throbber
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 30146-0019IP1
`
`In re Patent of: Osborn
`U.S. Pat. No.: 6,026,293
`Issue Date:
`Feb. 15, 2000
`Appl. Serial No.: 08/706,574
`Filing Date:
`Sep. 5, 1996
`Title: SYSTEM FOR PREVENTING ELECTRONIC MEMORY TAMPERING
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF RICHARD A. KEMMERER IN SUPPORT OF INTER
`PARTES REVIEW OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 6,026,293
`
`
`
`I, Dr. Richard Kemmerer, of Santa Barbara, CA, declare that:
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`
`I have been retained on behalf of the Petitioner Apple Inc. to provide
`
`this Declaration concerning technical subject matter relevant to the inter partes
`
`review of U.S. Patent No. 6,026,293 (the “’293 patent”).
`
`2.
`
`I am over 18 years of age. I have personal knowledge of the facts
`
`stated in this Declaration and could testify competently to them if asked to do so.
`
`BACKGROUND
`3. My name is Richard A. Kemmerer. I am an expert in the general
`
`fields of computer science and computer technology and more specifically in the
`
`1
`
`APPLE 1003
`
`

`
`fields of computer and network security. I have been an expert in these fields since
`
`prior to 1996. In formulating my opinions, I have relied upon my training,
`
`knowledge, and experience in the relevant art. A copy of my resume is provided as
`
`an appendix to this Declaration (Appendix A) and provides a comprehensive
`
`description of my relevant experience, including academic and employment
`
`history, publications, conference participation, and issued and pending U.S.
`
`patents.
`
`4.
`
`I received a B.S. degree in Mathematics from Pennsylvania State
`
`University in 1966, followed by a M.S. (1976) and Ph.D. (1979) in Computer
`
`Science from the University of California, Los Angeles.
`
`5. My academic career began in 1979 when I served as an Assistant
`
`Professor in the Department of Computer Science, University of California, Santa
`
`Barbara (1979-1985). I then served as a Visiting Professor at the Laboratory of
`
`Computer Science at MIT from 1985-1986, and an Associate Professor in the
`
`Department of Computer Science at the University of California, Santa Barbara
`
`from 1985 to 1989. Since 1989, I have served and continue to serve as a Professor
`
`of Computer Science at the University of California, Santa Barbara, where I have
`
`held the Leadership Professor Endowed Chair since 2006.
`
`6. My experience with computer and network security goes back more
`
`than 35 years. I have been teaching courses in computer security at both the
`
`2
`
`

`
`undergraduate and graduate level since around 1983. Since 1981 I have organized
`
`an annual workshop on cryptographic techniques in Santa Barbara.
`
`7.
`
`In 2009, while working with a team from the University of California
`
`at Santa Barbara, I commandeered the Torpig botnet from a team of Russian
`
`computer hackers who had been using the botnet to steal e-mail credentials, credit
`
`cards numbers, and other personal information from thousands of people. The
`
`botnet included hundreds of thousands of hosts that were volunteering gigabytes of
`
`sensitive information.
`
`8.
`
`Since 1979 I have worked as a computer system security consultant.
`
`In 2007, while working with the California Secretary of State, I compromised
`
`several electronic voting systems to expose their security vulnerabilities. In 2000,
`
`while working with a major international bank, I compromised the bank’s
`
`computer network to demonstrate existing vulnerabilities.
`
`9.
`
`Over my career, I have received numerous research grants from the
`
`U.S. Army, National Security Agency, and DARPA related to network and
`
`computer security. From 1977-1979, I worked as a research assistant at UCLA
`
`sponsored by DARPA to verify the UCLA Secure Unix Operating system. That
`
`work formed the basis of my dissertation. Most recently I have been working on a
`
`grant from the Army Research Office regarding cyber-attack analysis and
`
`prediction.
`
`3
`
`

