Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`
`DOCKET NO.: 1033300-00308US2
`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 IPR2018-00813
`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 ................................................... 5 
`A.  Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications .................................................... 6 
`1.  Ex-1104 – Jakobsson .................................................................................. 6 
`2.  Ex-1105 – Maritzen .................................................................................... 6 
`3.  Ex-1106 – Gullman .................................................................................... 7 
`4.  Ex-1107 – Verbauwhede ............................................................................ 7 
`B.  Grounds for Challenge .................................................................................. 8 
`VI.  Legal Principles ................................................................................................ 8 
`VII.  Overview of the ’826 patent .......................................................................... 9 
`A.  Priority ........................................................................................................... 9 
`B.  Brief Description of the ’826 Patent Disclosure ........................................... 9 
`C.  Prosecution History ..................................................................................... 11 
`VIII.  Claim Construction ...................................................................................... 11 
`A.  Biometric Information ................................................................................. 12 
`B.  Authentication Information ......................................................................... 14 
`IX.  Overview of Primary Prior Art Reference Jakobsson .................................... 15 
`X.  Specific Grounds for Petition........................................................................... 19 
`A.  Ground 1: Claims 1, 2, 10, 11, 21, 22, 24, 27, 30, and 31 are Anticipated by
`Jakobsson ............................................................................................................. 19 
`1. 
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................................ 19 
`2.  Claim 2 ..................................................................................................... 37 
`
`i
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`Independent Claim 10 .............................................................................. 39 
`3. 
`4.  Claim 11 ................................................................................................... 41 
`5. 
`Independent Claim 21 .............................................................................. 42 
`6.  Claim 22 ................................................................................................... 47 
`7.  Claim 24 ................................................................................................... 47 
`8.  Claim 27 ................................................................................................... 51 
`9. 
`Independent Claim 30 .............................................................................. 52 
`10.  Claim 31 ................................................................................................ 55 
`B.  Ground 2: Claims 7, 14, 26, and 34 are Obvious in View of Jakobsson,
`Verbauwhede, and Maritzen ................................................................................ 55 
`1.  Claim 7 ..................................................................................................... 55 
`2.  Reasons to Combine Jakobsson, Verbauwhede, and Maritzen ............... 60 
`3.  Claim 14 ................................................................................................... 66 
`4.  Claim 26 ................................................................................................... 67 
`5.  Claim 34 ................................................................................................... 67 
`C.  Ground 3: Claims 8 and 15 are Obvious in View of Jakobsson and
`Gullman ................................................................................................................ 67 
`1.  Claim 8 ..................................................................................................... 67 
`2.  Claim 15 ................................................................................................... 74 
`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) .......................................................................... 11
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .............................................................................................. 8
`Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California,
`814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ...................................................................... 8
`
`
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 101 .......................................................................................................... 3
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ...................................................................................................... 6, 8
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .................................................................................................. 3, 4, 8
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ..................................................................................................... 8
`Leahy-Smith America Invents Act,
`Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) ............................................................ 8
`
`
`REGULATIONS
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ..................................................................................................... 2, 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22 ....................................................................................................... 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ................................................................................................... 11
`37 C.F.R. § 42.101 ..................................................................................................... 5
`77 Fed. Reg. 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012) ...................................................................... 11
`
`
`
`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 Answer Brief in Opposition to
`
`Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (“Opp.”), 13 (Ex-1109). 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 ’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 manner. For example, prior
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`art reference WO 2004/051585 (“Jakobsson”) (Ex-1104) 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. Dependent claims of the ’826 patent recite additional
`
`limitations that are disclosed by Jakobsson and prior art references U.S. Patent
`
`Application Publication No. 2004/0236632 (“Maritzen”) (Ex-1105), U.S. Patent
`
`No. 5,280,527 (“Gullman”) (Ex-1106), and International Patent Application
`
`Publication No. WO 2005/001751 (“Verbauwhede”) (Ex-1107).
`
`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-1103, 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, inter alia, that the asserted 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
`
`demonstrates that a POSITA, at the time the ’826 patent was effectively filed,
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`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-1102, Shoup-Decl., ¶¶26-28.
