`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 IPR2019-00175
` Patent No. 9,100,826 B2
`_____________________________
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF CLAIMS 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, 30, 31, AND 34
`
`

`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 3
`Real Party-in-Interest ............................................................................ 3
`A.
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 3
`B.
`Counsel .................................................................................................. 5
`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 .................... 7
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications ............................................ 7
`A.
`Ex-1004 – Maritzen .................................................................... 7
`1.
`Ex-1005 – Jakobsson .................................................................. 7
`2.
`Ex-1007 – Niwa .......................................................................... 8
`3.
`Grounds for Challenge ........................................................................ 10
`B.
`VI. LEGAL PRINCIPLES ................................................................................... 10
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE ’826 PATENT .......................................................... 10
`Priority ................................................................................................. 10
`A.
`Brief Description of the ’826 Patent Disclosure ................................. 11
`B.
`Prosecution History ............................................................................. 12
`C.
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 13
`Biometric Information ......................................................................... 13
`A.
`Authentication Information ................................................................. 15
`B.
`IX. OVERVIEW OF PRIMARY PRIOR ART REFERENCE
`MARITZEN ................................................................................................... 16
`X.
`SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION ...................................................... 19
`Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, 30, 31, and
`A.
`34 Are Obvious in View of Maritzen, Jakobsson, and Niwa .............. 19
`i
`
`

`

`
`1.
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................. 19
`2.
`Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 51
`3.
`Claim 7 ...................................................................................... 54
`4.
`Claim 8 ...................................................................................... 56
`5.
`Independent Claim 10 ............................................................... 58
`6.
`Claim 11 .................................................................................... 60
`7.
`Claim 14 .................................................................................... 60
`8.
`Claim 15 .................................................................................... 60
`9.
`Independent Claim 21 ............................................................... 61
`10. Claim 22 .................................................................................... 67
`11. Claim 24 .................................................................................... 68
`12. Claim 26 .................................................................................... 71
`13. Claim 27 .................................................................................... 71
`Independent Claim 30 ............................................................... 74
`14.
`15. Claim 31 .................................................................................... 76
`16. Claim 34 .................................................................................... 77
`XI. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 77
`ii
`
`

`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`Page(s)
`CASES
`In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.,
`496 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ..................................................................... 13
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007)....................................................................................... 10
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ...................................................................................................... 3, 4
`35 U.S.C. § 102 .......................................................................................................... 4
`35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 102(e) ............................................................................. 7, 8
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .................................................................................................... 4, 10
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ................................................................................................... 10
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ................................................................................................... 10
`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) ............................................................................................................. 10
`REGULATIONS
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ................................................................................................ 3
`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) .............................................................................................. 13
`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
`37 C.F.R. § 42.101(c) ................................................................................................. 6
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 6
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) ................................................................................................ 6
`iii
`
`

`

`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012) ....................................................................... 13
`iv
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012) ....................................................................... 13
`
`1V
`
`

`

`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`The ’826 patent is generally directed to systems and methods for
`authenticating users based on biometric information. The patent owner, Universal
`Secure Registry, LLC (“USR”), has described the claimed invention similarly,
`asserting that the ’826 patent relates to “an improved distributed authentication
`system that authenticates a user's identity at a handheld device using local
`biometric information, and also remotely authenticates at a second device based on
`authentication information (e.g., a variable one-time token) determined from the
`user's biometric information.” Plaintiff’s Answering Brief in Opposition to
`Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (“Opp.”), 13 (Ex-1009). USR identifies two
`“critical” claim elements: “(1) gathering biometric information while locally
`authenticating the user, preventing unauthorized use of the device; and (2)
`requiring additional remote user authentication by a second device, based on both
`authentication information (e.g., one-time variable token) received from the first
`device, and second authentication information.” Opp, 15.
`When the application for the ’826 patent was filed, however, authentication
`of a user’s identity based on (1) a local biometric authentication, and (2) a remote
`user authentication, based on a one-time variable token and a second authentication
`information, were well known in the art. In fact, the prior art is replete with
`disclosures of systems and methods that perform user authentication in this
`1
`
`
`

