throbber
Apple Inc.,
`Visa Inc., and Visa U.S.A. Inc.,
`v.
`Universal Secure Registry, LLC,
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.’s Demonstrative Slides
`U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00813
`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
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket