UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNIVERSAL SECURE REGISTRY LLC
`Patent Owner
`________________
`
`Case IPR2018-00810
`U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`________________
`
`PATENT OWNER'S RESPONSE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.120
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 17
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00810
`U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`
`Page
`
`I.
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`OVERVIEW OF THE '826 PATENT ............................................................. 3
`A.
`The '826 Patent Specification ................................................................ 3
`B.
`The '826 Patent Claims .......................................................................... 6
`C.
`Prosecution History of the '826 Patent .................................................. 7
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ASSERTED PRIOR ART .......................................... 7
`A. Maritzen ................................................................................................. 7
`B.
`Jakobsson ............................................................................................... 9
`C.
`Niwa .................................................................................................... 10
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................... 10
`V.
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 11
`A.
`"Authentication Information" .............................................................. 11
`B.
`"To […] enable or disable use of the first handheld device
`based on a result of the comparison"................................................... 15
`VI. STANDARD OF REVIEW ........................................................................... 20
`VII. MARITZEN IN VIEW OF JAKOBSSON AND NIWA DOES NOT
`RENDER THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS OBVIOUS ............................... 20
`A.
`Petitioner Fails To Show That Independent Claims 1, 10, 21,
`And 30 Would Have Been Obvious .................................................... 21
`1.
`Petitioner fails to establish "first authentication
`information" (limitations 1[h], 10[c], 21[g], 30[b]) .................. 21
`(a) Maritzen does not disclose the recited "first
`authentication information"............................................ 22
`A POSITA would not have combined Maritzen and
`Jakobsson to arrive at the recited "first
`authentication information"............................................ 25
`Petitioner fails to establish authentication of a user based
`on "authentication information" (limitations 1[a], 10[a]) ......... 36
`
`(b)
`
`2.
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00810
`U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Petitioner fails to establish retrieving or receiving
`"second biometric [information/data]" (limitations 21[i],
`30[d]) ......................................................................................... 38
`Petitioner fails to establish receiving "first authentication
`information" (limitation 21[h]) ................................................. 40
`Petitioner fails to establish authentication based on
`"second biometric information" (limitation 30[e]) ................... 41
`Petitioner fails to establish a "first handheld device"
`(limitations 1[a], 10[a], 21[a], 30[a]) ........................................ 43
`Petitioner Fails To Show That Dependent Claims 2 And 11
`Would Have Been Obvious ................................................................. 45
`Petitioner Fails To Show That Dependent Claims 7, 14, 26, And
`34 Would Have Been Obvious ............................................................ 48
`Petitioner Fails To Show That Dependent Claim 15 Would
`Have Been Obvious ............................................................................. 51
`VIII. PETITIONER AND ITS EXPERT FAILED TO CONSIDER THE
`STRONG EVIDENCE OF SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS OF
`NON-OBVIOUSNESS .................................................................................. 52
`A.
`Long-felt Need and Failure of Others ................................................. 53
`B.
