`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. IPR2018-00813
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`July 16, 2019
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`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
`
`USR’s Motion to Strike Should Be Denied
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`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
`
`USR’s Motion to Strike Should Be Denied
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3
`
`
`
`The Claims Are Invalid
`• Claims 1, 2, 10, 11, 21, 22, 24, 27, 30, and 31 are
`anticipated by Jakobsson ‘585.
`• Claims 7, 14, 26, and 34 are obvious in view of Jakobsson
`‘585, Verbauwhede, and Maritzen.
`• Claims 8 and 15 are obvious in view of Jakobsson ‘585
`and Gullman.
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`4
`
`
`
`’826 Patent Claims A System For Authenticating A User Using Well-
`Known Techniques With Generic Components
`
`Ex. 1101 [’826 Patent], Claim 1
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`Pet. at 19-37; Ex. 1102 [Shoup Decl.] ¶¶49-90; Institution Decision at 4-5; 8-13
`5
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Jakobsson ‘585 Discloses A User Authentication System
`With A “First Handheld Device” And A “Second Device”
`(All Claims)
`
`Second Device
`
`First Handheld Device
`
`Ex. 1104 [Jakobsson ‘585], Figure 1
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`Pet. at 20-21, 26; Ex. 1102 [Shoup Decl.] ¶¶52-55; 64-66; Institution Decision at 9, 10, 13
`6
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Jakobsson ‘585 Discloses Retrieving Or Receiving “First
`Biometric Information” From The User (All Claims)
`
`Ex. 1104 at [0059]
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`Pet. at 21-23; Ex. 1102 [Shoup Decl.] ¶¶56-59; Institution Decision at 9, 13
`7
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Jakobsson ‘585 Discloses “First Authentication
`Information” Derived From “First Biometric
`Information” (All Claims)
`
`Ex. 1104 [Jakobsson ‘585], at [0072]
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`Pet. at 31-35; Ex. 1102 [Shoup Decl.] ¶¶77-79; Institution Decision at 12-13
`8
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Jakobsson ‘585 Discloses “First Authentication Information”
`Derived From “First Biometric Information” (All Claims)
`
`First Authentication
`Information
`
`First Biometric
`Information
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`Ex. 1104 [Jakobsson ‘585], Figure 2
`Pet. at 31-35; Ex. 1102 [Shoup Decl.] ¶¶77-79; Institution Decision at 12-13
`9
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Jakobsson ‘585 Discloses “Second
`Authentication Information” (All Claims)
`
`Second Authentication
`Information
`
`Ex. 1104 [Jakobsson ‘585] at [0118]
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`Pet. at 28-31; Ex. 1102 [Shoup Decl.] ¶¶73-76; Institution Decision at 11, 13
`10
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Jakobsson ‘585 Discloses Using “First Authentication
`Information” And “Second Authentication Information”
`To Authenticate User Identity (All Claims)
`
`Second Authentication
`Information
`
`First Authentication
`Information
`
`Ex. 1104 [Jakobsson ‘585] at [0118]
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`Pet. at 36-37; Ex. 1102 [Shoup Decl.] ¶¶83-85; Institution Decision at 13
`11
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Verbauwhede Discloses Comparing Stored
`Authentication Information (Claims 7, 14, 26, and 34)
`
`Ex. 1107 [0063]
`
`Ex. 1107 [0063]
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`Ex. 1107 [0086]
`Pet. at 55-60; Ex. 1102 [Shoup Decl.] ¶¶163-177; Institution Decision at 17-19
`12
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Maritzen Discloses Enabling And Disabling Use Of The
`First Handheld Device (Claims 7, 14, 26, And 34)
`
`Ex. 1105 [Maritzen] at [0067]
`
`Ex. 1105 [Maritzen] at [0072]
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`Pet. at 55-60; Ex. 1102 [Shoup Decl.] ¶¶163-177; Institution Decision at 17-19
`13
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Reasons to Combine
`
`Jakobsson ‘585, Verbauwhede, and Maritzen 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
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`Pet. at 60-66; Ex. 1102 [Shoup Decl.] ¶¶169-177; Institution Decision at 17-19
`14
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Reasons to Combine
`
`• All use local and remote authentication
`
`Ex. 1104 (Jakobsson ‘585), Fig.