`
`10.
`
`In 1979, I presented one of my first papers on computer security,
`
`entitled “Specification and Verification of the UCLA Security Kernel.” The paper
`
`was presented at the 7th Symposium on Operating Systems Principles and was
`
`later published in the Communications of the ACM.
`
`11.
`
`I have published numerous technical articles and papers in major
`
`conference proceedings and journals, and have served on numerous national and
`
`international committees.
`
`12.
`
`I have testified as an expert witness and served as a consultant in
`
`patent and intellectual property litigation and in inter partes review proceedings.
`
`13.
`
`I am not, and never was, an employee of Apple Inc. I have been
`
`engaged in the present matter to provide my independent analysis of the issues
`
`raised in the petition for inter partes review of the ’293 patent. I received no
`
`compensation for this Declaration beyond my normal hourly compensation based
`
`on my time actually spent studying the matter, and I will not receive any added
`
`compensation based on the outcome of this inter partes review of the ’293 patent.
`
`14. My analysis and conclusions expressed herein are based on review
`
`and analysis of certain information obtained in connection with my work in this
`
`matter, together with my training, education, and experience. The analysis and
`
`conclusions expressed herein are my own.
`
`4
`
`

`
`15. As part of my independent analysis for this Declaration, I have
`
`considered the following: my own knowledge and experience, including my work
`
`experience in the fields of computer science and electrical engineering; my
`
`experience in teaching and advising students in those subjects; and my experience
`
`in working with others involved in those fields. In addition, I have analyzed the
`
`following publications and materials:
`
` The disclosure and claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,026,293 to Osborn
`
`(“the ’293 patent”; Ex. 1001)
`
` U.S. Pat. No. 5,421,006 to Jablon et al. (“Jablon”; Ex. 1004)
`
` U.S. Pat. No. 5,349,697 to Pelkonen (“Pelkonen”; Ex. 1005)
`
` U.S. Pat. No. 4,727,544 to Brunner et al. (“Brunner”; Ex. 1006)
`
` U.S. Pat. No. 4,590,552 to Guttag et al. (“Guttag”; Ex. 1007)
`
` National Institute of Standards and Technology—Proposed Federal
`
`Information Processing Standard for Secure Hash Standard, 57
`
`Fed. Reg. 3,747 (Jan. 31, 1992) (“Secure Hash Standard”; Ex.
`
`1008)
`
` U.S. Pat. No. 5,802,592 to Chess et al. (“Chess”; Ex. 1009)
`
` Joint Claim Construction and PreHearing Statement in Ericsson
`
`Inc. et al. v. Apple Inc., case no. 2:15-cv-289-JRG (E.D. Tex.,
`
`complaint filed Feb. 26, 2015) (Ex. 1010)
`
`5
`
`

`
`16. Although this Declaration refers to selected portions of the cited
`
`references for the sake of brevity, it should be understood that these are examples,
`
`and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have viewed the references cited
`
`herein in their entirety and in combination with other references cited herein or
`
`cited within the references themselves. The references used in this Declaration,
`
`therefore, should be viewed as being incorporated herein in their entirety.
`
`OVERVIEW OF CONCLUSIONS FORMED
`17. This Declaration explains the conclusions that I have formed based on
`
`my independent analysis. To summarize those conclusions:
`
` Based upon my knowledge and experience and my review of the prior art
`
`publications listed above, I believe that claims 1, 10, 11, 14, and 16 of the
`
`’293 patent are obvious in light of U.S. Patent No. 5,421,006 to Jablon et
`
`al. (“Jablon”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,349,697 to Pelkonen (“Pelko-
`
`nen”)
`
` Based upon my knowledge and experience and my review of the prior art
`
`publications listed above, I believe that claim 2 of the ’293 patent is ob-
`
`vious in light of Jablon in view of Pelkonen and U.S. Patent No.
`
`4,727,544 to Brunner et al. (“Brunner”)
`
` Based upon my knowledge and experience and my review of the prior art
`
`publications listed above, I believe that claims 8 and 9 of the ’293 patent
`
`6
`
`