`

`manner. For example, prior art reference U.S. 2004/0236632 (“Maritzen”) (Ex-
`1004) discloses a handheld device configured to authenticate a user based on
`biometric information and to transmit an algorithmically generated transaction key
`to a clearing house server for authentication based on authentication information
`stored at the clearing house server. Prior art reference WO 2004/051585
`(“Jakobsson”) (Ex-1005) discloses a handheld device configured to gather
`biometric information and locally authenticate a user to prevent unauthorized use
`of the device, and a second device configured to conduct an additional remote user
`authentication based on authentication information (e.g., a one-time variable token)
`received from the first device, and second authentication information.
`Thus, as further explained in this Petition, the systems and methods claimed
`in the ’826 patent were known in the art or obvious at the time the ’826 patent was
`filed. This petition is filed with a motion for joinder with IPR2018-00810, in
`which Apple Inc. (“Apple”) filed a petition on April 3, 2018 requesting
`cancellation of the challenged claims of the ’137 patent. The Board instituted trial
`in IPR2018-00810 on October 9, 2018. Here, Visa proposes the same grounds of
`unpatentability as instituted in IPR2018-00810 and relies on the same analysis and
`evidence.
`2
`
`
`

`

`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.
`B. Related Matters
`The ’826 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 ’826 patent, against Apple’s Apple
`Pay functionality in conjunction with Visa’s Visa Token Service. See Ex-1003,
`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 ’826 patent are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 101 because they are directed to the abstract idea of verifying an
`account holder’s identity based on codes and/or information related to the account
`holder before enabling a transaction. 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
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`C. Counsel
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3)-(4), Petitioner identifies the following
`lead and backup counsel, to whom all correspondence should be directed.
`Lead Counsel: 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
`Telephone: 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 ’826 patent was effectively filed,
`would have a Bachelor’s Degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a
`5
`
`
`

`

`related scientific field, and approximately two years of work experience in the
`computer science field including, for example, operating systems, database
`management, encryption, security algorithms, and secure transaction systems,
`though additional education can substitute for less work experience and vice versa.
`See Ex-1002, Shoup-Decl., ¶¶21-23.
`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).
`6
`
`
`

`

`V. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`Pursuant to Rules 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b)(1)-(2), Petitioner challenges
`claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, 30, 31, and 34 of U.S. Patent
`No. 9,100,826 (“’826 patent”) and requests that they be canceled.
`A. Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications
`The following references are pertinent to the grounds of unpatentability as
`explained below:
`1. Ex-1004 – Maritzen
` U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0236632 (“Maritzen”) (Ex-
`1004), 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 ’826
`patent. Maritzen accordingly qualifies as prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §§
`102(b) and 102(e). Maritzen was not considered during the prosecution of the ’826
`patent. Like the ’826 patent, Maritzen relates to a handheld authentication device
`(“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-1004, Maritzen, Abstract;
`[0039]; [0047].
`2. Ex-1005 – Jakobsson
` International Patent Application Publication No. WO 2004/051585
`(“Jakobsson”) (Ex-1005), which was filed on November 26, 2003 and published on
`7
`
`
`

`

`June 17, 2004, more than one year before the earliest possible priority date of the
`’826 patent. Jakobsson accordingly qualifies as prior art under at least 35 U.S.C.
`§§ 102(b) and 102(e). Jakobsson was not considered during prosecution of the
`’826 patent. Like the ’826 patent, Jakobsson relates to a portable authentication
`device (“user authentication device 120”) configured to authenticate a user based
`on biometric information. Ex-1005, Jakobsson, [0013]. Also like the ’826 patent,
`Jakobsson’s system includes a secure database (“verifier 105”) that uses stored
`biometric information to verify a user’s identity.
`3. Ex-1007 – Niwa
` U.S. Patent No. 6,453,301 (“Niwa”) (Ex-1007) issued on September 17,
`2002 more than one year before the earliest possible priority date of the ’826
`patent. Niwa accordingly qualifies as prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b)
`and 102(e). Niwa was filed on February 23, 2000 as U.S. Patent Application No.
`09/510,811 (“Niwa Application”) (Ex-1006), which is expressly incorporated by
`reference in Maritzen (Ex-1004). See Ex-1004, 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.
`09/610,8111 [sic] entitled “Method of Using Personal Device With Internal
`
`1 Petitioner submits that Maritzen erroneously cites Application No. 09/610,811,
`which is entitled “Method for Indexing and Searching Moving Picture Using
`8
`
`
`

`

`Biometric In Conducting Transactions Over A Network”, which is herein
`incorporated by reference.”).2
`Niwa was not considered during the prosecution of the ’826 patent. Like the
`’826 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-1007, Niwa,
`Abstract; Fig. 1.
`
`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 the title
`cited by Maritzen at [0043]. 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-1002, Shoup-Decl., ¶¶42-43.
`2 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 (Application No. 09/510,811).
`9
`
`
`

