`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNIVERSAL SECURE REGISTRY LLC
`Patent Owner
`________________
`
`Case IPR2018-00067
`U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 313 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00067
`U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`
`Page
`
`I.
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`OVERVIEW OF THE ’813 PATENT ............................................................ 4
`A.
`The ’813 Patent Specification ............................................................... 4
`B.
`The ’813 Patent Claims ......................................................................... 7
`C.
`Prosecution History of the ’813 Patent ................................................. 8
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ASSERTED PRIOR ART .......................................... 9
`A. Maes ...................................................................................................... 9
`B.
`Pare ...................................................................................................... 10
`C.
`Labrou.................................................................................................. 11
`D.
`Burger .................................................................................................. 12
`E.
`Pizarro.................................................................................................. 12
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................... 12
`V.
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 13
`VI. THE PETITION FAILS TO MEET ITS BURDEN OF
`PARTICULARITY AND SPECIFICITY ..................................................... 19
`VII. THE PETITION FAILS TO ADDRESS EACH AND EVERY
`LIMITATION OF CLAIMS 7-10 ................................................................. 23
`VIII. GROUND 2 SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE IT RELIES ON
`IMPERMISSIBLY CONCLUSORY STATEMENTS TO SUPPORT
`OBVIOUSNESS ............................................................................................ 24
`IX. PETITIONER FAILS TO MEET ITS BURDEN TO SHOW THAT
`PIZARRO DISCLOSES “SECURE REGISTRY” ....................................... 27
`PETITIONER HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN WHY GROUND 3 IS
`NOT REDUNDANT OF GROUND 1 .......................................................... 28
`XI. THE PETITION PRESENTS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME
`PRIOR ART AND ARGUMENTS PREVIOUSLY BEFORE THE
`OFFICE .......................................................................................................... 30
`XII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 32
`
`X.
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00067
`U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Page(s)
`
`Apple Inc. v. Parthenon Unified Mem. Arch. LLC,
`IPR2016-00923, Paper 2 (PTAB April 20, 2016) ........................................ 29, 30
`Beachcombers Int’l v. Wildewood Creative Prods.,
`31 F.3d 1154 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ..............................................................................16
`Biscotti Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`No. 2:13-cv-01015-JRG-RSP, 2016 WL 6611487 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 9, 2016) .....14
`Cisco v. C-Cation Techs.,
`IPR2014-00454, Paper 12 (Aug. 29, 2014) .........................................................25
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016) .........................................................................................13
`Dominion Dealer Sol., LLC v. Autoalert, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00225, Paper 15 ....................................................................................23
`EMC Corp. et al. v. Personal Web Techs., LLC,
`IPR2013-00082, Paper 33 (PTAB Jun. 5, 2013) ................................................27
`EPOS Technologies Ltd. v. Pegasus Technologies Ltd.,
`766 F.3d 1338 (2014) ...........................................................................................17
`Ex parte Benjamin Tang, et al,
`2014 WL 2968031 (BPAI 2014) ..........................................................................16
`Halliburton Energy v. M-I LLC,
`514 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................17
`Harmonic v. Avid Technology,
`815 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................... 25, 26, 30
`Intellectual Ventures Mgmt., LLC v. Xilinx, Inc.,
`No. IPR2012-00019, Paper 13 (Feb. 12, 2013) ...................................................27
`Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd.,
`IPR2013-00324, Paper 19 (PTAB Nov. 21, 2013) ..............................................27
`Libel-Flarsheim co. v. Medrad, Inc.,
`358 F.3d 898 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ..............................................................................17
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00067
`U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`
`Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.,
`CBM2012-00003 (JL), 2012 WL 9494791
`(PTAB Oct. 25, 2012) ................................................................................... 22, 29
`In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l Ltd.,
`829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................26
`MyMail Ltd. v. Am. Online, Inc.,
`476 F.3d 13762 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ..........................................................................16
`In re Nuvasive, Inc.,
`841 F.3d 966 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..............................................................................22
`O2 Micro Inter. v. Beyond Innovation,
`521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ..................................................................... 14, 15
`Shire Dev. LLC v. Amneal Pharmas. LLC,
`No. 15-2865 (RBK/JS), 2016 WL 4119940 (D.N.J. Aug. 2, 2016) ....................14
`Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc.,
`358 F.3d 870 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ..............................................................................17
`In re Swinehart,
`439 F.2d 210 (C.C.P.A. 1971) .............................................................................17
`In re Trans Texas Holdings Corp.,