`
`are obvious in light of Jablon in view of Pelkonen and U.S. Patent No.
`
`4,590,552 to Guttag et al. (“Guttag”)
`
` Based upon my knowledge and experience and my review of the prior art
`
`publications listed above, I believe that claim 13 of the ’293 patent is ob-
`
`vious in light of Jablon in view of Pelkonen and National Institute of
`
`Standards and Technology—Proposed Federal Information Processing
`
`Standard for Secure Hash Standard, 57 Fed. Reg. 3,747 (Jan. 31, 1992)
`
`(“Secure Hash Standard”)
`
` Based upon my knowledge and experience and my review of the prior art
`
`publications listed above, I believe that claims 1, 2, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 16
`
`of the ’293 patent are obvious in light of U.S Patent No. 5,802,592 to
`
`Chess et al. (“Chess”) in view of Pelkonen
`
` Based upon my knowledge and experience and my review of the prior art
`
`publications listed above, I believe that claims 8 and 9 of the ’293 patent
`
`are obvious in light of Chess in view of Pelkonen and Guttag
`
`BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE ONE OF SKILL IN THE ART WOULD
`HAVE HAD PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THE ’293 PATENT
`18. The technology in the ’293 patent at issue generally relates to com-
`
`puter memory security, including “preventing electronic memory manipulation . . .
`
`[and] preventing unauthorized manipulation of desirably secure memory contents
`
`in an electronic device.” See Ex. 1001 at 1:5-8. The ’293 patent describes per-
`
`7
`
`

`
`forming an “audit” of electronic memory that includes performing a hash calcula-
`
`tion for contents of an electronic memory and comparing this calculated hash value
`
`to a valid hash value previously determined for the memory contents. Id. at 6:30-
`
`45. If this comparison reveals a disparity between the newly calculated “audit hash
`
`value” and the stored hash value for the memory, this can indicate memory tamper-
`
`ing. Id. The ’293 patent also discloses ensuring memory integrity through use of
`
`public/private key authentication for stored hash values. Id. at 8:19-46.
`
`19. Prior to the filing date of the ’293 patent (September 5, 1996) there
`
`existed numerous products, publications, and patents that implemented or
`
`described the functionality claimed in claims 1, 2, 8-11, 13-14, and 16 of the ’293
`
`patent. Based upon my knowledge and experience and my review of the prior art
`
`publications listed above, I believe that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time would have recognized that the subject matter described in claims 1, 2, 8-11,
`
`13-14, and 16 of the ’293 patent was well known in the prior art. Further, to the
`
`extent there was any problem to be solved in subject matter recited in claims 1, 2,
`
`8-11, 13-14, and 16 of the ’293 patent, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time would have known that such a problem had already been solved in the prior
`
`art systems before the filing date of the ’293 patent.
`
`20. Based upon my experience in this area, a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art in this field at the relevant time frame (“POSITA”) would have had a
`
`8
`
`

`
`combination of experience and education in electrical or computer engineering or
`
`computer science and their subfield of computer and network security and cryptog-
`
`raphy. This typically would consist of a minimum of a bachelor degree in electri-
`
`cal or computer engineering, computer science, or a related engineering field with
`
`at least two years of experience in embedded systems design and knowledge in the
`
`field of cryptography.
`
`21. Based on my experiences and as described in ¶¶ 3-12, I have a good
`
`understanding of the capabilities of a POSITA. Indeed, I have taught, participated
`
`in organizations, and worked closely with many such persons over the course of
`
`my career, including during the mid-1990s and continuing through the present
`
`time.
`
`INTERPRETATIONS OF THE ’293 PATENT CLAIMS AT ISSUE
`
`22.
`
`I have been informed that the ’293 patent will expire on September 5,
`
`2016. I have been informed that when a patent is set to expire during the pendency
`
`of an inter partes review the standard for claim construction shifts from the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation standard to the district court’s Markman
`
`standard. Under a Markman standard, I have been informed that the claims of a
`
`patent are to be given their meaning as understood by a POSITA at the time of
`
`invention in light of the patent’s intrinsic evidence (e.g., specification and
`
`prosecution history) and, when appropriate, extrinsic evidence (e.g., technical
`
`9
`
`

