`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 IPR2019-00176
` 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-1104 – Jakobsson .................................................................. 7
`1.
`Ex-1105 – Maritzen .................................................................... 8
`2.
`Ex-1106 – Gullman ..................................................................... 8
`3.
`Ex-1107 – Verbauwhede ............................................................. 9
`4.
`Grounds for Challenge .......................................................................... 9
`B.
`VI. LEGAL PRINCIPLES ..................................................................................... 9
`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
`JAKOBSSON ................................................................................................ 16
`X.
`SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION ...................................................... 20
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1, 2, 10, 11, 21, 22, 24, 27, 30, and 31 are
`Anticipated by Jakobsson .................................................................... 20
`-i-
`
`

`

`
`1.
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................. 20
`2.
`Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 38
`3.
`Independent Claim 10 ............................................................... 41
`4.
`Claim 11 .................................................................................... 42
`5.
`Independent Claim 21 ............................................................... 43
`6.
`Claim 22 .................................................................................... 48
`7.
`Claim 24 .................................................................................... 48
`8.
`Claim 27 .................................................................................... 52
`9.
`Independent Claim 30 ............................................................... 53
`10. Claim 31 .................................................................................... 56
`B.
`Ground 2: Claims 7, 14, 26, and 34 are Obvious in View of
`Jakobsson, Verbauwhede, and Maritzen ............................................. 56
`Claim 7 ...................................................................................... 56
`1.
`Reasons to Combine Jakobsson, Verbauwhede, and Maritzen 61
`2.
`Claim 14 .................................................................................... 67
`3.
`Claim 26 .................................................................................... 68
`4.
`Claim 34 .................................................................................... 68
`5.
`C.
`Ground 3: Claims 8 and 15 are Obvious in View of Jakobsson
`and Gullman ........................................................................................ 68
`Claim 8 ...................................................................................... 68
`1.
`Claim 15 .................................................................................... 75
`2.
`XI. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 76
`
`-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
`Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California,
`814 F.2d 628 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ....................................................................... 10
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ...................................................................................................... 3, 4
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ................................................................................................ 4, 9, 10
`35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 102(e) ......................................................................... 7, 8, 9
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ...................................................................................................... 4, 9
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ................................................................................................... 10
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ..................................................................................................... 9
`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) ............................................................................................................... 9
`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) ................................................................................................. 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
`-iii-
`
`

`

`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 6
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) ................................................................................................ 6
`77 Fed. Reg. 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012) ....................................................................... 13
` 37 CPR. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 6
`-iv-
`
`37 CPR. § 42.122(b) ................................................................................................ 6
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012) ....................................................................... 13
`
`-iv-
`
`

`

`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`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 Answer Brief in Opposition to
`Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (“Opp.”), 13 (Ex-1109). USR identifies two
`“critical” claim elements: “(1) gathering biometric information while locally
`authenticating the user, preventing unauthorized use of the device; and (2)
`requiring additional remote user authentication by a second device, based on both
`authentication information (e.g., one-time variable token) received from the first
`device, and second authentication information.” Opp., 15.
`When the ’826 patent was filed, however, authentication of a user’s identity
`based on (1) a local biometric authentication, and (2) a remote user authentication,
`based on a one-time variable token and a second authentication information, were
`well known in the art. In fact, the prior art is replete with disclosures of systems
`and methods that perform user authentication in this manner. For example, prior
`1
`
`

`

`
`art reference WO 2004/051585 (“Jakobsson”) (Ex-1104) discloses a handheld
`device configured to gather biometric information and locally authenticate a user to
`prevent unauthorized use of the device, and a second device configured to conduct
`an additional remote user authentication based on authentication information (e.g.,
`a one-time variable token) received from the first device, and second
`authentication information. Dependent claims of the ’826 patent recite additional
`limitations that are disclosed by Jakobsson and prior art references U.S. Patent
`Application Publication No. 2004/0236632 (“Maritzen”) (Ex-1105), U.S. Patent
`No. 5,280,527 (“Gullman”) (Ex-1106), and International Patent Application
`Publication No. WO 2005/001751 (“Verbauwhede”) (Ex-1107).
`Thus, as further explained in this Petition, the systems and methods claimed
`in the ’826 patent were known in the art or obvious at the time the ’826 patent was
`filed. This petition is filed with a motion for joinder with IPR2018-00813, 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 IPR2018-00813 on October 9, 2018. Here, Visa proposes the same grounds of
`unpatentability as instituted in IPR2018-00813 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-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, inter alia, that the asserted claims of the ’826
`patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they are directed to the
`abstract idea of “verifying an account holder’s identity based on codes and/or
`information related to the account holder before enabling a transaction.” That
`motion remains pending.
`In addition to the Motion to Dismiss, Apple 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,
`5
`
`

