`
`Filed: June 16, 2017
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________
`
`GOOGLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BLACKBERRY LTD.
`Patent Owner
`
`_________________
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01619
`Patent No. 8,489,868
`_________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,489,868
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,489,868
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 1
`
`III.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES ..................................................................................... 2
`
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ........................................................................ 2
`
`V.
`
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED AND GROUNDS RAISED ..................... 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Proposed Grounds and Prior Art ........................................................... 2
`
`All Proposed Grounds Should Be Adopted .......................................... 5
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL .................................................................... 6
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE ’868 PATENT ............................................................ 6
`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 7
`
`IX. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS ............................................ 14
`
`A. Ground 1: Garst and Gong Render Obvious Claims 1, 13, 76,
`78, 81, 84, 85, 87, 88, 90-93, 95, 98, 100, 104, 108, 112, 113,
`137-39, and 142-44.............................................................................. 14
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Claims 1 and 76 ......................................................................... 14
`
`Claims 78 and 81....................................................................... 30
`
`Claim 84 .................................................................................... 31
`
`Claim 85 .................................................................................... 32
`
`Claim 87 .................................................................................... 35
`
`Claims 13 and 88....................................................................... 36
`
`Claim 90 .................................................................................... 37
`
`Claim 91 .................................................................................... 38
`
`Claim 92 .................................................................................... 39
`i
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,489,868
`10. Claim 93 .................................................................................... 40
`
`11. Claim 95 .................................................................................... 42
`
`12. Claim 98 .................................................................................... 43
`
`13. Claim 100 .................................................................................. 43
`
`14. Claim 104 .................................................................................. 45
`
`15. Claim 108 .................................................................................. 45
`
`16. Claims 112 and 139 .................................................................. 47
`
`17. Claims 113 and 137 .................................................................. 49
`
`18. Claim 138 .................................................................................. 50
`
`19. Claims 142 and 143 .................................................................. 50
`
`20. Claim 144 .................................................................................. 51
`
`B.
`
`Ground 2: Garst, Gong, and Davis Render Obvious Claims 77,
`79, 80, and 82 ...................................................................................... 51
`
`1.
`
`Claims 77, 79, 80, and 82 ......................................................... 51
`
`C.
`
`Ground 3: Garst, Gong, and Chang Render Obvious Claim 83 ......... 54
`
`1.
`
`Claim 83 .................................................................................... 54
`
`D. Ground 4: Garst, Gong, and Sibert Render Obvious Claim 86 .......... 56
`
`1.
`
`Claim 86 .................................................................................... 56
`
`E.
`
`Ground 5: Garst, Gong, and Wong-Insley Render Obvious
`Claim 89 .............................................................................................. 60
`
`1.
`
`Claim 89 .................................................................................... 60
`
`F.
`
`Ground 6: Garst, Gong and Haddock Render Obvious Claim 94 ...... 62
`
`1.
`
`Claim 94 .................................................................................... 62
`
`X.
`
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 64
`ii
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,489,868
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`In re Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.,
`696 F.3d 1142 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 13
`
`Akermin, Inc. v. CO2 Solutions Inc.,
`IPR2015-00880, Paper No. 10 (Sept. 15, 2015) ........................................... 45, 51
`
`Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc.,
`805 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 3
`
`Benitec Biopharma Ltd. v. Cold Spring Harbor Lab.,
`IPR2016-00014, Paper 7 (Mar. 23, 2016) ............................................................ 4
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016) .......................................................................................... 8
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .....................................................................................passim
`
`In re Man Mach. Interface Techs. LLC,
`822 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 13
`
`Poly-America, L.P. v. API Indus., Inc.,
`839 F.3d 1131 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 8
`
`Randall Mfg. v. Rea,
`733 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................ 3
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................ 7
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,489,868
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Ex. 1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,489,868
`
`Ex. 1002 Declaration of Patrick D. McDaniel, Ph.D.
`
`Ex. 1003 Curriculum Vitae of Patrick D. McDaniel, Ph.D.
`
`Ex. 1004 Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 8,489,868
`
`Ex. 1005 U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/270,663
`
`Ex. 1006 U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/235,354
`
`Ex. 1007 U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/234,152
`
`Ex. 1008 The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, IEEE Std.