`
`dictionaries). The construction proposed herein is consistent with the specification
`
`and claims (i.e., the intrinsic evidence) and therefore should not be affected by the
`
`standard applied. I also understand that the words of the claims should be
`
`interpreted as they would have been interpreted by a POSITA at the time the
`
`invention was made (not today). Because I do not know at what date the invention
`
`as claimed was made, I have used the filing date of the ’293 patent, which is Sep-
`
`tember 5, 1996. Without exception, however, the interpretation that I provide
`
`below would have also been correct if the date of invention was anywhere within
`
`the early to mid-1990s. I have been asked to provide my interpretation of the
`
`following term of the ’293 patent set forth below.
`
`23. Claims 1 and 14 recite “secure from tampering.” Based on my
`
`knowledge and experience in this field and my review of the ’293 patent and other
`
`evidence, I believe a POSITA would have understood this term to mean “able to
`
`provide assurance of the integrity of the memory contents.” In reviewing the ’293
`
`patent, I observed that all references to preventing tampering relate to preventing
`
`or detecting tampering of the contents of electronic memory. For example, the
`
`’293 patent recites:
`
`drawbacks and limitations of conventional methods and proposed
`solutions for preventing cellular telephone memory tampering, and
`electronic memory tampering generally, are overcome by the present
`
`10
`
`

`
`invention, exemplary embodiments of which protect electronic
`memory contents from unauthorized access and manipulation.
`
`In accordance with one aspect of the invention, security is achieved by
`periodically auditing electronic memory contents in an electronic
`device to ensure that the contents have not been tampered with. The
`audit involves performing a hash calculation over selected contents of
`the electronic memory to derive an audit hash value, or audit
`signature, of such contents. The audit hash value is compared with a
`valid hash value previously derived from authentic memory contents.
`The valid hash value is preferably stored in an encrypted form within
`an electronic memory and decrypted only for purposes of comparison.
`A disparity between the audit hash value and the valid hash value
`can indicate memory tampering, wherefore an electronic device
`containing the electronic memory can be rendered inoperative, or a
`warning indication can be made.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 6:24-45 (emphasis added). There is no explicit discussion by the ’293
`
`patent of avoiding and detecting tampering of specific steps of storing an original
`
`hash value, calculating an audit hash value, or comparing hash values, only to pre-
`
`venting “memory tampering” in general. Id. Additionally, the ’293 patent does
`
`not explicitly indicate which, if any, disclosed processes and/or systems are re-
`
`sponsible for ensuring that any hash calculation and comparison processes are “se-
`
`cure from tampering.” Finding no clear discussion in the ’293 patent of processes
`
`and/or systems that are explicitly implemented for the purpose of ensuring that
`
`11
`
`

