IPR2017-00430 Zatkovich Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 6,088,802
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SPEX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`IPR2017-00430
`Patent 6,088,802
`
`DECLARATION OF IVAN ZATKOVICH
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00430
`UNIFIED EX1002
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00430 Zatkovich Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 6,088,802
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`1. 
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1 
`2.  BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS .................................................... 1 
`3.  LEGAL STANDARDS ....................................................................................... 4 
`3.1.  Anticipation ................................................................................................ 4 
`3.2.  Obviousness ............................................................................................... 5 
`4.  SUMMARY OF MY STUDY ............................................................................ 7 
`5.  ONE OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ..................................................... 8 
`6.  TECHNICAL BACKGROUND ......................................................................... 8 
`6.1.  Knowledge of Skill in the Art in June 1997 .............................................. 8 
`6.2. 
`The Problem Allegedly Solved by the ʼ802 Patent .................................. 14 
`7.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .............................................................................. 19 
`7.1. 
`“peripheral device” ................................................................................... 20 
`7.2. 
`“security operations” ................................................................................ 20 
`7.3. 
`“defined interaction” and “interaction . . . in a defined way” .................. 21 
`7.4. 
`“security means for enabling one or more security operations to be
`performed on data” ............................................................................................... 21 
`7.5. 
`“target means for enabling a defined interaction with a host computing
`device” 22 
`7.6. 
`“means for enabling communication between the security means and the
`target means” ........................................................................................................ 23 
`7.7. 
`“means for enabling communication with a host computing device” ..... 23 
`7.8. 
`“means for operably connecting the security means and/or the target
`means to the host computing device in response to an instruction from the host
`computing device” ................................................................................................ 23 
`7.9. 
`“means for mediating communication of data between the host
`computing device and the target means so that the communicated data must first
`pass through the security means” ......................................................................... 24 
`7.10. 
`“means for non-volatilely storing data” ................................................... 24 
`7.11. 
`“means for enabling communication between the host computing device
`and a remote device” ............................................................................................ 25 
`
`i
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00430 Zatkovich Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 6,088,802
`“means for communicating with a smart card” ........................................ 25 
`7.12. 
`“means for providing to a host computing device, in response to a request
`7.13. 
`from the host computing device for information regarding the type of the
`peripheral device, information regarding the function of the target means” ....... 25 
`7.14. 
`“wireless communication means” ............................................................ 26 
`8.  OPINIONS AS TO JONES ............................................................................... 26 
`8.1. 
`Summary of Jones .................................................................................... 26 
`8.2.  Obvious Modifications to Jones in June 1997 ......................................... 29 
`9.  OPINIONS AS TO JONES AND HARARI ...................................................... 29 
`9.1. 
`Summary of Harari .................................................................................. 29 
`9.2. 
`The Addition of Harari’s Smart Card Reader to Jones ........................... 30 
`10.  OPINIONS AS TO CLARK AND USB SPECIFICATION ........................... 30 
`10.1.  Summary of Clark .................................................................................... 30 
`10.2.  Obvious Modifications to Clark in June 1997 ......................................... 32 
`10.3.  Summary of USB Specification ................................................................ 34 
`10.4.  The Addition of USB Standard’s Driver and Operable Connection of
`Host Computer and Peripheral to Clark ............................................................... 38 
`
`ii
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00430 Zatkovich Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 6,088,802
`
`I, Ivan Zatkovich, hereby declare:
`
`1. INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by Counsel for Petitioner Unified Patents Inc.
`
`(“Unified” or “Petitioner”) to provide opinions on certain issues concerning Inter
`
`Partes Review No. IPR2017-00430 of U.S. Patent 6,088,802 (“the ʼ802 Patent”).
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to opine on the matters set forth below. I make
`
`these statements based upon facts and matters within my own knowledge or on
`
`information provided to me by others. All such facts and matters are true to the
`
`best of my knowledge and belief.
`
`3.
`
`I am a Principal Consultant of eComp Consultants. My firm is
`
`compensated at a rate of $395 per hour for my work on this matter. This
`
`compensation is not dependent on my opinions or testimony or the outcome of this
`
`matter.
`
`2. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`A copy of my curriculum vitae is attached as Exhibit 1.
