Apple Inc.,
`Visa Inc., and Visa U.S.A. Inc.,
`v.
`Universal Secure Registry, LLC,
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.’s Demonstrative Slides
`U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00810
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`July 16, 2019
`
`IPR2018-00810
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1
`
`
`Visa Inc., and Visa U.S.A. Inc.,
`v.
`Universal Secure Registry, LLC,
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.’s Demonstrative Slides
`U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00810
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`July 16, 2019
`
`IPR2018-00810
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1
`
`
`
`Roadmap
`
`The Claims Are Invalid
`
`Responses to USR’s Surreply
`Lack of Secondary Considerations
`USR’s Substitute Claims Are Not Patentable
`
`IPR2018-00810
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`
`
`
`Roadmap
`
`The Claims Are Invalid
`
`Responses to USR’s Surreply
`Lack of Secondary Considerations
`USR’s Substitute Claims Are Not Patentable
`
`IPR2018-00810
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3
`
`
`
`The Claims Are Invalid
`• Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, 30,
`31, and 34 are invalid as obvious over Maritzen,
`Jakobsson ‘585, and Niwa.
`
`IPR2018-00810
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`4
`
`
`
`’826 Patent Claims A System for Authenticating A User Using Well-
`Known Techniques With Generic Components
`
`Ex. 1001 [’826 Patent], Claim 1
`
`IPR2018-00810
`
`Pet. at 18-49; Ex. 1002 [Shoup Decl.] ¶¶45-107; Institution Decision at 9-16
`5
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Maritzen Discloses a User Authentication System With a
`“First Handheld Device” and a “Second Device” (All
`Claims)
`
`First Handheld
`Device
`
`Ex. 1004 [Maritzen], Figure 1
`
`Second Device
`
`IPR2018-00810
`
`Pet. at 18-21, 28-29; Ex. 1002 [Shoup Decl.] ¶¶45-51, 69; Institution Decision at 9, 11-12, 16
`6
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Maritzen Discloses Receiving / Retrieving “First
`Biometric Information” From the User (All Claims)
`
`First Biometric
`Information
`
`First Biometric
`Information
`
`IPR2018-00810
`
`Pet. at 21-23; Ex. 1002 [Shoup Decl.] ¶¶52-54; Institution Decision at 10-11, 16
`7
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1004 [Maritzen], Figures 6a, 6b
`
`
`
`Maritzen Discloses “Second Authentication
`Information” (All Claims)
`
`Second
`Authentication
`Information
`Ex. 1004 [Maritzen], Figures 8, 9
`
`IPR2018-00810
`
`Pet. at 31-33; Ex. 1002 [Shoup Decl.] ¶¶76-77; Institution Decision at 12-13, 16
`8
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Maritzen Discloses “First Authentication Information”
`Derived From “First Biometric Information” (All Claims)
`
`First Biometric
`Information
`
`First Authentication
`Information
`
`Ex. 1004 [Maritzen], at [0088]
`
`IPR2018-00810
`
`Pet. at 40-41; Ex. 1002 [Shoup Decl.] ¶¶87-89; Institution Decision at 13-14, 16
`9
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Maritzen Discloses Using “First Authentication
`Information” and “Second Authentication Information”
`to Authenticate User Identity (All Claims)
`
`First Authentication
`Information
`
`Ex. 1004 [Maritzen], at [0048]
`
`Second Authentication
`Information
`
`IPR2018-00810
`
`Pet. at 48-49; Ex. 1002 [Shoup Decl.] ¶¶105-107; Institution Decision at 15-16
`10
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Reasons to Combine
`
`Maritzen, Jakobsson ‘585, and Niwa disclose similar and
`technologically-compatible authentication systems
`• All use local and remote authentication
`• All use biometric information for authentication
`• All are designed to reduce risk of stolen
`authentication credentials
`• All are designed to secure financial transactions
`
`IPR2018-00810
`
`Pet. at 24-25, 34-40, 42-46; Ex. 1002 [Shoup Decl.] at ¶¶57-60, 80-86, 92-96