`
`hash calculation and comparison processes are secure from tampering, I have
`
`turned to other evidence, including the claim constructions provided by the Patent
`
`Owner in the corresponding litigation, which provide a definition of “able to pro-
`
`vide assurance of the integrity of the memory contents” for this claim term and I
`
`have applied this claim interpretation in analyzing the prior art references cited
`
`herein vis-à-vis the claims of the ’293 patent. See Ex. 1010 at pp. 11-12.
`
`
`
`ANALYSIS OF JABLON IN VIEW OF PELKONEN (CLAIMS 1, 10, 11, 14,
`and 16)
`24. Based upon my knowledge and experience and my review of the prior
`
`art publications listed above, I believe that claims 1, 10, 11, 14, and 16 of the ’293
`
`patent are obvious in light of Jablon in view of Pelkonen. Jablon is one of many
`
`prior art examples of a system for preventing and detecting unauthorized access to
`
`contents of electronic memory that employ secure hashing to verify the integrity of
`
`the memory contents. Ex. 1004 at 5:44-56; 6:2-5; 11:21-32; 8:60-68; 17:15-21;
`
`14:52-67; 9:18-20; 16:66-17:4. FIG. 9 of Jablon shows a flow chart of a process
`
`for computing a hash value (referred to by Jablon as a “modification detection
`
`code” or “MDC”) for the contents of memory, and comparing the newly calculated
`
`hash value to a verification hash value for original/authentic memory contents to
`
`determine if memory tampering has occurred:
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`
`Ex. 1004 at FIG. 9; 5:44-56; 17:42-47; 11:21-32; 8:60-68. Jablon further discloses
`
`using “a one-way latch, which protects data stored in non-volatile memory” to en-
`
`sure that the hash value calculation and comparison processes are secure from
`
`tampering. Id. at 10:25-45. The one-way latch protects data stored in memory that
`
`is used during the hash calculation and comparison process from tampering. Id. In
`
`this way, this “memory protection latch . . . make[s] security mechanisms immune
`
`to software attack” and therefore makes Jablon’s hash value calculation based “in-
`
`tegrity assessment method . . . immune to the kind of violations it is intended to de-
`
`13
`
`

`
`tect.” Id. at 6:20-25. Jablon discloses other additional security assurance features,
`
`including use of public/private key “signature verification” in conjunction with the
`
`above described memory integrity verification processes. Id. at 9:1-20. For exam-
`
`ple, Jablon discloses “using the private-key of a trusted authority” to sign the
`
`“modification detection code” for an authorized program (e.g., authenticated, valid
`
`memory contents) and storing the signature. Id. at 19:28-62. Then, during the
`
`modification detection code verification process, the signed authenticated modifi-
`
`cation detection code is retrieved, the digital signature is verified using the stored
`
`public-key, and the integrity of the program (e.g., the memory contents) is
`
`checked. Id.
`
`25.
`
`Jablon does not explicitly disclose performing the various memory in-
`
`tegrity assurance and verification processes on a cellular telephone, but does ex-
`
`plicitly indicate that the described techniques can be used “in many computer sys-
`
`tems” and that “the same benefits” achieved when these techniques are applied to
`
`an “IBM-compatible personal computer” “can be realized in other computer oper-
`
`ating systems and hardware, and appropriately modified implementations will be
`
`apparent to those skilled in the art” which includes “non-PC systems.” Ex. 1004 at
`
`1:34-42; 10:23-24; 22:28-29. Indeed, based on my knowledge and experience in
`
`the relevant field, I agree with Jablon’s disclosure that a POSITA would have rec-
`
`ognized the memory integrity assurance and verification processes disclosed by
`
`14
`
`

`
`Jablon could be readily and easily applied to a variety of computing environments,
`
`and such application would have led to a number of predictable and beneficial out-
`
`comes, especially when applied to computing devices for which memory integrity
`
`was recognized as important, such as cellular telephones and other mobile, network
`
`accessible devices. One such example of a computing device on which a POSITA
`
`would have been able to readily and beneficially apply Jablon’s processes is the
`
`radiotelephone disclosed by Pelkonen. See Ex. 1005 at 1:35-46; 1:66-2:3; 2:25-47.
`
`Pelkonen’s radio telephone includes “logic means, non-volatile memory and a
`
`RAM coupled to the logic means” and Pelkonen further discloses that “programme
`
`code is recorded in the RAM.” Id. at 1:37-39. Pelkonen also recognizes the im-
`
`portance of verifying “the integrity of the programme code stored in the RAM 3”
`
`using known methods.” Id. at 2:29-30. Indeed, Jablon discloses precisely such a
`
`known method, which a POSITA would have readily applied to Pelkonen’s radio-
`
`telephone to achieve predictable and beneficial results, especially by as late of a
`
`date as the filing of the ’293 patent.
`
`26. As set forth in more detail below, all of which is based upon my
`
`knowledge and experience in this art and my review of Jablon and Pelkonen, I
`
`believe that the teachings of Jablon in view of Pelkonen provide every element
`
`recited in claims 1, 10, 11, 14, and 16 of the ’293 patent, and that there were a
`
`15
`
`

