did Not Establish a prima facie Case That Neuman
`Anticipates Claims 1-3, 6-28, and 31-55 ..............................................................44
`
`1. Neuman fails to disclose the claimed feature “receiving electronically by the
`central-entity a request for authenticating the user from a computer associated
`with the external-entity based on a user-specific information and the dynamic
`code …” .............................................................................................................46
`
`2. Neuman fails to disclose the claimed feature, “generating by the central-entity
`…a dynamic code…authenticating by the central-entity the user” ...................51
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01842
`U.S. Patent No. 8,266,432
`
`
`
`3. Neuman fails to disclose the claimed feature, “authenticating by the central-
`entity the user and providing a result of the authenticating to the external-entity
`during the transaction if the digital identity is valid” ........................................52
`
`4. Claims 25 and 52 ...........................................................................................54
`
`5. Claim 48 .........................................................................................................55
`
`C. Ground 3: Petitioner Did Not Establish a prima facie Case That Neuman
`Renders Obvious Claims 4, 5, 29, and 30.............................................................56
`
`D. Petition Fails To Meet the Page Limit and Should Be Rejected Due To Lack Of
`Signature ...............................................................................................................56
`
`E. 35 U.S.C. 101 Issue Was Raised .....................................................................58
`
`F. Exhibits Not Presented ...................................................................................59
`
`V. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................60
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01842
`U.S. Patent No. 8,266,432
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`Ex. 2001 Affidavit by Abolfazl Hosseinzadeh dated on Feb. 28, 2012 and
`
`submitted to the USPTO on March 1, 2012 during the prosecution
`
`of U.S. patent No. 8,266,432
`
`Ex. 2002 Affidavit by Kamran Asghari-Kamrani dated on Feb. 27, 2012
`
`and submitted to the USPTO on March 1, 2012 during the
`
`prosecution of U.S. patent No. 8,266,432
`
`Ex. 2003 Affidavit by Nader Asghari-Kamrani dated on Feb. 27, 2012 and
`
`submitted to the USPTO on March 1, 2012 during the prosecution
`
`of U.S. patent No. 8,266,432
`
`Ex. 2004 Affidavit by James Hewitt dated on Feb. 28, 2012 and submitted
`
`to the USPTO on March 1, 2012 during the prosecution of U.S.
`
`patent No. 8,266,432
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01842
`U.S. Patent No. 8,266,432
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`Gubelmann v. Gang,
`
`408 F.2d 758 (C.C.P.A. 1969) .......................................................................... 45, 50
`
`
`
`Haemonetics Corp. v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.,
`
`607 F.3d 776 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ..................................................................................10
`
`
`
`In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr.,
`
`367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004).................................................................................. 9
`
`
`
`In re Eli Lilly & Co.,
`
`90 F.2d 943 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ....................................................................................42
`
`
`
`In re Gordon,
`
`733 F.2d 900 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ..................................................................................30
`
`
`
`In re Grasselli,
`
`713 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ..................................................................................35
`
`
`
`In re Oelrich,
`
`666 F.2d 578 (C.C.P.A. 1981) .................................................................................45
`
`
`
`In re Piasecki,
`
`745 F. 2d 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1984)...............................................................................42
`
`
`
`In re Ratti,
`
`270 F.2d 810 (CCPA 1959) ........................................................................ 30, 42, 43
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01842
`U.S. Patent No. 8,266,432
`
`
`
`
`Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence & Coordination Unit,
`
`507 U.S. 163 (U.S. 1993) .........................................................................................57
`
`
`
`Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.,
`
`CBM2012-00003, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2012) ..............................................18
`
`
`
`MEHL/Biophile Int’l Corp. v. Milgraum,
`
`192 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1999)................................................................................45
`
`
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`
`IPR2012-00026, Paper No. 17 (P.T.A.B Dec. 21, 2012) .......................................... 9
`
`
`
`Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc.,
`
`545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................45
`
`
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................17
`
`
`
`Prism Pharma Co., Ltd. v. Choongwae Pharma Corp.,
`
`IPR2014-00315, Paper 14 (July 8, 2014) ................................................................40
`
`
`
`Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal.,
`
`814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987)............................................................. 44, 53, 54
`
`
`
`Vita-Mix Corp. v. Basic Holding, Inc.,
`
`581 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................10
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01842
`U.S. Patent No. 8,266,432
`
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. §325(d) ....................................................................................... 40, 41, 45
`
`35 U.S.C. §102 .........................................................................................................25
`
`35 U.S.C. §103 .........................................................................................................25
`
`Other Authorities
`
`M.P.E.P. § 2131 .......................................................................................... 44, 53, 54
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48766 (Aug. 14, 2012) .... 9
`
`Rules
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.33 ................................................................................................ 45, 58
`
`37 C.F.R. § 11.18(a) .......................................................................................... 45, 58
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................ 9
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a)(1)(i) ................................................................................. 45, 56
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.75(d)(1) ..............................................................................................17
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24 (a)(1) .............................................................................. 45, 56, 57
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6 (a)(2)(iii) ................................................................................ 45, 57
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(4) ....................................................................................... 45, 58
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01842
`U.S. Patent No. 8,266,432
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`Patent Owners Nader Asghari-Kamrani and Kamran Asghari-Kamrani
`
`(“Patent Owner”) respectfully submit this Preliminary Response in accordance with
`
`35 U.S.C. § 313 and 37 C.F.R.. § 42.107, responding to the Petition for an inter
`
`partes review (“Petition”) filed by United Services Automobile Association
`
`(“Petitioner” or “USAA”) against Patent Owner’s U.S. Patent No. 8,266,432 (“the
`
`‘432 patent”).
`
`Petitioner asserts that an inter partes review should be instituted because the
`
`combination of Brown (U.S. Patent No. 5,740,361) and Myers (non-patent literature)
`
`would render claims 1-55 obvious (Ground 1); that Neuman (non-patent literature)
`
`would anticipate claims 1-3, 6-28, and 31-55 (Ground 2); and that Neuman (non-
`
`patent literature) would render claims 4, 5, 29, and 30 obvious (Ground 3).
`
`However, Patent Owner submits that for several reasons the Board should not
`
`institute an inter partes review at least because there is no reasonable likelihood that
`
`the Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims.
`
`First, Petitioner has used a number of incorrect claim constructions upon
`
`which Petitioner bases Petitioner’s invalidity grounds. Petitioner’s proposed
`
`constructions are erroneous and unreasonable and are inconsistent with the
`
`specification and claims. (Section III.) Second, Petitioner has not met its burden of
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01842
`U.S. Patent No. 8,266,432
`
`
`demonstrating a reasonable likelihood that the references relied upon in Grounds 1,
`
`2, and 3 would invalidate any of the claims of the ‘432 patent. (Section IV.A., IV.B,
`
`and IV.C.) Third, Petitioner has filed a Petition that fails to meet the formality
`
`requirements under 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a)(1)(i) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(4). The
`
`Petition has 61 pages and violates the page limit under 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a)(1)(i),
`
`and if the 61st page is deleted, the Petition also violates the signature requirement
`
`under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(4). (Section IV.D.) Each of these reasons requires a denial
`
`of the institution of inter partes review of the ‘432 patent.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ‘432 PATENT
`
`The ‘432 patent relates to “a centralized identification and authentication
`
`system and method for identifying an individual over a communication network such
`
`as Internet, to increase security in e-commerce.” (The’432 patent 1:22-25.) More
`
`particularly, the ‘432 patent relates to a computerized “method and system for
`
`generation of a dynamic, non-predictable and time dependent [dynamic code] for the
`
`purpose of positively identifying an individual.” (The’432 patent 1:25-28.)
`
`The ‘432 patent issued on September 11, 2012 and is a continuation of U.S.
`
`patent application No. 11/239,046, filed on September 30, 2005, now Patent No.
`
`7,444,676, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application No. 09/940,635, filed
`
`on August 29, 2001, now patent No. 7,356,837.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01842
`U.S. Patent No. 8,266,432
`
`
`
`In particular, the computerized system as shown in FIG. 2 of the ‘432 patent
`
`(see below) requires a user 10 using a computer, a central entity 30 using another
`
`separate computer, and an external entity 20 using another separate computer, where
`
`these three separated computers communicate with each other via a communication
`
`network 50, performing different functions in the system.
`
`
`
`Claimed element “central-entity” of the ‘432 patent plays a pivotal role “for
`
`centralized identification and authentication of users.” (Ex. 1001, the ‘432 patent
`
`2:52-54). In particular, the central-entity’s computer communicates with the
`
`computers of the “user” and “external entity” for an authentication process. With
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01842
`U.S. Patent No. 8,266,432
`
`
`reference to FIG. 2, the specification, and claim 1 of the ‘432 patent, a table below
`
`explains 1) the central-entity computer’s functions G and K, and 2) a topology and
`
`interactions among the central-entity computer, the external entity computer, and the
`
`user computer including data flow directions F, H, I, J, and L.
