UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA et al.,
`Petitioner
`
`vs.
`
`CELLSPIN SOFT, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00131
`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 Panasonic Corporation of North America et al. (“Petitioner” or “Panasonic”) for
`
`Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) be denied, including because Petitioner fails to establish a reasonable
`
`likelihood that it would prevail on any claim.
`
`
`Dated: January 30, 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: 832-715-1092
`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 ...............................................................................................5
`III. SUPPORTING EVIDENCE .....................................................................................................6
`IV. LEGAL PRINCIPLES ..............................................................................................................6
`IV. THE ’698 PATENT ..................................................................................................................7
`V. THE LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .............................................................11
`VI. ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................................10
`A. Claim Construction ...........................................................................................................10
`B. Claim Construction Summary ..........................................................................................23
`C. Prior Art Relied Upon by Petitioner ..................................................................................24
`1. Mashita ..........................................................................................................................24
`a. Mashita’s local wireless link termination issue ........................................................27
`b. Mashita teaches away from a cellular phone using HTTP .......................................32
`2. Onishi ............................................................................................................................33
`3. Hiraishi ..........................................................................................................................34
`D. Non-obviousness of Claims 1, 3–5, 7, 8, 10–13, and 15–20 over Mashita, Onishi,
`and Hiraishi ............................................................................................................................35
`1. “Limitation C” – No paired Connection .......................................................................40
`2. “Limitation C” – No Cryptographic Authentication .....................................................40
`3. “Limitation D” – No Established Paired Connection ...................................................42
`4. “Limitation G” – No Data Transfer Request .................................................................42
`5. “Limitation H – No Established Paired Connection ......................................................43
`6. “Limitation J” – No HTTP Upload of New-Media ......................................................44
`7. “Limitation K” – No GUI Deletion of New-Media File ...............................................46
`7. N73 ................................................................................................................................49
`8. Z520A ...........................................................................................................................49
`E. Response to Dr. Strawn’s Overview of the State of the Art and the Knowledge
` of a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ..........................................................................50
`F. Lack of Motivation to Combine Mashita, Onishi and Hiraishi .........................................51
`G. Claim 5 and Claim 8 – No Single Application Performing Steps ....................................52
`H. Claim 6 – Mobile Application Performing All Steps Lacking .........................................54
`I. Conclusions regarding independent claims 1, 5, 8, and 13 ................................................54
`J. Dependent Claims 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 ......................................55
`VII. THIS PROCEEDING AND ANY INVALIDITY RULINGS BASED THEREON
`ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, INCLUDING UNDER THE FIFTH AND
`FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS .........................................................................................56
`VIII. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................57
`
`P a g e 3 | 58
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit
`Declaration of Michael Foley, Ph.D.
`
`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
`
`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 “graphical user interface” from the Techopedia
`definition for
`dictionary from https://www.techopedia.com/
`GUI
`definition/5435/graphical-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 prove by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10,
`
`11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 are unpatentable. Petitioner’s argument fails to render any
`
`claim obvious due to, inter alia, at least six essential claimed requirements noted in the Summary
`
`of Arguments below. Moreover, Petitioner’s declaration of Dr. Strawn 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.
`
`I.
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.
`
`The references and combination of refences do not disclose many of the teachings of the
`
`‘698 patent. Without limitation, these key points are not shown or rendered obvious any of the
`
`prior art asserted by Petitioner:
`
` Paired wireless connection between a camera and a mobile device;
`
` Cyrtographic authentication of the mobile device by the camera;
`
` Mashita teaches away from a cellular phone using HTTP;
`
` Combining Mashita with Hirashi would not work;
`
` 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 5 | 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 Foley, Ph.D., an expert in the fields of electrical and computer engineering, with
`
`extensive experience with wireless communications including Buetooth. Ex. 2009.
`
`III.
`
`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. 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 a combination. Proving obviousness
`
`cannot involve hindsight reconstruction. Modifications that render the prior art unsatisfactory for
`
`its intended purpose may not be obvious.
`
`IV.
`
`THE ’698 PATENT
`
`The application for ‘698 patent is a continuation of application no. 12/333,303, filed on
`
`P a g e 6 | 58
`
`

`

`December 11, 2008, and it claims priority to provisional application No. 61/017,202, filed on
`
`December 28,2007. For purposes of this declaration and analysis, Cellspin assumes (as did
`
`Petitioner) that the claims of the ‘698 patent are entitled to a priority date of December 28, 2007.
`
`Ex. 2009,¶21.
`
`The ‘698 patent states that, prior to the ‘698 invention, capture methods were crude. Ex.
`
`1003,1:46–55. As for the invention, 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.
`
`As stated in the specification, “[a] passkey is a code shared by the Bluetooth
`
`communication device 201a and the mobile device 202.”Id.,4:7-8.
`
`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,
`
`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.
`
`P a g e 7 | 58
`
`

`

`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 the passkey noted
`
`above.Id.,4:3-7.
`
`2.
`
`‘698 Claims
`
`30.
`
`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 8 | 58
`
`

`

`Digital Camera
`
`short-range
`'Q1 Device
`wireless
`capability lJblJ
`
`'698 Claim 5
`Device Claim
`
`Cellular Phone
`short-range
`wireles5
`capability
`
`User Media
`Publishing
`Website
`
`....... (cid:141)
`
`A Camera with
`Non-Volatile
`Memory
`+
`Processor
`+
`Short-range
`Commum'catlon
`device
`+
`Data capture
`circuitry
`
`cryptographlcally
`authen tlcating
`Identity a/ the
`cellular phone
`
`Acquiring
`New-Media
`
`Create &
`Store
`New-Media
`File
`
`Receive
`requestto
`Transfer the
`New-Media
`File
`
`Send
`Created
`New-Media
`File
`
`Establish a short-range paired wireless connection
`
`'----____ _____,,Ir•
`
`r,:iptograp/lirnllJ•_t1111/lt llllrnti11g
`
`nitiate transfer of the
`Request to I Media file
`NeW·
`
`Mobile
`Software
`Application
`
`Receive & Store
`New-Media File
`
`User Information
`New-Media File
`
`.QQoor--r---.
`·····~
`
`•••·•••• ...
`Use HTT
`P to send N
`....... .
`Information t
`ew-Med/a F'/
`....... • ..
`, e + User
`o a user media
`Website on a
`NON Paired w· PUbl,shfng
`Connection lreless Internet
`
`GUI forNew(cid:173)
`Media File
`
`GUI to Delete
`Created
`New-Media
`File
`
`P a g e 9 | 58
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`V.
`
`THE LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`The Petitioner states that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time 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. Pet. 9; Ex.
`
`1001,¶24. For purposes of institution, the Board determined that a POSITA would have had a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art 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, 15. Cellspin agrees 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. Cellspin agrees 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,¶32. In this Response, Cellspin applies the Board’s determination of a POSITA’s
`
`qualifications.Id.
`
`VI. ANALYSIS
`
`A.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`Petitioner proposes that the above-noted “wherein” clause be construed under BRI as:
`
`“wherein as part of establishing the short-range paired wireless connection between the digital
`
`camera device and the cellular phone, the digital camera authenticates the identity of the cellular
`
`phone using some form of secrecy, security, or encryption, including by use of a shared passkey
`
`on the digital camera device and the cellular phone.” Id. 11. However, the construction proposed
`
`by Petitioner’s expert Dr. Strawn is not the same. The difference is that Dr. Strawn does not agree
`
`P a g e 10 | 58
`
`

`

`with Panasonic that “some form of secrecy” is sufficient. Ex. 1001, 38, 39.
`
`Petitioner argues its proposed construction “is consistent with the ordinary meaning of the
`
`words ‘cryptographically authenticating’ to those skilled in the art.” Pet. 11–12 (citing Ex. 1012
`
`(McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Computing & Communications, 2003) (defining “cryptography” as
`
`“[t]he science of preparing messages in a form which cannot be read by those not privy to the
`
`secrets of the form”); Ex. 1013 (Wiley Electrical and Electronics Engineering Dictionary, 2004),
`
`(defining “authentication” as “In computers and communications, the processes of verifying the
`
`legitimacy of a transmission, user, or system. Measures such as passwords and digital signatures
`
`are employed.”)
`
`Cellspin
`
`is primarily addressing
`
`the proper BRI constructions
`
`for “paired,”
`
`“cryptographically authenticating” and “graphical user interface,” 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,¶40.
`
`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. 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.
`P a g e 11 | 58
`
`

`

`
`Ex. 1003, 3:60-4:25.
`
`Thus, Bluetooth pairing involves (among other things) 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).
`
`
`Thus, 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.
`
`On this issue the Bluetooth specification includes the following:
`
`
`
`
`
`P a g e 12 | 58
`
`

`

`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
`Pico net 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
`Passive Eavesdropping Protection ............................................ 57
`5 .2
`5.3 Man-In-The-Middle Protection ................................................... 58
`5 .4
`ssoc1ation ode ls ................................................................... 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 13 | 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. 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 14 | 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.,¶47.
`
`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 15 | 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 “cryptographically authenticated” is authenticated using a process that involves
`
`encryption and decryption using an algorithm. Ex. 2009,¶53. The BRI of “authenticated” is
`
`addressed below.
`
`As apparently acknowledged by the Board and Dr. Strawn, to a POSITA, the BRI of
`
`“cryptographically” should not include secrecy. To a POSITA, secrecy does not equate with the
`
`BRI of cryptographically. For example, a PIN may be kept secret, but PINs, by themselves, are
`
`not cryptographic. Ex. 2009,¶54.
`
`As noted above, for purposes of determining whether or not to institute, the Board
`
`P a g e 16 | 58
`
`

`

`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.” To a
`
`POSITA, this is problematic and incorrect in multiple respects. Ex. 2009,¶55.
`
`First, this construction allows a “form of security” to suffice for encryption, even though
`
`the claim limitation is “cryptographically authenticating…” If the Board is using security as a
`
`synonym for encryption, i.e., that a secure connection would require cryptographic techniques, this
`
`would not be problematic. Ex. 2009,¶55. However, the use of “security or encryption” suggests
`
`that “security” is something different than encryption.Id.
`
`Further, defining “cryptographic authenticating” as “authenticating… using some form of
`
`… encryption…” appears circular because it merely defines “cryptographic” as using
`
`“encryption.”Id.,¶57. As noted above, the BRI of “encryption” is “the process of using an
`
`algorithm to transform information to make it unreadable for unauthorized users and the
`
`BRI of “cryptography” is the “science of preparing messages in a form which cannot be read
`
`by those not privy to the secrets of the form.”Id.
`
`Further, a POSITA understands that the mere use of a shared passkey is not sufficient to
`
`achieve encryption or to cryptographically authenticate. Ex. 2009,¶58.The devices must still use a
`
`cryptographic algorithm typically taking the passkey as an input along with other inputs,
`
`potentially using a hash function on those inputs and keys to encrypt a challenge/response
`
`algorithm amongst the two devices.Id. Only after the algorithm is executed on each device and the
`
`proper responses are received after the challenges are issued can the devices be considered
`
`authenticated.Id. After authentication, encryption keys can be generated or exchanged and used
`
`for encryption.Id. The encryption keys can then be stored on each device and used in future
`
`communication sessions without the need to repeat the authentication process.Id. This complete
`
`P a g e 17 | 58
`
`

`

`process, along with the storing of encryption keys for further communication sessions results in
`
`the two devices being paired.Id. If one of the devices deletes the encryption key, the devices
`
`become unpaired and the entire process described here needs to be repeated in order to pair the
`
`devices again.Id. (citing Bluetooth v2.1 + EDR Core Specification, Section 7.2.3 and Section 5.2.2,
`
`p 1273-1287, Ex. 2018).
`
`Petitioner asserts that the ’698 patent “makes clear that ‘various security, encryption and
`
`compression techniques’ can be used ‘to enhance the overall user experience.’” Petition, 1