`

`
`would have a Bachelor’s Degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a
`related scientific field, and approximately two years of work experience in the
`computer science field including, for example, operating systems, database
`management, encryption, security algorithms, and secure transaction systems,
`though additional education can substitute for less work experience and vice versa.
`See Ex-1102, Shoup-Decl., ¶¶26-28.
`IV. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioner certifies pursuant to Rule 42.104(a) that the patent for which
`review is sought is available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not
`barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review challenging the patent
`claims on the grounds identified in this Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.101(a-c).
`Petitioner certifies that it (1) has not filed a civil action challenging the
`validity of a claim of the patent, 37 C.F.R. § 42.101(a), 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.
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications
`A.
`The following references are pertinent to the grounds of unpatentability as
`explained below:
`1.
`Ex-1104 – Jakobsson
`International Patent Application Publication No. WO 2004/051585
`(“Jakobsson”) (Ex-1104), which was filed on November 26, 2003 and published on
`June 17, 2004, more than one year before the earliest possible priority date of the
`’826 patent. Jakobsson accordingly qualifies as prior art under at least 35 U.S.C.
`§§ 102(b) and 102(e). Jakobsson was not considered during prosecution of the
`’826 patent. Like the ’826 patent, Jakobsson relates to a portable authentication
`device (“user authentication device 120”) configured to authenticate a user based
`on biometric information. Ex-1104, Jakobsson, [0040]. Also like the ’826 patent,
`Jakobsson’s system includes secure database (“verifier 105”) that uses stored
`biometric information to verify a user’s identity. Id., [0048].
`7
`
`

`

`
`Ex-1105 – Maritzen
`2.
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0236632 (“Maritzen”) (Ex-
`1105), which was filed on December 6, 2001 and published on November 25,
`2004, more than one year before the earliest claimed possible date of the ’826
`patent. Maritzen accordingly qualifies as prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §§
`102(b) and 102(e). Maritzen was not considered during the prosecution of the ’826
`patent. Like the ’826 patent, Maritzen relates to a handheld authentication device
`(“personal transaction device (PTD) 100”) configured to authenticate a user based
`on biometric information and a second device (“clearing house 130”) configured to
`authenticate a user based on biometric information. Ex-1105, Maritzen Abstract;
`[0039]; [0047]; Fig. 1.
`3.
`Ex-1106 – Gullman
`U.S. Patent No. 5,280,527 (“Gullman”) (Ex-1106), which was filed on April
`14, 1992 and published on January 18, 1994, more than one year before the earliest
`possible priority date of the ’826 patent. Gullman accordingly qualifies as prior art
`under at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 102(e). Gullman was not considered during
`the prosecution of the ’826 patent. Like the ’826 patent, Gullman is directed to a
`user authentication device (“biometric security apparatus 14”) and a remote user
`authentication device (“host system 10”) configured to authenticate a user based on
`biometric information. Ex-1106, Gullman, Abstract; [0013]; [0021]; Fig. 1.
`8
`
`

`

`
`Ex-1107 – Verbauwhede
`4.
`International Patent Application Publication No. WO 2005/001751
`(“Verbauwhede”) (Ex-1107), which was filed on June 2, 2004 and published on
`January 6, 2005, more than one year before the earliest possible priority date of the
`’826 patent. Verbauwhede accordingly qualifies as prior art under at least 35
`U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 102(e). Verbauwhede was not considered during the
`prosecution of the ’826 patent. Like the ’826 patent, Verbauwhede is directed to a
`handheld authentication device (“thumbpod 200”) and a remote user authentication
`device (“authentication server 310”) configured to authenticate a user based on
`biometric information. Ex-1107, Verbauwhede, [0010]; [0021]; [0043]; Fig. 4.
`B. Grounds for Challenge
`Petitioner requests cancellation of claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 21, 22,
`24, 26, 27, 30, 31, and 34 of the ’826 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102
`and/or 35 U.S.C. § 103. This Petition, supported by the declaration of Dr. Shoup
`(Ex-1102) filed herewith, demonstrates that there is a reasonable likelihood that
`Petitioner will prevail with respect to cancellation of at least one of the challenged
`claims. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`VI. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`The challenged patent was filed prior to the effective date of the Leahy-
`Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011), and
`9
`
`