`
`I have 31 years of direct experience in computer science, computer
`
`networks and software engineering, including thirteen years of experience
`
`specifically targeting peripheral interfaces, device drivers, data security, and user
`
`authentication and authorization for various business applications including
`
`banking, financial, and insurance applications.
`
`1
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00430 Zatkovich Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 6,088,802
`I have been a Principal Consultant with eComp Consultants for more
`
`6.
`
`than 15 years. eComp Consultants provides professional consulting services
`
`relating to computer and technical matters in a wide range of industries including
`
`embedded systems, device interfaces, cellular telephony, and cloud-based services.
`
`Such consulting services include working with clients on specific information
`
`technology projects, process improvement, project management, and other
`
`technology issues. eComp Consultants also provides professional expert witness
`
`services.
`
`7.
`
`At eComp Consultants, I have been qualified as a technical expert in
`
`more than 30 matters, and specifically with respect to peripheral interfaces, data
`
`security, and authentication technologies in more than six matters.
`
`8.
`
`I earned a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, with a minor in
`
`Electrical Engineering Digital Circuit Design, from the University of Pittsburgh in
`
`1980. I also completed a Master’s thesis in Computer Networks, the results of
`
`which are published in Byte Magazine.
`
`9.
`
`From 1980 to 1987, I was a software engineer at Digital Equipment
`
`Corporation where I developed complex device drivers, database storage and
`
`retrieval systems, peripheral interfaces for disk, mice, keyboards, video disks,
`
`network communications, and electronic transaction processing using electronic
`
`data interchange (EDI) standards.
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00430 Zatkovich Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 6,088,802
`10. From 1987 to 1996, I was an Architect and Manager for GTE/Verizon
`
`Telecom where I developed billing applications and systems for reconciliation of
`
`inter-exchange carrier transactions.
`
`11. From 1996 to 1999, I was Director of Networks and Customer
`
`Support at Utility Partners Inc., where I designed and managed a system to
`
`automatically create and distribute service orders for Mobile Field units for various
`
`Utility companies. This required design and development of peripheral interfaces
`
`and wireless communications with mobile terminals.
`
`12. From 1999 to 2002, I was an eBusiness Manager at Tanning
`
`Technology & IMR Global. There, I developed various financial applications for
`
`companies such as ETrade, Smith Barney and Citicorp. I have also designed and
`
`developed authentication and transaction processing applications for GEICO and
`
`Hartford Insurance.
`
`13. From 2002 to 2007, I was eBusiness Director at Evatone, Inc. While
`
`at Evatone, I developed media distribution applications for Warner Brothers and
`
`McGraw Hill and financial applications for Wachovia and Capital One and
`
`eCommerce applications that incorporate payment gateways to process electronic
`
`payments directly through bank Merchant Accounts.
`
`14.
`
`I am qualified in the field of computer peripheral interfaces, user
`
`authentication, and mobile devices to provide opinions about how one of ordinary
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00430 Zatkovich Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 6,088,802
`skill in the art in June 1997 would have interpreted and understood the ʼ802 Patent
`
`and the art relied upon by the Petitioner as discussed below.
`
`3. LEGAL STANDARDS
`3.1. Anticipation
`
`15.
`
`I understand that a claim is anticipated if a single prior art reference
`
`discloses, explicitly or inherently, all limitations of the claim arranged or combined
`
`in the same way as in the claim. I further understand that inherency may not be
`
`established by probabilities or possibilities, and the fact that one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art understands that the missing limitation could exist under certain
`
`circumstances is not sufficient. Instead, the party claiming inherency must prove
`
`that the missing matter is necessarily present and that it would be so recognized by
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art. Whether the inherent disclosure was
`
`recognized at the time of the reference is immaterial.
`
`16.
`
`I further understand that the disclosure of an anticipatory reference
`
`must describe the claimed invention to a degree adequate to enable a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art to not only comprehend the invention, but also to make, or
`
`in the case of a method, use, the claimed invention without undue experimentation.
`
`Provided that the reference asserted is enabling, it is my understanding that it need
`
`not disclose any independent use or utility to anticipate a claimed invention.
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00430 Zatkovich Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 6,088,802
`
`3.2. Obviousness
`
`17.