`100-2000 (7th ed. 2000)
`
`Ex. 1009 Bruce Schneier, “Applied Cryptography” (2nd ed. 1996)
`
`Ex. 1010 BlackBerry’s First Amended Complaint, BlackBerry LTD. v. Blu
`Products, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-23535 (S.D. Fla.)
`
`Ex. 1011 U.S. Patent No. 6,766,353 (“Lin”)
`
`Ex. 1012 U.S. Patent No. 6,188,995 (“Garst”)
`
`Ex. 1013 U.S. Patent No. 5,844,986 (“Davis”)
`
`Ex. 1014 U.S. Patent No. 5,724,425 (“Chang”)
`
`Ex. 1015 U.S. Patent No. 7,243,236 (“Sibert”)
`
`Ex. 1016 Li Gong, “Inside Java 2 Platform Security Architecture: Cryptography,
`APIs, and Implementation” (1999) (“Gong”)
`
`Ex. 1017 U.S. Patent No. 6,131,166 (“Wong-Insley”)
`
`Ex. 1018 U.S. Patent No. 5,657,378 (“Haddock”)
`
`Ex. 1019 U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/146,426
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,489,868
`
`Ex. 1020 RESERVED
`
`Ex. 1021 U.S. Patent No. 6,298,354 (“Saulpaugh”)
`
`Ex. 1022 RESERVED
`
`Ex. 1023 RESERVED
`
`Ex. 1024 Dorothy E. Denning, “Cryptography and Data Security” (1982)
`
`Ex. 1025 U.S. Patent No. 5,845,282 (“Alley”)
`
`Ex. 1026 PCT Publication No. WO 97/09813 (“Nguyen”)
`
`Ex. 1027 PCT Publication No. WO 99/41520 (“Huang”)
`
`Ex. 1028 Scott Oaks, “Java Security” (Feb. 1999)
`
`Ex. 1029 RESERVED
`
`Ex. 1030 RESERVED
`
`Ex. 1031 David Flanagan, “Java in a Nutshell” (Nov. 1999)
`
`Ex. 1032 Bill Venners, “Inside the Java 2 Virtual Machine” (1999)
`
`Ex. 1033 NCSU Libraries Online Catalog: Inside Java 2 Platform Security:
`Architecture, API Design, and Implementation,
`http://catalog.lib.ncsu.edu/record/NCSU1050269
`
`Ex. 1034 MARC 21 Format for Bibliographic Data: 050: Library of Congress
`Call Number, http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd050.html
`
`Ex. 1035 MARC 21 Format for Bibliographic Data: 005: Date and Time of
`Latest Transaction, http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd005.html
`
`Ex. 1036 NCSU Cataloging Policies & Procedures, Symphony Policy tools,
`Sirsi-Batch loading,
`https://staff.lib.ncsu.edu/confluence/display/MNC/Sirsi-Batch+loading
`
`Ex. 1037 Li Gong, “Inside Java 2 Platform Security Architecture: Cryptography,
`APIs, and Implementation” (1999) (Library of Congress excerpts)
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,489,868
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Google Inc. (“Petitioner”) requests inter partes review (“IPR”) of claims 1,
`
`13, 76-95, 98, 100, 104, 108, 112, 113, 137-39, and 142-44 (“the challenged
`
`claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,489,868 (“the ’868 patent”) (Ex. 1001), which,
`
`according to PTO records, is assigned to BlackBerry Ltd. (“Patent Owner” or
`
`“PO”). For the reasons set forth below, the challenged claims should be found
`
`unpatentable and canceled.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`Real Parties-in-Interest: Petitioner identifies Google Inc. as the real party-
`
`in-interest.
`
`Related Matters: The ’868 patent is at issue in BlackBerry Ltd. v. BLU
`
`Products, Inc., Case No. 1-16-cv-23535 (S.D. Fla.). Petitioner is concurrently
`
`filing another petition for IPR of certain claims of the ’868 patent (IPR2017-
`
`01620).
`
`Counsel and Service Information: Lead counsel: Naveen Modi (Reg. No.
