UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`CANON U.S.A., INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`vs.
`
`CELLSPIN SOFT, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00127
`Patent No. 9,258,698
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.120
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`The undersigned, acting on behalf of the patent owner, Cellspin Soft, Inc. (“Cellspin”),
`
`and, pursuant to 37 U.S.C. § 42.120 and 35 U.S.C. § 316, respectfully responds in opposition to
`
`the petition of Canon U.S.A., Inc. (“Petitioner” or “Canon”) for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”).
`
`
`Dated: July 22, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ John J. Edmonds
`John J. Edmonds, Reg. No. 56,184
`EDMONDS & SCHLATHER, PLLC
`355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: 213-973-7846
`Facsimile: 213-835-6996
`Email: pto-edmonds@ip-lit.com
`
`
`Stephen F. Schlather, Reg. No. 45,081
`EDMONDS & SCHLATHER, PLLC
`1616 S. Voss Road, Suite 125
`Houston, TX 77057
`P: 281-501-3425
`F: 832-415-2535
`E: sschlather@ip-lit.com
`
`
`
`
`
`P a g e 2 | 58
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`EXHIBIT LIST ................................................................................................................................4
`I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................5
`II. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ...............................................................................................6
`III. SUPPORTING EVIDENCE .....................................................................................................7
`IV. LEGAL PRINCIPLES ..............................................................................................................7
`IV. THE ’698 PATENT ..................................................................................................................8
`V. THE LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .............................................................11
`VI. ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................................13
`A. Claim Construction ............................................................................................................13
`B. Claim Construction Summary ............................................................................................24
`C. Prior Art Relied Upon by Petitioner ...................................................................................25
`1. Hiroishi .........................................................................................................................25
`2. Takahashi ......................................................................................................................27
`3. Nozaki ...........................................................................................................................28
`4. Hollstrom ......................................................................................................................29
`5. Ando ..............................................................................................................................31
`D. Non-Obviousness of Claims 1–20 over Hiroishi and
`Takahashi (Ground 1) ..............................................................................................................31
`1. Limitation 1(c) of Independent Claims 1, 5, 8, and 13 .................................................31
`2. Lack of Motivation to Combine ....................................................................................46
`E. Claim 5 and Claim 8 – No Single Application Performing Steps ......................................47
`F. Non-Obviousness of Claims 21 and 22 over Hiroishi, Takahashi,
`and Ando (Ground 2) .........................................................................................................47
`G. Non-Obviousness of Claims 1–22 over Hiroishi, Takahashi,
`and Nozaki (Ground 3) ......................................................................................................50
`H. Non-Obviousness of Claims 21 and 22 over Hiroishi, Takahashi, Nozaki,
`and Ando (Ground 4). ........................................................................................................50
`I. Non-Obviousness of Claims 1, 3–5, 7, 8, 10–13, and 15–20
`over Hollstrom and Takahashi (Ground 5) ..........................................................................52
`J. Non-Obviousness of Claims 2, 6, 9, 14, 21, and 22 over
`Hollstrom, Takahashi, and Ando (Ground 6) ......................................................................53
`
`VII. THIS PROCEEDING AND ANY INVALIDITY RULINGS BASED THEREON
`ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, INCLUDING UNDER THE FIFTH AND
`FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS .........................................................................................54
`VIII. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................56
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`P a g e 3 | 58
`
`