`Commercial Success............................................................................ 56
`IX. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 57
`
`
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00810
`U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Page(s)
`
`Ameranth, Inc. v. Menusoft Systems Corp.,
`2010 WL 1610079 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 21, 2010) .....................................................18
`Apple Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n,
`725 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ...........................................................................52
`Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co. Ltd.,
`816 F.3d 788 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..............................................................................53
`Apple v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.,
`IPR2018-00420 (Paper 7), slip op. (August 6, 2018) ..........................................33
`Augme Technologies, Inc. v. Yahoo! Inc.,
`755 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................... 13, 15
`Cheese Sys. v. Tetra Pak Cheese & Powder Sys.,
`725 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ...........................................................................31
`Cyrix Corp. v. Intel Corp.,
`846 F. Supp. 522 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 21, 1994) ........................................................18
`General Electric Co. v. United Technologies Corp.,
`IPR2016-00531 (Paper 42), slip op. (June 26, 2017) ..........................................33
`Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC,
`514 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ...........................................................................12
`Heidelberger Druckmaschinen AG v. Hantscho Commercial Prods., Inc.,
`21 F.3d 1068 (Fed. Cir. 1994)..............................................................................53
`In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent Litig.,
`676 F.3d 1063 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ...........................................................................52
`Interactive Gift Exp., Inc. v. Compuserve Inc.,
`256 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ...........................................................................12
`Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
`688 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ...........................................................................32
`KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .............................................................................................31
`Microsoft Corp. v. Koninklijke Philips N.V.,
`IPR2018-00185 (Paper 7), slip op. (May 22, 2018) ............................................33
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00810
`U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`
`Personal Web Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`848 F.3d 987 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..............................................................................32
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ...........................................................14
`Polaris Industries, Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc.,
`882 F.3d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ...........................................................................26
`Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Infobridge Pte. Ltd.,
`IPR2017-00100 (Paper 30), slip op. (Apr. 23, 2018) ..........................................20
`Securus Technologies, Inc. v. Global Tel*Link Corp.,
`701 Fed. Appx. 971 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................ 26, 36
`Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp.,
`713 F.2d 1530 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ...........................................................................52
`TALtech Ltd. v. Esquel Apparel, Inc.,
`279 Fed. Appx. 974 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ...................................................................13
`Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels,
`812 F.3d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...........................................................................20
`Wi-Lan, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.,
`811 F.3d 455 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..............................................................................13
`Z4 Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`507 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ...........................................................................15
`
`
`
`Statutory Authorities
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314 ........................................................................................................20
`35 U.S.C. § 316 ....................................................................................................1, 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00810
`U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`
`Exhibit #
`2003
`
`2004
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`PATENT OWNER'S LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`Description
`Declaration of Markus Jakobsson in Support of Patent
`Owner's Response
`Curriculum Vitae of Markus Jakobsson
`Transcript of December 14, 2018 Deposition of Dr. Victor
`John Shoup
`N. Asokan, et. al, The State of the Art in Electronic Payment
`Systems, IEEE Computer, Vol. 30, No. 9, pp. 28-35 (IEEE
`Computer Society Press, Sept. 1997)
`M. Baddeley, Using E-Cash in the New Economy: An
`Economic Analysis of Micropayment Systems, J. Electronic
`Commerce Research, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 239-253 (Nov. 2004)
`
`v
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00810
`U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`
`Apple Inc. ("Petitioner") filed its Petition (Paper 3, "Petition") on April 3,
`
`2018, alleging claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, 30, 31, and 34 of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826 ("the '826 patent") would have been obvious in view of
`
`Maritzen, Jakobsson, and Niwa. The Board instituted review (Paper 8, "Decision")
`
`on October 9, 2018. Universal Secure Registry LLC ("PO") submits this Response.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`For many reasons, Petitioner has not met its "burden of proving a proposition
`
`of unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence." 35 U.S.C. § 316(e).
`
`First, Petitioner fails to show any disclosure in Maritzen, Jakobsson, or Niwa
`
`of multiple elements recited in the independent claims, including the claimed
`
`authentication of a user based on "authentication information" (claims 1 and 10), the
`
`claimed receiving of "first authentication information" (claim 21), the claimed
`
`authentication based on "second biometric information" (claim 30), and the
`
`"handheld" aspect of the claimed "first handheld device" (claims 1, 10, 21, and 30).
`
`Second, even if Petitioner had shown that the combination of Maritzen,
`
`Jakobsson, and Niwa disclosed all the elements recited in the independent claims (to
`
`be clear, Petitioner has not), Petitioner fails to show that a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art ("POSITA") at the time of the invention would have combined the
`
`references to arrive at the independent claims, particularly the claimed "first
`
`authentication
`
`information" determined or derived
`
`from "first biometric
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00810
`U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`
`information" (claims 1, 10, 21, and 30) and the claimed retrieving or receiving of
`
`"second biometric [information/data]" (claims 21 and 30). Maritzen and Jakobsson
`
`disclose fundamentally different systems (the former for processing of anonymous
`
`vehicle-accessed financial transactions, the latter for identity authentication), with
`
`fundamentally different goals (the former focused on maintaining user anonymity,
`
`the latter on authentication of the identity of a user), and operated based on
`
`fundamentally different principles of operation (the former avoiding transmission or
`
`backend verification of any user information, the latter requiring it). The references
`
`are incompatible and teach away from Petitioner's proposed combination. A
`
`POSITA would have not combined the references in the manner Petitioner asserts.