`498 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................................................14
`United Carbon Co. v. Binney & Smith Co.,
`317 U.S. 228 (1942) .............................................................................................18
`York Prods. v. Central Tractor Farm & Family,
`99 F.3d 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ..............................................................................16
`
`Statutory Authorities
`
`5 U.S.C. §§ 554(b)-(c) .............................................................................................19
`5 U.S.C. § 556(d) .....................................................................................................19
`5 U.S.C. § 557(c) ......................................................................................................19
`35 U.S.C. § 21 ............................................................................................................ 1
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ....................................................................................................29
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 ............................................................................................ 18, 24
`35 U.S.C. § 314 .......................................................................................................... 4
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00067
`U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ....................................................................................................27
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ................................................................................................4, 30
`
`Rules and Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b) ........................................................................................ 4, 19, 23
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2)...................................................................................... 19, 25
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ........................................................................................ 13, 14
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ............................................................................. 14, 18, 19
`37 C.F.R. § 2.104(b)(4) ............................................................................................19
`37 C.F.R. § 2.104(b)(5) ............................................................................................23
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108 ...................................................................................................... 4
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00067
`U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Patent Owner Universal Secure Registry LLC (“Patent Owner”) submits this
`
`Preliminary Response to the Petition for Inter Partes Review (Paper No. 2) (“the
`
`Petition”) filed by Petitioner Unified Patents Inc. (“Petitioner”).1
`
`The Petition should be denied for several reasons. Most egregiously,
`
`Petitioner articulates citations to alternative references for practically each limitation
`
`of each claim within each Ground. As a result, the Grounds include potentially
`
`hundreds of possible combinations, with no indication as to Petitioner’s true basis
`
`for unpatentability. For example, with respect to claim 1 in Ground 1, Petitioner
`
`identifies either Maes, Pare, or Labrou as disclosing the preamble and limitations
`
`[1a], [1b], [1d][iii], and [1e]. Importantly, these alternatives are not presented as
`
`obviousness combinations—they are presented as purely alternative disclosures for
`
`each claim limitation, all on equal footing with one another. In doing so, Petitioner
`
`attempts to preserve its ability to pick-and-choose between these myriad alternative
`
`
`1 This submission is timely under 35 U.S.C. § 21, as it is being filed within three
`
`months following the mailing date of the Notice of Filing Date Accorded to
`
`Petition. The three-month date following the November 3, 2017 mailing date is
`
`February 3, 2018. (Paper No. 3). Since February 3, 2018 is a Saturday, this
`
`submission is timely filed on the next succeeding business day. 37 C.F.R. § 1.7.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00067
`U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`
`grounds, giving Patent Owner and the Board no guidance on its true basis for
`
`invalidity. This “vertical redundancy” has repeatedly been found improper by the
`
`Board and infects all Grounds. Institution should therefore be denied on this basis
`
`alone.
`
`Separately, Petitioner’s arguments with respect to claims 7-10 are deficient on
`
`their face—they fail to address all the limitations of claim 6, ignoring the very
`
`fundamental rule that dependent claims include all limitations of the base claim from
`
`which they depend. Specifically, the Petition asserts in Ground 1 that claims 7-10
`
`are obvious over Maes, Pare, and Labrou. These claims, in turn, depend on claim 6,
`
`which is addressed only in Ground 2. The Petition argues, in Ground 2, that claim
`
`6 is obvious over Maes, Pare, Labrou, and Burger. Burger is the sole reference
`
`identified in the Petition as disclosing the limitations of claim 6. Yet Ground 1
`
`makes no mention of Burger, does not purport to combine Burger with any other
`
`reference, and does not in any way, expressly or implicitly, import the analysis of
`
`Ground 2 into the analysis of Ground 1. Therefore, by failing to address Burger in
`
`Ground 1 (or make any mention of any limitation of claim 6), the Petition fails to
`
`address each and every limitation of claims 7-10 and therefore institution for these
`
`claims should be denied.
`
`Ground 2 should also be denied. Ground 2 addresses claims 6 and 18, and
`
`relies on the Burger reference. But the Petition provides only the barest of
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00067
`U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`
`conclusory reasons as to why Burger would be combined with the other references
`
`of record—indeed, the Petition devotes only a single sentence to the obviousness
`
`analysis of each claim. It is well-settled, however, that obviousness cannot be based
`
`on such conclusory statements.