`11
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Reasons to Combine
`
`All use local and remote authentication
`
`Ex. 1005 (Jakobsson ‘585),
`Fig. 1
`
`Ex. 1004 (Maritzen), Fig. 1
`
`Ex. 1007 (Niwa), Fig. 1
`
`IPR2018-00810
`
`Pet. at 24-25, 34-40, 42-46; Ex. 1002 [Shoup Decl.] at ¶¶57-60, 80-86, 92-96
`12
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Reasons to Combine
`
`All use biometric information for authentication
`
`Jakobsson ‘585
`
`Maritzen
`
`Niwa
`
`Ex. 1005 at [0013]
`
`Ex. 1004 at [0088]
`
`IPR2018-00810
`
`Ex. 1007 at Abstract
`Pet. at 24-25, 34-40, 42-46; Ex. 1002 [Shoup Decl.] at ¶¶57-60, 80-86, 92-96
`13
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Reasons to Combine
`
`All are designed to reduce risk of stolen authentication information
`
`Jakobsson ‘585
`
`Maritzen
`
`Niwa
`
`Ex. 1005 at [0008]
`
`Ex. 1004 at [0003]
`
`IPR2018-00810
`
`Ex. 1007 at 2:12-16
`Pet. at 24-25, 34-40, 42-46; Ex. 1002 [Shoup Decl.] at ¶¶57-60, 80-86, 92-96
`14
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Reasons to Combine
`
`All are designed to secure financial transactions
`
`Jakobsson ‘585
`
`Maritzen
`
`Niwa
`
`Ex. 1005 at [0039]
`
`Ex. 1004 at [0031]
`
`Ex. 1007 at 1:17-21
`
`IPR2018-00810
`
`Pet. at 24-25, 34-40, 42-46; Ex. 1002 [Shoup Decl.] at ¶¶57-60, 80-86, 92-96
`15
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Reasons to Combine
`
`Niwa is incorporated by reference in Maritzen
`Maritzen
`Niwa
`
`Ex. 2005 at
`[0043]
`
`IPR2018-00810
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Pet. at 24-25; Ex. 1002 [Shoup Decl.] at ¶58
`16
`
`
`
`Roadmap
`
`The Claims Are Invalid
`
`Responses to USR’s Surreply
`Lack of Secondary Considerations
`USR’s Substitute Claims Are Not Patentable
`
`IPR2018-00810
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`17
`
`
`
`Responses to USR’s Surreply
`
`Response to Surreply
`1. Maritzen discloses “first authentication information”
`
`Issue Addressed in Briefing
`Pet. 40-41; Reply at 5-7
`
`2. Maritzen does not teach away from Jakobsson ‘585
`
`Pet. 41-46; Reply at 7-14
`
`3. Maritzen discloses “first biometric information” and
`“authentication information”
`
`Pet. 20-21; Reply at 1-3
`
`4. The Petition relies on Maritzen, not Jakobsson ‘585,
`for the “second processor...to...receive the first
`authentication information”
`
`Pet. at 47, 62; Reply at 16-17
`
`5. The Petition relies on Jakobsson ‘585 for “second
`biometric data” / “second biometric information”
`
`Pet. at 47, 63, 74; Reply at 17-18
`
`6. Maritzen’s PTD is a “handheld device”
`
`Pet. at 20-23, 26, 55-56, 59; Reply at 19-21
`
`7. Maritzen discloses disabling use of the first handheld
`device
`8. The Petition relies on Maritzen in view of Niwa for
`the “respective biometric information for a second
`plurality of users”
`
`Pet. at 52-54; Reply at 21
`
`Pet. at 55, 59; Reply at 21-22
`
`IPR2018-00810
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`18
`
`
`
`1. Maritzen Discloses “First Authentication Information”
`Maritzen discloses that a “biometric key” is derived from the
`“biometric input.”
`
`IPR2018-00810
`
`Pet. at 40-41; Ex. 1002 [Shoup Decl.] at ¶¶87-89; Reply at 5-7; Ex. 1018 [Shoup Reply Decl.] at ¶¶20-24; ID at 13-14, 16
`19
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1004 [Maritzen], at [0044] [0088]
`
`
`
`1. Maritzen Discloses “First Authentication Information”
`
`A POSITA would recognize the term “biometric key” refers to
`cryptographic keys generated from biometric information because
`the prior art showed uses of biometric key generation.
`
`Ex. 1025, Title Page
`
`Ex. 1029 at 12
`
`IPR2018-00810
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply at 5; Ex. 1018 [Shoup Reply Decl.] at ¶21
`20
`
`
`
`1. Maritzen Discloses “First Authentication Information”
`“Biometric keys” are “created” even when the privacy card is part of
`the PTD.
`
`Ex. 1004 [Maritzen] at [0044]
`
`Privacy
`Card
`
`Privacy
`Card
`
`PTD
`
`PTD
`
`IPR2018-00810
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply at 6; Ex. 1018 (Shoup Reply Decl.) at ¶23
`21
`
`
`
`2.Maritzen Does Not Teach Away from Jakobsson
`‘585
`Maritzen does not discourage sending encrypted personal
`information
`
`IPR2018-00810
`
`Reply at 7-14; Ex. 1018 [Shoup Reply Decl.] at ¶¶26-34
`22
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1018 [Shoup Reply Decl.] at ¶30
`
`
`
`2.Maritzen Does Not Teach Away From Jakobsson
`‘585
`Maritzen does not discourage sending encrypted personal
`information
`
`Ex. 1005 [Jakobsson ‘585] at [0072]
`
`IPR2018-00810
`
`Reply at 7-14; Ex. 1018 [Shoup Reply Decl.] at ¶¶26-34
`23
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`3. Maritzen Discloses “First Biometric Information” And
`“Authentication Information”
`The ‘826 specification explains that one type of “authentication
`information” is “biometric information.”
`
`Ex. 1001 [‘826 patent] at 35:18-21
`
`IPR2018-00810
`
`Reply at 1-3, 14; Ex. 1018 [Shoup Reply Decl.] at ¶¶12-17, 37; ID at 9-10, 16
`24
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`3. Maritzen Discloses “First Biometric Information” And
`“Authentication Information”
`Claim 10 does not require that the step of “authenticating...based on authentication
`information” occur before the step of “retrieving or receiving first biometric
`information”
`
`IPR2018-00810
`
`Reply at 1-3, 14; Ex. 1018 [Shoup Reply Decl.] at ¶¶12-17, 37
`25
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1001 (‘826 patent) claim 10
`
`
`
`3. Maritzen Discloses “First Biometric Information” And
`“Authentication Information”
`
`Interactive Gift does not support USR’s argument that there is
`“implicit” order required by claim 10
`
`IPR2018-00810
`
`Interactive Gift., 256 F.3d 1323, 1342-43 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
`
`Reply at 1-3, 14; Ex. 1018 [Shoup Reply Decl.] at ¶¶12-17, 37
`26
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`4. The Petition Relies On Maritzen, Not Jakobsson ‘585,
`For The “Second Processor...To...Receive The First
`Authentication Information.”
`
`Pet. at 62
`
`Pet. at 47
`Pet. at 47, 62; Ex. 1002 [Shoup Decl.] at ¶¶162, 100; Reply at 16-17; Ex. 1018 [Shoup Reply Decl.] at ¶42; ID at 20
`27
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-00810
`
`
`
`5. The Petition Relies On Jakobsson ‘585 For “Second
`Biometric Data” / “Second Biometric Information”
`
`Limitation 30[d]
`
`Limitation 30[e]
`
`Ex. 1001 [‘826 patent], claim 30
`
`Pet. at 48, 63, 74; Ex. 1002 [Shoup Decl.] at ¶¶ 105-106, 166, 200, 202; Reply at 17-18; Ex. 1018 [Shoup Reply Decl.] at ¶¶43-46; ID at 20
`28
`IPR2018-00810
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`5. The Petition Relies On Jakobsson ‘585 For “Second
`Biometric Data” / “Second Biometric Information”
`
`Pet. at 74
`
`Pet. at 63
`Pet. at 48, 63, 74; Ex. 1002 [Shoup Decl.] at ¶¶ 105-106, 166, 200, 202; Reply at 17-18; Ex. 1018 [Shoup Reply Decl.] at ¶¶43-46; ID at 20
`29
`IPR2018-00810
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`5. The Petition Relies On Jakobsson ‘585 For “Second
`Biometric Data” / “Second Biometric Information”
`
`Pet. at 74
`
`Pet. at 48
`Pet. at 48, 63, 74; Ex. 1002 [Shoup Decl.] at ¶¶ 105-106, 166, 200, 202; Reply at 17-18; Ex. 1018 [Shoup Reply Decl.] at ¶¶43-46; ID at 20
`30
`IPR2018-00810
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`6. Maritzen’s PTD Is A “Handheld Device”
`
`Ex. 1004 [Maritzen], Figures 6a, 6b
`
`IPR2018-00810
`
`Pet. at 20-23, 26, 55-56, 59; Ex. 1002 [Shoup Decl.] ¶¶52-54; Reply at 19-21; Ex. 1018 [Shoup Decl.] ¶¶47-51; ID at 9, 16
`31
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`7. Maritzen Discloses Disabling Use of the Handheld
`Device
`When Maritzen’s PTD is “locked,” it is disabled.