`1
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`Ex. 1105 (Maritzen), Fig.
`1
`Pet. at 60-66; Ex. 1102 [Shoup Decl.] ¶¶169-177; Institution Decision at 17-19
`15
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1107 (Verbauwhede), Fig. 4
`
`
`
`Reasons to Combine
`• All use biometric information for authentication
`
`Jakobsson ‘585
`
`Maritzen
`
`Verbauwhede
`
`Ex. 1104 at [0013]
`
`Ex. 1105 at [0088]
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`Ex. 1107 [0063]
`Pet. at 60-66; Ex. 1102 [Shoup Decl.] ¶¶169-177; Institution Decision at 17-19
`16
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Reasons to Combine
`• All are designed to reduce risk of stolen authentication
`information
`Jakobsson ‘585
`
`Maritzen
`
`Verbauwhede
`
`Ex. 1104 at [0008]
`
`Ex. 1105 at [0003]
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`Ex. 1107 at [0077]
`Pet. at 60-66; Ex. 1102 [Shoup Decl.] ¶¶169-177; Institution Decision at 17-19
`17
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Reasons to Combine
`• All are designed to secure financial transactions
`
`Jakobsson ‘585
`
`Maritzen
`
`Verbauwhede
`
`Ex. 1104 at [0039]
`
`Ex. 1105 at [0031]
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`Pet. at 60-66; Ex. 1102 [Shoup Decl.] ¶¶169-177; Institution Decision at 17-19
`18
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1107, Abstract
`
`
`
`Gullman Discloses Storing Biometric Information For A
`Second Plurality Of Users (Claims 8, 15)
`
`Ex. 1106 at 5:55-65
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`Pet. at 67-69; Ex. 1102 [Shoup Decl.] ¶¶185-199; Institution Decision at 19-21
`19
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Reasons to Combine
`
`Jakobsson ‘585 and Gullman disclose similar and
`technologically-compatible authentication systems
`• Both use local and remote authentication
`• Both use biometric information for authentication
`• Both are designed to reduce risk of stolen
`authentication credentials
`• Both are designed to secure financial transactions
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`Pet. at 69-74; Ex. 1102 [Shoup Decl.] ¶¶189-195; Institution Decision at 19-21
`20
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Reasons to Combine
`
`• Both Jakobsson ‘585 and Gullman use local and remote authentication
`
`Ex. 1104 (Jakobsson ‘585),
`Fig. 1
`
`Ex. 1106 (Gullman) Fig. 1
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`Pet. at 69-74; Ex. 1102 [Shoup Decl.] ¶¶189-195; Institution Decision at 19-21
`21
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Reasons to Combine
`• Both Jakobsson ‘585 and Gullman use biometric
`information for authentication
`
`Jakobsson ‘585
`
`Gullman
`
`Ex. 1104 at [0013]
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`Ex. 1106, Abstract
`Pet. at 69-74; Ex. 1102 [Shoup Decl.] ¶¶189-195; Institution Decision at 19-21
`22
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Reasons to Combine
`• Both Jakobsson ‘585 and Gullman are designed to
`reduce risk of stolen authentication information
`
`Jakobsson ‘585
`
`Gullman
`
`Ex. 1104 at [0008]
`
`Ex. 1106, 1:52-56
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`Pet. at 69-74; Ex. 1102 [Shoup Decl.] ¶¶189-195; Institution Decision at 19-21
`23
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Reasons to Combine
`• Both Jakobsson ‘585 and Gullman are designed to
`secure financial transactions
`
`Jakobsson ‘585