`
`Moreover, Ground 3 should be denied because Petitioner fails to meet its
`
`burden to show that the primary reference—Pizarro—discloses a “secure registry,”
`
`as defined by Petitioner. The Petition asserts that the term “secure registry” should
`
`be construed as “one or more systems maintaining one or more secure databases
`
`for storing account information for a plurality of users.” The Petition identifies a
`
`“host system” in Pizarro as allegedly disclosing this limitation, but Petitioner fails
`
`to show that Pizarro’s “host system” “maintain[s] one or more secure databases for
`
`account information,” or “perform[s] the function for validating authentication
`
`information of users.” Thus, to th e extent the Board adopts Petitioner’s claim
`
`construction, Ground 3 should be denied institution as Petitioner fails to meet its
`
`burden to show that Pizarro discloses a “secure registry.”
`
`Petitioner also fails to meet its burden to show why Grounds 1 and 3 are not
`
`redundant. It is the Petitioner’s burden to establish why alternative Grounds are not
`
`redundant of each other. Yet the Petition is virtually silent on this point, and fails to
`
`identify any significant difference between these Grounds. Indeed, Grounds 1 and
`
`3 are practically identical. Both rely on the same secondary reference (Pare), and
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00067
`U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`
`the petition identifies no substantive differences between the primary references,
`
`which are, in fact, redundant of each other. Because Petitioner has failed to meet its
`
`burden, the Petition should be denied in its entirety. At minimum, Ground 3 should
`
`be denied institution as redundant and duplicative of Ground 1.
`
`Lastly, the Petition relies on several references that were previously presented
`
`to the Office during prosecution of the ’813 patent, including, inter alia, Weiss I (Ex.
`
`1008) and Pare (Ex. 1004). See 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). In the interest of a “just, speedy,
`
`and inexpensive resolution,” the Board should exercise its discretion and deny
`
`Grounds 1-3 because the Office has previously considered both of these references.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b).
`
`Accordingly, the references raised in the Petition do not give rise to a
`
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to any Challenged
`
`Claim of the ’813 patent. The Board should, therefore, not institute review on any
`
`claim of the ’813 patent. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.108.
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF THE ’813 PATENT
`
`A. The ’813 Patent Specification
`
`USR is a pioneer in controlled access to secure systems and sensitive data.
`
`The subject matter of the ‘813 patent is the result of years’ worth of research and
`
`development. See, e.g., U.S. Application Nos. 60/859,235, 60/812,279, and
`
`60/775,046; Ex. 1001 at 1:6-27. The ’813 patent, in particular, is directed to an
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00067
`U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`
`innovative secure account system for mobile users. Mobile users enter identity
`
`information such as a secret PIN or thumbprint biometric to an electronic ID device.
`
`The device then generates a message containing encrypted authentication
`
`information and sends it to the secure registry to validate the user’s transaction.
`
`The invention does so by allowing a user to first select an account for a
`
`financial transaction (on, for example, a mobile device), and validating that user’s
`
`identity based on input to the mobile device, such as biometric or “secret”
`
`information (such as a password) or both. See Ex. 1001 (’813 patent) at Abstract.
`
`The mobile device uses the information from the user and a locally-generated non-
`
`predictable value to generate and transmit encrypted authentication information,
`
`which it is sent to a remotely located secure registry. This registry authenticates the
`
`user and the transaction. Id. at 50:1-22.
`
`The invention of the ’813 patent addresses specific problems in the prior art.
`
`Many prior art systems, for example, required local authentication; in other words,
`
`the prior art required the user to be authenticated by, for example, giving personal
`
`information to a cashier at the time of purchase. The ‘813 patent provides a more
`
`secure system than the prior art, by allowing the user to initiate a transaction without
`
`providing any personal information at the point of sale. Id. at 3:57-64; 4:12-20.
`
`More specifically, the ‘813 patent uses a multi-factor authentication process
`
`when a user initiates a financial transaction using a mobile device. Id. at 45:55-57.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00067
`U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`
`As shown below in Figure 1, the user device includes software to select one of the
`
`multiple accounts 360 for use in a transaction. Id. at 46:54-59. To initiate the
`
`transaction, a user may select a desired account, and enter a PIN number, a user
`
`biometric, and/or the electronic serial number of the user device. Id. at 45:57-46:5.