`
`Third, Petitioner fails to show that a POSITA would have combined Maritzen,
`
`Jakobsson, and Niwa to arrive at the further limitations recited in multiple dependent
`
`claims. Petitioner fails to show any disclosure in Maritzen, Jakobsson, or Niwa of
`
`the claimed "enabl[ing] or disabl[ing] use of the first handheld device based on a
`
`result of the comparison" of "authentication information" (claims 7 and 14) or
`
`"biometric information" (claims 26 and 34), or the claimed "storing on the first
`
`handheld device respective biometric information for a second plurality of users"
`
`(claim 15). And Petitioner fails to show that a POSITA would have combined
`
`Maritzen and Jakobsson to arrive at the claimed "determin[ing] the second
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00810
`U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`
`authentication information of the user of the first handheld device from stored
`
`second biometric information" (claims 2 and 11).
`
`Fourth, Petitioner fails to address secondary considerations indicating the
`
`claims would not have been obvious.
`
`Accordingly, the Board should not find any challenged claim unpatentable.
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF THE '826 PATENT
`
`A. The '826 Patent Specification
`
`As Dr. Markus Jakobsson explains, the '826 patent relates to a unique and
`
`highly secure distributed authentication system that locally authenticates a user's
`
`identity at a handheld device (e.g., using a PIN or biometric input), and also remotely
`
`authenticates the user's identity at a second device based on wirelessly transmitted
`
`authentication information (e.g., comprising a time-varying code) determined from
`
`the user's biometric information. Ex. 1001, Figs. 21-27, 28:32-36:26; Ex. 2003, ¶28.
`
`Figure 21 depicts one embodiment of such a distributed authentication system:
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00810
`U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, Fig. 21; Ex. 2003, ¶28.
`
`In some embodiments, a first handheld device may authenticate the user of
`
`the device based on authentication information (e.g., a PIN) or biometric information
`
`provided by the user that may be compared against information stored in memory of
`
`the device. Ex. 1001, Fig. 22, 28:56-29:3, 29:65-30:7, 30:25-31; Ex. 2003, ¶29. If
`
`user authentication fails, the device may disable use (e.g., by shutting down and/or
`
`deleting data stored in memory). Ex. 1001, Fig. 22, 28:56-29:3, 30:3-14, 30:31-39;
`
`Ex. 2003, ¶29. If the user is successfully authenticated, the device may prepare and
`
`wirelessly transmit "a first wireless signal containing encrypted authentication
`
`information of the first user" to a second device. Ex. 1001, Fig. 22, 28:64-30:14,
`
`30:46-58; Ex. 2003, ¶29. The wireless signal may include a "time-varying code"
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00810
`U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`
`and/or other information determined from the provided biometric information. Ex.
`
`1001, Fig. 23, 31:55-32:42; Ex. 2003, ¶29. After receiving the wireless signal, the
`
`second device may authenticate the identity of the user of the first handheld device
`
`using the encrypted authentication information and other information (e.g., second
`
`biometric information or second authentication information) received or retrieved
`
`from memory. Ex. 1001, Fig. 22, 30:59-61, 31:2-10, 31:25-32, 32:46-54; Ex. 2003,
`
`¶29.
`
`The
`
`'826 patent identifies a number of disadvantages of prior art
`
`authentication systems. Ex. 2003, ¶30. For example, a prior art system may control
`
`access to computer networks using password protected accounts, but such a system
`
`is susceptible to tampering and difficult to maintain; or hand-held computer devices
`
`may be used to verify identity, but security could be compromised if a device ends
`
`up in the wrong hands. Ex. 1001, 1:46-2:41; Ex. 2003, ¶30.