`
`It is my understanding that an invention is unpatentable if the
`
`differences between the invention and the prior art are such that the subject matter
`
`as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art. I further understand that obviousness is
`
`determined by evaluating: (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) the
`
`differences between the prior art and the claim, (3) the level of ordinary skill in the
`
`art, and (4) secondary considerations of non-obviousness.
`
`18. To establish obviousness based on a combination of the elements
`
`disclosed in the prior art, it is my understanding that a petitioner must provide a
`
`clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been
`
`obvious. This articulation does not require record evidence of an explicit teaching
`
`of a motivation to combine in the prior art. It is my understanding that this
`
`articulation can come from a number of rationales, which include but are not
`
`limited to (1) combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`
`predictable results; (2) simple substitution of one known element for another to
`
`obtain predictable results; (3) use of known technique to improve similar devices,
`
`methods, or products in the same way; (4) applying a known technique to a known
`
`device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (5)
`
`choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00430 Zatkovich Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 6,088,802
`reasonable expectation of success, i.e., the combination is “obvious to try”; (6)
`
`known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either
`
`the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces
`
`if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; and (7) some
`
`teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of
`
`ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference
`
`teachings to arrive at the claimed limitation.
`
`19.
`
`I further understand that these rationales may be found explicitly or
`
`implicitly: (1) in the prior art; (2) in the knowledge of those of ordinary skill in the
`
`art that certain references, or disclosures in those references, are of special interest
`
`or importance in the field; or (3) from the nature of the problem to be solved.
`
`Additionally, I understand that the legal determination of the motivation to
`
`combine references allows recourse to logic, judgment, and common sense. In
`
`order to resist the temptation to read into prior art the teachings of the invention in
`
`issue, however, it should be apparent that the expert is not conflating “common
`
`sense” and what appears obvious in hindsight.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that if the teachings of a prior art would lead a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art to make a modification that would render another prior art
`
`device inoperable, then such a modification would generally not be obvious. I also
`
`understand that if a proposed modification would render the prior art invention
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00430 Zatkovich Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 6,088,802
`being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, then there is no suggestion
`
`or motivation to make the proposed modification.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that it is improper to combine references where the
`
`references teach away from their combination. I understand that a reference may
`
`be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art, upon
`
`reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the
`
`reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by
`
`the applicant. In general, a reference will teach away if it suggests that the line of
`
`development flowing from the reference’s disclosure is unlikely to be productive
`
`of the result sought by the patentee. I understand that a reference teaches away, for
`
`example, if (1) the combination would produce a seemingly inoperative device, or
`
`(2) the references leave the impression that the product would not have the
`
`property sought by the patentee. I also understand, however, that a reference does
`
`not teach away if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative
`
`invention but does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation
`
`into the invention claimed.
`
`4. SUMMARY OF MY STUDY
`
`22.
`
`I have read the ʼ802 Patent and have considered its disclosure from
`
`the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art in June 1997.
`
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00430 Zatkovich Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 6,088,802
`I am also familiar with a large number of other prior art references in
`
`23.
`
`the field of the invention, including but not limited to references cited by the
`
`Petitioner.
`
`5. ONE OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`24.
`
`It is my opinion that the relevant field with respect to the ’802 Patent
`
`is peripheral device interfaces and authentication. The ordinary level of skill in the
`
`art is a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, Electrical Engineering, or related
`
`study with 2 years of experience in design and development of computer peripheral
`
`interfaces.
`
`25.
`
`In reaching my opinions, I have considered the types of problems
`
`encountered in the art in June 1997, the sophistication of the technology, and the
`
`education level and professional capabilities of workers in the field. My
`
`familiarity with the level of skill in the art comes from years of interaction with
`
`many workers in the field and my knowledge of the field’s technical issues.
`
`6. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND
`6.1. Knowledge of Skill in the Art in June 1997
`6.1.1. Peripheral Device Interfaces
`
`26. Standardized peripheral interfaces have existed for some time. There
`
`were numerous standards for peripheral interfaces that a POSA (person of skill in
`
`the art) could make use of in June 1997. For example, USB (Universal Serial Bus)
`
`8
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00430 Zatkovich Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 6,088,802
`was finalized and available commercially by 1996 at the latest, and it was designed
`
`specifically for the purpose of standardizing peripheral interfaces.1 Other
`
`standards available at the time of the invention include:
`
` PCI (Peripheral Component Interconnect), available since 1992,
`
`provides a hardware independent method of managing devices on a
`
`host computer.2
`
` PC Card/PCMCIA – Available since 1990, provided a standard
`
`interface for peripherals designed for portable devices.3
`
` Numerous others, including SCSI, ISA, PS/2, etc.
