Paper No. ____
`Filed: November 2, 2018
`Filed on behalf of: Visa Inc. and Visa U.S.A. Inc.
`By: Matthew A. Argenti (margenti@wsgr.com)
`Michael T. Rosato (mrosato@wsgr.com)
`
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`650 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________________
`
`VISA INC. and VISA U.S.A. INC.,
`Petitioners,
` v.
`UNIVERSAL SECURE REGISTRY, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`_____________________________
`
`Case IPR2019-00174
`Patent No. 9,530,137 B2
`_____________________________
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF CLAIMS 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9 AND 12
`
`

`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 2
`Real Party-In-Interest ............................................................................ 2
`A.
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 3
`B.
`Counsel .................................................................................................. 4
`C.
`Service Information ............................................................................... 5
`D.
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL .................................................................... 5
`IV. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING .................................. 6
`V. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED .................... 6
`Prior Art Patents and Publications ........................................................ 7
`A.
`Ex-1113 – Jakobsson .................................................................. 7
`1.
`Ex-1114 – Maritzen .................................................................... 8
`2.
`Ex-1115 - Schutzer...................................................................... 8
`3.
`Ex-1117 – Niwa .......................................................................... 9
`4.
`Grounds for Challenge ........................................................................ 10
`B.
`VI. LEGAL PRINCIPLES ................................................................................... 11
`VII. BACKGROUND OF THE ’137 PATENT ................................................... 11
`Priority ................................................................................................. 11
`A.
`Brief Description of the ’137 Patent Disclosure ................................. 12
`B.
`Prosecution History ............................................................................. 13
`C.
`VIII. PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS ................................................... 16
`Biometric Information (All Challenged Claims) ................................ 16
`A.
`Secret Information ............................................................................... 19
`B.
`Authentication Information ................................................................. 20
`C.
`IX. CLAIMS 1, 2, AND 5-12 OF THE ’137 PATENT ARE
`UNPATENTABLE UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 .............................................. 22
`i
`
`

`

`
`X.
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 12 are Obvious Over
`Jakobsson in View of Maritzen ........................................................... 22
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................. 22
`1.
`Dependent Claim 2 ................................................................... 44
`2.
`Dependent Claim 6 ................................................................... 46
`3.
`Dependent Claim 7 ................................................................... 48
`4.
`Dependent Claim 9 ................................................................... 49
`5.
`Independent Claim 12 ............................................................... 50
`6.
`Ground 2: Claim 5 is Obvious over Jakobsson in View of
`B.
`Maritzen and Niwa .............................................................................. 52
`Dependent Claim 5 ................................................................... 52
`1.
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 64
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`Page(s)
`CASES
`In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.,
`496 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ..................................................................... 16
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007)....................................................................................... 11
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ...................................................................................................... 3, 4
`35 U.S.C. § 102 .......................................................................................................... 4
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ..................................................................................................... 9
`35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 102(e) ............................................................................. 7, 8
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .................................................................................. 4, 10, 11, 14, 22
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ................................................................................................... 11
`35 U.S.C. § 112(b) ................................................................................................... 14
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ................................................................................................... 11
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b) ..................................................................................................... 6
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c) ..................................................................................................... 6
`Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011) ............................................................................................................. 11
`REGULATIONS
`37 C.F.R. § 1.102(e) ................................................................................................. 13
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ................................................................................................ 2
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3)-(4) ........................................................................................ 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22 ....................................................................................................... 6
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b)(1)-(2) .......................................................... 7
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 16
`37 C.F.R. § 42.101(a), and (2) ................................................................................... 6
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.101(a)-(c) ......................................................................................... 6
`37 C.F.R. § 42.101(b) ................................................................................................ 6
`iii
`
`

`

`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.101(c) ................................................................................................. 6
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 6
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) ................................................................................................ 6
`77 Fed. Reg. 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012) ....................................................................... 16
`iv
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012) ....................................................................... 16
`
`37 CPR. § 42.101(c) ................................................................................................. 6
`
`37 CPR. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 6
`
`37 CPR. § 42.122(b) ................................................................................................ 6
`
`iV
`
`