`
`number of reasons (articulated in detail in ¶¶ 29-33 below) that would have
`
`prompted a POSITA to provide this resulting combination of Jablon and Pelkonen.
`
`[1.P] A cellular telephone comprising:
`27. The teachings of Jablon in view of Pelkonen disclose a cellular tele-
`
`phone. For example, as described in ¶ 24 above, Jablon discloses processes and
`
`methods for protecting and verifying memory integrity that can be performed in
`
`numerous computing environments, including “non-PC systems,” to achieve vari-
`
`ous “benefits” disclosed by Jablon. Ex. 1004 at 1:34-42; 10:23-24; 22:28-29. In-
`
`deed, a POSITA would have recognized that Jablon’s processes would have been
`
`beneficially implemented in any computing environment involving memory, and
`
`would have been particularly useful in computing environments in which assuring
`
`the integrity of the contents of memory was useful, including cellular telephones.
`
`28.
`
` To the extent that Jablon does not explicitly disclose a cellular tele-
`
`phone, the use of memory integrity assurance in cellular telephones was commonly
`
`known in similar prior art systems. For example, like Jablon, Pelkonen discloses a
`
`computing environment that includes processes for “check[ing] the integrity” of
`
`memory contents (including program code), and more specifically discloses
`
`memory integrity verification in the context of a cellular telephone. Ex. 1005 at
`
`2:29-31; 1:37-39. Pelkonen’s “radiotelephone” includes “the logic means and
`
`wherein the programme code is recorded in the RAM.” Id. at 1:37-39. Pelkonen
`
`16
`
`

`
`further discloses a “checking programme recorded in the ROM 4 [that] controls the
`
`CPU 1 to read and check the integrity of the programme code stored in the RAM 3
`
`by a known method, for example by calculating the check sum.” Id. at 2:26-31. As
`
`discussed in ¶ 24, above, one such “known method” for verifying the integrity of
`
`the contents of the radiotelephone’s memory is the “modification detection code”
`
`method disclosed by Jablon, which Jablon explicitly describes as an improvement
`
`over prior techniques “such as checksums.” See Ex. 1004 at 5:19-35; 11:21-32;
`
`8:60-68. Furthermore, Pelkonen discloses a “check sum” as an example “known
`
`method” for “check[ing] the integrity of the programme code stored in the RAM.”
`
`Ex. 1005 2:29-31.
`
`29. There are several reasons that would have prompted a POSITA to
`
`implement Jablon’s processes for protecting and assuring the integrity of the con-
`
`tents of an electronic memory (using hashing based “modification detection
`
`codes”) in the computing environment disclosed by Pelkonen (a cellular telephone
`
`having a “checking programme” for checking the integrity of the contents of the
`
`radiotelephone’s memory) to achieve a cellular telephone having improved
`
`memory integrity verification and protection. First, based upon my knowledge and
`
`experience and my review of the ’293 patent, Jablon, and Pelkonen, I believe that a
`
`POSITA would have understood that Pelkonen is concerned with ensuring “integ-
`
`rity of the programme code stored in the RAM 3 by a known method” and that Ja-
`
`17
`
`