`
`46,224). Backup counsel: (1) Joseph E. Palys (Reg. No. 46,508), (2) Phillip
`
`Citroën (Reg. No. 66,541), and (3) John Holley (Reg. No. 65,683). Service
`
`information is Paul Hastings LLP, 875 15th St. N.W., Washington, D.C., 20005,
`
`Tel.:
`
`202.551.1700,
`
`Fax:
`
`202.551.1705,
`
`email:
`
`PH-Google-BB-
`
`IPR@paulhastings.com. Petitioner consents to electronic service.
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,489,868
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES
`The PTO is authorized to charge any fees due during this proceeding to
`
`Deposit Account No. 50-2613.
`
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioner certifies that the ’868 patent is available for IPR and Petitioner is
`
`not barred or estopped from requesting IPR on the grounds identified herein.
`
`V.
`
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED AND GROUNDS RAISED
`A.
`The challenged claims should be canceled as unpatentable based on the
`
`Proposed Grounds and Prior Art
`
`following grounds:
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1, 13, 76, 78, 81, 84, 85, 87, 88, 90-93, 95, 98, 100, 104,
`
`108, 112, 113, 137-39, and 142-44 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,188,995 (“Garst”) (Ex. 1012) and Li Gong, “Inside Java 2
`
`Platform Security Architecture: Cryptography, APIs, and Implementation” (1999)
`
`(“Gong”) (Ex. 1016);
`
`Ground 2: Claim 77, 79, 80, and 82 are obvious under § 103(a) in view of
`
`Garst, Gong, and U.S. Patent No. 5,844,986 (“Davis”) (Ex. 1013);
`
`Ground 3: Claim 83 is obvious under § 103(a) in view of Garst, Gong, and
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,724,425 (“Chang”) (Ex. 1014);
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,489,868
`Ground 4: Claim 86 is obvious under § 103(a) in view of Garst, Gong, and
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,243,236 (“Sibert”) (Ex. 1015);
`
`Ground 5: Claim 89 is obvious under § 103(a) in view of Garst, Gong, and
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,131,166 (“Wong-Insley”) (Ex. 1017); and
`
`Ground 6: Claim 94 is obvious under § 103(a) in view of Garst, Gong, and
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,657,378 (“Haddock”) (Ex. 1018).
`
`For each proposed ground, Petitioner does not rely on any prior art reference
`
`other than those listed above. Other references discussed herein are provided
`
`merely to show the state of the art at the time of the alleged invention. See, e.g.,
`
`Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc., 805 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
`
`Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
`
`For this proceeding only, Petitioner assumes the earliest effective filing date
`
`of the ’868 patent is September 21, 2000. Garst was filed on July 28, 1997, and
`
`issued on February 13, 2001. Sibert was filed on July 28, 2000, claiming priority to
`
`a provisional application filed on July 29, 1999, and issued on July 10, 2007.1
`
`
`1 Sibert is prior art as of the July 29, 1999 filing date of the ’426 provisional
`
`application, as the provisional application sufficiently discloses and enables the
`
`alleged invention recited in claim 1 of Sibert. (See, e.g., Ex. 1019, 11-12, 34-42,
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,489,868
`Wong-Insley was filed on February 24, 1999, and issued on October 10, 2000.
`
`Therefore, Garst, Sibert, and Wong-Insley are prior art at least under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(e).
`
`Chang issued on March 3, 1998. Davis issued on December 1, 1998.
`
`Haddock issued on August 12, 1997. Therefore, Chang, Davis, and Haddock are
`
`prior art at least under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and (e).
`
`Gong was published and publicly available at least as early as June 1999.
`
`(Ex. 1016, iv.) Additionally, Gong was received and catalogued at North Carolina
`
`State University at least as early as July 1999. (Ex. 1033 (e.g., MARC fields 050,
`
`005, 948); Ex. 1034; Ex. 1035; Ex. 1036, 4.) Gong was also received and
`
`catalogued by the Library of Congress at least as early as September 2, 1999. (Ex.
`
`1037, v.) Therefore, Gong is prior art at least under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Sibert and a PCT counterpart of Garst (WO99/05600) are listed on the face
`
`of the ’868 patent, but were not discussed or relied upon for any claim rejection
`
`during prosecution of the ’868 patent. (See Ex. 1004.)