`

`
`therefore should be analyzed for patentability under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102,
`103. A claim is invalid if it would have been “anticipated” or “obvious.” See 35
`U.S.C. §§ 102, 103(a). A claim is anticipated if “each and every element as set
`forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single
`prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628,
`631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). The key inquiry to determine obviousness is whether an
`“improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to
`their established functions.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415,
`417, 420-21 (2007).
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE ’826 PATENT
`A.
`Priority
`The ’826 patent issued on August 4, 2015 from an application filed on
`September 16, 2013. The ’826 patent is a continuation of U.S. Application No.
`13/621,609 (now Patent No. 8,538, 881), which is part of a long line of
`continuation applications including U.S. Application No. 13/168,556 (now Patent
`No. 8,271,397) and U.S. Application No. 11/677,490 (now Patent No. 8,001,055).
`The patent also claims priority to three provisional applications: No. 60/775,046,
`filed on February 21, 2006 (Ex-1112), No. 60/812,279, filed on June 9, 2006 (Ex-
`1113), and No. 60/859,235, filed on November 15, 2006 (Ex-1114).
`10
`
`

`

`
`B.
`Brief Description of the ’826 Patent Disclosure
`The ’826 patent describes systems and methods for authenticating a user
`using biometric information, authentication information that is based on the
`biometric information, a handheld device (a “first handheld device”) configured to
`scan the biometric information, and a database server (a “second device”) that
`receives the authentication information. Ex-1101, ’826 patent, Abstract (“the
`invention provides a system for authenticating identities of a plurality of users. In
`one embodiment, the system includes a first handheld device including a wireless
`transceiver which is configured to transmit authentication information, a second
`device including a wireless receiver, where the second device is configured to
`receive the authentication information.”); 4:27-32 (“The identity of the user
`possessing the identifying device may be verified at the point of use via ...
`biometric identification such as a fingerprint, voice print, signature, iris or facial
`scan, or DNA analysis, or any other method.”).
`The ’826 patent acknowledges that embedded processors coupled to
`biometric sensors were known in the art, but nonetheless claims that there is a
`“need for an identification system that will enable a person to be accurately
`identified” and “a need for an identification system that will enable a person to be
`identified universally without requiring the person to carry multiple forms of
`identification.” Ex-1101, ’826 patent, 2:57-62 (“devices have seen technological
`11
`
`

`

`
`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, 4:24-27; see also id., 14:5-7 (“the user of
`the database will carry a SecurIDTM card available from RSA Security, formerly
`Security Dynamics Technologies, Inc., of Cambridge Mass.”).
`C.
`Prosecution History
`The ’826 patent was filed as U.S. Application No. 14/027,860 (“’826
`application”) on September 16, 2013. A Notice of Allowance was issued on
`March 18, 2015 after the Applicant filed a terminal disclaimer in response to a
`double patenting rejection over parent patent U.S. Patent No. 8,538,881. See Ex-
`1108, ’826 Patent File History, 03/18/2015 Notice of Allowance and Fees Due.
`The Examiner, however, did not receive or consider prior art references
`Jakobsson (Ex-1104), Maritzen (Ex-1105), Gullman (Ex-1106), and Verbauwhede
`(Ex-1107), which anticipate or render obvious all claims challenged in this
`Petition.
`12
`
`

`

`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A claim in inter partes review is given the “broadest reasonable construction
`in light of the specification.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)1; In re ICON Health &
`Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`The following discussion 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 IPR2018-00813 proposed that under the broadest reasonable
`interpretation claim construction standard, “biometric information” as used in the
`’826 patent means “information about a user’s physical characteristics, such as
`
`1 Petitioner adopts this standard and reserves the right to pursue different
`constructions in a district court, where a different standard applies.
`13
`
`

`

`
`fingerprint, voice print, signature, iris or facial scan, DNA analysis, or personal
`photograph. Ex-1102, Shoup-Decl., ¶37.
`This construction is supported by the specification, which describes
`biometric information using substantially identical language.2 Ex-1101, ’826
`patent, 4:27-32 (“The identity of the user possessing the identifying device may be
`
`2 The ’826 patent specification includes one passage that describes a “personal
`identification number (PIN)” as an example of biometric information. Ex-1101,
`’826 patent at 14:39-42. That passage is inconsistent with other statements in the
`intrinsic record that describe biometric information as information that relates to a
`user’s physical characteristics and is distinct from a PIN. For example, the
`specification elsewhere distinguishes PIN numbers from biometric information.
`Ex-1101, ’826 patent at 13:53-58 (“the information may include any of a secret
`known by the user (e.g., a pin, a phrase, a password, etc.), a token possessed by the
`user that is difficult to counterfeit (e.g., a secure discrete microchip), and/or a
`measurement such as a biometric (e.g., a voiceprint, a fingerprint, DNA, a retinal
`image, a photograph, etc.)”); 4:27-32; 28:13-17 (distinguishing keypads for PIN
`entry and scanners for scanning biometric information); 28:60-65; 29:65-30:3.
`Furthermore, a POSITA would not have considered a PIN to be biometric
`information because it is unrelated to any physical characteristic of the user.
`14
`
`