`
`Gullman
`
`Ex. 1104 at [0039]
`
`Ex. 1106 at 3:19-23
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`Pet. at 69-74; Ex. 1102 [Shoup Decl.] ¶¶189-195; Institution Decision at 19-21
`24
`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
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`25
`
`
`
`Responses to USR’s Surreply
`
`Response to Surreply
`1. Jakobsson ‘585 discloses receiving or
`retrieving second authentication information
`2. Maritzen discloses enabling or disabling a
`device
`3. Verbauwhede does not teach away from
`Jakobsson ‘585
`4. Gullman discloses a first device configured to
`store biometric information for a second
`plurality of users
`
`Issue Addressed in Briefing
`
`Pet. at 29-31, 35; Reply at 5-9
`
`Pet. at 55-60; Reply at 9-15
`
`Pet. at 60-66; Reply at 15-18
`
`Pet. at 68-74; Reply at 19-21
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`26
`
`
`
`1. Jakobsson ‘585 Discloses Receiving Or
`Retrieving Second Authentication Information
`• There is no dispute that Jakobsson ‘585 derives “second
`authentication information”
`
`Second Authentication
`Information
`
`Ex. 1104 [Jakobsson ‘585] at [0118]
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`Pet. at 29-31, 35; Reply at 5-9; Ex. 1102 [Shoup Decl.] ¶¶86-97;
`Ex. 1118 [Shoup Reply Decl.] ¶¶20-26; Ex. 1120 [Juels Decl.] ¶¶44-50; ID at 13
`27
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`1. Jakobsson ‘585 Discloses Receiving Or
`Retrieving Second Authentication Information
`• Data is retrieved from CPU registers, just like other types of memory
`
`Ex. 1118 [Shoup Reply Decl.] at ¶23
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`Pet. at 29-31, 35; Reply at 5-9; Ex. 1102 [Shoup Decl.] ¶¶86-97;
`Ex. 1118 [Shoup Reply Decl.] ¶¶20-26; Ex. 1120 [Juels Decl.] ¶¶44-50; ID at 13
`28
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`1. Jakobsson ‘585 Discloses Receiving Or
`Retrieving Second Authentication Information
`• CPU registers and RAM are both types of short-term memory
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`Ex. 1118 [Shoup Reply Decl.] at ¶24
`
`Pet. at 29-31, 35; Reply at 5-9; Ex. 1102 [Shoup Decl.] ¶¶86-97;
`Ex. 1118 [Shoup Reply Decl.] ¶¶20-26; Ex. 1120 [Juels Decl.] ¶¶44-50; ID at 13
`29
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`1. Jakobsson ‘585 Discloses Receiving Or
`Retrieving Second Authentication Information
`• Dr. Juels confirms that Jakobsson ‘585 does not distinguish between
`retrieving from CPU registers or RAM
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`Ex. 1120 [Juels Reply Decl.] at ¶48
`Pet. at 29-31, 35; Reply at 5-9; Ex. 1102 [Shoup Decl.] ¶¶86-97;
`Ex. 1118 [Shoup Reply Decl.] ¶¶20-26; Ex. 1120 [Juels Decl.] ¶¶44-50; ID at 13
`30
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`2. Maritzen Discloses Enabling Or Disabling A
`Device
`• There is no dispute that Maritzen discloses locking and unlocking
`the device based on a comparison to block or permit access
`
`Ex. 1105 [Maritzen] at [0067]
`
`Ex. 1105 [Maritzen] at [0072]
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`Pet. at 29-31, 35; Reply at 5-9; Ex. 1102 [Shoup Decl.] ¶¶163-168;
`Ex. 1118 [Shoup Reply Decl.] ¶¶27-43; ID at 17-19
`31
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`2. Maritzen Discloses Enabling Or Disabling A
`Device
`• When Maritzen’s PTD is locked based on an invalid transaction
`message, it is disabled.