`

`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`The ’137 patent is generally directed toward systems for authenticating a
`user and approving a transaction. The patent owner, Universal Secure Registry,
`LLC (“USR”), has described the claimed invention similarly, asserting that the
`’137 patent relates to a mobile transaction approval system that involves local
`authentication, remote authentication, a PIN, biometric information, and a time-
`varying code. See Plaintiff’s Answer Brief in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to
`Dismiss (“Opp.”), 10 (Ex-1118) (“A person wishing to use a device for a
`transaction must first be authenticated by the device based on secret information
`and biometric information provided by the person... The device then generates
`authentication information, an indicator of the device’s biometric authentication of
`the user, and a time varying value that creates a one-time variable token that can be
`sent via a merchant to a second device for transaction approval.”).
`When the application for the ’137 patent was filed, however, the use of local
`and remote authentication, PINs, biometric information, and time-varying codes to
`authenticate a user engaged in a financial transaction was well known in the art. In
`fact, the prior art is replete with disclosures of systems that perform user
`authentication in this manner. For example, prior art reference WO 2004/051585
`(“Jakobsson”) (Ex-1113) discloses a handheld device configured to locally
`authenticate a user based on a PIN and biometric information and to send an
`1
`
`

`

`
`authentication code based on a time-varying code to a second device, which is
`configured to conduct a remote authentication of the user.
`Thus, as further explained in this Petition, the systems and methods claimed
`in the ’137 patent were known in the art or obvious at the time the ’137 patent was
`filed. This petition is filed with a motion for joinder with IPR2018-00809, in
`which Apple Inc. (“Apple”) filed a petition on April 4, 2018 requesting
`cancellation of the challenged claims of the ’137 patent. The Board instituted trial
`in IPR2018-00809 on October 9, 2018. Here, Visa proposes the same grounds of
`unpatentability as instituted in IPR2018-00809 and relies on the same analysis and
`evidence.1
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Party-In-Interest
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), Petitioner certifies that Visa Inc. and
`Visa U.S.A. Inc. (together, “Visa” or “Petitioner”) are the real party-in-interest.
`
`1 Apple’s petition in IPR2018-00809 challenged additional claims beyond those
`addressed herein. USR subsequently filed a disclaimer for claims 8, 10, and 11
`and the Board accordingly found those claims not a part of the proceeding. Visa
`omits the disclaimed claims from this petition.
`2
`
`

`

`
`B. Related Matters
`The ’137 patent is owned by Universal Secure Registry, LLC (“USR” or
`“Patent Owner”). On May 21, 2017, USR sued Apple and Visa in the District of
`Delaware, asserting four patents, including the ’137 patent, against Apple’s Apple
`Pay functionality in conjunction with Visa’s Visa Token Service. 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 and Visa filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to
`State a Claim, asserting that the claims of the ’137 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. The magistrate judge issued a report and
`recommendation to deny the motion to dismiss. Apple and Visa’s objections to the
`report and recommendation are pending.
`In addition to the Motion to Dismiss, Apple has filed the following petitions
`for CBM/IPR:
`3
`
`

`

`
`Statutory Grounds
`Asserted Patent
`CBM/IPR
`35 U.S.C. § 101
`CBM2018-00022
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`IPR2018-00808
`U.S. 9,530,137
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`IPR2018-00809
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`IPR2018-00810
`U.S. 9,100,826
`35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103
`IPR2018-00813
`35 U.S.C. § 101
`CBM2018-00023
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`IPR2018-00811
`U.S. 8,856,539
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`IPR2018-00812
`35 U.S.C. § 101
`CBM2018-00024
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`CBM2018-00025
`U.S. 8,577,813
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`CBM2018-00026
`Additionally, Visa has filed the following petitions for IPR:
`CBM/IPR
`Asserted Patent
`Statutory Grounds
`IPR2018-01350
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`U.S. 8,856,539
`IPR2018-01351
`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
`4
`
`

`

`
`Counsel: Matthew A. Argenti (Reg. No. 61,836), Backup Counsel: Michael T.
`Rosato (Reg. No. 52,182).
`D.
`Service Information
`margenti@wsgr.com,
`E-mail:
`
`mrosato@wsgr.com.
`
`
`
`Post and hand delivery: WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI PC
`650 Page Mill Road,
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
`
`
`
`
`Tel.: 650-493-9300
`Fax: 650-493-6811
`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 ’137 patent was effectively filed,
`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
`5
`
`

`

`
`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., ¶¶35-37.
`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), and (2) is not estopped
`from challenging the claims on the grounds identified in this Petition, 37 C.F.R. §
`42.101(c). Further, the time limit of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) (“1 year after ... the
`petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent”) and 37
`C.F.R. § 42.101(b) (same) does not apply here because Visa has moved for joinder,
`pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.22, to IPR2018-00809 within one month of institution
`in that proceeding on October 9, 2018. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(c); 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.122(b).
`V. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`Pursuant to Rules 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b)(1)-(2), Visa Inc. and Visa
`U.S.A. Inc. (together, “Visa” or “Petitioner”) challenge claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9 and
`6
`
`

