Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`
`DOCKET NO.: 1033300-00308US1
`Filed on behalf of Apple Inc.
`By: Monica Grewal, Reg. No. 40,056 (Lead Counsel)
`Ben Fernandez Reg. No. 55,172 (Backup Counsel)
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, MA 02109
`Email: monica.grewal@wilmerhale.com
`
` ben.fernandez@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`
`
`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
`________________________________________
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF CLAIMS 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, 30, 31, AND 34
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Table of Authorities ................................................................................................. iii 
`I. 
`Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1 
`II.  Mandatory Notices ............................................................................................. 2 
`A.  Real Party-in-Interest .................................................................................... 2 
`B.  Related Matters .............................................................................................. 2 
`C.  Counsel .......................................................................................................... 4 
`D.  Service Information ....................................................................................... 4 
`III.  Level of Ordinary Skill ..................................................................................... 4 
`IV.  Certification of Grounds for Standing .............................................................. 5 
`V.  Overview of Challenge and Relief Requested ................................................... 6 
`A.  Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications .................................................... 6 
`1.  Ex-1004 – Maritzen .................................................................................... 6 
`2.  Ex-1005 – Jakobsson .................................................................................. 6 
`3.  Ex-1007 – Niwa ......................................................................................... 7 
`B.  Grounds for Challenge .................................................................................. 9 
`VI.  Legal Principles ................................................................................................ 9 
`VII.  Overview of the ’826 patent .......................................................................... 9 
`A.  Priority ........................................................................................................... 9 
`B.  Brief Description of the ’826 Patent Disclosure ......................................... 10 
`C.  Prosecution History ..................................................................................... 11 
`VIII.  Claim Construction ...................................................................................... 12 
`A.  Biometric Information ................................................................................. 13 
`B.  Authentication Information ......................................................................... 15 
`IX.  Overview of Primary Prior Art Reference Maritzen ...................................... 15 
`X.  Specific Grounds for Petition........................................................................... 18 
`A.  Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, 30, 31, and 34 Are
`Obvious in View of Maritzen, Jakobsson, and Niwa .......................................... 18 
`1. 
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................................ 18 
`2.  Claim 2 ..................................................................................................... 49 
`
`i
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`3.  Claim 7 ..................................................................................................... 52 
`4.  Claim 8 ..................................................................................................... 54 
`5. 
`Independent Claim 10 .............................................................................. 56 
`6.  Claim 11 ................................................................................................... 58 
`7.  Claim 14 ................................................................................................... 58 
`8.  Claim 15 ................................................................................................... 59 
`9. 
`Independent Claim 21 .............................................................................. 59 
`10.  Claim 22 ................................................................................................ 65 
`11.  Claim 24 ................................................................................................ 66 
`12.  Claim 26 ................................................................................................ 69 
`13.  Claim 27 ................................................................................................ 69 
`14. 
`Independent Claim 30 ........................................................................... 72 
`15.  Claim 31 ................................................................................................ 74 
`16.  Claim 34 ................................................................................................ 75 
`XI.  Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 75 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`CASES
`In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.,
`496 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 12
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .............................................................................................. 9
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 101 .......................................................................................................... 3
`35 U.S.C. § 102 .............................................................................................. 3, 6, 7, 8
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .............................................................................................. 3, 4, 8, 9
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ..................................................................................................... 9
`Leahy-Smith America Invents Act,
`Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) ............................................................ 9
`REGULATIONS
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ..................................................................................................... 2, 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22 ....................................................................................................... 6
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ................................................................................................... 12
`37 C.F.R. § 42.101 ..................................................................................................... 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ................................................................................................. 5, 6
`77 Fed. Reg. 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012) ...................................................................... 12
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`I. INTRODUCTION
`The ’826 patent is generally directed to systems and methods for
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`
`authenticating users based on biometric information. The patent owner, Universal
`
`Secure Registry, LLC (“USR”), has described the claimed invention similarly,
`
`asserting that the ’826 patent relates to “an improved distributed authentication
`
`system that authenticates a user's identity at a handheld device using local
`
`biometric information, and also remotely authenticates at a second device based on
`
`authentication information (e.g., a variable one-time token) determined from the
`
`user's biometric information.” Plaintiff’s Answering Brief in Opposition to
`
`Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (“Opp.”), 13 (Ex-1009). USR identifies two
`
`“critical” claim elements: “(1) gathering biometric information while locally
`
`authenticating the user, preventing unauthorized use of the device; and (2)
`
`requiring additional remote user authentication by a second device, based on both
`
`authentication information (e.g., one-time variable token) received from the first
`
`device, and second authentication information.” Opp, 15.