`
`Arrows
`
`(Data
`
`(Data
`
`Specification of the ‘432 Patent
`
`(FIG. 2)
`
`flow)
`
`flow)
`
`Corresponding Claim Features of Claim 1 of
`
`From
`
`To
`
`the ‘432 Patent
`
`F
`
`User
`
`Central-
`
`“The user 10 requests a [dynamic code] from the
`
`Entity
`
`Central-entity 30.” (Ex. 1001, the ‘432 patent
`
`5:13-14.)
`
`"receiving electronically a request for a dynamic
`
`code for the user by a computer associated with
`
`a central-entity”
`
`G
`
`Central-Entity’s
`
`“The Central-Entity 30 generates dynamic, non-
`
`function
`
`predictable and time dependable [dynamic code]
`
`118 for the user 10.” (Ex. 1001, the ‘432 patent
`
`5:15-17.)
`
`“generating by the central-entity during the
`
`transaction a dynamic code for the user in
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01842
`U.S. Patent No. 8,266,432
`
`response to the request, wherein the dynamic
`
`code is valid for a predefined time and becomes
`
`invalid after being used”
`
`H
`
`Central-
`
`User
`
`“The Central-Entity 30 maintains a copy of the
`
`Entity
`
`[dynamic
`
`code]
`
`for
`
`identification
`
`and
`
`authentication of the user 10 and issues the
`
`[dynamic code] to the user 10.” (Ex. 1001, the
`
`‘432 patent 5:17-20.)
`
`“providing by the computer associated with the
`
`central-entity said generated dynamic code to the
`
`user during the transaction”
`
`I
`
`User
`
`External-
`
`“When the user 10 receives the [dynamic code]
`
`Entity
`
`120, the user 10 provides his UserName and
`
`[dynamic code] as digital
`
`identity
`
`to
`
`the
`
`External-Entity 20” (Ex 1001, the ‘432 patent
`
`5:20-22.)
`
`“said dynamic code was received by the user
`
`during the transaction and was provided to the
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01842
`U.S. Patent No. 8,266,432
`
`external-entity by
`
`the user during
`
`the
`
`transaction”
`
`J
`
`External-
`
`Central-
`
`“[T]he External-Entity 20 forwards user’s digital
`
`Entity
`
`Entity
`
`identity along with
`
`the
`
`identification and
`
`authentication request to the Central-Entity 30”
`
`(Ex 1001, the ‘432 patent 5:25-27.)
`
`“receiving electronically by the central-entity a
`
`request for authenticating the user from a
`
`computer associated with the external-entity
`
`based on a user-specific information and the
`
`dynamic code as a digital identity”
`
`K
`
`Central-Entity’s
`
`“When the Central-Entity 30 receives the request
`
`function
`
`containing the user’s digital identity, the Central-
`
`Entity 30 locates the user’s digital identity
`
`(UseName and [dynamic code]) in the system
`
`134 and compares it to the digital identity
`
`received from the External-Entity 20 to identify
`
`and validate the user 10… If both digital
`
`identities match, the Central-Entity 30 will
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-01842
`U.S. Patent No. 8,266,432
`
`identify the user 10” (Ex 1001, the ‘432 patent
`
`5:27-32, 5:35-36.)
`
`“authenticating by the central-entity the user”
`
`L
`
`Central-
`
`External-
`
`“the Central-Entity 30 … will send an approval
`
`Entity
`
`Entity
`
`of the identification and authorization request to
`
`the External-Entity 20” (Ex 1001, the ‘432 patent
`
`5:35-37.)
`
`“by the central-entity … providing a result of the
`
`authenticating to the external-entity during the
`
`transaction if the digital identity is valid”
`
`In other words, according to the authentication system of the ‘432 patent,
`
`when a user needs an authentication to obtain an access to an external entity: 1) the
`
`central entity receives electronically a request for a dynamic code for the user (F); 2)
`
`the central-entity provides the dynamic code to the user (H); 3) the user provides the
`
`dynamic code to the external-entity during the transaction (I); 4) the central-entity
`
`receives a request for authenticating the user from the external-entity based on a
`
`user-specific information and the dynamic code (J); and 5) after authentication by
`
`the central entity, the central entity provides a result of the authenticating to the
`
`external entity (L), all of these steps being performed in the computerized
`
`communication network system.