`

`
`122 of U.S. Patent No. 9,530,137 (“the ’137 patent”) and requests that they be
`canceled. A.
`Prior Art Patents and Publications
`The following references are pertinent to the grounds of unpatentability as
`explained below:
`Ex-1113 – Jakobsson
`1.
`International Patent Application Publication No. WO 2004/051585
`(“Jakobsson”) (Ex-1113), 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
`’137 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 ’137
`patent. Like the ’137 patent, Jakobsson relates to a transaction approval system that
`involves a local authentication (using “user authentication device 120”), a remote
`authentication (using an authentication server “verifier 105”), a PIN, biometric
`information, and a time-varying code. Ex-1113, Jakobsson, [0013]; [0052]; [0059].
`
`2 Patent Owner disclaimed claims 8, 10, and 11. Ex. 2003, 1. Accordingly,
`Petitioner treats claims 8, 10, and 11 as if they never existed and does not
`challenge those claims.
`7
`
`

`

`
`Ex-1114 – Maritzen
`2.
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0236632 (“Maritzen”) (Ex-
`1114), which was filed on December 6, 2001 and published on November 25,
`2004, more than one year before the earliest possible priority date of the ’137
`patent. Maritzen accordingly qualifies as prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §§
`102(b) and 102(e). Maritzen was not considered during prosecution of the ’137
`patent. Like the ’137 patent, Maritzen relates to an authentication device (“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-1114, Maritzen, Abstract;
`[0039]; [0047]. 3.
`Ex-1115 - Schutzer
`European Patent Application Publication No. EP 1028401 (“Schutzer”) (Ex-
`1115), which was filed on February 10, 2000 and published on August 16, 2000,
`more than one year before the earliest possible priority date of the ’137 patent.
`Schutzer accordingly qualifies as prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and
`102(e). Schutzer was not considered during the prosecution of the ’137 patent.
`Like the ’137 patent, Schutzer is directed toward a secure financial transaction
`system that includes a user device (“user’s computing device 10”) and a secure
`8
`
`

`

`
`database configured to authenticate the user (“issuing bank server 14”). Ex-1115,
`Schutzer, Abstract; Fig. 1.
`4.
`Ex-1117 – Niwa
`U.S. Patent No. 6,453,301 (“Niwa”) (Ex-1117) issued on September 17,
`2002, more than one year before the earliest possible priority date of the ’137
`patent. Niwa accordingly qualifies as prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`Niwa was filed on February 23, 2000 as U.S. Patent Application No. 09/510,811
`(“Niwa Application”) (Ex-1116), which is expressly incorporated by reference in
`Maritzen (Ex-1114). See Ex-1114, Maritzen, [0043] (“In one embodiment, privacy
`card 110 is a biometric control. A suitable biometric control device that may be
`used is described in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/610,8113 [sic] entitled
`
`3 Petitioner submits that Maritzen erroneously cites Application No.
`09/610,811, which is entitled “Method for Indexing and Searching Moving Picture
`Using Motion Activity Description Method,” and that Maritzen intended, instead,
`to cite Application No. 09/510,811, whose title (“Method of Using Personal
`Device With Internal Biometric In Conducting Transactions Over A Network”)
`matches that cited by Maritzen. A POSITA would have recognized that
`Application No. 09/610,811 entitled “Method for Indexing and Searching Moving
`Picture Using Motion Activity Description Method” is unrelated to biometric
`control devices. Ex-1102, Shoup Decl., ¶¶51-52.
`9
`
`

`

`
`“Method of Using Personal Device With Internal Biometric In Conducting
`Transactions Over A Network”, which is herein incorporated by reference.”).4
`Niwa was not considered during the prosecution of the ’137 patent. Like the
`’137 patent, Niwa is directed toward a secure financial transaction system that
`includes a user device (“fingerprint identification device 50”) and a central server
`configured to authenticate the user (“processing unit 22”). Ex-1117, Niwa,
`Abstract; Fig. 1.
`B. Grounds for Challenge
`Petitioner requests cancellation of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 12 of the ’137
`patent as unpatentable under 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).
`
`4 The Niwa Application and Maritzen are also commonly assigned to Sony
`Corporation. The Niwa Application was cited in Maritzen in December 2001,
`before the Niwa Application became publicly available in September 2002, thus
`further suggesting that Maritzen intended to cite the Niwa Application because
`only their common assignee (Sony) would have been aware of the Niwa
`Application.
`10
`
`