`
`Any POSA in the art in June 1997 seeking to create a peripheral device would
`
`utilize one of the above interfaces, as they were widely in use at the time of the
`
`invention.
`
`27. Some peripheral devices utilized an FPGA (Field Programmable Gate
`
`Array), which is a common integrated circuit designed to allow one of skill in the
`
`art to customize logical programs within the chip. FPGAs are commonly used and
`
`programmed to control devices such as computer peripherals. A single FPGA can
`
`
`1 EX1006 at 23.
`
`2 EX1019 at 1.
`
`3 EX1020.
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00430 Zatkovich Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 6,088,802
`be configured to perform the same function as one or many electro-mechanical
`
`switches.
`
`6.1.2. Peripheral Device Drivers
`
`28. All operating systems require device drivers and/or device interfaces
`
`in order to communicate between a host computer and a peripheral. The
`
`PCMCIA/PC Card defines a particular protocol or particular type of device drivers
`
`that communicate with PCMCIA-compatible peripherals, such as smart cards,
`
`network cards, memory cards, adapter cards, etc.
`
`29. PCMCIA has existed since the early 90s, and was one of the more
`
`popular methods for interfacing with peripherals. Therefore, one skilled in the art
`
`would understand that the use of PCMCIA to communicate with a peripheral
`
`would necessarily mean that the host computer requires a PCMCIA device driver
`
`to communicate with and control a PCMCIA-compatible peripheral.
`
`30. As mentioned above, device drivers are required within the operating
`
`system for the host computer to communicate with and control a peripheral device.
`
`One of skill in the art would understand that this necessarily requires the host
`
`computer to issue instructions through a device driver to operably connect and
`
`communicate with a peripheral device.
`
`10
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00430 Zatkovich Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 6,088,802
`6.1.3. Self-Identification of Peripheral Devices
`
`31. Peripheral devices have provided mechanisms for notifying the host
`
`computer of their function and configuration since at least 1995. For example, the
`
`USB standard included this functionality, and made it a requirement for every USB
`
`peripheral device to include this functionality.4 Any USB device created during
`
`the time of the invention would have this functionality.5
`
`
`
`6.1.4. Encryption, Data Security Systems
`
`32. Computers have incorporated data security and encryption techniques
`
`for various purposes, both to authenticate users and to protect private information,
`
`for many years. Such techniques were well known in the industry, and a POSA
`
`could make use of numerous systems and techniques that were available at the time
`
`of the invention. For example, PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) is both an open
`
`4 EX1006 at 24, 42.
`
`5 EX1006 at 24 (highlight added)
`
`11
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00430 Zatkovich Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 6,088,802
`standard and an open-source software application that has been available since
`
`1991, and is used to encrypt data and verify users via public/private key
`
`encryption.6 As an open standard, a POSA would be able to take advantage of the
`
`data security it provides. In addition, there were smart cards and security tokens
`
`available at the time of the invention that performed these functions on computers,
`
`discussed below.
`
`33. Smart cards and smart card readers have been in use since 1979, and
`
`were generally known by persons of skill in the art at the time of the invention. A
`
`smart card is a physical card that includes a processor and rewritable on-card
`
`memory for storing data. A smart card is often used for storing of sensitive data,
`
`such as credit card information. A smart card reader is a peripheral device that
`
`accesses that stored data for use by a host computer.
`
`6.1.5. Security Embedded Within Peripherals
`
`34. The ability to incorporate security operations within peripherals has
`
`been a common concept in the industry for some time. A POSA would know that
`
`various peripherals, such as security tokens and smart cards, were available and in
`
`use at the time of the invention. For example, at or before the time of the
`
`invention, smart cards were in use at French hospitals to protect sensitive medical
`
`
`6 EX1021 at 1.