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01842
`U.S. Patent No. 8,266,432
`
`
`
`One of advantages of the ‘432 patent is that the centralized identification and
`
`authentication system can be relatively easily established with overall reduced
`
`system cost. This result can be achieved because the central-entity 1) generates the
`
`dynamic code (G) and 2) authenticates the user (K), and the external entity merely
`
`needs to intermediate between the user and central entity (I, J). In particular, since
`
`the external-entity does not need to equip the authentication function but merely
`
`forward data between the user and the central entity, it provides an easy and
`
`economical solution for establishing the external entity. Also, the central entity can
`
`work with a plurality of external entities (Ex. 1001, the ‘432 patent 2:53-56, and
`
`3:4). This can significantly reduce the overall system cost because once the central
`
`entity is established, the plurality of external entities can use a centralized
`
`authentication system of the central entity without further equipping the
`
`authentication function.
`
`From the user’s point of view, it is also very convenient and economical
`
`because “the user will only need to provide his [dynamic code] as digital identity to
`
`the External-Entity 20 for identification” (Ex 1001, the ‘432 patent 5:56-58), and the
`
`user does not need to equip any authentication function for the authentication system
`
`as well.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`Thus, the centralized identification and authentication system of the ‘432
`
`IPR2015-01842
`U.S. Patent No. 8,266,432
`
`patent provides easy and economical authentication system.
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`In an inter partes review, claims in an unexpired patent are interpreted
`
`according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of
`
`the patent in which they appear as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg.
`
`48756, 48766 (Aug. 14, 2012), In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359,
`
`1364[, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830] (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`The Board should not institute an inter partes review because the Petitioner’s
`
`arguments for invalidity for all three proposed grounds heavily depend upon
`
`erroneous and unreasonable proposed claim constructions. In IPR2012- 00026,
`
`the Board rejected petitioner’s proposed claim interpretation and denied the
`
`proposed grounds, holding that “[a]s this argument is premised on Petitioner’s
`
`erroneous claim construction we are not persuaded of a reasonable likelihood of
`
`prevailing.” Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., IPR2012-00026, Paper No. 17, at
`
`24 (P.T.A.B Dec. 21, 2012) (emphasis added). The Board should reach the same
`
`result here, as Petitioner’s proposed claim constructions are erroneous and
`
`unreasonable, and are inconsistent with the specification as discussed in detail
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01842
`U.S. Patent No. 8,266,432
`
`
`below. Further, the Federal Circuit has routinely reversed anticipation and
`
`obviousness invalidity decisions when an incorrect claim construction was used. See
`
`Haemonetics Corp. v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 607 F.3d 776, 784 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
`
`(stating that “because the jury’s verdict on invalidity [by anticipation or
`
`obviousness]…relied on the district court’s incorrect claim construction, we vacate
`
`the verdict…and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”); Vita-Mix
`
`Corp. v. Basic Holding, Inc., 581 F.3d 1317, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“The findings
`
`of no invalidity for anticipation, obviousness, or lack of enablement are vacated and
`
`remanded for a decision on the merits under a proper claim construction.”)
`
` As explained in detail below, Petitioner’s proposed constructions are
`
`erroneous and unreasonable and are inconsistent with the specification and claims.
`
`Thus, the Board should not institute inter partes review of the ‘432 patent.
`
`A. “central entity” and “external entity”
`
`Petitioner’s Proposed Construction
`
`Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction
`
`“central entity” and “external entity” are
`
`“central entity” and “external entity”
`
`same entity, and “central entity”
`
`use
`
`separated
`
`computers which
`
`performs the operations of the “external
`
`communicate between each other via a
`
`entity” and vice versa.
`
`communication network, the separated
`
`computers perform different functions,
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-01842
`U.S. Patent No. 8,266,432
`
`and the separated computers are not
`
`interchangeable.
`
` The specification of the ‘432 patent defines the terms “central entity” and
`
`“external entity” as follows.
`
` A “Central-Entity” is any party that has user's personal and/or financial
`
`information, UserName, Password and generates dynamic, non-predictable and
`
`time dependable dynamic code (called a SecureCode in the patent) for the user.
`
`Examples of Central-Entity are: banks, credit card issuing companies or any
`
`intermediary service companies. (Ex. 1001, the ‘432 patent 2:13-18.)