`
`Ex. 1004 [Maritzen] at [0067]
`
`Ex. 1004 [Maritzen] at [0072]
`
`IPR2018-00810
`
`Ex. 1004 [Maritzen] at [0056]
`Pet. at 52-54 ; Ex. 1002 [Shoup Decl.] ¶¶115-117; Reply at 21; Ex. 1018 [Shoup Decl.] ¶¶52-53
`32
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`8. The Petition Relies On Maritzen In View Of Niwa For
`The “Respective Biometric Information For A Second
`Plurality Of Users”
`
`Pet. at 59
`
`Pet. at 55
`
`IPR2018-00810
`
`Pet. at 55, 59; Ex. 1002 [Shoup Decl.] at ¶¶121, 143; Reply at 21-22; Ex. 1018 [Shoup Reply Decl.] at ¶¶54-55
`33
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Roadmap
`
`The Claims Are Invalid
`
`Responses to USR’s Surreply
`Lack of Secondary Considerations
`USR’s Substitute Claims Are Not Patentable
`USR’s Motion to Strike Should Be Denied
`
`IPR2018-00810
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`34
`
`
`
`USR Failed to Demonstrate Any Secondary
`Considerations
`In his declaration, Dr. Jakobsson opined that “the claimed inventions are
`practiced by...Apple Pay and Visa Checkout services.”
`
`Ex. 2003 (Jakobsson Decl.) ¶138
`
`IPR2018-00810
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`35
`
`
`
`USR Failed to Demonstrate Any Secondary
`Considerations
`But at deposition, Dr. Jakobsson conceded he did not conduct any analysis to
`conclude that Apple Pay or Visa Checkout practice the patent.
`
`Ex. 1017 (Jakobsson Dep. Tr.) at 118:16-19; 118:24-119:2;
`see also 119:12-121:9 (same answers regarding Visa Checkout)
`
`IPR2018-00810
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply at 27
`36
`
`
`
`USR Failed to Demonstrate Any Secondary
`Considerations
`Dr. Jakobsson’s errata changed his testimony that he reviewed Visa code.
`
`Ex. 1017 (Jakobsson Dep. Tr.) at 520:3-6
`
`IPR2018-00810
`
`Reply at 22-26; Ex. 1018 [Shoup Reply Decl.] ¶¶56-60
`37
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`June 27, 2019 Errata
`
`
`
`USR Failed to Demonstrate Any Secondary
`Considerations
`Dr. Jakobsson conceded that features purportedly showing long-felt need
`were already known
`
`Ex. 1017 (Jakobsson Dep. Tr.) at 98:12-15;113:6-10
`
`IPR2018-00810
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply at 23
`38
`
`
`
`USR Failed to Demonstrate Any Secondary
`Considerations
`Dr. Jakobsson conceded that features purportedly showing long-felt need
`were already known
`
`IPR2018-00810
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply at 23-24
`39
`
`Ex. 1017 (Jakobsson Dep. Tr.) at 22:25-24:2; 31:23-32:2; 32:17-23
`
`
`
`USR Failed to Demonstrate Any Secondary
`Considerations
`Dr. Jakobsson conceded that he never heard of the patent before he was
`retained and was not aware of any praise or recognition for the patent.