`
`When the application for the ’826 patent was filed, however, authentication
`
`of a user’s identity based on (1) a local biometric authentication, and (2) a remote
`
`user authentication, based on a one-time variable token and a second authentication
`
`information, were well known in the art. In fact, the prior art is replete with
`
`disclosures of systems and methods that perform user authentication in this
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`manner. For example, prior art reference U.S. 2004/0236632 (“Maritzen”) (Ex-
`
`1004) discloses a handheld device configured to authenticate a user based on
`
`biometric information and to transmit an algorithmically generated transaction key
`
`to a clearing house server for authentication based on authentication information
`
`stored at the clearing house server. Prior art reference WO 2004/051585
`
`(“Jakobsson”) (Ex-1005) discloses a handheld device configured to gather
`
`biometric information and locally authenticate a user to prevent unauthorized use
`
`of the device, and a second device configured to conduct an additional remote user
`
`authentication based on authentication information (e.g., a one-time variable token)
`
`received from the first device, and second authentication information.
`
`Thus, as further explained in this Petition, the systems and methods claimed
`
`in the ’826 patent were known in the art or obvious at the time the ’826 patent was
`
`filed.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), Petitioner certifies that Apple Inc.
`
`(“Apple” or “Petitioner”) is the real party-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters
`The ’826 patent is owned by Universal Secure Registry, LLC (“USR” or
`
`“Patent Owner”). On May 21, 2017, USR sued Apple, Visa, Inc., and Visa U.S.A.,
`
`Inc. (Visa) in the District of Delaware, asserting four patents, including the ’826
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`patent, against Apple’s Apple Pay functionality. See Ex-1003, Universal Secure
`
`Registry, LLC v. Apple Inc. et al., No. 17-585-VAC-MPT (D. Del.), ECF No. 1,
`
`Complaint, ¶2. The complaint was served on Petitioner on July 5, 2017.
`
`On August 25, 2017, Apple filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a
`
`Claim, asserting that the claims of the ’826 patent are unpatentable under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 101 because they are directed 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. That motion remains pending.
`
`In addition to the Motion to Dismiss, Apple is filing the following petitions
`
`for CBM/IPR:
`
`Asserted Patent
`
`U.S. 9,530,137
`
`
`
`U.S. 9,100,826
`
`
`
`U.S. 8,856,539
`
`
`
`U.S. 8,577,813
`
`
`
`CBM/IPR
`
`Statutory Grounds
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`CBM
`
`IPR
`
`IPR
`
`IPR
`
`IPR
`
`CBM
`
`IPR
`
`IPR
`
`CBM
`
`CBM
`
`3
`
`

`

`CBM
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`C. Counsel
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3)-(4), Petitioner identifies the following
`
`lead and backup counsel, to whom all correspondence should be directed.
`
`Lead Counsel: Monica Grewal (Reg. No. 40,056),
`
`Backup Counsel: Ben Fernandez (Reg. No. 55,172).
`
`D. Service Information
`E-mail:
`
`monica.grewal@wilmerhale.com,
`
`
`
`ben.fernandez@wilmerhale.com.
`
`
`
`Post and hand delivery: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`60 State Street
`
`Boston, MA 02109
`
`Telephone: 617-526-6223
`
`
`
`
`
`Fax: 617-526-5000
`
`Petitioner consents to service by e-mail on lead and backup counsel.
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`A person of ordinary skill in the relevant field or art (“POSITA”) is a
`
`hypothetical person to whom an expert in the relevant field could assign a routine
`
`task with reasonable confidence that the task would be successfully carried out.