`
` An “External-Entity” is any party offering goods or services that users
`
`utilize by directly providing their UserName and dynamic code (SecureCode) as
`
`digital identity. Such entity could be a merchant, service provider or an online site.
`
`An “External-Entity” could also be an entity that receives the user's digital identity
`
`indirectly from the user through another External-Entity, in order to authenticate
`
`the user, such entity could be a bank or a credit card issuing company. (Ex 1001,
`
`the ‘432 patent 2: 19-26.)
`
` Thus, the central entity and external entity are parties, which may be different
`
`parties or the same party, and further use separated computers for communication
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`via a communication network and perform different functions as further discussed
`
`IPR2015-01842
`U.S. Patent No. 8,266,432
`
`below.
`
` The ‘432 patent describes a computerized communication network system,
`
`where three parties, a user, a central entity and an external entity, communicate with
`
`each other using computers via a communication network. More specifically, the
`
`‘432 patent states: “There are also communication network 50 for the user 10, the
`
`Central-Entity 30 and the External-Entity 20 to give and receive information
`
`between each other.” (Ex 1001, the ‘432 patent 4:40-43.). Further, it states: “The
`
`Central-Entity 30 generates a reply back to the External-Entity 20 via a
`
`communication network 50 as a result of the comparison.” (Ex 1001, the ‘432
`
`patent 5:32-35.) See also FIG. 2. FIG. 2 explicitly illustrates a computerized
`
`communication network and system, where the parties (user, central and external
`
`entities) communicate through the computers, and claim 1 clarifies the patented
`
`subject matter by reciting “a computer associated with a central-entity” and “a
`
`computer associated with the external-entity.”
`
` Since the central entity computer and external entity computer communicate
`
`between each other via a communication network, the computers must be
`
`separated.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`
` Further, the central and external entity computers perform different functions
`
`IPR2015-01842
`U.S. Patent No. 8,266,432
`
`and are not interchangeable as discussed below.
`
`Central-entity computer
`
`External-entity computer
`
`The Central-Entity also generates
`
`When an External-Entity receives the
`
`dynamic, non-predictable and
`
`time
`
`user's digital identity (UserName and
`
`dependent SecureCode for the user per
`
`SecureCode), the External-Entity will
`
`user's
`
`request
`
`and
`
`issues
`
`the
`
`forward this information to the
`
`SecureCode to the user. (Ex 1001, the
`
`Central-Entity
`
`to
`
`identify
`
`and
`
`‘432 patent 3:14-17)
`
`authenticate the user. (Ex 1001, the
`
`‘432 patent 3:21-24)
`
`When the Central-Entity 30 receives
`
`
`
`the request containing the user's digital
`
`identity, the Central-Entity 30 locates
`
`the user's digital identity (UserName and
`
`SecureCode) in the system 134 and
`
`compares it to the digital identity
`
`received from the External-Entity 20 to
`
`identify and validate the user 10, 138.
`
`The Central-Entity 30 generates a
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01842
`U.S. Patent No. 8,266,432
`
`
`
`
`
`reply back to the External-Entity 20 via a
`
`communication network 50 as a result of
`
`the comparison. If both digital identities
`
`match, the Central-Entity 30 will
`
`identify the user 10 and will send an
`
`approval of
`
`the
`
`identification and
`
`authorization request to the External-
`
`Entity 20, 140, otherwise will send a
`
`denial of
`
`the
`
`identification
`
`and
`
`authorization request to the External-
`
`Entity 20, 150 (Ex 1001, the ‘432 patent
`
`5:29-39)
`
`receiving electronically a request for a
`
`receiving electronically by the central-
`
`dynamic code for
`
`the user by a
`
`entity a request for authenticating the
`
`computer associated with a central-
`
`user from a computer associated with
`
`entity during the transaction between the
`
`the external-entity based on a user-
`
`user
`
`and
`
`the
`
`external-entity;……
`
`specific information and the dynamic
`
`providing by the computer associated
`
`code as a digital identity (Ex 1001, the
`
`with the central-entity said generated
`
`‘432 patent claim 1)
`
`14
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01842
`U.S. Patent No. 8,266,432
`
`
`
`dynamic code to the user during the
`
`transaction (Ex 1001, the ‘432 patent
`
`claim 1)
`
`As non-limiting and illustrative examples, the central entity computer
`
`performs the followings functions (steps): (1) generates dynamic, non-predictable
`
`and time dependable dynamic code (SecureCode) for the user, (2) issues the
`
`dynamic code (SecureCode) to the user, (3) locates the user's digital identity and
`
`compares it to the digital identity received from external-entity to identify and
`
`validate the user, and (4) identifies the user and sends an approval of the
`
`identification and authorization request to the external-entity. However, the
`
`external-entity performs none of these functions. The external-entity computer
`
`merely receives the user's digital identity and forwards the information to the
`
`central-entity. The external-entity computer merely intermediates between the
`
`central-entity computer and the user’s computer.