`
`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).
`
`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.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`A.
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications
`The following references are pertinent to the grounds of unpatentability as
`
`explained below:
`
`1.
`Ex-1104 – Jakobsson
`International Patent Application Publication No. WO 2004/051585
`
`(“Jakobsson”) (Ex-1104), which was filed on November 26, 2003 and published on
`
`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-1104, Jakobsson, [0040]. Also like the ’826 patent,
`
`Jakobsson’s system includes secure database (“verifier 105”) that uses stored
`
`biometric information to verify a user’s identity. Id., [0048].
`
`2.
`Ex-1105 – Maritzen
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0236632 (“Maritzen”) (Ex-
`
`1105), which was filed on December 6, 2001 and published on November 25,
`
`2004, more than one year before the earliest claimed possible 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
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`(“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-1105, Maritzen Abstract;
`
`[0039]; [0047]; Fig. 1.
`
`3.
`Ex-1106 – Gullman
`U.S. Patent No. 5,280,527 (“Gullman”) (Ex-1106), which was filed on April
`
`14, 1992 and published on January 18, 1994, more than one year before the earliest
`
`possible priority date of the ’826 patent. Gullman accordingly qualifies as prior art
`
`under at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 102(e). Gullman was not considered during
`
`the prosecution of the ’826 patent. Like the ’826 patent, Gullman is directed to a
`
`user authentication device (“biometric security apparatus 14”) and a remote user
`
`authentication device (“host system 10”) configured to authenticate a user based on
`
`biometric information. Ex-1106, Gullman, Abstract; [0013]; [0021]; Fig.1.
`
`4.
`Ex-1107 – Verbauwhede
`International Patent Application Publication No. WO 2005/001751
`
`(“Verbauwhede”) (Ex-1107), which was filed on June 2, 2004 and published on
`
`January 6, 2005, more than one year before the earliest possible priority date of the
`
`’826 patent. Verbauwhede accordingly qualifies as prior art under at least 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 102(e). Verbauwhede was not considered during the
`
`prosecution of the ’826 patent. Like the ’826 patent, Verbauwhede is directed to a
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`handheld authentication device (“thumbpod 200”) and a remote user authentication
`
`device (“authentication server 310”) configured to authenticate a user based on
`
`biometric information. Ex-1107, Verbauwhede, [0010]; [0021]; [0043]; Fig. 4.
`
`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. § 102
`
`and/or 35 U.S.C. § 103. This Petition, supported by the declaration of Dr. Shoup
`
`(Ex-1102) 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. §§ 102,
`
`103. A claim is invalid if it would have been “anticipated” or “obvious.” See 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 102, 103(a). A claim is anticipated if “each and every element as set
`
`forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single
`
`prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628,
`
`631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). The key inquiry to determine obviousness is whether an
`
`“improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`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.
`
`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 patent also claims priority to three provisional applications: No. 60/775,046,
`
`filed on February 21, 2006 (Ex-1112), No. 60/812,279, filed on June 9, 2006 (Ex-
`
`1113), and No. 60/859,235, filed on November 15, 2006 (Ex-1114).
`
`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 handheld device”) configured to
`
`scan the biometric information, and a database server (a “second device”) that
`
`receives the authentication information. Ex-1101, ’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
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`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.”).
`
`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-1101, ’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, 4:24-27; 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.”).
`
`10
`
`

`

`C.
`Prosecution History
`The ’826 patent was filed as U.S. Application No. 14/027,860 (“’826
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`
`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 patenting rejection over parent patent U.S. Patent No. 8,538,881. See Ex-
`
`1108, ’826 Patent File History, 03/18/2015 Notice of Allowance and Fees Due.
`
`The Examiner, however, did not receive or consider prior art references
`
`Jakobsson (Ex-1104), Maritzen (Ex-1105), Gullman (Ex-1106), and Verbauwhede
`
`(Ex-1107), which anticipate or render obvious all 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)1; 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
`
`
`1 Petitioner adopts this standard and reserves the right to pursue different
`
`constructions in a district court, where a different standard applies.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`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).