`
`The level of skill in the art is evidenced by prior art references. The prior art
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`demonstrates that a POSITA, at the time the ’826 patent was effectively filed,
`
`would have a Bachelor’s Degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a
`
`related scientific field, and approximately two years of work experience in the
`
`computer science field including, for example, operating systems, database
`
`management, encryption, security algorithms, and secure transaction systems,
`
`though additional education can substitute for less work experience and vice versa.
`
`See Ex-1002, Shoup-Decl., ¶¶21-23.
`
`IV. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioner certifies pursuant to Rule 42.104(a) that the patent for which
`
`review is sought is available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review challenging the patent
`
`claims on the grounds identified in this Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.101(a-c).
`
`Petitioner certifies that it (1) has not filed a civil action challenging the
`
`validity of a claim of the patent, 37 C.F.R. § 42.101(a), (2) has complied with the
`
`timing requirements set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.101(b), and (3) is not estopped
`
`from challenging the claims on the grounds identified in this Petition, 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.101(c).
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`V. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`Pursuant to Rules 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b)(1)-(2), Petitioner challenges
`
`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 (“’826 patent”) and requests that they be canceled.
`
`A.
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications
`The following references are pertinent to the grounds of unpatentability as
`
`explained below:
`
`1.
`Ex-1004 – Maritzen
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0236632 (“Maritzen”) (Ex-
`
`1004), which was filed on December 6, 2001 and published on November 25,
`
`2004, more than one year before the earliest possible priority date of the ’826
`
`patent. Maritzen accordingly qualifies as prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §§
`
`102(b) and 102(e). Maritzen was not considered during the prosecution of the ’826
`
`patent. Like the ’826 patent, Maritzen relates to a handheld authentication device
`
`(“personal transaction device (PTD) 100”) configured to authenticate a user based
`
`on biometric information and a second device (“clearing house 130”) configured to
`
`authenticate a user based on biometric information. Ex-1004, Maritzen, Abstract;
`
`[0039]; [0047].
`
`2.
`Ex-1005 – Jakobsson
`International Patent Application Publication No. WO 2004/051585
`
`(“Jakobsson”) (Ex-1005), which was filed on November 26, 2003 and published on
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`June 17, 2004, more than one year before the earliest possible priority date of the
`
`’826 patent. Jakobsson accordingly qualifies as prior art under at least 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 102(b) and 102(e). Jakobsson was not considered during prosecution of the
`
`’826 patent. Like the ’826 patent, Jakobsson relates to a portable authentication
`
`device (“user authentication device 120”) configured to authenticate a user based
`
`on biometric information. Ex-1005, Jakobsson, [0013]. Also like the ’826 patent,
`
`Jakobsson’s system includes a secure database (“verifier 105”) that uses stored
`
`biometric information to verify a user’s identity.
`
`3.
`Ex-1007 – Niwa
`U.S. Patent No. 6,453,301 (“Niwa”) (Ex-1007) issued on September 17,
`
`2002 more than one year before the earliest possible priority date of the ’826
`
`patent. Niwa accordingly qualifies as prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b)
`
`and 102(e). Niwa was filed on February 23, 2000 as U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`09/510,811 (“Niwa Application”) (Ex-1006), which is expressly incorporated by
`
`reference in Maritzen (Ex-1004). See Ex-1004, Maritzen, [0043] (“In one
`
`embodiment, privacy card 110 is a biometric control. A suitable biometric control
`
`device that may be used is described in U.S. patent application Ser. No.
`
`09/610,8111 [sic] entitled “Method of Using Personal Device With Internal
`
`1 Petitioner submits that Maritzen erroneously cites Application No. 09/610,811,
`
`which is entitled “Method for Indexing and Searching Moving Picture Using
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`Biometric In Conducting Transactions Over A Network”, which is herein
`
`incorporated by reference.”).2
`
`Niwa was not considered during the prosecution of the ’826 patent. Like the
`
`’826 patent, Niwa is directed toward a secure financial transaction system that
`
`includes a user device (“fingerprint identification device 50”) and a central server
`
`
`Motion Activity Description Method,” and that Maritzen intended, instead, to cite
`
`Application No. 09/510,811, whose title, “Method of Using Personal Device With
`
`Internal Biometric In Conducting Transactions Over A Network,” matches the title
`
`cited by Maritzen at [0043]. A POSITA would have recognized that Application
`
`No. 09/610,811 entitled “Method for Indexing and Searching Moving Picture
`
`Using Motion Activity Description Method” is unrelated to biometric control
`
`devices. Ex-1002, Shoup-Decl., ¶¶42-43.