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner’s proposed construction that “central entity performs
`
`the operations of the external entity and vice versa” is erroneous and unreasonable
`
`and is inconsistent with the specification and claims. Thus, Patent Owner proposes
`
`to construe the terms “central entity” and “external entity” such that the entities use
`
`separated computers which communicate between each other via a communication
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`
`network, perform different functions and are not interchangeable, in light of the
`
`specification under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard.
`
`IPR2015-01842
`U.S. Patent No. 8,266,432
`
` Petitioner, at pages 4-5 of the Petition, alleges the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation of these terms as follows:
`
`Specifically, these two terms should be construed broadly
`
`enough for the “central entity” to perform the operations
`
`of the “external-entity” and vice versa, because dependent
`
`claims 1, 11, 46, 49, and 53 recite “said external-entity
`
`and said external entity are the same entity” This
`
`interpretation is also consistent with the specification of
`
`the ‘432 patent, which describes examples of the central-
`
`entity” and the “external-entity that can both be “banks”
`
`or “credit card issuing companies.” (Emphasis added).
`
`Initially, it is noted that Petitioner’s has made some incorrect statements in the
`
`above quoted section. Claim 1 is an independent claim, not a dependent claim as
`
`stated; and claims 11, 46, 49 and 53 recite that “said external-entity and said central
`
`entity are the same entity,” not that “said external-entity and said external entity
`
`are the same entity.”
`
` However, the claim limitations of claims 11, 46, 49, and 53 do not conflict
`
`with Patent Owner’s construction of the terms. That is because claims 11, 46, 49
`
`and 53 can be construed without an ambiguity to mean that the central entity and the
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`
`external entity are the same party using two separated computers which
`
`communicate between each other and perform different functions.
`
`IPR2015-01842
`U.S. Patent No. 8,266,432
`
`The claim construction should be consistent with the remainder of the
`
`specification and the terms and phrases used in the claims. See, Phillips v. AWH
`
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005); 37 C.F.R. §
`
`1.75(d)(1). Patent Owner’s construction is consistent with the remainder of the
`
`specification and claims. That is because the terms used in the claims require
`
`communications between the separated computers, by receiving a request and
`
`providing a result therebetween.
`
`In contrast, Petitioner’s proposed construction that “the external-entity and the
`
`central entity are the same entity” is ambiguous as it is unclear whether it means
`
`whether the entities are parties or computers used or owned by the parties. Further,
`
`it suggests the inclusion of a construction that the external-entity and the central
`
`entity are one single computer. First, such construction is clearly nonsensical and
`
`more importantly is inconsistent with the specification and claims. There cannot be
`
`any communication in a single computer over a communication network. Second,
`
`more importantly, Petitioner’s all three grounds 1, 2, and 3 heavily rely on such
`
`erroneous construction. Thus, the Board should reject Petitioner’s proposed
`
`construction and accordingly not institute inter partes review of the ‘432 patent. If
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`
`there is any vagueness and ambiguity in Petitioner’s arguments, it should be resolved
`
`against Petitioner. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., CBM2012-
`
`IPR2015-01842
`U.S. Patent No. 8,266,432
`
`00003, Paper 8, p. 10 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2012).
`
`Further, Petitioner alleges, at page 5 of Petition, that the specification of the
`
`‘432 patent describes “examples of ‘central entity’ and ‘external entity’ that can both
`
`be ‘banks’ or ‘credit card issuing companies.’” Patent Owner’s construction is
`
`consistent with the description in the ‘432 patent because although the central entity
`
`and the external entity can be the same party, there could be separated computers
`
`associated with the same party.
`
`Further, claim 1 of the ‘432 patent distinctly recites two elements (1) “a
`
`computer associated with a central-entity” and (2) “a computer associated with
`
`the external-entity.” The two computers associated with the central and external
`
`entities respectively must be construed as separated from each other because the two
`
`computers communicate between each other, and further each computer is