`

`
`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”). Consistent with the use of the biometric information in
`the specification, Webster’s Dictionary defines biometric authentication as “[a]
`method of authentication that requires a biological scan of some sort, such as a
`retinal scan or voice recognition.” Ex-1110, Webster’s Dictionary, 65. Similarly,
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary defines biometrics as “the science of measuring
`and analyzing human biological characteristics. In computer technology,
`biometrics relates to authentication and security techniques that rely on
`measurable, individual biological stamps to recognize or verify an individual's
`identity. For example, fingerprints, handprints, or voice-recognition might be used
`to enable access to a computer, to a room, or to an electronic commerce account.
`Ex-1111, Microsoft Computer Dictionary, 50. Ex-1102, Shoup-Decl., ¶38.
`In its institution decision, the Board found no need to construe the term
`“biometric information.”
`B. Authentication Information
`Petitioner in IPR2018-00813 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-1101, ’826 patent, 4:27-32 (“The identity of the user
`possessing the identifying device may be verified at the point of use via any
`combination of a memorized PIN number or code, biometric identification such as
`a fingerprint, voice print, signature, iris or facial scan, or DNA analysis, or any
`other method of identifying the person possessing the device”). Ex-1102, Shoup-
`Decl., ¶39. This construction is consistent with the plain meaning of the term and the
`patent specification. The patent uses the terms “verification,” “identification,” and
`“authentication” interchangeably. Ex-1101, ’826 patent, 3:55-59 (“There is thus a
`need for an identification system that will enable a person to be accurately
`identified (“identification” sometimes being used hereinafter to mean either
`identified or verified) and/or authenticated without compromising security, to gain
`access to secure systems and/or areas.”). See Ex-1102, Shoup-Decl., ¶40.
`In its institution decision, the Board found no need to construe the term
`“authentication information.”
`IX. OVERVIEW OF PRIMARY PRIOR ART REFERENCE JAKOBSSON
`Like the ’826 patent, Jakobsson is directed toward an electronic user
`authentication system that involves a handheld device configured to receive
`biometric information from a user and transmit authentication information to a
`16
`
`

`

`
`secure database that verifies the user’s identity based on the authentication
`information. Ex-1104, Jakobsson, [0013] (“a user or a device on behalf of the
`user, algorithmically computes an authentication code based on both a dynamic
`variable (e.g., that changes over time) and a secret associated with the user or the
`device. The generated authentication code is non-predictable to an observer, but is
`verifiable by a verifier. The authentication code can also depend, in part, on any
`other information, for example, on one or more of a PIN, a password, and data
`derived from a biometric observation, or information associated with the user, the
`authentication device, or the verifier.”); [0040] (“the user 110 provides, via the
`user interface 130, identifying information (such as a user identifier, PIN, or
`password, or a biometric characteristic such as a fingerprint, retina pattern, or voice
`sample)”); [0038] (“the verifier 105 is implemented as software running on a
`server class computer ... to enable authentication of a large number of users”). Ex-
`1102, Shoup-Decl., ¶41.
`
`Ex-1104, Jakobsson, Fig. 1
`17
`
`

`

`
`As discussed further in this Petition, Jakobsson discloses the systems and
`methods of independent claims 1, 10, 21, and 30. For example, Jakobsson
`discloses a user authentication device 120 [first device] that wirelessly
`communicates with a verifier 105 [second device]. The user authentication device
`120 receives biometric information of the user. Ex-1104, Jakobsson, [0040] (“the
`user 110 provides, via the user interface 130, identifying information (such as a
`user identifier, PIN, or password, or a biometric characteristic such as a fingerprint,
`retina pattern, or voice sample)”). The user authentication device 120 determines
`an authentication code from the biometric information [a first authentication
`information derived from the first biometric information]. Ex-1104,
`Jakobsson, Fig. 2; [0060] (“the combination function 230 generates an
`authentication code 290 based on the data 235 stored or accessed by the user
`authentication device 120”); [0072] (“User