`
`2 The Niwa Application and Maritzen are also commonly assigned to Sony
`
`Corporation. The Niwa Application was cited in Maritzen in December 2001,
`
`before the Niwa Application became publicly available in September 2002, thus
`
`further suggesting that Maritzen intended to cite the Niwa Application because
`
`only their common assignee (Sony) would have been aware of the Niwa
`
`Application (Application No. 09/510,811).
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`configured to authenticate the user (“processing unit 22”). Ex-1007, Niwa,
`
`Abstract; Fig. 1.
`
`B. Grounds for Challenge
`Petitioner requests cancellation of claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 21, 22,
`
`24, 26, 27, 30, 31, and 34 of the ’826 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103. This Petition, supported by the declaration of Dr. Shoup (Ex-1002) filed
`
`herewith, demonstrates that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will
`
`prevail with respect to cancellation of at least one of the challenged claims. See 35
`
`U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`VI. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`The challenged patent was filed prior to the effective date of the Leahy-
`
`Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011), and
`
`therefore should be analyzed for patentability under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103. A
`
`claim is invalid if it would have been “obvious.” See 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The key
`
`inquiry to determine obviousness is whether an “improvement is more than the
`
`predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.” KSR
`
`Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415, 417, 420-21 (2007).
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE ’826 PATENT
`A.
`Priority
`The ’826 patent issued on August 4, 2015 from an application filed on
`
`September 16, 2013. The ’826 patent is a continuation of U.S. Application No.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`13/621,609 (now Patent No. 8,538, 881), which is part of a long line of
`
`continuation applications including U.S. Application No. 13/168,556 (now Patent
`
`No. 8,271,397) and U.S. Application No. 11/677,490 (now Patent No. 8,001,055).
`
`The ’826 patent also claims priority to three provisional applications: No.
`
`60/775,046, filed on February 21, 2006 (Ex-1012), No. 60/812,279, filed on June
`
`9, 2006 (Ex-1013), and No. 60/859,235 filed on November 15, 2006 (Ex-1014).
`
`B.
`Brief Description of the ’826 Patent Disclosure
`The ’826 patent describes systems and methods for authenticating a user
`
`using biometric information, authentication information that is based on the
`
`biometric information, a handheld device (a “first device”) configured to scan the
`
`biometric information, and a database server (a “second device”) that receives the
`
`authentication information. Ex-1001, ’826 patent, Abstract (“the invention
`
`provides a system for authenticating identities of a plurality of users. In one
`
`embodiment, the system includes a first handheld device including a wireless
`
`transceiver which is configured to transmit authentication information, a second
`
`device including a wireless receiver, where the second device is configured to
`
`receive the authentication information.”); 4:27-32 (“The identity of the user
`
`possessing the identifying device may be verified at the point of use
`
`via…biometric identification such as a fingerprint, voice print, signature, iris or
`
`facial scan, or DNA analysis, or any other method.”).
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`The ’826 patent acknowledges that embedded processors coupled to
`
`biometric sensors were known in the art, but nonetheless claims that there is a
`
`“need for an identification system that will enable a person to be accurately
`
`identified” and “a need for an identification system that will enable a person to be
`
`identified universally without requiring the person to carry multiple forms of
`
`identification.” Ex-1001, ’826 patent, 2:57-62 (“devices have seen technological
`
`advances that increase their capabilities and improve their security. For example,
`
`such devices may now include embedded processors, integral biometric sensors
`
`that sense one or more biometric feature (e.g., a fingerprint) of the user, and
`
`magnetic stripe emulators.”); 3:55-62. It suggests solutions to this alleged need
`
`including: “a smart ID card, or …a cell phone, pager, wrist watch, computer,
`
`personal digital assistant such as a Palm Pilot™, key fob, or other commonly
`
`available electronic device.” ’826 patent, 4:23-27; see also id., 14:5-7 (“the user of
`
`the database will carry a SecurIDTM card available from RSA Security, formerly
`
`Security Dynamics Technologies, Inc., of Cambridge Mass.”).