`

`CV of Michael Foley, Ph.D.
`Definition of “encryption” from the Techopedia dictionary from
`https://www.techopedia.com/definition/5507/encryption
`
`Definition of “cryptographic” from Academic Press Dictionary of
`Science And Technology 556 (1992) (second edition)
`
`2015 CNSSI Excerpt
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit
`Declaration of Michael Foley, Ph.D.
`
`Short Name
`No.
`2009 Foley
`Declaration
`2010 Foley CV
`2011 Techopedia
`definition for
`encryption
`2012 Science
`Dictionary
`definition of
`cryptographic
`Excerpt from Bruce Schneier, Applied Cryptography: Protocols,
`2013 Schneier
`Algorithms and Source Code in C, 2nd Edition, 1996, pp. 1-2.
`Excerpt
`2014 Stallings Excerpt Excerpt from W. Stallings, "Cryptography And Network
`Security", 2nd, Edition, Chapter 13, IP Security, Jun. 8, 1998, pp.
`399-440.
`Excerpt from CNSSI No. 4009, which is a Committee on
`National Security Systems Glossary
`2016 NISTIR Excerpt Excerpt from NISTIR 7298, Revision 2, entitled “Glossary of
`Key Information Security Terms,” which was published by the
`National Institute of Standards and Technology
`2017 Zigbee Analysis Security Analysis of Zigbee
`2018 Bluetooth v2.1
`Bluetooth v2.1 + EDR Core Specification
`2019 Techopedia
`Definition of “authentication” from the Techopedia dictionary
`definition for
`from
`authentication
`https://www.techopedia.com/definition/342/Authentication
`2020 Techopedia
`Definition of “authentication” from the Techopedia dictionary
`definition for
`from https://www.techopedia.com/ definition/5435/graphical-
`GUI
`user-interface-gui
`‘802 Application U.S. Patent Application No. No. 11/901,802
`2021
`2022 Webster
`Definition of “along with” from the Merriam-Webster
`Definition of
`dictionary: https://www.merriam-
`“along with”
`webster.com/dictionary/along%20with
`2023 Bluetooth BIP
`Bluetooth Basic Imaging Profile, Interoperability Specification,
`Profile
`dated July 30, 2003
`
`
`
`
`
`
`P a g e 4 | 58
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The lead inventor of USP 9,258,698 (“‘698 patent”), Gurvinder Singh, is also the founder
`
`and president of Cellspin Soft, Inc. (“Cellspin” or “Owner”), an innovative company that, for many
`
`years, designed and provided innovative products and services, primarily its own line of social
`
`media, blogging, and advertising services.
`
`Petitioner fails to demonstrate a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1-22 are
`
`unpatentable. Petitioner fails to appreciate the ‘698 patent’s specific approach to, inter alia, media
`
`transfer comprising, inter alia, the use of an already paired wireless connection, wherein
`
`establishing the short- range paired wireless connection comprises the digital camera
`
`cryptographically authenticating identity of the cellular phone, wherein the cellular phone is
`
`configured to use HTTP to upload the received new-media file along with user information to a
`
`user media publishing website, provides a graphical user interface (GUI) for the received new-
`
`media file and to delete the created new media file. None of Petitioner’s references practice or
`
`render obvious the claimed approaches, which of course have other meaningful limitations when
`
`properly considered as a whole.
`
`
`
` Petitioner erroneously implies the ‘698 patent was only allowed due to adding language
`
`requiring the cellular phone to include “a user interface to delete an image file created by the digital
`
`camera.” Petition at 1, 8-9. Petitioner only cites to a single addition even though multiple additions
`
`were made. See Exhibit 1002 at 394. Notably, the two substantial other additions were made in the
`
`same Examiner Amendment.Id.,395-396. Similar edits were made elsewhere in the Examiner’s
`
`Amendment. Petitioner misstates the prosecution history. See Exhibit 1002. Further, Petitioner
`
`merely assumes that the rejections that prompted certain amendments were well-founded, which
`
`is not the case. SeeId.,327-366.
`
`P a g e 5 | 58
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s argument fail to render any claim obvious due to, inter alia, at least five
`
`essential claimed requirements noted in the Summary of Arguments below. Moreover, Petitioner’s
`
`declaration of Dr. Madisetti impermissibly uses hindsight to arrive at alleged obviousness, it fails
`
`to provide a logical nexus between alleged motivations to combine and the specific features being
`
`combined, and it fails to support rendering any of the challenged claims obvious.
`
`Petitioner fails to prove unpatentability of the challenged claims, and Patent Owner
`
`respectfully requests that the Board confirm the validity of claims 1-22.
`
`I.
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.
`
`1.
`
`The references and combination of refences do not disclose many of the teachings
`
`of the ‘698 patent. Indeed, these key points are not shown or rendered obvious any of the prior art
`
`asserted by Petitioner:
`
` Paired wireless connection between a digital camera and a mobile device;
`
` Cryptographic authentication of the mobile device by the camera;
`
` Using HTTP to upload received media file and additional data;
`
` GUI’s in general and specifically not for image deletion on the wirelessly connected
`
`digital camera; and
`
` For claims 5 and 8, a single mobile application performing all the required functions
`(e.g., request, store, HTTP media upload, delete using GUI).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`P a g e 6 | 58
`
`