`
`Ex. 1017 (Jakobsson Dep. Tr.) at 14:24-15:3
`
`IPR2018-00810
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`40
`
`Ex. 1017 (Jakobsson Dep. Tr.) at 17:6-9
`
`
`
`Roadmap
`
`The Claims Are Invalid
`
`Responses to USR’s Surreply
`
`Lack of Secondary Considerations
`
`USR’s Substitute Claims Are Not Patentable
`
`IPR2018-00810
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`41
`
`
`
`USR’s Substitute Claims Are Not Patentable
`
`Section 101
`
`Section 103
`
`Section 112
`
`Limitation
`Credit/debit/financial transactions
`
`Encryption/decryption
`
`One-time code
`
`Digital signature
`
`Wireless signal with “separable
`fields”
`KEK-encrypted authentication
`information & key
`
`Claims
`36[pre], 36[b],
`36[j], 45[pre],
`45[e], 45[i]
`36[b], 45[e],
`45[g]
`36[f], 36[g],
`36[j], 45[c],
`45[d], 45[e],
`45[g], 45[i]
`36[f], 36[g],
`36[h], 36[j],
`45[c], 45[d],
`45[e], 45[g],
`45[h], 45[i]
`42[a], 45[d]
`
`56[c], 56[d],
`56[g]
`
`IPR2018-00810
`
`See CMTA Opposition, Paper 25; Ex. 1019 (Shoup Decl. ISO CMTA Opposition)
`42
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`USR’s Substitute Claims Are Not Patentable
`
`Grounds for Invalidity
`1. The prior art renders obvious the claimed
`“one-time code” and a “digital signature” in
`substitute claims 36 and 45
`2. Burnett renders obvious the KEK encryption
`in substitute claim 56
`3. The ’585 reference discloses a signal with
`“separable fields”
`4. The combination of Maritzen and the ’585
`reference is obvious
`5. The KEK encryption in substitute claim 56
`lacks written description support
`
`Issue Addressed in Briefing
`
`CMTA Opp. at 8-11; CMTA Sur-Reply at 3-4
`
`CMTA Opp. at 14-17; CMTA Sur-Reply at 8-9
`
`CMTA Opp. at 7-8, 12-14; CMTA Sur-Reply at 4-
`10
`CMTA Opp. at 5-7; CMTA Sur-Reply at 5-6; Reply
`to POR at 7-14
`
`CMTA Opp. at 3-4; CMTA Sur-Reply at 1-3
`
`6. Petitioner showed claim 45 is unpatentable
`
`CMTA Opp. at 5-11; CMTA Sur-Reply at 9-10
`
`7. The substitute claims are drawn to ineligible
`subject matter
`
`CMTA Opp. at 18-24; CMTA Sur-Reply at 10-11
`
`IPR2018-00810
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`43
`
`
`
`USR’s CMTA Is Also Deficient
`
`USR’s CMTA Deficiency
`
`Issue Addressed in Briefing
`
`1. USR violated its duty of candor
`
`CMTA Opp. at 24-25; CMTA Sur-Reply at 11-12
`
`2. USR submitted an unreasonable number
`of substitute claims and substituted
`unchallenged claims
`
`CMTA Opp. at 1-3
`
`IPR2018-00810
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`44
`
`
`
`1. “One-Time Code” And “Digital Signature”
`Substitute claim 36 amends original claim 1 by adding a one-time
`code and a digital signature
`
`36[f]
`
`36[g]
`
`36[j]
`
`wherein the first processor is programmed to determine
`the first authentication information derived from the first
`biometric information, the first processor further
`programmed to generate a one-time code and a digital
`signature, the digital signature generated using a private
`key associated with the first handheld device, and to
`transmit the first wireless signal including the first
`authentication information, the one-time code, and the
`digital signature of the user of the first handheld device to
`the second device via the network;
`wherein the second processor is configured to: receive the
`first wireless signal including the first authentication
`information, the one-time code, and the digital signature
`of the user of the first handheld device;
`use the first authentication information, the one-time code,
`the digital signature, and the second authentication
`information to authenticate an identity of the user of the
`first handheld device with the second device; and upon
`authentication of the identity of the user of the first
`handheld device, enable the credit and/or debit card
`transaction.