`

`B. Grounds for Challenge
`Petitioner requests cancellation of claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 21, 22,
`24, 26, 27, 30, 31, and 34 of the ’826 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §
`103. This Petition, supported by the declaration of Dr. Shoup (Ex-1002) filed
`herewith, demonstrates that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will
`prevail with respect to cancellation of at least one of the challenged claims. See 35
`U.S.C. § 314(a).
`VI. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`The challenged patent was filed prior to the effective date of the Leahy-
`Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011), and
`therefore should be analyzed for patentability under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 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. OVERVIEW OF THE ’826 PATENT
`A. Priority
`The ’826 patent issued on August 4, 2015 from an application filed on
`September 16, 2013. The ’826 patent is a continuation of U.S. Application No.
`13/621,609 (now Patent No. 8,538, 881), which is part of a long line of continuation
`applications including U.S. Application No. 13/168,556 (now Patent No.
`10
`
`
`

`

`8,271,397) and U.S. Application No. 11/677,490 (now Patent No. 8,001,055). The
`’826 patent also claims priority to three provisional applications: No. 60/775,046,
`filed on February 21, 2006 (Ex-1012), No. 60/812,279, filed on June 9, 2006 (Ex-
`1013), and No. 60/859,235 filed on November 15, 2006 (Ex-1014).
`B. Brief Description of the ’826 Patent Disclosure
`The ’826 patent describes systems and methods for authenticating a user
`using biometric information, authentication information that is based on the
`biometric information, a handheld device (a “first device”) configured to scan the
`biometric information, and a database server (a “second device”) that receives the
`authentication information. Ex-1001, ’826 patent, Abstract (“the invention
`provides a system for authenticating identities of a plurality of users. In one
`embodiment, the system includes a first handheld device including a wireless
`transceiver which is configured to transmit authentication information, a second
`device including a wireless receiver, where the second device is configured to
`receive the authentication information.”); 4:27-32 (“The identity of the user
`possessing the identifying device may be verified at the point of use via...biometric
`identification such as a fingerprint, voice print, signature, iris or facial scan, or
`DNA analysis, or any other method.”).
`The ’826 patent acknowledges that embedded processors coupled to
`biometric sensors were known in the art, but nonetheless claims that there is a
`11
`
`
`

`

`“need for an identification system that will enable a person to be accurately
`identified” and “a need for an identification system that will enable a person to be
`identified universally without requiring the person to carry multiple forms of
`identification.” Ex-1001, ’826 patent, 2:57-62 (“devices have seen technological
`advances that increase their capabilities and improve their security. For example,
`such devices may now include embedded processors, integral biometric sensors
`that sense one or more biometric feature (e.g., a fingerprint) of the user, and
`magnetic stripe emulators.”); 3:55-62. It suggests solutions to this alleged need
`including: “a smart ID card, or ...a cell phone, pager, wrist watch, computer,
`personal digital assistant such as a Palm PilotTM, key fob, or other commonly
`available electronic device.” ’826 patent, 4:23-27; see also id., 14:5-7 (“the user of
`the database will carry a SecurIDTM card available from RSA Security, formerly
`Security Dynamics Technologies, Inc., of Cambridge Mass.”).
`C. Prosecution History
`The ’826 patent was filed as U.S. Application No. 14/027,860 (the ’826
`application) on September 16, 2013. A Notice of Allowance was issued on March
`18, 2015 after the Applicant filed a terminal disclaimer in response to a double
`patenting rejection over parent patent U.S. Patent No. 8,538,881. See Ex-1008,
`Notice of Allowance.
`12
`
`
`

`

`The Examiner, however, did not receive or consider prior art references
`Maritzen (Ex-1004), Jakobsson (Ex-1005), and Niwa (Ex-1007), which render
`obvious each of the claims challenged in this Petition.
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A claim in inter partes review is given the “broadest reasonable construction
`in light of the specification.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)3; In re ICON Health & Fitness,
`Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`The following discussion describes the proposed construction in the
`IPR2018-00810 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
`Petitioner in IPR2018-00810 proposed that under the broadest reasonable
`interpretation claim construction standard, “biometric information” as used in the
`
`3 Petitioner adopts this standard and reserves the right to pursue different
`constructions in a district court, where a different standard applies.
`13
`
`
`