`

`
`
`III.
`
`SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
`
`The exhibit numbers of the supporting evidence relied upon and the relevance of the
`
`evidence to the challenges raised are provided herein. An Exhibit List identifying the exhibits is
`
`included supra. In support of the proposed grounds, this Petition is accompanied by the declaration
`
`of Michael, Ph.D., an expert in the fields of electrical and computer engineering, with extensive
`
`experience with wireless communications including Buetooth. Ex. 2009.
`
`IV.
`
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`A patent claim is unpatentable as obvious if the differences between the claimed subject
`
`matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the
`
`time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject
`
`matter pertains.
`
`In satisfying its burden of proving obviousness, Petitioner cannot employ mere conclusory
`
`statements. Petitioner must instead articulate specific reasoning, based on evidence of record, to
`
`support the conclusion of obviousness.
`
`In assessing the prior art, one must consider whether a POSITA would have been motivated
`
`to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention. I understand that it can be important to
`
`identify a reason that would have prompted a POSITA in the relevant field to combine the elements
`
`in the way of the claimed invention at the relevant time of the priority date.
`
`A POSITA may consider whether the prior art teaches away from combining elements in
`
`the prior art. Proving obviousness cannot involve hindsight reconstruction. Modifications that
`
`render the prior art unsatisfactory for its intended purpose may not be obvious.
`
`
`
`
`
`P a g e 7 | 58
`
`

`

`
`
`IV.
`
`THE ’698 PATENT
`
`The ’698 patent is directed to certain specific claimed methods and apparatuses comprising
`
`“distribution of multimedia content” and also comprising other claim limitations. Ex. 1001, 1:40–
`
`41: 11:54-16:36. Such methods and apparatuses comprise, among other things, sending or
`
`transferring data from an Internet-incapable capture device to an Internet-capable mobile device
`
`over a previously-established paired wireless connection
`
`through a request/response,
`
`cryptographically authenticating a mobile device identity, and translating captured data into HTTP
`
`format in transit to the publishing web site. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, claim 1.
`
`The ‘698 patent states that, prior to the ‘698 invention, capture methods were crude. Ex.
`
`1003, 1:46–55.
`
`The ‘698 specification describes embodiments comprising digital data capture device 201,
`
`e.g., a digital camera, paired with a physically separate mobile device 202, e.g., a Bluetooth
`
`enabled cellular phone with client application 203. See Ex. 1001, 3:39-46. Figure 2 “illustrates a
`
`system for utilizing a digital data capture device in conjunction with a Bluetooth enabled mobile
`
`device.”Id.,3:14–18. As stated in the specification, Bluetooth “pairing occurs when the BT
`
`communication device 201a agrees to communicate with the mobile device 202 in order to
`
`establish a connection.”Id.,4:1-3. As noted hereinbelow, a POSITA understands that Bluetooth
`
`pairing involves other aspects as well.
`
`In one embodiment, “In order to initiate the pairing process between the BT
`
`communication device 201a and the mobile device 202, a common password known as a passkey
`
`is exchanged between the BT communication device 201a and the mobile device 202.Id.,4:5-7.
`
`In request/response mode, client application 203 on the cellular phone (i.e., mobile device
`
`202) detects the captured image on the digital camera (i.e., digital data capture device 201), and,
`
`P a g e 8 | 58
`
`

`

`over the established, paired Bluetooth connection, initiates transfer of the captured image and
`
`associated files.Id.,Abstract, 2:35-37, 6:36-40, & 8:37-40. Digital data capture device 201
`
`responds by transferring the captured image and associated files to client application 203 on mobile
`
`device 202.Id.,8:40-42.
`
`User information and translation to HTTP are applied in transit and on mobile device 202.
`
`SeeId.,‘794/8:52-55 & 9:61-10:9. The captured data is then transferred via HTTP from client
`
`application 203 of mobile device 202 to publishing service 401 via network 402, including as
`
`illustrated in FIG. 4.Id.,5:9-11 & 8:43-50.
`
`A Bluetooth device that wants to communicate only with a trusted device can
`
`cryptographically authenticate the identity of another Bluetooth device.Id.,3:59-61. In a preferred
`
`embodiment communication is authenticated cryptographically using a passkey.Id.,4:3-7.
`
`The claims of the ’698 patent are broken down in the Foley Declaration. Ex. 2009,¶30. A
`
`diagram showing the inventive way of claim 5 is as follows:
`
`P a g e 9 | 58
`
`