`
`A. Biometric Information
`Under the broadest reasonable interpretation claim construction standard,
`
`“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-1102, Shoup-Decl., ¶37.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`This construction is supported by the specification, which describes
`
`biometric information using substantially identical language.2 Ex-1101, ’826
`
`patent, 4:27-32 (“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
`
`2 The ’826 patent specification includes one passage that describes a “personal
`
`identification number (PIN)” as an example of biometric information. Ex-1101,
`
`’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-1101, ’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.
`
`Furthermore, a POSITA would not have considered a PIN to be biometric
`
`information because it is unrelated to any physical characteristic of the user.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`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-1110, 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-1111,
`
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary, 50. Ex-1102, Shoup-Decl., ¶38.
`
`B. Authentication Information
`Under the broadest reasonable interpretation claim construction standard,
`
`“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-1101, ’826
`
`patent, 4:27-32 (“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
`
`14
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`facial scan, or DNA analysis, or any other method of identifying the person
`
`possessing the device”). Ex-1102, Shoup-Decl., ¶39.
`
`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-1101, ’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-1102, Shoup-Decl., ¶40.
`
`IX. OVERVIEW OF PRIMARY PRIOR ART REFERENCE
`JAKOBSSON
`Like the ’826 patent, Jakobsson is directed toward an electronic user
`
`authentication system that involves a handheld device configured to receive
`
`biometric information from a user and transmit authentication information to a
`
`secure database that verifies the user’s identity based on the authentication
`
`information. Ex-1104, Jakobsson, [0013] (“a user or a device on behalf of the
`
`user, algorithmically computes an authentication code based on both a dynamic
`
`variable (e.g., that changes over time) and a secret associated with the user or the
`
`device. The generated authentication code is non-predictable to an observer, but is
`
`verifiable by a verifier. The authentication code can also depend, in part, on any
`
`other information, for example, on one or more of a PIN, a password, and data
`
`15
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`derived from a biometric observation, or information associated with the user, the
`
`authentication device, or the verifier.”); [0040] (“the user 110 provides, via the
`
`user interface 130, identifying information (such as a user identifier, PIN, or
`
`password, or a biometric characteristic such as a fingerprint, retina pattern, or voice
`
`sample)”); [0038] (“the verifier 105 is implemented as software running on a
`
`server class computer … to enable authentication of a large number of users”). Ex-
`
`1102, Shoup-Decl., ¶41.
`
`
`
`Ex-1104, Jakobsson, Fig. 1
`
`
`
`As discussed further in this Petition, Jakobsson discloses the systems and
`
`methods of independent claims 1, 10, 21, and 30. For example, Jakobsson
`
`discloses a user authentication device 120 [first device] that wirelessly
`
`communicates with a verifier 105 [second device]. The user authentication device
`
`120 receives biometric information of the user. Ex-1104, Jakobsson, [0040] (“the
`
`16
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`user 110 provides, via the user interface 130, identifying information (such as a
`
`user identifier, PIN, or password, or a biometric characteristic such as a fingerprint,
`
`retina pattern, or voice sample)”). The user authentication device 120 determines
`
`an authentication code from the biometric information [a first authentication
`
`information derived from the first biometric information]. Ex-1104,
`
`Jakobsson, Fig. 2; [0060] (“the combination function 230 generates an
`
`authentication code 290 based on the data 235 stored or accessed by the user
`
`authentication device 120”); [0072] (“User data (P) can also be provided as input
`
`to the combination function 230 … The user data (P) can be the actual PIN,
`
`password, biometric data, etc. that is provided by the user.”). Ex-1102, Shoup-
`
`Decl., ¶42.
`
`17
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`
`
`
`Ex-1104, Jakobsson, Fig. 2.
`
`Finally, Jakobsson discloses that verifier 105 retrieves an Authentication
`
`Code A1V [second authentication information] that is compared with the first
`
`authentication code to authenticate the user. Ex-1104, Jakobsson, [0117] (“the
`
`authentication code generated by the authentication device 120 is represented by
`
`(AD) in order to distinguish i