`
`blon discloses precisely such a known “integrity assessment” method for verifying
`
`and protecting the integrity of the contents of memory using hashing based “modi-
`
`fication detection codes.” Ex. 1005 at 2:29-30; Ex. 1004 at 8:60-68; 11:21-32. In-
`
`deed, Jablon indicates that the use of “modification detection codes” “address[es]
`
`th[e] problem[s]” associated with other known methods of verifying and protecting
`
`the integrity of memory contents. Ex. 1004 at 5:32-35.
`
`30. Second, based upon my knowledge and experience and my review of
`
`the ’293 patent and Jablon and Pelkonen references, I believe that a POSITA
`
`would have been prompted to implement Jablon’s processes in Pelkonen’s cellular
`
`telephone computing environment because Pelkonen contemplates using “known
`
`method[s]” for verifying memory integrity and gives an express example of using a
`
`“check sum” calculation, while Jablon’s use of hashing based “modification
`
`detection codes” was implemented to “address . . . problem[s]” associated with
`
`checksum based integrity verification techniques. Ex. 1005 at 2:29-31; Ex. 1004 at
`
`5:26-35. Indeed, based upon a review of the teachings in Jablon and Pelkonen, a
`
`POSITA would have recognized that—because Jablon’s approach to verifying
`
`memory integrity was intended as an improvement over check sum based meth-
`
`ods—applying these processes to Pelkonen would have been an improvement over
`
`the check sum example given by Pelkonen.
`
`18
`
`

`
`31. Third, based upon my knowledge and experience and my review of
`
`the ’293 patent and Jablon and Pelkonen references, I believe that a POSITA
`
`would have understood that Jablon recognizes that “appropriately modified
`
`implementations will be apparent to those skilled in the art” and plainly suggests
`
`using Jablon’s processes “in many other computer systems” including “non-PC
`
`systems.” Ex. 1004 at 1:34-42; 10:23-24; 22:28-29. In light of such suggestions, a
`
`POSITA would have been prompted to implement Jablon’s processes in Pelko-
`
`nen’s cellular telephone computing environment because Pelkonen discloses just
`
`such a computer system in the form of Pelkonen’s “radiotelephone comprising
`
`logic means, non-volatile memory and a RAM coupled to the logic means and
`
`wherein the programme code is recorded in the RAM.” Ex. 1005 at 1:37-39.
`
`32. Fourth, based upon my knowledge and experience and my review of
`
`the ’293 patent and Jablon and Pelkonen references, I believe that a POSITA
`
`would have understood that Jablon and Pelkonen share similar motivations and
`
`therefore Jablon’s improved memory integrity verification processes could be ad-
`
`vantageously implemented on Pelkonen’s radiotelephone. Namely, both Jablon
`
`and Pelkonen are concerned with allowing code stored on memory of a computing
`
`device to be updated without requiring replacement of physical hardware compo-
`
`nents (such as memory). For example, Jablon discloses as “allow[ing] the system
`
`to be upgraded with a new boot record, as part of a general installation of new
`
`19
`
`

`
`software” without requiring replacement of the system memory, while Pelkonen
`
`discloses the “advantage” of a user being “able to update the programme code
`
`without need to replace the memory.” Ex. 1004 at 14:41-42; Ex. 1005 at 1:40-42.
`
`33. Fifth, based upon my knowledge and experience and my review of the
`
`’293 patent and Jablon and Pelkonen references, it is plain that Jablon and
`
`Pelkonen both describe computing systems having programs and processes for pro-
`
`tecting and verifying the integrity of the contents of memory. Here, a POSITA
`
`would have been prompted to implement Jablon’s “modification detection code”
`
`memory integrity verification techniques on Pelkonen’s cellular telephone because
`
`doing so would be merely the application of a known technique (e.g., hashing
`
`based memory protection and verification) to a known device (e.g., a cellular
`
`phone having electronic memory) ready for improvement to yield predictable
`
`results. Indeed, by the mid-1990’s it was a well-known and accepted practice in
`
`the design of computing devices to take features (including security features) from
`
`traditional computers such as personal computers and other computing devices and
`
`implement those features in cellular phones. Additionally, a POSTIA would have
`
`readily understood at the time that implementing Jablon’s processes on Pelkonen’s
`
`cellular phone would not significantly alter or hinder the functions performed by
`
`the processes of Jablon, yet it would have also provided the additional benefits
`
`described above.
`
`20
`
`