`

`Digital Camera
`short-range
`wireless ~ Device
`capability l.liJ
`
`'698 Claim 5
`Device Claim
`
`Cellular Phone
`short-range
`wireless
`capability
`
`User Media
`Publishing
`Website
`
`....... (cid:141)
`
`A Camera with
`Non-Vo/at/le
`Memory
`+
`Processor
`+
`Short-l'IJnge
`Communication
`device
`+
`Data capture
`circuitry
`
`cryptograph/cally
`authenticating
`Iden tit)/ of the
`cellular phone
`
`Acquiring
`New-Media
`
`Create&
`Store
`New-Media
`File
`
`Receive
`request to
`Transfer the
`New-Media
`File
`
`Send
`Created
`New-Media
`File
`
`Establish a short-range paired wireless connection
`-1,___ ____ __..o-
`
`Cl')'PIOg,aphlrnl/J"_nll,,,m,1cn,,,,g
`
`Mobile
`Software
`Application
`
`Receive & Store
`New-Media File
`
`User Information
`New- edia File
`
`.9.Qoo~
`..... ~
`Use lfTTp 10 ; ;~~ • • • • , • , • , • , • , • , , •
`New.Med/
`,
`••• ., ••••
`lnformat·
`a File + u
`ion ro
`a user rned;a
`Website on o
`Ser
`.
`NON Po/red w· PUbl<shjng
`Connection ire/es, Internet
`
`GUI forNew(cid:173)
`Media File
`
`GUI to Delete
`Created
`New-Media
`File
`
`oetete 1he Cr a_te d
`New-Media File
`
`P a g e 10 | 58
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`V.
`
`THE LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`31.
`
`Petitioner asserts that a POSITA would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in
`
`electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer science, and two years of experience in
`
`the field consumer electronics, with exposure to digital camera technology and wireless
`
`communications. Pet.,17; Ex. 1003¶¶68–70.
`
`32.
`
`Further, in the co-pending ’131 IPR, the Petitioner Panasonic states that a POSITA
`
`would have at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science, or an
`
`equivalent degree, and at least two years of industry experience with software development and/or
`
`electronic system design. More education can supplement relevant experience and vice versa. ‘131
`
`IPR, Pet. 9.
`
`33.
`
`For purposes of institution, the Board determined that a POSITA would have had a
`
`bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science, or an equivalent degree, and two
`
`years of industry experience with software development, electronic system design, digital camera
`
`technology, and/or wireless communications. Institution Decision, 14. Cellspin and Dr. Foley
`
`agree that either the Board’s determination of a POSITA’s qualifications is correct, and that
`
`Panasonic’s formulation of a POSITA’s qualifications is also correct. Ex. 2009,¶33. In this
`
`Response, Cellspin applies the Board’s determination of a POSITA’s qualifications and it has
`
`viewed the relevant matters, including the patent and prior art, from that perspective of a
`
`POSITA.Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`P a g e 11 | 58
`
`

`

`
`
`VI. ANALYSIS
`
`A.
`
`40.
`
`41.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`Petitioner does not propose any constructions.
`
`Cellspin is primarily addressing the proper BRI constructions for “paired,”
`
`“cryptographically authenticating”, “graphical user interface” and “along with,” including
`
`subsidiary and related terms where applicable, from the perspective of a POSITA and in view of
`
`the specification, prior art and relevant knowledge of a POSITA. Ex. 2009,¶41.
`
`Claim 1 is directed a method comprising: “…performing in the digital camera device:
`
`establishing a short-range paired wireless connection between the digital camera device and the
`
`cellular phone, wherein establishing the short-range paired wireless connection comprises, the
`
`digital camera device cryptographically authenticating identity of the cellular phone…” Claim 5
`
`is directed to a “…digital camera device, comprising: … a short-range wireless communication
`
`device configured to control the first processor to establish a short-range paired wireless
`
`connection between the short-range wireless enabled digital camera device and a short-range
`
`wireless enabled cellular phone, wherein establishing the short-range paired wireless connection
`
`comprises, the digital camera device cryptographically authenticating identity of the cellular
`
`phone…” Claim 8 is directed to a system comprising: a digital camera device, comprising: … a
`
`short-range wireless communication device configured to establish a short-range paired wireless
`
`connection with an internet connected cellular phone, wherein establishing the short-range paired
`
`wireless connection comprises, the digital camera device cryptographically authenticating identity
`
`of the cellular phone…” Claim 13 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium
`
`containing machine executable instructions that… cause the processor to perform a method
`
`comprising: acquiring new-media, wherein the new-media is acquired after establishing a short-
`
`P a g e 12 | 58
`
`

`

`range paired wireless connection between the digital camera device and a cellular phone, wherein
`
`establishing the short-range paired wireless connection comprises, the digital camera device
`
`cryptographically authenticating identity of the cellular phone…” Each of these claims thus has
`
`in common, among other things, a “short-range paired wireless connection” and also a clause
`
`stating, “wherein establishing the short-range paired wireless connection comprises, the digital
`
`camera device cryptographically authenticating identity of the cellular phone.”
`
`Figure 1 of the ‘698 patent illustrates a method of utilizing a digital data capture device
`
`201 in conjunction with a physically separate Bluetooth enabled mobile device 202. Ex. 1003,
`
`3:34-41. “The digital data capture device 201 may, for example, be a digital camera, a video
`
`camera, digital modular camera systems, or other digital data capturing systems.”Id.,3:41-44. In
`
`this method,
`
`The BT communication device 201a on the digital data capture device 201 is paired 103
`
`with the mobile device 202 to establish a connection between the digital data capture device 201
`
`and the mobile device 202. BT pairing involves establishing a connection between two BT devices
`
`that mutually agree to communicate with each other. A BT device that wants to communicate only
`
`with a trusted device can cryptographically authenticate the identity of another BT device. BT
`
`pairing occurs when the BT communication device 201a agrees to communicate with the mobile
`
`device 202 in order to establish a connection. In order to initiate the pairing process between the
`
`BT communication device 201a and the mobile device 202, a common password known as a
`
`passkey is exchanged between the BT communication device 201a and the mobile device 202. A
`
`passkey is a code shared by the BT communication device 201a and the mobile device 202.
`
`A user sets a discoverable mode for the mobile device 202. When set to the discoverable
`
`mode, the mobile device 202 will allow the BT communication device 201a on the digital data
`
`capture device 201 to detect the mobile device's 202 presence and attempt to establish a
`
`P a g e 13 | 58
`
`

`

`connection.
`
`As noted in the patent:
`
`BT pairing involves establishing a connection between two BT devices that
`mutually agree to communicate with each other. A BT device that wants to
`communicate only with a trusted device can cryptographically authenticate the
`identity of another BT device. BT pairing occurs when the BT communication
`device 201a agrees to communicate with the mobile device 202 in order to establish
`a connection. In order to initiate the pairing process between the BT communication
`device 201a and the mobile device 202, a common password known as a passkey
`is exchanged between the BT communication device 201a and the mobile device
`202. A passkey is a code shared by the BT communication device 201a and the
`mobile device 202. A user sets a discoverable mode for the mobile device 202…
`the entered passkey is matched with the passkey of the BT communication device
`201a. If a match is found, a trusted pair is automatically established.
`
`Ex. 1003, 3:60-4:25.
`
`
`As noted above, the ‘698 specification states that Bluetooth pairing involves establishing a
`
`connection between two Bluetooth devices that mutually agree to communicate with each other.Id.
`
`4:1-3. Further, the specification states that:
`
`The BT communication device 201a comprises a BT association protocol module
`201b and a data transfer protocol module 201c. The client application 203 on the
`mobile device 202 comprises a BT association protocol module 203a, a data and
`file monitoring and detection module 203b, a data transfer protocol module 203c,
`a data storage module 203d, a graphical user interface (GUI) 203e, and a media
`publishing module 203f. The BT association protocol module 201b of the digital
`data capture device 201and the BT association protocol module 203a of the client
`application 203 enable the pairing between the BT communication device 201a and
`the mobile device 202. The pairing of the BT communication device 201a and the
`mobile device 202is explained in the detailed description of FIG. 1. The data
`capture module 201d captures the data and the multimedia content on the digital
`data capture device 201.
`Id. 6:23-39 (emphasis added).
`
`As noted above, the ‘698 specification states that Bluetooth pairing involves association
`
`and establishing a connection between two Bluetooth devices that mutually agree to communicate
`
`with each other.Id. 4:1-3. To a POSITA, this points out that pairing involves association and an
`
`exchange of credentials to fulfilling the agreement in addition to merely communicating back and
`
`forth. Ex. 2009,¶45.
`
`P a g e 14 | 58
`
`

`

`On this issue the Bluetooth specification includes the following:
`
`
`
`
`
`BLUETOOTH SPECIFICATION Version 2.1 + EDR [vol 1]
`
`page 6 of 96
`
`0 Bluetooth·
`
`4
`
`5
`
`3.5.6 Extended synchronous connection-oriented (eSCO) .... 44
`3.5.7 Active slave broadcast (ASB) .................... .. .... ............. .45
`3.5.8 Parked slave broadcast (PSB) ..................................... 46
`3.5.9 Logical links ............................................................ 47
`3.5.10 User Asynchronous/Isochronous Logical Link (ACL-U) 48
`3.5.11 User Synchronous/Extended Synchronous Logical Links
`(SCO-S/eSCO-S) ........ ................. .......... ...................... 48
`L2CAP Channels ................................................................. 49
`3.6
`Communication Topology ................................................................. 50
`4.1
`Piconet Topology ........... .. ........ ............ ................. .................... 50
`4.2 Operational Procedures and Modes .. ... ....... .. .....
`. ......... 52
`4.2.1
`Inquiry (Discovering) Procedure .... .. ........................... .. 52
`4.2.2 Paging (Connecting) Procedure ................................... 53
`4.2.3 Connected mode ............... .... .......... ........... .................. 53
`4.2.4 Hold mode ...................... .. .................... ....
`. ............ 54
`4.2.5 Sniff mode .............. ................................................... 54
`4.2.6 Parked state .. ................... ........ ..... ............................ ... 55
`4.2.7 Role switch procedure ..... .. ...... .. .................. .. .... ........... 55
`4.2.8 Enhanced Data Rate ....................... ............................. 56
`Secure Simple Pairing Overview ...................................................... 57
`5.1 Security Goals .. .............. ...... ... ..
`. .................................. 57
`5.2 Passive Eavesdropping Protection ......................... ..... ... ......... .. 57
`5.3 Man-In-The-Middle Protection .............. ..................... ............... 58
`5.4
`ssoc1ation odels ................................................ .. .. ........ ....... 59
`5.4.1 Numeric Comparison .............................. .. ................... 59
`5.4.2
`Just Works ........................ .......................... ....... .......... 59
`5.4.3 Out of Band .............................................. .................. 60
`5.4.4 Passkey Entry ............ ... .......................... .. ................. 60
`5.4.5 Association Model Overview ........................................ 61
`
`
`
`and
`
`P a g e 15 | 58
`
`

`

`5.4.5 Association Model Overview
`
`The following diagram shows Secure Simple Pairing from the point of view of
`the technology used for discovery and then the different association possibili(cid:173)
`ties.
`
`Paring Procedure
`S1age
`
`Blue1001h In Bar<!
`
`008
`OiSCOYl!Wy only
`
`008
`Discovery er<!
`Authen11ca110n
`
`Bauetooth lrlormallon dscOYered
`by Bluetoolh lrquory
`
`Bk.letooth lnformat10n exchanged
`voe00B
`
`Bluetoolh CcnnecbOn crealed using
`Page
`
`BluelOOlh Connection creeled using
`Page
`
`8'uelooth Comecbon
`crellled using Page
`
`BD_ADDR lrom00B
`
`BD_ADDR lromOOB
`
`SecLnly
`Eslabllstvnenl
`
`Exchange Public Keys , 10 Cepablllloes , Comp1.ce DHKey
`
`Secure , Aulhenllc:eted , Simple PaiTig
`
`Figure 5.1: Secure Simple Pairing Association Models
`
`
`
`Ex. 2018, 80, 135. As noted above, the Bluetooth specification refers to a passkey as being one of
`
`the association models. Ex. 2009,¶46.
`
`To a POSITA, in the context of the ‘698 patent and in other contexts as well, the BRI of a
`
`“paired connection” is a “bidirectional communications link between devices which provides
`
`encrypted data exchange between the devices, and the communication link can be
`
`disconnected and reconnected without having to repeat pairing or authentication.” Ex. 2009,
`
`46. 47. This is consistent with how paired connections were defined while creating the Bluetooth
`
`specifications as well as other technologies, such as Zigbee, which have implemented the paired
`
`connection concept.Id. To a POSITA under BRI, pairing is the steps taken which result in a
`
`paired connection.Id.
`
`P a g e 16 | 58
`
`