`
`In contrast, the '826 patent provides a more secure distributed authentication
`
`system, where a handheld device locally authenticates a user based on gathered
`
`biometric or authentication information, thereby preventing unauthorized use of the
`
`device. Ex. 1001, Fig. 22, 28:56-29:3, 29:65-30:39; Ex. 2003, ¶31. And, rather than
`
`relying solely on local user authentication, the '826 patent provides additional
`
`security by imposing additional remote user authentication, based on different
`
`authentication information (e.g., one-time variable token or other information
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00810
`U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`
`determined from the provided biometric information) wirelessly transmitted by the
`
`first device, and other information (e.g., second authentication information or
`
`biometric information) available at the second device (e.g., securely stored or
`
`received by the second device). Ex. 1001, Fig. 24, Fig. 26, 32:43-56, 34:7-25; Ex.
`
`2003, ¶31.
`
`B.
`
`The '826 Patent Claims
`
`The '826 patent includes 35 claims, of which claims 1, 10, 21, and 30 are
`
`independent. All of the '826 patent's claims relate to distributed authentication
`
`systems or methods that authenticate the identity of a user of a handheld device. Ex.
`
`2003, ¶32.
`
`Independent claims 1 and 10 are similar in some respects. Ex. 1001, 44:24-
`
`58, 45:30-47. Independent claims 21 and 30 are also similar to claims 1 and 10, but
`
`differ in significant ways. Id., 46:21-57, 47:29-48:13. For example, while claims 1
`
`and 10 refer to a first handheld device that authenticates the user of the device based
`
`on "authentication information," claims 21 and 30 refer, instead, to a first handheld
`
`device that authenticates the user of the device based on "first biometric information"
`
`provider by the user. Id., 46:23-29, 47:31-33. As discussed below, "authentication
`
`information" and "first biometric information" are different types of information in
`
`this context. Ex. 2003, ¶33. In addition, while claims 1 and 10 refer to a second
`
`device that authenticates the user of the first handheld device based upon "second
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00810
`U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`
`authentication information," claims 21 and 30 refer, instead, to a second device that
`
`authenticates the user of the first handheld device based upon "second biometric
`
`information," (Ex. 1001, 46:47-57, 48:6-13), where "second authentication
`
`information" and "second biometric information" are also different types of
`
`information in this context. Ex. 2003, ¶33. The dependent claims also add a variety
`
`of significant features.
`
`C.
`
`Prosecution History of the '826 Patent
`
`The '826 patent issued on August 4, 2015, following a thorough examination
`
`that considered a large body of prior art. See Ex. 1001, 1-3.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ASSERTED PRIOR ART
`
`A. Maritzen
`
`As Dr. Markus Jakobsson explains, "Maritzen discloses a vehicle-based
`
`payment system focused upon maintaining anonymity." Ex. 2003, ¶34. It
`
`recognizes "[a] situation that still requires use of cash is in the collection of fees at
`
`vehicle-accessed payment gateways such as toll booths, vehicular kiosks, smog-
`
`certification stations, and the like." Ex. 1004, [0003]; Ex. 2003, ¶34. Maritzen
`
`explains that "[t]he collection of fees at these gateways is time consuming and
`
`subject to fraud." Ex. 1004, [0003]; Ex. 2003, ¶34. Accordingly, Maritzen seeks to
`
`provide "a system and method for the real-time settlement of vehicle-accessed,
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00810
`U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`
`financial transactions that provide anonymity and security." Ex. 1004, [0006]; Ex.
`
`2003, ¶34.