`
`IPR2018-00810
`
`USR’s CMTA, Paper 18 at B1-B2;
`See also CMTA Opp., Paper 25 at 8-10; CMTA Sur-Reply, Paper 35 at 3-4, 9-10
`45
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`1. “One-Time Code” And “Digital Signature”
`The ’585 reference discloses a one-time code
`
`IPR2018-00810
`
`Ex. 1019 (Shoup Decl. ISO CMTA Opposition, ¶39)
`See also CMTA Opp., Paper 25 at 8-10; CMTA Sur-Reply at 10
`46
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`1. “One-Time Code” And “Digital Signature”
`Schutzer renders obvious digital signatures for authentication
`
`IPR2018-00810
`
`Ex. 1030 (Schutzer, ¶29);
`See also CMTA Opp., Paper 25 at 8-10, 12-13; CMTA Sur-Reply, Paper 35 at 3-4, 9-10
`47
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`1. “One-Time Code” And “Digital Signature”
`Dr. Shoup showed digital signatures generated using a user’s private
`key would have been obvious
`
`IPR2018-00810
`
`Ex. 1019 (Shoup Decl. ISO CMTA Opposition, ¶44)
`See also CMTA Opp., Paper 25 at 8-10, 12-13; CMTA Sur-Reply, Paper 35 at 3-4, 9-10
`48
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`1. “One-Time Code” And “Digital Signature”
`Dr. Shoup showed digital signatures generated using a user’s private
`key would have been obvious
`
`IPR2018-00810
`
`Ex. 1019 (Shoup Decl. ISO CMTA Opposition, ¶45)
`See also CMTA Opp., Paper 25 at 8-10, 12-13; CMTA Sur-Reply, Paper 35 at 3-4, 9-10
`49
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`1. “One-Time Code” And “Digital Signature”
`USR’s argument does not rebut Dr. Shoup’s analysis
`
`IPR2018-00810
`
`USR’s CMTA Reply, Paper 30 at 6;
`But see CMTA Opp., Paper 25 at 8-10, 12-13; CMTA Sur-Reply, Paper 35 at 3-4
`50
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`1. “One-Time Code” And “Digital Signature”
`Dr. Jakobsson agrees with Dr. Shoup’s analysis
`
`IPR2018-00810
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1017 (Jakobsson Tr., 77:15-19, 82:12-16)
`See also CMTA Sur-Reply, Paper 35 at 4
`51
`
`
`
`2. Substitute Claim 56 Is Obvious Over Burnett
`Substitute claim 56 adds KEK encryption to original claim 30
`
`56[c]
`
`56[e]
`
`at least a portion of the first
`authentication information encrypted
`by a first key, the first authentication
`information including the first key
`encrypted by a second key;
`decrypting, at the second device, the
`encrypted first key using the second
`key to retrieve the first key; decrypting,
`at the second device, the portion of the
`first authentication information
`encrypted by the first key using the first
`key;
`
`USR’s CMTA, Paper 18 at B6
`See also CMTA Opp., Paper 25 at 13-17; CMTA Sur-Reply, Paper 35 at 8-9
`52
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-00810
`
`
`
`2. Substitute Claim 56 Is Obvious Over Burnett
`Requirements of substitute limitations 56[c] and 56[e]
`at least a portion of the first
`authentication information encrypted
`by a first key, the first authentication
`information including the first key
`encrypted by a second key;
`decrypting, at the second device, the
`encrypted first key using the second
`key to retrieve the first key;
`decrypting, at the second device, the
`portion of the first authentication
`information encrypted by the first key
`using the first key;
`
`56[c]
`
`56[e]
`
`Second key
`
`Second-key-
`encrypted
`first key
`
`First key
`
`Encryption
`Decryption
`
`Portion of first
`authentication
`information
`
`Encryption
`Decryption
`
`Encrypted
`portion of first
`authentication
`information
`See USR’s CMTA, Paper 18, B6; CMTA Opp., Paper 25 at 13-17; CMTA Sur-Reply, Paper 35 at 8-9
`53
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-00810
`
`
`
`2. Substitute Claim 56 Is Obvious Over Burnett
`Burnett teaches the same KEK encryption as substitute claim 56
`
`IPR2018-00810
`
`See CMTA Opposition, Paper 25 at 15-16 (citing Ex. 1021 (Burnett at 54, Fig. 3-1))
`54
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`2. Substitute Claim 56 Is Obvious Over Burnett
`USR responds by arguing that KEKs are not shared
`
`USR’s CMTA Reply, Paper 30, 17
`
`USR’s CMTA Reply, Paper 30, 18