`
`[1.1] a microprocessor
`34. The teachings of Jablon in view of Pelkonen disclose a microproces-
`
`sor. For example, Jablon includes numerous references to processor or “central
`
`processing unit” (CPU) including disclosing that the “computer system compris[es]
`
`a processor [and] random access memory,” that the “CPU 36 is [located] on the
`
`PC’s motherboard” and that the CPU is in electronic communication with “RAM
`
`13 and ROM 15” via “the address bus 12.” Ex. 1004 at claim 1; 13:45-46; 11:57-
`
`61; 13:47-13:66. FIG. 1 show’s Jablon’s CPU:
`
`Ex. 1004 at FIG. 1. Pelkonen also discloses that the “radiotelephone comprises a
`
`central processing unit (CPU) 1 coupled to an integrated internal bus INT BUS 2.
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`
`The CPU 1 can communicate, via the bus 2, with a random-access-memory (RAM)
`
`3 of reading and writing type.” Ex. 1005 at 1:66-2:2; FIG. 1.
`
`[1.2] a memory
`35. The teachings of Jablon in view of Pelkonen disclose a memory. For
`
`example, Jablon includes numerous references to memory, including disclosing
`
`that the “computer system compris[es] a processor [and] random access memory,”
`
`that the “CPU 36 is [located] on the PC’s motherboard” and that the CPU is in
`
`electronic communication with “RAM 13 and ROM 15” via “the address bus 12.”
`
`Ex. 1004 at claim 1; 13:45-46; 11:57-61; 13:47-13:66. Jablon discloses that data
`
`can be stored “in a protectable memory region during a software configuration
`
`process” and that this data can include “data to verify system initialization pro-
`
`grams before they are run.” Id. at 8:39-42. Jablon makes numerous references to
`
`“non-volatile memory,” further describing this non-volatile memory as “CMOS
`
`RAM.” Id. at 7:6-8; 8:48-56; 10:25-27. Jablon also discloses loading programs in-
`
`to memory. See, e.g., id. at 12:29-30; 9:17-20; FIG. 10. Pelkonen also discloses
`
`that the “radiotelephone comprises a central processing unit (CPU) 1 coupled to an
`
`integrated internal bus INT BUS 2. The CPU 1 can communicate, via the bus 2,
`
`with a random-access-memory (RAM) 3 of reading and writing type.” Ex. 1005 at
`
`1:66-2:2; FIG. 1.
`
`[1.3] wherein the microprocessor performs a hash calculation on contents of
`the memory to derive an audit hash value
`
`22
`
`

`
`36.
`
`Jablon discloses wherein the microprocessor performs a hash
`
`calculation on contents of the memory to derive an audit hash value. For example,
`
`as discussed above in ¶ 24, Jablon discloses using known hashing techniques such
`
`as a “cryptographic hash,” or the “secure hash algorithm” taught by “National
`
`Institute of Standards and Technology--Proposed FIPS for Secure Hash Standard”
`
`to compute a hash value which Jablon refers to as a “modification detection code.”
`
`Ex. 1004 at 5:44-56; see also Ex. 1008 at pp. 1-2 (giving details on uses for the
`
`“Secure Hash Algorithm (SHA)” referenced by Jablon). Jablon uses these calcu-
`
`lated hash values or “modification detection codes” to conduct various memory in-
`
`tegrity verification processes. For example, Jablon discloses “comput[ing]
`
`modification detection codes on programs [to] verify them prior to program
`
`execution.” Ex. 1004 at 6:2-5. As explained by Jablon, the systems CPU executes
`
`program instructions that “compute[] a modification detection code on the boot
`
`record when the system starts up, and compares the code to a previously stored
`
`value in non-volatile memory. If the value does not match, the boot record program
`
`is not run, and the user is warned of the error.” Id. at 11:21-32. Jablon explains
`
`that “modification detection codes provide a suitably strong means of integrity
`
`verification” by allowing the system to “compute[], using known techniques, a
`
`modification detection code for [a] program, and compare[] it to a pre-computed
`
`stored code in protectable non-volatile memory” prior to executing the program.
`
`23
`
`

`
`Id. at 8:60-66; see also 10:59-60; 16:66-

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