`
`These factors may be communicated to a secure registry to perform authentication.
`
`Id. at 46:1-5.
`
`Id. at Fig. 1.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00067
`U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`
`In some embodiments, the various factors (e.g., PIN, biometric, electronic
`
`serial number) may be used to generate a single encrypted value before the user
`
`transmits it to the secure registry for authentication. Id. at 44:39-41. For example,
`
`the various factors may be used by the user device to generate a non-predictable
`
`value. Id. at 46:46-61. The user device may then generate encrypted authentication
`
`information from
`
`the non-predictable value,
`
`identifying
`
`information, and
`
`information associated with at least one of the biometric and PIN. Id. at 50:14-21.
`
`The user device may then transmit the encrypted authentication information to the
`
`secure registry for authentication. Id. The user’s identity is further protected by the
`
`encrypted authentication information, which facilitates authentication without
`
`forcing the user to share identity information with the POS system.
`
`B.
`
`The ’813 Patent Claims
`
`The ’813 patent includes 26 claims, of which claims 1, 16, and 24 are
`
`independent. All of the claims relate to communicating authentication information
`
`from an electronic ID device. Independent claim 1 (reproduced below) is
`
`illustrative:
`
`[1P] An electronic ID device configured to allow a user to select any
`one of a plurality of accounts associated with the user to employ in a
`financial transaction, comprising:
`
`[1a] a biometric sensor configured to receive a biometric input
`provided by the user;
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00067
`U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`
`[1b] a user interface configured to receive a user input including secret
`information known to the user and identifying information concerning
`an account selected by the user from the plurality of accounts;
`
`[1c] a communication interface configured to communicate with a
`secure registry;
`
`[1d] a processor coupled to the biometric sensor to receive information
`concerning
`the biometric
`input,
`the user
`interface and
`the
`communication interface,
`
`[1d][i] the processor being programmed to activate the electronic ID
`device based on successful authentication by the electronic ID device
`of at least one of the biometric input and the secret information,
`
`[1d][ii] the processor also being programmed such that once the
`electronic ID device is activated the processor is configured to generate
`a non-predictable value and to generate encrypted authentication
`information from the non-predictable value, information associated
`with at least a portion of the biometric input, and the secret information,
`and
`
`[1d][iii] to communicate the encrypted authentication information via
`the communication interface to the secure registry; and
`
`[1e][i] wherein the communication interface is configured to wirelessly
`transmit the encrypted authentication information to a point-of-sale
`(POS) device, and
`
`[1e][ii] wherein the secure registry is configured to receive at least a
`portion of the encrypted authentication information from the POS
`device.
`
`Id. at 51:65-52:29. Claims 16 and 24 recite similar limitations. Id. at 53:25-47;
`
`54:24-46.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00067
`U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`
`C.
`
`Prosecution History of the ’813 Patent
`
`The ’813 patent
`
`issued on November 5, 2013 from Application
`
`No. 13/237,184 (filed September 20, 2011).
`
`The ’813 patent was subject to a thorough examination by Examiner Calvin
`
`Cheung, and was allowed over the prior art. Examiner Cheung allowed the ’813
`
`patent because none of the references considered, individually or collectively,
`
`disclose the recited claim language. Ex. 1002 at 432-35. During prosecution, the
`
`Examiner considered one of the references cited in the Petition, Pare (id. at 437), and
`
`one reference relied on in the Petition to support an obviousness allegation, Weiss I
`
`(id. at 509).
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ASSERTED PRIOR ART
`
`A. Maes
`
`Maes describes a personal digital assistant (“PDA”) that processes voice
`
`commands and biometric data to enroll a user to complete financial transactions. Ex.
`
`1003 at Abstract. Referring to Figures 2 and 3 below, a user of PDA 10 enrolls with
`
`a service provider to obtain a designated account number for universal card 26 and
`
`to submit credit card account information to the service provider. Id. at 6:56-67.