`
`Ex. 1105 [Maritzen] at [0056]
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`Pet. at 29-31, 35; Reply at 5-9; Ex. 1102 [Shoup Decl.] ¶¶163-168;
`Ex. 1118 [Shoup Reply Decl.] ¶¶27-43; ID at 17-19
`32
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`2. Maritzen Discloses Enabling Or Disabling A
`Device
`Jakobsson ‘585’s authentication system is compatible with
`Maritzen’s enabling/disabling mechanism
`
`•
`
`Ex. 1105 [Jakobsson ‘585] at [0015]
`
`Ex. 1105 [Jakobsson ‘585] at [0059]
`
`Ex. 1105 [Jakobsson ‘585] at [0111]
`Pet. at 29-31, 35; Reply at 5-9; Ex. 1102 [Shoup Decl.] ¶¶163-168; Ex. 1118 [Shoup Reply Decl.] ¶¶27-43; ID at 17-19
`33
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`
`
`2. Maritzen Discloses Enabling Or Disabling A
`Device
`• Dr. Juels confirms that Jakobsson ‘585 is compatible with Maritzen’s
`disabling mechanism
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`Ex. 1120 [Juels Reply Decl.] at ¶¶55-56
`
`Pet. at 29-31, 35; Reply at 5-9; Ex. 1102 [Shoup Decl.] ¶¶163-168;
`Ex. 1118 [Shoup Reply Decl.] ¶¶27-43; Ex. 1120 [Juels Reply Decl.] at ¶¶54-56; ID at 17-19
`34
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`2. Maritzen Discloses Enabling Or Disabling A
`Device
`• Maritzen’s teaching of not sending user information is compatible
`with Jakobsson ‘585.
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`Pet. at 29-31, 35; Reply at 5-9; Ex. 1102 [Shoup Decl.] ¶¶163-168; Ex. 1118 [Shoup Reply Decl.] ¶¶27-43; ID at 17-19
`35
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1118 [Shoup Reply Decl.] at ¶34
`
`
`
`3. Verbauwhede Does Not Teach Away from
`Jakobsson ‘585
`• Verbauwhede discloses local biometric authentication
`
`Ex. 1107 [0063]
`
`Ex. 1107 [0063]
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`Pet. at 60-66; Reply at 15-18; Ex. 1102 [Shoup Decl.] ¶¶169-177; Ex. 1118 [Shoup Reply Decl.] ¶¶41-43; ID at 17-19
`36
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1118 [Shoup Reply Decl.] at ¶34
`Ex. 1107 [0086]
`
`
`
`4. Gullman Discloses A First Device Configured To Store
`Biometric Information For A Second Plurality Of Users
`• There is no dispute that Gullman discloses a first handheld device
`storing biometric information for multiple users
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`Pet. at 68-74; Reply at 19-21; Ex. 1102 [Shoup Decl.] ¶¶184-195; Ex. 1118 [Shoup Reply Decl.] ¶¶44-48; ID at 19-21
`37
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1106 at 5:55-65
`
`
`
`4. Gullman Discloses A First Device Configured To Store
`Biometric Information For A Second Plurality Of Users
`• Jakobsson ‘585 teaches encryption and decryption, and thus is
`compatible with Gullman
`
`Ex. 1104 [Jakobsson ‘585] at [0058]
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`Pet. at 68-74; Reply at 19-21; Ex. 1102 [Shoup Decl.] ¶¶184-195; Ex. 1118 [Shoup Reply Decl.] ¶¶44-48; ID at 19-21
`38
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1103 [Jakobsson ‘585] at [0058]
`
`
`
`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
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`39
`
`
`
`USR Failed To Demonstrate Any Secondary
`Considerations
`In his declaration, Dr. Jakobsson opined that the claimed features were
`•
`“directly responsible for the commercial success of Apple Pay and Visa
`Checkout services.”
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 2101 (Jakobsson Decl.) ¶106
`
`40
`
`
`
`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. 1117 (Jakobsson Dep. Tr.) at 118:16-19; 118:20-23;
`see also 119:12-121:9 (same answers regarding Visa Checkout)
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply at 23-24
`41
`
`
`
`USR Failed To Demonstrate Any Secondary
`Considerations
`Dr. Jakobsson’s errata changed his testimony that he reviewed Visa code.