`
`C.
`Prosecution History
`The ’826 patent was filed as U.S. Application No. 14/027,860 (the ’826
`
`application) on September 16, 2013. A Notice of Allowance was issued on March
`
`18, 2015 after the Applicant filed a terminal disclaimer in response to a double
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`patenting rejection over parent patent U.S. Patent No. 8,538,881. See Ex-1008,
`
`Notice of Allowance.
`
`The Examiner, however, did not receive or consider prior art references
`
`Maritzen (Ex-1004), Jakobsson (Ex-1005), and Niwa (Ex-1007), which render
`
`obvious each of the claims challenged in this Petition.
`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A claim in inter partes review is given the “broadest reasonable construction
`
`in light of the specification.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)3; In re ICON Health &
`
`Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`The following discussion proposes a construction and support for that
`
`construction. Any claim terms not included are given their broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation in light of the specification as commonly understood by those of
`
`ordinary skill in the art. Should the Patent Owner contend that the claim has a
`
`construction different from its broadest reasonable interpretation, the appropriate
`
`course is for the Patent Owner to seek to amend the claim to expressly correspond
`
`to its contentions in this proceeding. See 77 Fed. Reg. 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`
`3 Petitioner adopts this standard and reserves the right to pursue different
`
`constructions in a district court, where a different standard applies.
`
`12
`
`

`

`A. Biometric Information
`Under the broadest reasonable interpretation claim construction standard,
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`
`“biometric information” as used in the ’826 patent means “information about a
`
`user’s physical characteristics, such as fingerprint, voice print, signature, iris or
`
`facial scan, DNA analysis, or personal photograph.” Ex-1002, Shoup-Decl., ¶32.
`
`This construction is supported by the specification, which describes biometric
`
`information using substantially identical language.4 Ex-1001, ’826 patent, 4:27-32
`
`
`4 The ’826 patent specification includes one passage that describes a “personal
`
`identification number (PIN)” as an example of biometric information. Ex-1001,
`
`’826 patent at 14:39-42. That passage is inconsistent with other statements in the
`
`intrinsic record that describe biometric information as information that relates to a
`
`user’s physical characteristics and is distinct from a PIN. For example, the
`
`specification elsewhere distinguishes PIN numbers from biometric information.
`
`Ex-1001, ’826 patent at 13:53-58 (“the information may include any of a secret
`
`known by the user (e.g., a pin, a phrase, a password, etc.), a token possessed by the
`
`user that is difficult to counterfeit (e.g., a secure discrete microchip), and/or a
`
`measurement such as a biometric (e.g., a voiceprint, a fingerprint, DNA, a retinal
`
`image, a photograph, etc.)”); 4:27-32; 28:13-17 (distinguishing keypads for PIN
`
`entry and scanners for scanning biometric information); 28:60-65; 29:65-30:3.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`(“The identity of the user possessing the identifying device may be verified at the
`
`point of use via any combination of a memorized PIN number or code, biometric
`
`identification such as a fingerprint, voice print, signature, iris or facial scan, or
`
`DNA analysis, or any other method of identifying the person possessing the
`
`device”). Consistent with the use of the biometric information in the specification,
`
`Webster’s Dictionary defines biometric authentication as “[a] method of
`
`authentication that requires a biological scan of some sort, such as a retinal scan or
`
`voice recognition.” Ex-1010, Webster’s Dictionary, 65. Similarly, Microsoft
`
`Computer Dictionary defines biometrics as “the science of measuring and
`
`analyzing human biological characteristics. In computer technology, biometrics
`
`relates to authentication and security techniques that rely on measurable, individual
`
`biological stamps to recognize or verify an individual's identity. For example,
`
`fingerprints, handprints, or voice-recognition might be used to enable access to a
`
`computer, to a room, or to an electronic commerce account. Ex-1011, Microsoft
`
`Computer Dictionary, 50. Ex-1002, Shoup-Decl., ¶33.
`
`
`Furthermore, a POSITA would not have considered a PIN to be biometric
`
`information because it is unrelated to any physical characteristic of the user.