`
`
`57; Ex. 1002, ¶107.) See, e.g., Benitec Biopharma Ltd. v. Cold Spring Harbor
`
`Lab., IPR2016-00014, Paper 7 at 7 (Mar. 23, 2016).
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,489,868
`
`B. All Proposed Grounds Should Be Adopted
`Petitioner is concurrently filing another petition for IPR of certain claims of
`
`the ’868 patent. This petition relies on Garst as a primary reference. The
`
`concurrently-filed petition (IPR2017-01620) relies on U.S. Patent No. 6,766,353
`
`(“Lin”) as a primary reference.
`
`The Board should adopt all grounds, as proposed in both petitions, because
`
`they rely on prior art that discloses the claims under different interpretations of the
`
`“determining” phrase recited in claims 1 and 76. For example, if the “determining”
`
`phrase is interpreted in the way Petitioner proposes (Part VIII), the challenged
`
`claims are unpatentable in view of the grounds presented in this petition. If the
`
`“determining” phrase is interpreted consistent with PO’s allegations in the above-
`
`identified litigation involving the ’868 patent, the grounds proposed in each
`
`petition disclose the claims in different ways with different strengths. The two
`
`concurrently filed proceedings are in their early stages, and therefore the record for
`
`each of these proceedings has not yet been fully developed with respect to the
`
`meaning of this phrase.
`
`Should the Board be inclined to institute IPR based on only one of the
`
`petitions, Petitioner respectfully requests the Board institute IPR based on this
`
`petition, as it relies on prior art that discloses the claims under both interpretations
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,489,868
`of the “determining” phrase and challenges claims that are not challenged in the
`
`concurrently-filed petition.
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention
`
`(“POSA”) would have had at least a Bachelor’s degree in computer science or the
`
`equivalent, and two years of work experience in the relevant field, e.g., secure
`
`systems, including security protocols for software applications. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶19-
`
`20.)2 More education can substitute for practical experience and vice versa.
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE ’868 PATENT
`The ’868 patent issued on July 16, 2013, from Application No. 10/381,219
`
`(“the ’219 application”), filed on March 20, 2003. (Ex. 1004.) The ’219 application
`
`purports to be a National Stage Entry of International Application No.
`
`PCT/CA01/01344, and claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application Nos.
`
`60/270,663 (“the ’663 provisional application”), filed on February 20, 2001,
`
`60/235,354 (“the ’354 provisional application”), filed on September 26, 2000, and
`
`60/234,152 (“the ’152 provisional application”), filed on September 21, 2000.
`
`
`2 Petitioner submits the declaration of Patrick D. McDaniel, Ph.D. (Ex. 1002), an
`
`expert in the field of the ’868 patent. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶3-14, 20; Ex. 1003.)
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,489,868
`The ’868 patent is generally directed to secure systems. (Ex. 1001, Abstract,
`
`1:54-2:50.) For example, the ’868 patent explains that, in order to interface with an
`
`application platform, a software application “must access one or more APIs.” (Id.,
`
`3:9-22.) To access an API that has been classified as “sensitive,” the application
`
`developer is required to obtain a digital signature from an entity with an interest in
`
`protecting access to the sensitive API. (Id., 3:46-61.) (Ex. 1002, ¶¶48-68.)
`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Because the ’868 patent will not expire before issuance of a final written
`
`decision, the claims of the ’868 patent should be given their broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation (“BRI”).3 See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Below, Petitioner provides the
`
`BRI for one claim term. The remaining terms should be interpreted in accordance
`
`with their plain and ordinary meaning under the BRI standard.
`
`Claims 1 and 76 recite the phrase “determining, at the mobile device,
`
`whether the software application is signed, wherein a signed software application
`
`includes a digital signature generated using a private key of a private key-public
`
`key pair.” As discussed below, the BRI of this phrase is “determining, at the
`
`mobile device, whether the software application includes a digital signature
`
`
`3 Any claim interpretations herein are not binding upon Petitioner in any litigation
`
`involving the ’868 patent.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,489,868
`generated using a private key of a private key-public key pair corresponding to an
`
`entity with an interest in protecting access to the sensitive API, such as a mobile
`
`device manufacturer or other entity that classified the API as sensitive, or from a
`
`code signing authority acting on behalf of the manufacturer.”