`
`Ex. 1117 (Jakobsson Dep. Tr.) at 520:3-6
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`Reply at 21-25; Ex. 1128 [Shoup Reply Decl.] ¶¶49-54
`42
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`June 27, 2019 Errata
`
`
`
`USR Failed To Demonstrate Any Secondary
`Considerations
`• Dr. Jakobsson conceded that key features purportedly showing long-
`felt need were already known
`
`Ex. 1117 (Jakobsson Dep. Tr.) at 98:12-15
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`43
`
`
`
`USR Failed To Demonstrate Any Secondary
`Considerations
`• Dr. Jakobsson conceded that key features purportedly showing long-
`felt need were already known
`
`Ex. 1117 (Jakobsson Dep. Tr.) at 22:25-23:4
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`44
`
`
`
`USR Failed To Demonstrate Any Secondary
`Considerations
`• Dr. Jakobsson conceded that key features purportedly showing long-
`felt need were already known
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1117 (Jakobsson Dep. Tr.) at 31:23-32:23
`
`45
`
`
`
`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. 1117 (Jakobsson Dep. Tr.) at 14:24-15:3
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`46
`
`Ex. 1117 (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
`
`USR’s Motion to Strike Should Be Denied
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`47
`
`
`
`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]
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`See CMTA Opposition, Paper 25; Ex. 1119 (Shoup Decl. ISO CMTA Opposition)
`48
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`USR’s Substitute Claims Are Not Patentable
`
`Grounds for Invalidity
`1. The prior art renders obvious the claimed
`“first authentication information,” “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 ’585 reference and/or Schutzer discloses
`the financial transactions of claims 36 and 45
`5. The KEK encryption in substitute claim 56
`lacks written description support
`
`Issue Addressed in Briefing
`
`CMTA Opp. at 10-13; CMTA Sur-Reply at 6-7
`
`CMTA Opp. at 15-18; CMTA Sur-Reply at 9-10
`
`CMTA Opp. at 9-11, 13-15; CMTA Sur-Reply at
`7-9, 10-11
`CMTA Opp. at 4-7; CMTA Sur-Reply at 4-5; Ex.
`1120 (Juels Decl. at ¶¶37-38)
`
`CMTA Opp. at 3-4; CMTA Sur-Reply at 1-3
`
`6. Petitioner showed claim 45 is unpatentable
`
`CMTA Opp. at 4-12; CMTA Sur-Reply at 10-11
`
`7. The substitute claims are drawn to ineligible
`subject matter
`
`CMTA Opp. at 19-24; CMTA Sur-Reply at 11-12
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`49
`
`
`
`USR’s CMTA Is Also Deficient
`
`USR’s CMTA Deficiency
`
`Issue Addressed in Briefing
`
`1. USR violated its duty of candor
`
`CMTA Opp. at 25; CMTA Sur-Reply at 12
`
`2. USR submitted an unreasonable number of
`substitute claims and substituted unchallenged
`claims
`
`CMTA Opp. at 1-3
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`50
`
`
`
`1. “First Authentication Information,”
`“One-Time Code,” And “Digital Signature”
`Substitute claim 36 amends original claim 1 by adding a one-time
`code and a digital signature
`
`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.
`
`36[f]
`
`36[g]
`
`36[j]
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`USR’s CMTA, Paper 19, B1-B2;
`See also CMTA Opp., Paper 25 at 9-11; CMTA Sur-Reply, Paper 30 at 6-7
`51
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`1. “First Authentication Information” & “One-Time
`Code”
`The ’585 reference discloses first authentication information and a one-
`time code
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`Ex. 1119 (Shoup Decl. ISO CMTA Opposition, ¶ 38, 44, 48);
`See also CMTA Opp., Paper 25 at 9-11; CMTA Sur-Reply, Paper 30 at 6-7
`52
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`1. “Digital Signature”
`Schutzer renders obvious digital signatures for authentication
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`Ex. 1130 (Schutzer, ¶ 29)
`See also CMTA Opp., Paper 25 at 9-11, 13-15; CMTA Sur-Reply, Paper 30 at 3-4, 7
`53
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`1. “Digital Signature”
`Dr. Shoup showed digital signatures generated using a user’s private
`key would have been obvious
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`Ex. 1119 (Shoup Decl. ISO CMTA Opposition, ¶ 49)
`See also CMTA Opp., Paper 25 at 9-11, 13-15; CMTA Sur-Reply, Paper 30 at 3-4, 7
`54
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`1. “Digital Signature”