`
`14
`
`

`

`B. Authentication Information
`Under the broadest reasonable interpretation claim construction standard,
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`
`“authentication information” as used in the ’826 patent means “information used
`
`by the system to verify the identity of an individual.” For example, authentication
`
`information can include a PIN, passcode, or biometric information. Ex-1001, ’826
`
`patent, 4:27-34 (“The identity of the user possessing the identifying device may be
`
`verified at the point of use via any combination of a memorized PIN number or
`
`code, biometric identification such as a fingerprint, voice print, signature, iris or
`
`facial scan, or DNA analysis, or any other method of identifying the person
`
`possessing the device”). Ex-1002, Shoup-Decl., ¶34.
`
`This construction is consistent with the plain meaning of the term and the
`
`patent specification. The patent uses the terms “verification,” “identification,” and
`
`“authentication” interchangeably. Ex-1001, ’826 patent, 3:55-59 (“There is thus a
`
`need for an identification system that will enable a person to be accurately
`
`identified (‘identification’ sometimes being used hereinafter to mean either
`
`identified or verified) and/or authenticated without compromising security, to gain
`
`access to secure systems and/or areas.”). See Ex-1002, Shoup-Decl., ¶35.
`
`IX. OVERVIEW OF PRIMARY PRIOR ART REFERENCE MARITZEN
`Like the ’826 patent, Maritzen is directed toward an electronic user
`
`authentication system that involves a handheld device configured to receive
`
`15
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`biometric information from a user and transmit authentication information to a
`
`secure database that verifies the user’s identity based on the authentication
`
`information. See Ex-1004, Maritzen, [0029] (“A system and method for
`
`conducting a financial transaction are described. In one embodiment,
`
`communication is established between a vehicle-accessed, payment-gateway
`
`terminal (VAPGT) and a pre-registered, key-enabled, personal transaction device
`
`(PTD). The PTD is accessed using a biometric control and a transaction request is
`
`transmitted to a server. Further, a transaction authorization message is received
`
`from the server to complete the transaction in real time between the user and the
`
`VAPGT provider. In this embodiment, the funds are uniquely identified with the
`
`owner of the PTD and, thus, if the PTD is stolen, the funds cannot be used by
`
`another user.”); see also id., Figs. 1 and 11. See Ex-1002, Shoup-Decl., ¶36
`
`As discussed further in this Petition, Maritzen in view of Jakobsson and
`
`Niwa discloses the systems and methods of independent claims 1, 10, 21, and 30.
`
`For example, Maritzen discloses a financial transaction system that utilizes a
`
`personal transaction device 100 (PTD) [a first device] that wirelessly
`
`communicates with a clearing house 130 [a second device]. Ex-1004, Maritzen,
`
`[0038] (“Referring to FIG. 1, a personal transaction device (PTD) 100
`
`communicates via communication link 150 with a vehicle-accessed, payment-
`
`gateway terminal (VAPGT) 120 to conduct a financial transaction.”); [0040]
`
`16
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`(“VAPGT 120 and clearing house 130 may be connected via a wireless
`
`communication link such as, for example, a mobile telecommunications link, a
`
`radio communications link, an infrared link, a satellite link, a wireless WAN link,
`
`or the like.”). See Ex-1002, Shoup-Decl., ¶37.
`
`The PTD [first device] determines a “biometric key” [first authentication
`
`information] from the user’s biometric information. See Ex-1004, Maritzen,
`
`[0039] (“PTD 100 and privacy card 110 may be within the same device”); [0044]
`
`(“if the biometric input is valid for the device, privacy card 110 creates a biometric
`
`key that is transmitted to PTD 100. If privacy card 110 is within PTD 100,
`
`validation of the biometric information may be conducted by PTD 100.”). The
`
`PTD [first device] transmits the biometric key to the clearing house 130 [second
`
`device] via a network. Ex-1004, Maritzen, [0045] (“If the biometric key is valid,
`
`PTD 100 creates a transaction key. In one embodiment, the transaction key may
`
`include the biometric key and a PTD identifier.”); [0046] (“Once VAPGT 120
`
`receives the transaction key, VAPGT 120 generates a transaction request….The
`
`transaction request is transmitted via communication