`
`Maritzen discloses a system and method for electronic payment of fees using
`
`a personal transaction device (PTD) at a vehicle-accessed, payment-gateway
`
`terminal (VAPGT). Ex. 1004, Abstract, [0002], [0007]-[0009]; Ex. 2003, ¶35.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1004, Fig. 1. As a vehicle with a PTD nears a VAPGT, the VAPGT send a
`
`payment request to the PTD. Ex. 1004, [0040]-[0042]; Ex. 2003, ¶35. A user
`
`accesses the PTD using a biometric input—in the preferred embodiment, the user
`
`provides the biometric input to a separate "privacy card" that transmits a separate
`
`"biometric key" to the PTD. Ex. 1004, [0043]-[0044]; Ex. 2003, ¶35. The privacy
`
`card "only transmits the biometric key" to the PTD, while "biometric information
`
`identifying the user is not transmitted at any time." Ex. 1004, [0044]; Ex. 2003, ¶35.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00810
`U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`
`Next, the PTD transmits a "transaction key" including the biometric key to the
`
`VAPGT (Ex. 1004, at [0045])—the "PTD does not transmit any user information to
`
`VAPGT." Id.; Ex. 2003, ¶35. Then, the VAPGT transmits a "transaction request"
`
`including the transaction key to a clearing house, which validates information in the
`
`transaction request. Ex. 1004, [0046]-[0048]; Ex. 2003, ¶35.
`
`B.
`
`Jakobsson
`
`As Dr. Markus Jakobsson explains about his own patent application,
`
`Jakobsson discloses an "identity authentication system" that uses an "identity
`
`authentication code…to verify
`
`identity and
`
`to communicate event state
`
`information." Ex. 1005, Title, Abstract; Ex. 2003, ¶37. "The invention addresses
`
`the[] shortcomings [of the prior art] by including an indication of the occurrence of
`
`an event directly into the efficient computation of an identity authentication code,
`
`where the verifier may efficiently verify the authentication code and identify the
`
`signaling of an event state." Ex. 1005, [0010]; Ex. 2003, ¶37. Jakobsson discloses
`
`that "[e]xample reportable events include: device tampering; an event external to the
`
`device detected by the device; an environmental event, such as temperature
`
`exceeding or falling below a threshold; static discharge; high or low battery power;
`
`geographic presence at a particular location; confidence level in a biometric reading;
`
`and so on." Ex. 1005, [0011]; Ex. 2003, ¶37.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00810
`U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`
`Jakobsson's user device (such as a key fob or telephone (Ex. 1005, [0016]))
`
`generates an "identity authentication code" that depends on values including at least
`
`a dynamic variable, an event state, and a device secret. Id., [0017], [0020], [0021],
`
`[0063]-[0072]; Ex. 2003, ¶38. As Dr. Markus Jakobsson explains, "the identity
`
`authentication code is sent along with user identification information to the verifier
`
`for authentication." See Ex. 1005, [0004], [0021], [0097], [0112]; Ex. 2003, ¶38.
`
`C. Niwa
`
`Niwa discloses a fingerprint authentication device. Ex. 1007, 2:19-44; Ex.
`
`2003, ¶39. The fingerprint authentication device allows a user to conduct a
`
`commercial transaction using his fingerprint. Ex. 1007, 2:19-44; Ex. 2003, ¶39.
`
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art ("POSITA") relevant to the '826 patent at
`
`the time of the invention would have a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical
`
`engineering and/or computer science, and three years of work or research experience
`
`in the fields of secure transactions and encryption, or a Master's degree in electrical
`
`engineering and/or computer science and two years of work or research experience
`
`in related fields. Ex. 2003, ¶18. PO's description of the level of ordinary skill in the
`
`art is essentially the same as that of the Petitioner, except that Petitioner's description
`
`requires two years of work or research experience (as compared to three years). See
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Pet. at 4-5. The positions set forth in this PO response would be the same under
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00810
`U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`
`either parties' proposal. Ex. 2003, ¶19.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Petitioner identifies two terms that purportedly require construction. Pet. at
`
`12-15. PO contends that construction of these terms is not necessary to resolve the
`
`matters raised here, but also
`
`that Petitioner's proposed construction of
`
`"authentication information" should be rejected. Ex. 2003, ¶40. Moreover, PO
`
`contends that the term "to […] enable or disable use of the first handheld device
`
`based on a result of the comparison" should be construed as set forth below.1
`
`A.