`
`After enrollment, the service provider provides the user with a digital certificate for
`
`use in subsequent financial transactions. Id. at 6:67-7:4.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00067
`U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Pare
`
`Pare discloses a method to complete a financial transaction between a buyer
`
`and seller, wherein both parties register with a computer system before initiating a
`
`transaction. Ex. 1004 at 4:14-33. To form the transaction, the seller offers a proposal
`
`containing his or her information, and the buyer accepts by adding his or her PIN
`
`number, a biometric identifier, and account information to the proposal. Id. at 4:34-
`
`42. Upon including the buyer’s information, the parties send the transaction
`
`proposal to the computer system which compares each party’s information to the
`
`registered information. Id. at 4:43-49. Upon validating both parties, the transaction
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`is approved and the respective accounts of the seller and buyer are credited and
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00067
`U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`
`debited. Id. at 4:50-58.
`
`C. Labrou
`
`Labrou describes a method of performing a transaction between two
`
`agreement parties—customer 102 and merchant transaction server 104. Ex. 1005 at
`
`¶ 229; Fig. 1 (below). A secure transaction server 106 verifies both parties’
`
`identification before processing the transaction. Id. In order to process the
`
`transaction, the secure transaction server 106 reviews an agreement party view
`
`(APV) generated by each party, which in combination provide a unique identity to
`
`the transaction. Id. at ¶ 236.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00067
`U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`
`Id. at Fig. 1. The secure transaction server 106 communicates with financial
`
`institution 109 to ensure completion of the transaction. Id. at ¶ 222, Fig. 26.
`
`D. Burger
`
`Burger teaches a point-of-transaction device that uses a token to perform
`
`financial transactions. Ex. 1006 at 2:15-25, 11:12-20. The user can manipulate a
`
`touch screen of the device to locate account information once uploaded. Id. at 14:25-
`
`31. To access account information, Burger describes verifying a user identity by
`
`comparing a scanned fingerprint to a stored fingerprint. Id. at 30:20-29. Once
`
`authenticated, the device communicates sufficient transaction information to a point-
`
`of-sale device to complete a transaction. Id. at 74:1-10.
`
`E.
`
`Pizarro
`
`Pizarro describes a user device that wirelessly completes a transaction with a
`
`point-of-sale device. Ex. 1007 at Abstract. Before a transaction is initiated, a user
`
`sends its address and a biometric to a financial institution. Id. at 7:54-67. When a
`
`user initiates a transaction, the financial institution verifies the user’s biometric and
`
`the proximity of the user device to the address on file. Id. at 2:64-3:8; 9:25-39.
`
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’813 patent at the time of
`
`the invention would have a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering, and
`
`three years of work or research experience in the fields of secure transactions and
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00067
`U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`
`encryption, or a Master’s degree in electrical engineering and two years of work or
`
`research experience in related fields. Patent Owner’s description of level of ordinary
`
`skill in the art is essentially the same as that of the Petition, except that the Petition’s
`
`description requires three years of work or research experience (as compared to two
`
`years). See Pet. at 5. The positions set forth in this preliminary response would be
`
`the same under either parties’ proposal.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Claim terms in an IPR are given their broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`(“BRI”) in view of the specification in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
`
`see also Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142 (2016).
`
`Petitioner identifies three terms that purportedly require construction. Pet. at
`
`5-6. For the “remaining” terms, Petitioner suggests that no construction is necessary
`
`and that the terms be interpreted under the broadest reasonable construction in light
`
`of the specification. Pet. at 5-6. Patent Owner agrees that none of the “remaining”
`
`terms require construction and that they should be given their broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation in light of the specification. However, Patent Owner disagrees with
`
`the specific “constructions” that Petitioner has offered for the terms “biometric input,”
`
`“secret information,” and “secure registry.” Those terms likewise require no
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00067
`U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`
`construction, and should also be given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light
`
`of the specification.2
`
`Indeed, although Petitioner purports to provide “propos[ed] constructions” for
`
`these three terms, none of these “constructions” provide any bounds on claim scope.
`
`O2 Micro Inter. v. Beyond Innovation, 521 F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[t]he
`
`purpose of claim construction is to ‘determin[e] the meaning and scope of the patent
`
`claims.’”). Petitioner’s “constructions” merely identify various examples that
`
`
`2 Patent Owner offers the foregoing claim construction proposal to comply
`
`with 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.100(b) and 42.104(b)(3) solely for purposes of this Petition
`
`and does not necessarily reflect appropriate claim constructions in litigation. See,
`
`e.g., In re Trans Texas Holdings Corp., 498 F.3d 1290, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Patent
`
`Owner, therefore, reserves the right to pursue alternative constructions, including
`
`where Patent Owner does not herein propose an express construction, in district
`
`court. As multiple district courts have recognized, the PTAB’s decision on claim
`
`construction (and Patent Owner’s positions in an IPR) does not control claim
`
`construction decisions in litigation. See Shire Dev. LLC v. Amneal Pharmas. LLC,
`
`No. 15-2865 (RBK/JS), 2016 WL 4119940, at *4 n.3 (D.N.J. Aug. 2, 2016); Biscotti
`
`Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2:13-cv-01015-JRG-RSP, 2016 WL 6611487, at *7 n.5
`
`(E.D. Tex. Nov. 9, 2016).