`Dr. Shoup showed digital signatures generated using a user’s private
`key would have been obvious
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`Ex. 1119 (Shoup Decl. ISO CMTA Opposition, ¶ 50)
`See also CMTA Opp., Paper 25 at 9-11, 13-15; CMTA Sur-Reply, Paper 30 at 3-4, 7
`55
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`1. “Digital Signature”
`USR argues that Schutzer’s digital signature is not generated using a
`private key of the first device
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`USR’s CMTA Reply, Paper 31, 11, fn. 2
`But see CMTA Opp., Paper 25 at 9-11, 13-15; CMTA Sur-Reply, Paper 30 at 3-4
`56
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`1. “Digital Signature”
`Dr. Jakobsson agrees that a digital signature can be used by
`Schutzer’s issuing bank to verify the device that created it
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1117 (Jakobsson Transcript, , 77:15-19, 82:12-16)
`See also CMTA Sur-Reply, Paper 35 at 3-4
`57
`
`
`
`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 19, B6
`See also CMTA Opp., Paper 25 at 15-18; CMTA Sur-Reply, Paper 35 at 9-10
`58
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`
`
`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 19 at B6; CMTA Opposition, Paper 25 at 15-18; CMTA Sur-Reply, Paper 35 at 9-10
`59
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`
`
`2. Substitute Claim 56 Is Obvious Over Burnett
`Burnett teaches the same KEK encryption as substitute claim 56
`
`See CMTA Opposition at 15-17 (citing Ex. 1121 (Burnett at 54, Fig. 3-1));
`See also CMTA Sur-Reply, Paper 35 at 9-10
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`60
`
`
`
`2. Substitute Claim 56 Is Obvious Over Burnett
`USR responds by arguing that KEKs are not shared
`
`USR’s CMTA Reply, Paper 31, 19
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`USR’s CMTA Reply, Paper 31, 20
`See also CMTA Opposition, Paper 25 at 15-18; CMTA Sur-Reply, Paper 35 at 9-10
`61
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`2. Substitute Claim 56 Is Obvious Over Burnett
`Burnett discloses sharing key encryption keys
`
`Ex. 1121 (Burnett at 83)
`
`Ex. 1121 (Burnett at 85)
`
`See also CMTA Sur-Reply, Paper 35 at 9-10
`62
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`2. Substitute Claim 56 Is Obvious Over Burnett
`Dr. Jakobsson didn’t consider Burnett’s disclosure of shared KEKs
`
`Ex. 1132 (Jakobsson Tr., 591:9-13)
`
`Ex. 1132 (Jakobsson Tr., 589:19-590:2
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1132 (Jakobsson Tr., 598:14-25)
`See also CMTA Sur-Reply, Paper 35 at 10
`63
`
`
`
`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
`
`USR’s CMTA, Paper 19, B3
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`See also CMTA Opposition, Paper 25 at 10-11, 13-15; CMTA Sur-Reply, Paper 35 at 7-9, 10-11
`64
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`3. The ’585 reference discloses “separable
`fields”
`The combination function can be prepending/appending or another
`reversible functions
`
`Ex. 1104 (’585 Reference, ¶73)
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`See also CMTA Opposition, Paper 25 at 10-11, 13-15; CMTA Sur-Reply, Paper 35 at 7-9, 10-11
`65
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`3. The ’585 reference discloses “separable
`fields”
`The combination function can be prepending/appending or another
`reversible functions
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`See also CMTA Opposition, Paper 25 at 10-11, 13-15; CMTA Sur-Reply, Paper 35 at 7-9, 10-11
`66
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1104 (’585 Reference, ¶58)
`
`
`
`3. The ’585 reference discloses “separable
`fields”
`Dr. Juels identified additional functions that are not one-way
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`Ex. 1120 (Juels Decl. at ¶¶40-41, 3
`See also CMTA Opposition, Paper 25 at 10-11, 13-15; CMTA Sur-Reply, Paper 35 at 7-9, 10-11
`67
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`3. The ’585 reference discloses “separable
`fields”
`The ’585 reference therefore does not require a one-way function, as
`USR suggests
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`USR’s CMTA Reply, Paper 31, 16-17;
`But see CMTA Opposition, Paper 25 at 10-11, 13-15; CMTA Sur-Reply, Paper 35 at 7-9, 10-11
`68
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`4. Financial Transactions Are Obvious
`The ’585 reference discloses financial transactions