`
`This construction
`
`is consistent with
`
`the claim
`
`language and
`
`the
`
`specification.4 For example, claims 1 and 76 recite a scheme that allows access to a
`
`“sensitive API” based upon the verification of a “digital signature.” In the context
`
`of the specification, the claimed digital signature is one generated using a private
`
`key corresponding to an entity with an interest in protecting access to the sensitive
`
`API. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶48-68.) See Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131,
`
`2142 (2016) (a claim must be given its BRI “in light of the specification”).
`
`The specification disparages known software code signing schemes where
`
`the “digital signature…identifies the software developer” (i.e., a digital signature
`
`generated using the developer’s private key), stating that such authentication
`
`schemes require a user to “use his or her judgment to determine whether or not the
`
`
`4 Any argument that Petitioner’s proposed construction ignores the doctrine of
`
`claim differentiation should be rejected because “claim differentiation…cannot
`
`override clear statements of claim scope found in the specification.” Poly-America,
`
`L.P. v. API Indus., Inc., 839 F.3d 1131, 1137 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,489,868
`software application is reliable, based solely on his or her knowledge of the
`
`software developer’s reputation.” (Ex. 1001, 1:30-36.) With these types of
`
`schemes, the specification alleges, there is no guarantee that an application “will
`
`properly interact with the device[]” and there is a “serious risk” that the application
`
`is “destructive.” (Id., 1:36-43.) In addition, these types of schemes do not address
`
`the need to control which applications are installed on devices. (Id., 1:44-50.)
`
`The specification also disavows such schemes when describing the alleged
`
`invention. As explained in the specification, in “contrast[] with known code
`
`signing schemes, in which API access is granted to any software applications
`
`arriving from trusted application developers or authors,” with “the code signing
`
`systems and methods described herein, API access is granted on an application-by-
`
`application basis and thus can be more strictly controlled or regulated.” (Id., 11:3-
`
`8.)
`
`As consistently described in every embodiment of the specification related
`
`to restricting access to a sensitive API, this authorization scheme involves
`
`generating a digital signature using a private key corresponding to an entity with an
`
`interest in protecting access to the sensitive API. For example, with reference to
`
`Figure 1, “[t]o protect against unauthorized access to…sensitive APIs,” the
`
`specification explains that “the application developer 12 is required to obtain one
`
`or more digital signatures from the mobile device manufacturer or other entity that
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,489,868
`classified any APIs as sensitive, or from a code signing authority 16 acting on
`
`behalf of the manufacturer or other entity with an interest in protecting access to
`
`sensitive device APIs, and append the signature(s) to the software application Y
`
`14.” (Id., 3:46-61, 4:24-55.)
`
`Each digital signature is “generated using a private signature key 18
`
`maintained solely by code signing authority 16.” (Id., 4:43-45.) Authority 16 is an
`
`entity with an interest in protecting access to the sensitive API, as authority 16 “is
`
`preferably one or more representatives from the mobile device manufacturer, the
`
`authors of any sensitive APIs, or possibly others that have knowledge of the
`
`operation of the sensitive APIs to which the software application needs access.”
`
`(Id., 4:31-35.) Once an application is downloaded, “each digital signature is
`
`preferably verified with a public signature key 20 before the software application
`
`Y 14 is granted access to a sensitive API.” (Id., 4:66-5:3; see also id., 5:9-30.)
`
`“The public signature key 20 corresponds to the private signature key 18
`
`maintained by the code signing authority 16.” (Id., 5:12-15.) Figure 2 is a flow
`
`diagram of the code signing protocol described with reference to Figure 1 (id.,
`
`5:35-36), and refers to the same “private signature key 18” maintained by authority
`
`16 (id., 6:2-4). (See also id., 4:25-31, 5:35-6:15, 6:41-48.) Thus, key 18
`
`corresponds to an entity with an interest in protecting access to the sensitive API.
`
`(Id., 3:46-61, 4:31-35, 4:43-45.)