`

`
`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. § 103. A
`claim is invalid if it would have been “obvious.” See 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The key
`inquiry to determine obviousness is whether an “improvement is more than the
`predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.” KSR
`Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415, 417, 420-21 (2007).
`VII. BACKGROUND OF THE ’137 PATENT
`A.
`Priority
`Entitled “Universal Secure Registry,” the ’137 patent issued on December
`27, 2016 from an application filed on February 9, 2016. The ’137 patent is a
`continuation of U.S. Application No. 14/814,740, which was filed on July 31, 2015
`(published as U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 20160155121A1 (Ex-1104)), and is part of a long
`line of continuation applications including U.S. Application No. 14/027,860 (now
`Pat. No. 9,100,826), U.S. Application No. 13/621,609 (now Pat. No. 8,538,881),
`U.S. Application No. 13/168,556 (now Pat. No. 8,271,397), and U.S. Application
`No. 11/677,490 (now Pat. No. 8,001,055). The patent also claims priority to three
`provisional applications: Application Nos. 60/775,046 (Ex-1121), 60/812,279 (Ex-
`1122), and 60/859,235 (Ex-1123), the earliest of which was filed on February 21,
`2006 and the latest of which was filed on November 15, 2006.
`11
`
`

`

`
`B.
`Brief Description of the ’137 Patent Disclosure
`The ’137 patent describes a secure database called a “Universal Secure
`Registry,” which is “a universal identification system...used to selectively provide
`information about a person to authorized users.” Ex-1101, ’137 patent, 4:8-11. The
`patent states that the USR database is designed to “take the place of multiple
`conventional forms of identification” when conducting financial transactions to
`minimize the incidence of fraud. E.g., Ex-1101, ’137 patent, 4:23-25. The patent
`states that various forms of information can be stored in the database to verify a
`user’s identity and prevent fraud: (1) algorithmically generated codes, such as a
`time-varying multicharacter code or an “uncounterfeitable token,” (2) “secret
`information” like a PIN or password, and/or (3) a user’s “biometric information,”
`such as fingerprints, voice prints, an iris or facial scan, DNA analysis, or a
`photograph. See Ex-1101, ’137 patent, 14:1-7, 14:21-40, 44:54-61, Fig 3. Ex-1102,
`Shoup-Decl., ¶24.
`In its complaint against Apple and Visa, USR identified ’137 patent claim 12
`as exemplary of the patent’s other claims. Ex-1103, Universal Secure Registry,
`LLC v. Apple Inc. et al., No. 17-585-VAC-MPT (D. Del.), ECF No. 1, Complaint,
`¶106. Claim 12 is a “system for authenticating a user for enabling a transaction.”
`Ex-1101, ’137 patent, 46:55-56. The claimed system comprises a first device
`including a biometric sensor, a first processor, and a wireless transceiver. The first
`12
`
`

`

`
`processor is programmed to (1) authenticate a user based on secret information, (2)
`retrieve or receive biometric information from a user, (3) authenticate a user based
`on that biometric information, (4) in response to the biometric authentication,
`generate signals including first authentication information, an indicator of
`biometric authentication, and a time-varying value, (5) transmit the signals to a
`second device, and (6) receive from the second device an enablement signal. Id.,
`46:55-47:14. Ex-1102, Shoup-Decl., ¶25.
`C.
`Prosecution History
`The ’137 patent was filed as U.S. Application No. 15/019,660 (“’137
`application”) on February 9, 2016 and claims priority back to the three original
`provisional applications from 2006, the earliest of which was filed on February 21,
`2006 and the latest of which was filed on November 15, 2006. The patent owner
`filed a Request for Prioritized Examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.102(e) with the
`application on February 9, 2016. See Ex-1105, Track One Request.
`The examiner granted the Request for Prioritized Examination under Track
`One on March 22, 2016. See Ex-1106, Track One Request Granted. The examiner
`issued a Non-Final Rejection on April 15, 2016. See Ex-1107, Non-Final
`Rejection. The examiner rejected claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) for
`indefiniteness based on the structure of the claims. Id., 4-5.
`13
`
`