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`Ex. 1120 (Juels Decl. at ¶¶37-38)
`See also CMTA Opposition, Paper 25 at 4-7; CMTA Sur-Reply, Paper 35 at 4-5
`69
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`4. Financial Transactions Are Obvious
`Schutzer renders financial transactions obvious
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`Ex. 1119 (Shoup Decl. at ¶ 34); see also CMTA Opp., Paper 25 at 6
`CMTA Reply, Paper 30 at 7
`70
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`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. 2106 (’860 Application at 49:24-32)
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`Ex. 2106 (’860 Application at 50:24-31)
`See also CMTA Opp., Paper 25 at 3-4; CMTA Sur-Reply at 1-3
`71
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`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;
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`Ex-1119 (Shoup Declaration ISO CMTA Opposition at ¶ 49);
`CMTA, Paper 19, B3
`See also CMTA Opp., Paper 25 at 4-12; CMTA Sur-Reply, Paper 35 at 10-11
`72
`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;
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`CMTA Opp., Paper 25 at 10
`CMTA, Paper 19, B3
`See also CMTA Opp., Paper 25 at 4-12; CMTA Sur-Reply, Paper 35 at 10-11
`73
`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”
`
`* * *
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`Ex. 1117 (Jakobsson Transcript, 92:14-20); see also CMTA Opp., Paper 25 at 19-22
`74
`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”
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`Ex. 1101 (’826 Patent at 1:36-39, 11:30-31, 11:52, 12:18-20; 12:51-53); see also CMTA Opp., Paper 25 at 19-22
`75
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`7. The Substitute Claims Are Ineligible Under § 101
`The substitute claims do not add anything inventive
`
`* * *
`
`* * *
`
`* * *
`
`* * *
`
`* * *
`
`Ex. 1117 (Jakobsson Tr., 161-162); see also CMTA Opp., Paper 25 at 21 (citing the same), 22-24; CMTA Sur-Reply, Paper 35 at 11-12
`76
`IPR2018-00813
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`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
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`77
`
`
`
`1. Patent Owner Violated Its Duty Of Candor
`USR’s should have disclosed the Schutzer reference
`
`USR’s CMTA Reply, Paper 31, 24
`
`USR’s CMTA Reply, Paper 31, 26
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`see also CMTA Opp., Paper 25 at 25; CMTA Sur-Reply, Paper 35 at 12
`78
`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
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`CMTA Opp. at 1-3
`79
`
`
`
`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
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`80
`
`
`
`The Juels Declaration Directly Responds to the
`Jakobsson Declaration
`• Responsive declarations are permissible on reply. See Belden Inc. v.
`Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1078 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`Ex. 1120 [Juels Decl. iso Reply] at ¶2
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`See Opposition to Motion to Strike (Paper No. 40)
`81
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`The Juels Declaration Directly Responds to the
`Jakobsson Declaration
`Dr. Juels submitted declaration because he believed Dr. Jakobsson’s testimony
`about the ‘585 reference to be “misleading and disingenuous in many cases
`
`Dr. Juels:
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`82
`
`Ex. 2114 at 17:20-18:2
`
`
`
`The Juels Declaration Directly Responds to the
`Jakobsson Declaration
`
`Juels Declaration (Ex. 1120)
`
`Jakobsson Declaration (Ex. 2101 /
`Deposition Testimony (Ex. 1117)
`
`¶¶ 37-38
`
`¶¶ 39-43; 29-34
`
`¶¶ 44-50
`
`¶¶ 51-53
`
`¶¶ 54-56
`
`¶ 75
`Dep. Tr. at 103:3-112:14
`
`¶ 92
`Dep. Tr. at 125:18-23; 134:19-135:7; 134:4-
`10; 135:14-136:22
`
`¶ 54, 56-58
`
`¶¶ 63-64
`Dep. Tr. at 152:17-20; 157:7-17
`
`¶ 69
`Dep. Tr. at 181:3-7
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`See Opposition to Motion to Strike (Paper No. 40)
`83
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`IPR2018-00813
`
`
`
`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 33 (Decision Granting Motion for Joinder in IPR2019-00176):
`
`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:
`(IPR2019-00176):
`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
`
`1
`
`