`
`12
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00430 Zatkovich Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 6,088,802
`data. These smart cards provided the user the ability to authenticate themselves to
`
`systems, and to encrypt or decrypt confidential data.7
`
`
`
`35. Another such example of a peripheral implementing these techniques
`
`
`
`is a “smart token”, part of the “Token Based Access Control System”. The “smart
`
`token” peripheral is described as a peripheral containing a microprocessor and non-
`
`volatile memory, which performs the security operations of authenticating a user
`
`and encrypting data.8
`
`6.1.6. Peripheral Device Memory Formats
`
`36. ATA-format solid state disk drives were well known prior to the ʼ802
`
`Patent (ATA format flash memory device is a type of solid-state disk storage
`
`device). Flash drives were commonly defined as “a mass storage device based on
`
`7 EX1022 at 1049.
`
`8 EX1023.
`
`13
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00430 Zatkovich Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 6,088,802
`flash memory technology and integrated with such industry-standard disk
`
`interfaces as integrated drive electronics (IDE) small computer systems interface
`
`(SCSI), or PCMCIA/AT attachment.”9 (ATA is commonly referred to as “IDE” by
`
`people of skill in the art.) A POSA would have known that such flash disk drives
`
`were available at the time of the invention, and could avail themselves of their use.
`
`37. As was understood by persons of skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention, ATA was a standard interface commonly provided by computers at the
`
`time of the invention. An ATA-format drive would be able to be used on any
`
`computer with an IDE connector, instead of relying on a new or proprietary
`
`interface.
`
`38. Flash memory is a non-volatile, solid-state memory technology, and
`
`flash disk drives were available at the time of the invention. A POSA could utilize
`
`a flash drive as a solid-state disk storage device at the time of the invention.10
`
`6.2. The Problem Allegedly Solved by the ʼ802 Patent
`
`39. The ʼ802 Patent states “that computer capability is becoming
`
`increasingly portable … and more and more portable peripherals are adapted for
`
`communication with a host computing device (e.g. desktop computer, notebook
`
`
`9 EX1024 at 52.
`
`10 EX1024.
`
`14
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00430 Zatkovich Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 6,088,802
`computer or personal digital assistant).”11 “However, … the computational
`
`environment … is more susceptible to security breaches, i.e. unauthorized access
`
`to, or modification of programs.”12
`
`40. The ʼ802 Patent further states the interface between host computers
`
`and peripherals are an “open design” thus making unauthorized access peripherals
`
`even easier:
`
`A significant deficiency of the system 100 is that the security
`mechanism l0la is itself typically not adequately secure. It is
`commonly accepted
`that
`the components (including hardware,
`software and/or firmware) of most host computing devices are
`inherently insecure. This is because the system design of host
`computing devices is, typically, intentionally made open so that
`components made by different manufacturers can work together
`seamlessly. Thus, an unauthorized person may obtain knowledge of
`the operation of the security mechanism l0la (e.g., identify a crypto-
`graphic key), thereby enabling that person to gain access to, and/or
`modify, the (thought to be secured) data.13
`
`41. The ʼ802 Patent allegedly solves this problem by adapting the
`
`peripheral “to enable, in a single integral peripheral device, performance of one or
`
`more security operations on data, and a defined interaction with a host computing
`
`device that has not previously been integrated with security operations in a single
`
`
`11 EX1001 at 1:29-34.
`
`12 EX1001 at 1:39-46.
`
`13 EX1001 at 2:10-21.
`
`15
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00430 Zatkovich Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 6,088,802
`integral device.”14 In other words, the core novelty of the ʼ802 Patent is to
`
`combine well-known security techniques and already existing peripherals into one
`
`device. The ʼ802 Patent describes several exemplary embodiments, such as:
`
` solid-state disk storage devices,
`
` network cards,
`
` biometric readers
`
` Smart Cards15
`
`All of these embodiments provide an already existing peripheral device with the
`
`ability to perform well-known security operations on their defined functions
`
`(provide data, provide identification, communication, etc.).
`
`42. The “target means” described in the ʼ802 Patent is described as a
`
`structure or mechanism that provides a variety of peripheral functionalities.
`
`Examples of peripheral functionalities include data storage, data communications,
`
`data input and output, user identification such as biometric devices, and smart
`
`cards:
`
`[D]efined interactions can provide a variety of types of functionalities
`(e.g., data storage, data communication, data input and output, user
`identification) . . . .16
`
`
`14 EX1001 at 3:27-33.
`
`15 EX1001 at 4:62-5:4.