`
`But see CMTA Sur-Reply, Paper 35 at 8-9
`55
`
`IPR2018-00810
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`2. Substitute Claim 56 Is Obvious Over Burnett
`Burnett discloses sharing key encryption keys
`
`Ex. 1021 (Burnett at 83)
`
`Ex. 1021 (Burnett at 85)
`
`See also CMTA Sur-Reply, Paper 35 at 8-9
`56
`
`IPR2018-00810
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`2. Substitute Claim 56 Is Obvious Over Burnett
`Dr. Jakobsson didn’t consider Burnett’s disclosure of shared KEKs
`
`Ex. 1032 (Jakobsson Tr., 591:9-13)
`
`Ex. 1032 (Jakobsson Tr., 589:19-590:2)
`
`IPR2018-00810
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1032 (Jakobsson Tr., 598:14-25)
`See also CMTA Sur-Reply, Paper 35 at 9
`57
`
`
`
`3. The ’585 Reference Discloses “Separable Fields”
`Substitute claim 42 adds “separable fields” to original claim 7
`
`42[a]
`
`[[7]]42. The system of claim 36[[1]], wherein
`the first authentication information, the
`one-time code, and the digital signature
`included in the transmitted first wireless
`signal are separable fields of the first
`wireless signal, and
`
`IPR2018-00810
`
`USR’s CMTA, Paper 19, B3
`See also CMTA Opp., Paper 25 at 9-10, 12-14; CMTA Sur-Reply, Paper 35 at 4-10
`58
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`3. The ’585 Reference Discloses “Separable Fields”
`The combination function can be prepending/appending or another
`reversible functions
`
`IPR2018-00810
`
`Ex. 1005 (’585 Reference, ¶73)
`See also CMTA Opp., Paper 25 at 9-10, 12-14; CMTA Sur-Reply, Paper 35 at 4-10
`59
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`3. The ’585 Reference Discloses “Separable Fields”
`The combination function can be prepending/appending or another
`reversible functions
`
`IPR2018-00810
`
`Ex. 1005 (’585 Reference, ¶58)
`See also CMTA Opp., Paper 25 at 9-10, 12-14; CMTA Sur-Reply, Paper 35 at 4-10
`60
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`3. The ’585 Reference Discloses “Separable Fields”
`Dr. Juels identified additional functions that are not one-way
`
`IPR2018-00810
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-00809 Ex. 1030 (Juels Decl. at ¶¶40-41, 43)
`See also CMTA Sur-Reply, Paper 35 at 7
`61
`
`
`
`3. The ’585 Reference Discloses “Separable Fields”
`The ’585 reference therefore does not require a one-way function, as
`USR suggests
`
`IPR2018-00810
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`USR’s CMTA Reply, Paper 30, 13
`See also CMTA Sur-Reply, Paper 35 at 4-8
`62
`
`
`
`4. It’s Obvious To Combine Maritzen And The ‘585
`Reference
`Combining Maritzen and the ’585 reference would not be redundant
`and is consistent with Maritzen’s teachings
`
`USR’s CMTA Reply, Paper 30, 12
`
`IPR2018-00810
`
`USR’s CMTA Reply, Paper 30, 11-12
`But see CMTA Sur-Reply, Paper 35 at 5-6 (citing ’585 reference at ¶¶71-72); Reply to POR, Paper 24 at 7-8
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`63
`
`
`
`5. KEK Encryption In Claim 56 Lacks Written Description
`USR admits the specification as written does not support claim 56,
`but is wrong that the ’860 application can be corrected
`
`Ex. 2008 (’860 Application at 49:24-32)
`
`See also CMTA Sur-Reply, Paper 35 at 2-3
`IPR2018-00810
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 2008 (’860 Application at 50:24-31)
`64
`
`
`
`6. Petitioner Showed Claim 45 Is Unpatentable
`The CMTA Opposition showed the claimed decryption
`
`45[e]
`
`45[g]
`
`. . . at least one of the digital signature
`and/or the one-time code encrypted by
`the first handheld device;
`decrypting, with the second device, at
`least one of the digital signature and/or
`the one-time code encrypted by the first
`handheld device;
`
`IPR2018-00810
`
`Ex-1019 (Shoup Declaration ISO CMTA Opposition at ¶44);
`CMTA, Paper 19, B3
`See also CMTA Opp., Paper 25 at 10 (citing the same)
`65
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`6. Petitioner Showed Claim 45 Is Unpatentable
`The CMTA Opposition showed the claimed “separable fields” are
`obvious
`
`45[d]
`
`generating a first signal that includes the