`
`"Authentication Information"
`
`Every
`
`independent claim of
`
`the
`
`'826 patent recites "authentication
`
`information." As Dr. Markus Jakobsson explains, Petitioner's proposed construction
`
`of this term as "information used by the system to verify the identity of an individual"
`
`(Pet. at 15) has multiple flaws. Ex. 2003, ¶42.
`
`First, Petitioner's reference to "the system" is vague and ambiguous,
`
`especially in the context of method claims 10-20 and 30-35. Ex. 2003, ¶43. Given
`
`
`1 PO does not concede that Petitioner's constructions should be adopted here or in
`
`district court. PO also reserves the right to pursue alternative constructions in district
`
`court, including where PO does not propose a construction here.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00810
`U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`
`that these claims do not recite any "system," it is unclear what "system" the proposed
`
`construction refers to. Ex. 1001, 45:30-46:20, 47:30-48:34; Ex. 2003, ¶43.
`
`Moreover, the phrase "the system" is potentially indefinite because it lacks any
`
`antecedent basis. This is improper. See, e.g., Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-
`
`I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("a claim could be indefinite if a term
`
`does not have proper antecedent basis").
`
`Second, Petitioner's construction of "authentication information" to cover
`
`"biometric information" (see Pet. at 15) combined with its assertion that retrieved or
`
`received "biometric information" may also constitute "authentication information"
`
`used by the first handheld device to authenticate a user (see id., 20) contravenes the
`
`language of the claims themselves. Ex. 2003, ¶44. This is not surprising, given
`
`Petitioner completely ignores the claim language in its claim construction analysis
`
`(see Pet. at 15), violating the basic tenet that "the analytical focus must begin and
`
`remain centered on the language of the claims themselves." Interactive Gift Exp.,
`
`Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`
`As Dr. Markus Jakobsson explains, "the actual claim language makes clear
`
`that 'authentication information' and 'biometric information' are distinctly different
`
`in this context." Ex. 2003, ¶45. Indeed, these claim terms are separately recited
`
`within the very same claim limitations. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 44:27-31 ("to
`
`authenticate a user of the first handheld device based on authentication information
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00810
`U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`
`and to retrieve or receive first biometric information of the user of the first handheld
`
`device") (emphasis added); Ex. 2003, ¶45. This "creates a presumption that
`
`[authentication
`
`information] means
`
`something different
`
`than
`
`[biometric
`
`information]." Augme Technologies, Inc. v. Yahoo! Inc., 755 F.3d 1326, 1333 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2014). Moreover, method claim 10 recites performing the step of
`
`"authenticating…a user of the first handheld device as the first entity based on
`
`authentication information," and then performing the step of "retrieving or
`
`receiving first biometric information of the user."2 Ex. 1001, 45:32-39 (emphasis
`
`added); Ex. 2003, ¶46. A POSITA would have understood that the retrieved or
`
`received "biometric information" cannot also be the "authentication information"
`
`
`2 "The logic and grammar of the claim make the requirement of an order clear."
`
`TALtech Ltd. v. Esquel Apparel, Inc., 279 Fed. Appx. 974, 978 (Fed. Cir. 2008). For
`
`example, claim 10 recites "retrieving or receiving first biometric information of the
`
`user" who has already been authenticated by the device "based on authentication
`
`information." Ex. 1001, 45:32-36 (emphasis added); Ex. 2003, ¶46; see e.g., Wi-
`
`Lan, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 811 F.3d 455, 462-63 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (requiring order of
`
`steps based in part on principle that "[s]ubsequent use of the definite articles 'the' or
`
`'said' in a claim refers back to the same term recited earlier in the claim").