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,489,868
`Similarly, Figures 3 and 3A depict devices having signed applications that
`
`require access to sensitive APIs (id., 7:1-4, 7:23-27, 8:19-20) and public key 20,
`
`which “corresponds to the private signature key 18 maintained by the code signing
`
`authority, and is used to verify the authenticity of a digital signature 96” in the
`
`applications (id., 7:52-54, 7:58-61, FIGS. 3, 3A). Figure 4, which is a flow diagram
`
`of the code signing protocol described with reference to Figures 3 and 3A (id., 9:5-
`
`8), also shows that the device uses “key 20 to verify the authenticity of the digital
`
`signature 96” (id., 9:36-40).
`
`Figure 5 is a flow diagram illustrating the code signing protocol from the
`
`perspective of the code signing authority described with reference to Figure 3A
`
`(id., 9:57-10:38), which, as discussed above, is an entity with an interest in
`
`protecting access to sensitive APIs (id., 4:31-35).5 (See also id., 9:67-10:4, 10:16-
`
`10:35.)
`
`In short, in each and every instance, to access a sensitive API, the
`
`specification describes generating a digital signature using a private key
`
`corresponding to an entity with an interest in protecting access to the sensitive
`
`API.6 (Ex. 1002, ¶¶53-64.) In contrast, there is not a single reference to a digital
`
`
`5 Figure 6 is a generic block diagram of a mobile device. (Id., 11:9-11.)
`
`6 The ’868 patent also describes a “global” digital signature, which differs from the
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,489,868
`signature generated using a private key corresponding to an application developer,
`
`other than when disparaging such schemes. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶50-52.)
`
`The same is true with respect to each of the provisional applications from
`
`which the ’868 patent claims priority. (See Ex. 1001, 1:7-13; Ex. 1002, ¶¶65-68.)
`
`For example, the ’152 and ’354 provisional applications, which are substantially
`
`the same, each consistently describes the alleged “invention” as including a digital
`
`signature generated using a private key corresponding to the author of the sensitive
`
`API—an entity with an interest in protecting access to the sensitive API. (Ex.
`
`
`signature recited in claims 1 and 76. (Ex. 1002, ¶64.) As explained in the
`
`specification, a global signature is used to restrict execution of an application on a
`
`target mobile device, such that “all APIs are restricted and locked until a ‘global’
`
`signature is verified for a software application.” (Ex. 1001, 4:1-3; see also id.,
`
`3:62-4:1, 4:3-10, 8:55-61, 9:67-10:4.) Access to sensitive APIs is then further
`
`restricted “depending upon verification of respective corresponding digital
`
`signatures.” (Id., 4:10-12; see also id., 8:55-61, 9:67-10:4.) This distinction
`
`between these two types of signatures is captured by dependent claims 8 and 83,
`
`which recite “a global signature…associated with each of the plurality of APIs” in
`
`addition to the signature corresponding to the sensitive API recited in independent
`
`claims 1 and 76.
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,489,868
`1006, 5-6, 8; Ex. 1007, 5-6, 8.) The ’663 provisional application, like the ’868
`
`patent, disparages “conventional code signing schemes” (Ex. 1005, 4-5), and
`
`explains that, “[i]n the present invention,” access is provided to only those
`
`applications that have been digitally signed by the author of a sensitive API” (id.,
`
`5-6). (See also id., 6-12, 15-16.)
`
`This intrinsic evidence demonstrates that the BRI of the “determining”
`
`phrase is “determining, at the mobile device, whether the software application
`
`includes a digital signature generated using a private key of a private key-public
`
`key pair corresponding to an entity with an interest in protecting access to the
`
`sensitive API, such as a mobile device manufacturer or other entity that classified
`
`the API as sensitive, or from a code signing authority acting on behalf of the
`
`manufacturer.” See, e.g., In re Man Mach. Interface Techs. LLC, 822 F.3d 1282,
`
`1285-87 (Fed. Cir. 2016); In re Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., 696 F.3d 1142, 1148-50
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`Moreover, even if the repeated and consistent disclosures are not themselves
`
`sufficient, they, when taken together with the above-discussed statements
`
`disparaging and distinguishing the prior art and the statements describing the
`
`“invention,” indicate an intent to disavow any claim scope encompassing digital
`
`signatures generated using a private key of an application developer. See, e.g., Man
`
`Mach., 822 F.3d at 1285-86; Abbott, 696 F.3d at 1148-50. Accordingly, any
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,489,868
`construction of the “determining” phrase should, at a minimum, exclude digital
`
`signatures generated using a private key of an application developer.