`

`
`To a POSITA, in the context of the ‘698 patent but in other contexts as well, the BRI of a
`
`paired connection must be distinguished from mere authentication and from other methods
`
`of communications that involve exchanges of credentials but not pairing.Id.,¶48.
`
`For purposes of determining whether to institute this proceeding, the Board determined
`
`that “cryptographically authenticating identity of the cellular phone” encompasses “authenticating
`
`the identity of the cellular phone using some form of security or encryption, including by use of a
`
`shared passkey on the digital camera device and the cellular phone.” Here the Board essentially
`
`agreed with Panasonic’s proposed construction from the ‘131 IPR, except that the Board, like
`
`Panasonic’s expert Dr. Strawn, did not include the word “secrecy.”
`
`To a POSITA, in the context of the ‘698 patent but in other contexts as well, “encryption
`
`is the process of using an algorithm to transform information to make it unreadable for
`
`unauthorized users.” Ex. 2009,¶50. See https://www.techopedia.com/definition/5507/encryption,
`
`Ex. 2011. “This cryptographic method protects sensitive data such as credit card numbers by
`
`encoding and transforming information into unreadable cipher text. This encoded data may only
`
`be decrypted or made readable with a key.”Id. In the ’131 IPR, Panasonic cited its Ex. 1012, the
`
`McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Computing & Communications, 2003 at 3, as defining “cryptography”
`
`as “The science of preparing messages in a form which cannot be read by those not privy to the
`
`secrets of the form”. To a POSITA, the way in which messages cannot be read by those not privy
`
`to the secrets of the form is by the use of an algorithm to encode the data. See Academic Press
`
`Dictionary of Science And Technology 556 (1992) (second edition) (Ex. 2012). See also Bruce
`
`Schneier, Applied Cryptography: Protocols, Algorithms and Source Code in C, 2nd Edition, 1996,
`
`pp. 1-2 (“The process of disguising a message in such a way as to hide its substance is encryption.
`
`An encrypted message is ciphertext. The process of turning ciphertext back into plaintext is
`
`P a g e 17 | 58
`
`

`

`decryption.”) (Ex. 2013) ; W. Stallings, "Cryptography And Network Security", 2nd, Edition,
`
`Chapter 13, IP Security, Jun. 8, 1998, pp. 399-440 (“A cryptographic algorithm, also called a
`
`cipher, is the mathematical function used for encryption and decryption.”) (Ex. 2014); CNSSI
`
`4009-2015 (NSA/CSS Manual Number 3-16 (COMSEC)) (cryptography is the “Art or science
`
`concerning the principles, means, and methods for rendering plain information unintelligible and
`
`for restoring encrypted information to intelligible form.) (Ex. 2015) . Further, the National
`
`Institute of Standards and Technology defines “cryptographic algorithm” as “[a] well-defined
`
`computational procedure that takes variable inputs, including a cryptographic key, and produces
`
`an output.” Ex. 2016. Further, the cryptographic mechanism in ZigBee, another well-known
`
`means of short-range wireless communication, is “based on symmetric-key cryptography.” Ex.
`
`2017, p.3. See also cases cited in para. 51 of the Foley Declaration, which have claim constructions
`
`consistent with the BRI of cryptographic in the context of the ‘698 patent. Ex. 2009, ¶51.
`
`To a POSITA, cryptography converts data into a format that is unreadable for an
`
`unauthorized user, allowing it to be transmitted without unauthorized entities decoding it back into
`
`a readable format, thus compromising the data. Ex. 2009,¶52.
`
`Thus, To a POSITA, in the context of the ‘698 patent but also in other contexts, the BRI
`
`of “cryptographica