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00810
`U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`
`used to authenticate the user, since user authentication occurs before the "biometric
`
`information" is even retrieved or received. Ex. 2003, ¶46.
`
`Comparison of different claims further confirms that retrieved or received
`
`"biometric information" cannot also be the "authentication information" relied on by
`
`the first handheld device to authenticate a user. See, Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415
`
`F.3d 1303, 1314-15 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1170, (2006)
`
`("Differences among claims can also be a useful guide in understanding the meaning
`
`of particular claim terms."); Ex. 2003, ¶47. For example, claim 30 recites
`
`"authenticating…a first user of the first handheld device based on first biometric
`
`information provided by the first user" (Ex. 1001, 47:31-48:2); in contrast, claim 10
`
`recites "authenticating…a user of the first handheld device as the first entity based
`
`on authentication information," and then "retrieving or receiving first biometric
`
`information of the user." Id., 45:32-39 (emphasis added throughout); Ex. 2003, ¶47.
`
`Hence, a POSITA would have understood that while "biometric information" is used
`
`to authenticate the user in claim 30, the "authentication information" used to
`
`authenticate the user in claim 10 is different than the "biometric information"
`
`separately recited within the same claim. Ex. 2003, ¶47.
`
`Some claims also require that "authentication information" be determined
`
`from "biometric information." See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 45:38-39 ("determining a first
`
`authentication information from the first biometric information") (emphasis
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00810
`U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`
`added); Ex. 2003, ¶48. In this context as well, a POSITA would have understood
`
`that the "biometric information" cannot also be the "authentication information." Ex.
`
`2003, ¶48; see, e.g., Augme Technologies, 755 F.3d at 1332-34 ("[i]f embedded were
`
`construed as including code that is…linked…[t]his would render meaningless the
`
`distinction between [them]" in the claims). Simply put, "[t]he language of the claims
`
`does not reasonably or logically permit such a construction." Z4 Technologies, Inc.
`
`v. Microsoft Corp., 507 F.3d 1340, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`For all these reasons, Petitioner's proposed construction and interpretation of
`
`"authentication information" should be rejected. Ex. 2003, ¶49.
`
`B.
`
`"To […] enable or disable use of the first handheld device based
`on a result of the comparison"
`
`This phrase is recited in challenged claims 7, 14, 26, and 34. Consistent with
`
`the claim language and in view of the specification, PO contends that "to […] enable
`
`or disable use of the first handheld device based on a result of the comparison"
`
`should be construed to mean "to expand the range of functionality available to the
`
`[first] user of the first handheld device based on one result of the comparison, and to
`
`reduce the range of functionality available to the [first] user of the first handheld
`
`device based on another result of the comparison." See Ex. 2003, ¶50.
`
`PO's construction makes clear that the construed phrase requires that the first
`
`handheld device is capable of enabling use of the device and of disabling use of the
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00810
`U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`
`device, depending on the situation. Ex. 2003, ¶51. As Dr. Markus Jakobsson
`
`explains, this is supported by the plain language of challenged claims 7, 14, 26, and
`
`34, which all recite "enabl[ing] or disabl[ing] use of the first handheld device based
`
`on a result of the comparison" (of biometric information or authentication
`
`information, depending on the claim). Ex. 1001, 45:14-20, 45:60-64, 47:7-12,
`
`48:24-28 (emphasis added); see also id., 47:18-23 (reciting similar claim language
`
`with respect to a comparison performed by a second device); Ex. 2003, ¶51. A
`
`POSITA would have understood from the claim language that the claims require the
`
`device to be capable of more than simply enabling use or not enabling use—enabling
`
`use and disabling use are two different responses the device must be able to perform
`
`based on different results of the recited comparison.3 Ex. 2003, ¶51.
`
`PO's construction is also supported by the specification, which discloses
`
`enabling use and disabling use are different actions a user device may take based on
`
`the result of the comparison performed when the user attempts to authenticate
`
`himself to the device. Ex. 2003, ¶52. This is addressed, fo