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00067
`U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`
`allegedly fall within the scope of the claims—they fail to define what is (and
`
`importantly, what is not) covered by the terms.
`
`Specifically, the Petition attempts to define “biometric input” by stating that
`
`“[t]he scope of ‘biometric input’ includes, as the specification recites, user input
`
`representing ‘something the user is,’ examples of which include a fingerprint, voice
`
`print, signature, iris, or facial scan.” Id. at 6 (emphasis added). Likewise,
`
`Petitioner’s proposed construction for “secret information” includes “information
`
`‘known by a user, such as a password, phrase, PIN, or identifying information.” Id.
`
`And last, Petitioner asserts that “secure registry” includes “one or more systems for
`
`maintaining one more secure databases for string account information for a plurality
`
`of users and that perform the function of validating authentication information for
`
`users.” Id. at 7.
`
`Each of these proposed constructions suffer the same failing: they do not
`
`purport to identify the scope of the claim. O2 Micro Inter. v. Beyond Innovation,
`
`521 F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Rather, they simply list examples from the
`
`specification that are “included[ed]” within the scope. 3 Petitioner offers no
`
`
`3 It is unclear whether Petitioner proposes these examples as limiting on the claims
`
`or simply as non-limiting examples of what could fall within the scope of the
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00067
`U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`
`recognized reason why these ordinary terms should include or be limited to the
`
`identified examples; it has not, for example, argued that these terms are special or
`
`“coined” terms that must be defined by the specification, that the specification
`
`defined the [terms] expressly or implicitly, or that the patentee endeavored to act as
`
`his own lexicographer. See, e.g., Beachcombers Int’l v. Wildewood Creative Prods.,
`
`31 F.3d 1154, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“[a]s we have repeatedly said, a patentee can
`
`be his own lexicographer provided the patentee’s definition, to the extent it differs
`
`from the conventional definition, is clearly set forth in the specification”); York
`
`Prods. v. Central Tractor Farm & Family, 99 F.3d 1568, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1996)
`
`(“[w]ithout an express intent to impart a novel meaning to claim terms, an inventor’s
`
`claim terms take on their ordinary meaning.); MyMail Ltd. v. Am. Online, Inc., 476
`
`F.3d 13762, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (Coined terms defined by specification). Indeed,
`
`it has been found repeatedly that importing examples from the specification into the
`
`claims is improper. Ex parte Benjamin Tang, et al, 2014 WL 2968031 (BPAI 2014)
`
`
`claims. This uncertainty only underscores Petitioner’s improper proposals. And,
`
`as discussed below, to the extent Petitioner is arguing that these examples limit the
`
`claims, and applying its own definition, it has failed to identify a “secure registry”
`
`in the prior art. See infra § VIII.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00067
`U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`
`(“the Specification discloses examples of power modes and not present an
`
`exhaustive list. Appellants’ claim construction argument asks us to import
`
`limitations from the Specification into the claims. We will not do so.”); Libel-
`
`Flarsheim co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 910 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“it is improper
`
`to read a limitation from the specification into the claims.”); Superguide Corp. v.
`
`DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“a particular
`
`embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when
`
`the claim language is broader than the embodiment”); EPOS Technologies Ltd. v.
`
`Pegasus Technologies Ltd., 766 F.3d 1338, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[a]lthough it is
`
`true that the specifications recite embodiments including ‘conventional’ writing
`
`implements, there is no clear indication in the intrinsic record suggesting that the
`
`claims are limited to ‘conventional’ drawing implements.”). Accordingly, because
`
`Petitioner offers no reason why these terms should be defined by (or limited to) the
`
`specification, Petitioner’s proposed constructions for these three terms should be
`
`rejected.
`
`Petitioner’s proposed definition for “secure registry” is additionally improper
`
`because Petitioner’s proposed