`
`In litigation involving the ’868 patent, PO broadly interpreted the
`
`“determining” phrase to also encompass a digital signature generated using a
`
`private key of a software application developer. (Ex. 1010, 20-21.) For the reasons
`
`discussed above, PO’s interpretation is inconsistent with the specification of the
`
`’868 patent and should be rejected. Nevertheless, given PO’s interpretation is
`
`broader than Petitioner’s interpretation, this petition demonstrates how the prior art
`
`discloses the challenged claims under both Petitioner’s and PO’s interpretations.
`
`IX. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS
`As discussed below, under both Petitioner’s and PO’s interpretations, the
`
`challenged claims are unpatentable in view of the prior art. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶1-2, 15-
`
`18, 21-47, 69-250.)
`
`A. Ground 1: Garst and Gong Render Obvious Claims 1, 13, 76, 78,
`81, 84, 85, 87, 88, 90-93, 95, 98, 100, 104, 108, 112, 113, 137-39, and
`142-44
`
`1.
`
`Claims 1 and 76
`a)
`
`“[A mobile device containing software instructions
`which when executed on the mobile device cause the
`mobile device to perform operations / A method] for
`controlling access to an application platform of [the / a]
`mobile
`device,
`[the
`operations
`comprising
`/
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,489,868
`
`comprising]:”7
`If the preamble is limiting, Garst in view of Gong discloses these features.
`
`(Ex. 1002, ¶¶116-29, 72-95.) Garst discloses controlling access to an application
`
`platform by restricting access to “resource libraries”—such as APIs. (Ex. 1012,
`
`Abstract, 1:7-10, 1:63-2:2, 2:50-3:6, 6:9-22, 6:46-7:22, 7:40-48, 8:66-9:12, 9:16-
`
`12:60, 15:55-16:60, FIGS. 5-7, 9-14; Parts IX.A.1.c-1.g.) In particular, Garst
`
`explains that APIs are “selectively used only by authorized end user software
`
`programs” by “enforc[ing] a ‘per-program’ licensing scheme.” (Ex. 1012, 2:67-
`
`3:6.) By restricting access to APIs, Garst’s scheme controls application access to
`
`system resources. (Id., 2:50-54, 2:67-3:6, 3:27-41, 5:22-24, 5:41-43, 5:58-65, 6:9-
`
`12, 6:47-7:22, 9:5-12, 9:35-58, 10:33-39, 11:5-13, 12:8-25.) For example, as
`
`shown in Figure 5 (below), resource library 215 (e.g., an API) is an interface
`
`between application program 220 and operating system 110, and operating system
`
`110 is an interface between resource library 215 and hardware 100. (Id., 4:57-65,
`
`FIG. 5; see also id., 1:32-35, 1:37-48, 1:60-2:2, 2:58-67, 7:40-8:65, 9:16-17, FIGS.
`
`1-3, 9.) Thus, by restricting access to resource library 215 (e.g., an API), Garst’s
`
`scheme controls application access to operating system 110 and hardware 100.
`
`
`7 Bracketed claim language identifies the differences between claims in the
`
`following format: [Claim A Text / Claim B Text].
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,489,868
`
`
`
`Garst’s operating system and hardware disclose the claimed “application
`
`platform,” as that term was understood in the art, because they are a set of
`
`resources (e.g., hardware and/or software) that support the services on which
`
`application software will run. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶117-21; Ex. 1008, 46.) This is
`
`consistent with the ’868 patent, which explains that the “application platform”
`
`includes all resources “that may be accessed by the software applications” (Ex.
`
`1001, 7:4-10), such as “device hardware, operating system and core software and
`
`data models” (id., 3:14-18). (See also id., claims 14-19.)
`
`While Garst discloses that its teachings “can be implemented on any of a
`
`variety of computer systems” (Ex. 1012, 4:25-29), Garst does n