`

`’826 patent means “information about a user’s physical characteristics, such as
`fingerprint, voice print, signature, iris or facial scan, DNA analysis, or personal
`photograph.” Ex-1002, Shoup-Decl., ¶32. This construction is supported by the
`specification, which describes biometric information using substantially identical
`language.4 Ex-1001, ’826 patent, 4:27-32 (“The identity of the user possessing the
`identifying device may be verified at the point of use via any combination of a
`
`4 The ’826 patent specification includes one passage that describes a “personal
`identification number (PIN)” as an example of biometric information. Ex-1001,
`’826 patent at 14:39-42. That passage is inconsistent with other statements in the
`intrinsic record that describe biometric information as information that relates to a
`user’s physical characteristics and is distinct from a PIN. For example, the
`specification elsewhere distinguishes PIN numbers from biometric information.
`Ex-1001, ’826 patent at 13:53-58 (“the information may include any of a secret
`known by the user (e.g., a pin, a phrase, a password, etc.), a token possessed by the
`user that is difficult to counterfeit (e.g., a secure discrete microchip), and/or a
`measurement such as a biometric (e.g., a voiceprint, a fingerprint, DNA, a retinal
`image, a photograph, etc.)”); 4:27-32; 28:13-17 (distinguishing keypads for PIN
`entry and scanners for scanning biometric information); 28:60-65; 29:65-30:3.
`Furthermore, a POSITA would not have considered a PIN to be biometric
`information because it is unrelated to any physical characteristic of the user.
`14
`
`
`

`

`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”). 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-1010, 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-1011, Microsoft Computer Dictionary, 50. Ex-1002,
`Shoup-Decl., ¶33.
`In its institution decision, the Board found no need to construe the term
`“biometric information.”
`B. Authentication Information
`Petitioner in IPR2018-00810 proposed that under the broadest reasonable
`interpretation claim construction standard, “authentication information” as used in
`the ’826 patent means “information used by the system to verify the identity of an
`15
`
`
`

`

`individual.” For example, authentication information can include a PIN, passcode,
`or biometric information. Ex-1001, ’826 patent, 4:27-34 (“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”). Ex-1002, Shoup-
`Decl., ¶34. This construction is consistent with the plain meaning of the term and the
`patent specification. The patent uses the terms “verification,” “identification,” and
`“authentication” interchangeably. Ex-1001, ’826 patent, 3:55-59 (“There is thus a
`need for an identification system that will enable a person to be accurately
`identified (‘identification’ sometimes being used hereinafter to mean either
`identified or verified) and/or authenticated without compromising security, to gain
`access to secure systems and/or areas.”). See Ex-1002, Shoup-Decl., ¶35.
`In its institution decision, the Board found no need to construe the term
`“authentication information.”
`IX. OVERVIEW OF PRIMARY PRIOR ART REFERENCE MARITZEN
`Like the ’826 patent, Maritzen is directed toward an electronic user
`authentication system that involves a handheld device configured to receive
`biometric information from a user and transmit authentication information to a
`16
`
`
`

`

`secure database that verifies the user’s identity based on the authentication
`information. See Ex-1004, Maritzen, [0029] (“A system and method for
`conducting a financial transaction are described. In one embodiment,
`communication is established between a vehicle-accessed, payment-gateway
`terminal (VAPGT) and a pre-registered, key-enabled, personal transaction device
`(PTD). The PTD is accessed using a biometric control and a transaction request is
`transmitted to a server. Further, a transaction authorization message is received
`from the server to complete the transaction in real time between the user and the
`VAPGT provider. In this embodiment, the funds are uniquely identified with the
`owner of the PTD and, thus, if the PTD is stolen, the funds cannot be used by
`another user.”); see also id., Figs. 1 and 11. See Ex-1002, Shoup-Decl., ¶36
`As discussed further in this Petition, Maritzen in view of Jakobsson and
`Niwa discloses the systems and methods of independent claims 1, 10, 21, and 30.
`For example, Maritzen discloses a financial transaction system that utilizes a
`personal transaction device 100 (PTD) [a first device] that wirelessly
`communicates with a clearing house 130 [a second device]. Ex-1004, Maritzen,
`[0038] (“Referring to FIG. 1, a personal transaction device (PTD) 100
`communicates via communication link 150 with a vehicle-accessed, payment-
`gateway terminal (VAPGT) 120 to conduct a financial transaction.”); [0040]
`(“VAPGT 120 and clearing house 130 may be connected via a wireless
`17
`
`
`

`

`communication link such as, for example, a mobile telecommunications link, a
`radio communications link, an infrared link, a satellite link, a wireless WAN link,
`or the like.”). See Ex-1002, Shoup-Decl., ¶37.
`The PTD [first device] determines a “biometric key” [first authentication
`information] from the user’s biometric information. See Ex-1004, Maritzen,
`[0039] (“PTD 100 and privacy card 110 may be within the same device”); [0044]
`(“if the biometric input is valid for the device, privacy card 110 creates a biometric
`key that is transmitted to PTD 100. If privacy card 110 is within PTD 100,
`validation of the biometric information may be conducted by PTD 100.”). The
`PTD [first device] transmits th