`

`
`The examiner also rejected claims 1-2 and 5-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
`obvious over U.S. Patent App. Pub. 2002/0178364 (“Weiss”) in view of U.S.
`Patent No. 6,819,219 (“Bolle”), explaining that Weiss “does not directly disclose a
`wireless transceiver and wireless signal; and a biometric sensor configured to
`capture a first biometric information of the user,” but it would have been obvious
`“to modify Weiss’ invention by incorporating the wireless technology as taught by
`Bolle.” Id., 6-14.
`The examiner also rejected claims under the non-statutory doctrine of double
`patenting. Id., 15. The examiner rejected application claims 1 and 12 as double
`patenting of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 8,001,055 (“Weiss ‘055”) and rejected
`application claims 1-12 as double patenting of claims 21-40 of co-pending U.S.
`App. No. 14/814,740. Id.
`Patent Owner filed a Terminal Disclaimer Request on July 15, 2016. See Ex-
`1108, Terminal Disclaimer-Filed. The request limited the term of the ’137
`application to both U.S. App. No. 14/814,740 and U.S. Patent No. 8,001,055
`(“Weiss ‘055”). Id.
`Patent Owner responded to the Non-Final Office Action on July 15, 2016.
`See Ex-1109, Response to Non-Final Rejection. Patent Owner amended application
`claims 1-4, 6-7, and 10-12 explaining that the amendments to application claim 1
`were made “to make it clear that both the first device and the second device are
`14
`
`

`

`
`being positively recited,” and therefore traverse the indefiniteness rejection under §
`112. Id., 7. Patent Owner also “incorporated the common subject matter of
`dependent claims 3-4 into independent claim 1.” Id. Patent Owner indicated that
`application claim 12 recited the same limitations as application claim 1 and should
`be allowable for the same reason. Id., 8.
`The examiner issued a Notice of Allowance on August 10, 2016. See Ex-
`1110, Notice of Allowance. The examiner did not provide specific reasoning for
`why the claims were allowable over the prior art. Id., 4.
`Patent Owner filed an Amendment after the Notice of Allowance on
`November 10, 2016. See Ex-1111, Amendment After Notice of Allowance. Patent
`Owner amended application claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 10, and 12 to remove the “handheld”
`device limitation.
`The examiner entered the proposed amendments on November 18, 2016. See
`Ex-1112, Response to Amendment under Rule 312. The ’137 patent subsequently
`issued on December 27, 2016.
`15
`
`

`

`
`VIII. PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS
`A claim in inter partes review is given the “broadest reasonable construction
`in light of the specification.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)5; In re ICON Health & Fitness,
`Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`The following discussion describes the proposed construction in the
`IPR2018-00809 petition 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 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 (All Challenged Claims)
`Petitioner in IPR2018-00809 proposed that under a broadest reasonable
`interpretation, “biometric information” as used in the ’137 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., ¶40.
`
`5 Petitioner adopts this standard and reserves the right to pursue different
`constructions in a district court, where a different standard applies.
`16
`
`

`

`
`This construction is supported by the specification, which describes
`biometric information using substantially identical language.6 Ex-1101, ’137
`patent, 4:40-47 (“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 of
`identifying the person possessing the device.”); 3:4-5 (“integral biometric sensors
`that sense one or more biometric feature (e.g., a fingerprint) of the user”); 14:6-7
`
`6 The ’137 patent specification includes one passage that describes a “personal
`identification number (PIN)” as an example of biometric information. Ex-1101,
`’137 Patent, 14:57-60. 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 distinct from a PIN. For example, the
`specification elsewhere distinguishes PIN numbers from biometric information.
`Ex-1101, ’137 Patent, 4:40-45 (“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 possessing the device”). Furthermore, a POSITA would not have
`considered a PIN to be biometric information because it is unrelated to any
`physical characteristic of the user.
`17
`
`

`

`
`(“a measurement such as a biometric (e.g., a voiceprint, a fingerprint, DNA, a
`retinal image, a photograph, etc.”). 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-1119, 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-1120, Microsoft Computer Dictionary, 50. Ex-1102,
`Shoup-Decl., ¶41.
`In its institution decision, the Board found no need to construe the term
`“biometric information.”
`18
`
`

`

`
`Secret Information
`B.
`Petitioner in IPR2018-00809 proposed that under a broadest reasonable
`interpretation, “secret information” as used in the ’137 patent means “information
`known and input by an authorized user, such as a PIN, a phrase, a password, or a
`passcode of the user.” Ex-1102, Shoup-Decl., ¶42.
`This construction is consistent with the specification and claims. For
`example, the specification describes secret information as “known by the user” that
`may comprise “a pin, a phrase, a password, etc.” Ex-1101, ’137 patent, 14:1-7,
`44:54-61. The secret information is part of the claimed authentication process. See,
`e.g., id., claim 12 (“a first processor programmed to: 1) authenticate a user of the
`first device based on secret information...”). Moreover, the secret information is
`input by a user via the user interface as