`
`16
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00430 Zatkovich Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 6,088,802
`[A]ditional functionality (referred to herein as “target functionality”)
`to the system 300, such as, for example, the capability to store data in
`a solid-state disk storage device,
`the capability
`to enable
`communications from the host computing device 301 to another
`device, the capability to accept biometric input to enable user
`authentication to the host computing device 301, and the capability to
`receive and read a smart card inserted into the peripheral device 302.17
`43. The “security means” is described in the ʼ802 specification as
`
`hardware, software, and/or firmware such as a microprocessor running computer
`
`programs that perform operations such as cryptographic functions:
`
`a security mechanism 101a (which can be embodied by appropriately
`configured hardware, software and/or firmware, such as, for example,
`a general purpose microprocessor operating in accordance with
`instructions of one or more computer programs stored in a data
`storage device such as a hard disk) which can be directed to perform
`one or more cryptographic operations.18
`44. The ʼ802 specification also identifies specific security operations such
`
`as providing maintenance of data confidentiality, verification of data integrity, and
`
`user authentication.
`
`the security mechanism 302a can be configured to perform any
`electronic data security operation (herein, referred to simply as
`'security operation') including, for example, operations that provide
`one or more of the basic cryptographic functions, such as maintenance
`
`________________________
`16 EX1001 at 3:33-36.
`
`17 EX1001 at 4:63-5:4.
`
`18 EX1001 at 1:59-63.
`
`17
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00430 Zatkovich Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 6,088,802
`of data confidentiality, verification of data
`integrity, user
`authentication and user non-repudiation.19
`
`security functionality, i.e., user authentication, is used as part of step
`715.20
`
`45. The ʼ802 specification describes means for mediating communication
`
`of data as an interface control device. This interface must communicate the data
`
`between the host computer and the peripheral target functionality by passing it
`
`through the security means.
`
`the peripheral device includes an interface control device which
`enables and manages communications between and among the host
`computing device, a cryptographic processing device that is part of
`the peripheral device, and target functionality that is also part of the
`peripheral device ... Those skilled in the art of data communications
`can readily understand how to implement such communication with
`target functionality in view of the detailed description below (see
`Figs. 8, 9A and 9B).21
`
`46. The ʼ802 also provides that the operating system software of a host
`
`computing device can identify the type of a peripheral device by accessing a
`
`known memory section of the peripheral device.
`
`However, in the method 500, before the operating system software
`can perform such identification, the peripheral device according to the
`invention suspends operation of this aspect of the operating system
`
`19 EX1001 at 5:2-28.
`
`20 EX1001 at 12:31-32.
`
`21 EX1001 at 13:9-25.
`
`18
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00430 Zatkovich Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 6,088,802
`software, so that the peripheral device can establish its identity, as
`shown by step 503, and explained further below. As will be apparent
`from
`that
`explanation, performance of
`the
`step 503
`advantageously enables the peripheral device to assume the
`identity of the target functionality that is part of the peripheral
`device. Since, as described elsewhere herein, a peripheral device
`according to the invention can include a variety of types of target
`functionality, the peripheral device can take a variety of identities.22
`
`One way in which the operating system software of a host
`computing device can identify the type of a peripheral device is to
`access a known memory section of a memory device of the
`peripheral device, as established by an interface standard
`developed for that type of peripheral device, that stores data
`representing the type of the peripheral device. This is true for a
`variety of types of peripheral devices, such as, for example, peripheral
`devices that conform to the PCMCIA standard. (The PCMCIA
`standard, for example, includes a specification, called the Card
`Information Structure, that defines, among other things, a location in a
`portion of memory of a PCMCIA card, denoted as “attribute
`memory”, that stores data identifying the type of the PCMCIA card.)23
`7. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`47.
`
`I understand that the ʼ802 Patent has not yet expired, but will expire
`
`on June 4, 2017. Therefore, I have been asked to provide my opinions as to certain
`
`claim terms in the ʼ802 Patent and the meaning that those terms would have to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention. My
`
`opinions on this matter are based on the claim language, specification, and
`
`
`22 EX1001 at 7:31-43 (emphasis added).
`
`23 EX1001 at 7:62-8:8 (emphasis added).
`
`19
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00430 Zatkovich Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 6,088,802
`prosecution history of the ʼ802 Patent, as well as any other evidence necessary to
`
`unders