`first authentication information of the
`first entity, the one-time code, and the
`digital signature as separable fields of the
`first signal;
`
`IPR2018-00810
`
`CMTA, Paper 19, B3
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`CMTA Opp., Paper 25 at 10
`
`66
`
`
`
`7. The Substitute Claims Are Ineligible Under § 101
`The substitute claims are drawn to the abstract idea of “verifying an
`account holder’s identity based on codes and/or information related to
`the account holder before enabling a transaction”
`
`* * *
`
`IPR2018-00810
`
`Ex. 1017 (Jakobsson Transcript, 92:14-20);
`see also CMTA Opp., Paper 25 at 18-22; CMTA Sur-Reply, Paper 35 at 10-11
`67
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`7. The Substitute Claims Are Ineligible Under § 101
`The substitute claims are drawn to the abstract idea of “verifying an
`account holder’s identity based on codes and/or information related to
`the account holder before enabling a transaction”
`
`IPR2018-00810
`
`Ex. 1001 (’826 Patent at 1:36-39, 11:30-31, 11:52, 12:18-20; 12:51-53);
`see also CMTA Opp., Paper 25 at 18-22; CMTA Sur-Reply, Paper 35 at 10-11
`68
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`7. The Substitute Claims Are Ineligible Under § 101
`The substitute claims do not add anything inventive
`
`* * *
`
`* * *
`
`* * *
`
`* * *
`
`* * *
`
`Ex. 1017 (Jakobsson Transcript, 161:20-162:30);
`see also id. at at 30:16-34:24, 36:10-12, 44:10-12, 46:2-5, 56:20-24, 76:11-77:19, 95:3-5, 95:19-96:18, 96:23-98:15, 98:22-
`99:18, 99:19-101:7, 101:2-7, 161:14-63:12, 198:2-4; CMTA Opp., Paper 25 at 22-24; CMTA Sur-Reply, Paper 35 at 10-11
`69
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-00810
`
`
`
`USR’s CMTA Is Also Deficient
`
`1. Patent Owner Violated Its Duty Of Candor
`2. USR’s CMTA is Procedurally Deficient For Submitting An
`Unreasonable Number Of Claims And Substituting Unchallenged
`Claims
`
`IPR2018-00810
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`70
`
`
`
`1. Patent Owner Violated Its Duty Of Candor
`USR’s should have disclosed the Schutzer reference
`
`USR’s CMTA Reply, Paper 30, 25
`
`USR’s CMTA Reply, Paper 30, 26
`
`IPR2018-00810
`
`See also CMTA Opp., Paper 25 at 24-25; CMTA Sur-Reply, Paper 35 at 11-12
`71
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`2. USR CMTA Is Procedurally Deficient
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(d)(1)(b);
`37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(3)
`USR submitted
`an unreasonable
`number of
`claims
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(d)(1)(a)
`
`SR substituted
`unchallenged
`claims
`
`IPR2018-00810
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`CMTA Opp. Paper 25 at 1-3
`72
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`IPR2018-00810
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on July 11, 2019, I caused a true and correct copy of
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.’s Demonstrative Exhibits to be served via electronic mail on
`
`the following correspondents of record as listed in Patent Owners’ Mandatory
`
`Notices and Paper 32 (Decision Granting Motion for Joinder in IPR2019-00175):
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`James M. Glass (jimglass@quinnemanuel.com)
`Tigran Guledjian (tigranguledjian@quinnemanuel.com)
`Christopher A. Mathews (chrismathews@quinnemanuel.com)
`Nima Hefazi (nimahefazi@quinnemanuel.com)
`Richard Lowry (richardlowry@quinnemanuel.com)
`Razmig Messerian (razmesserian@quinnemanuel.com)
`Jordan B. Kaericher (jordankaericher@quinnemanuel.com)
`Harold A. Barza (halbarza@quinnemanuel.com)
`Quinn Emanuel USR IPR (qe-usr-ipr@quinnemanuel.com)
`QUINN, EMANUEL, URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
`For PETITIONER:
`(IPR2019-00175):
`Matthew Argenti (margenti@wsgr.com)
`Michael Rosato (mrosato@wsgr.com)
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`/Monica Grewal/
`Monica Grewal
`Registration No. 40,056
`
`Date: July 11, 2019
`
`
`ActiveUS 174877005v.1
`
`1
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
