`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`
`and
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`FIRSTFACE CO., LTD.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2019-00611
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,831,557
`
`____________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................ i
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS .............................................................................................. iii
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ................. 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Real Party-In-Interest ............................................................................ 3
`
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 3
`
`Lead Counsel, Back-Up Counsel, and Service Information ................. 5
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES ................................................................................... 5
`
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW ................................ 6
`
`A. Grounds for Standing ............................................................................ 6
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Challenge .................................................................... 6
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The Specific Art on Which the Challenge is Based ................... 6
`
`Statutory Grounds on Which the Challenge is Based ................. 8
`
`How the Construed Claims are Unpatentable under the
`Statutory Grounds Identified in 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2) and
`Supporting Evidence Relied upon to Support the Challenge ..... 8
`
`V.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ........................................................................ 9
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Summary of the ’557 Patent .................................................................. 9
`
`Prosecution History of the ’557 Patent ............................................... 11
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ...................................... 13
`
`VII. CLAIM INTERPRETATION .................................................................... 13
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,831,557
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`“Simultaneously” ................................................................................. 14
`
`A.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`“Simultaneously” as used in the ’557 patent ............................ 15
`
`“Simultaneously” as discussed in the ’557 patent application’s
`prosecution history .................................................................... 16
`
`POSITA’s ordinary and customary understanding of
`“simultaneously” ....................................................................... 17
`
`Conclusion ................................................................................ 18
`
`VIII. GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY ..................................................... 18
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1, 8-9, and 15 are rendered obvious by Fadell in
`view of iOS and Gagneraud under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ....................... 19
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Introduction to Fadell (Ex. 1005) ............................................. 19
`
`Introduction to Gagneraud (Ex. 1006) ...................................... 21
`
`Introduction to iOS (Ex. 1007) ................................................. 23
`
`Limitation-by-limitation explanation of how the prior art—
`Fadell, Gagneraud, and iOS—render obvious claims 1, 8-9, and
`15 of the ’557 patent ................................................................. 26
`
`B.
`
`Ground 2: Claims 1, 8-9, and 15 are rendered obvious by Goertz in
`view of Herfet under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ............................................ 40
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Introduction to Goertz (Ex. 1013) ............................................. 40
`
`Introduction to Herfet (Ex. 1014) ............................................. 42
`
`Limitation-by-limitation explanation of how the prior art—
`Goertz and Herfet—render obvious claims 1, 8-9, and 15 of the
`’557 patent ................................................................................. 44
`
`IX. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 56
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,831,557
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,831,557 to Jung et al.
`
`Prosecution History File of Application No. 13/590,483, which
`matured into U.S. Patent No. 8,831,557
`
`Declaration of Benjamin B. Bederson
`
`Declaration of Michael Hulse
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0083850 to Fadell et al.
`
`WIPO International Application Publication No. WO 2010/126504 to
`Gagneraud et al.
`
`Apple iPhone OS 3.1 User Guide (September 2009)
`
`Anand L. Shimpi, Apple’s iPhone: The Future is Here, AnandTech
`(July 2, 2007), http://www.anandtech.com:80/show/2265/4 (retrieved
`from
`https://web.archive.org/web/20110225040334/http://www.anandtech.c
`om:80/show/2265/4)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,667,297 to Salter et al.
`
`WIPO International Application Publication No. WO 2007/140806 to
`Nurmi et al.
`
`Simultaneous, The IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and
`Electronics Terms (6th ed. 1996)
`
`Simultaneous, Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, Merriam-
`Webster Inc. (1988)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0017872 to Goertz et al.
`
`German Patent Application Publication No. DE 197 10 546 A1 to
`Herfet (certified English translation + German language publication)
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`[intentionally left blank]
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,831,557
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`[intentionally left blank]
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,965,449 to Rivera et al.
`
`[intentionally left blank]
`
`[intentionally left blank]
`
`[intentionally left blank]
`
`Peter H. Lewis, THE EXECUTIVE COMPUTER; Compaq Finally
`Makes a Laptop, The New York Times (October 23, 1988)
`(https://www.nytimes.com/1988/10/23/business/the-executive-
`computer-compaq-finally-makes-a-laptop.html)
`
`J. Flinn & M. Satyanarayanan, Energy-aware adaptation for mobile
`applications, 33 SIGOPS Oper. Syst. Rev. 48-63 (December 12,
`1999) (DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/319344.319155)
`
`A. Roy, S. M. Rumble, R. Stutsman, P. Levis, D. Mazières, & N.
`Zeldovich, Energy Management in Mobile Devices with the Cinder
`Operating System, Proceedings of the sixth conference on Computer
`systems (EuroSys ’11), Pages 139-52 (April 10, 2011)
`(DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1966445.1966459)
`
`Your Palm Treo 680 Smart Device User Guide (2006)
`(https://www.att.com/support_static_files/manuals/Palm_Treo_680.pd
`f)
`
`D. Muthukumaran, A. Sawani, J. Schiffman, B. M. Jung, & T. Jaeger,
`Measuring Integrity on Mobile Phone Systems, Proceedings of the
`13th ACM symposium on Access control models and technologies
`(SACMAT ’08), Pages 155-64 (June 11, 2008)
`(DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1377836.1377862)
`
`M. Landman, Managing Smart Phone Security Risks, 2010
`Information Security Curriculum Development Conference
`(InfoSecCD ’10), Pages 145-55 (October 1, 2010)
`(DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1940941.1940971)
`
`1027
`
`[intentionally left blank]
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,831,557
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`File Wrapper of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/995,200
`to Sanford et al.
`
`iOS: A visual History, The Verge (September 16, 2013)
`(https://www.theverge.com/2011/12/13/2612736/ios-history-iphone-
`ipad)
`
`iPhone Q&A: Differences Between the Original iPhone & iPhone 3G,
`EveryiPhone.com (November 18, 2011)
`(https://everymac.com/systems/apple/iphone/iphone-faq/differences-
`between-the-original-iphone-and-iphone-3g.html)
`
`Declaration of Yosh Moriarty
`
`iPhone 3G Finger Tips (2009)
`
`P. Tarr, W. Harrison, H. Ossher, A. Finkelstein, B. Nuseibeh, & D.
`Perry, Workshop on Multi-Dimensional Separation of Concerns in
`Software Engineering, Proceedings of the 2000 International
`Conference on Software Engineering: ICSE 2000 the New
`Millennium, Pages 809-810 (2000)
`(DOI=https://doi.org/10.1145/337180.337827)
`
`Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement, Docket No. 59,
`Firstface Co., Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung
`Electronics America, Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-02243 (N.D. Cal.)
`
`Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement, Docket No. 57,
`Firstface Co., Ltd. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-02245 (N.D. Cal.)
`
`1036
`
`Declaration of Victor Cheung
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,831,557
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioners Apple Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and Samsung
`
`Electronics America, Inc. respectfully request inter partes review of claims 1, 8-9,
`
`and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 8,831,557 (“’557 patent,” Ex. 1001) in accordance with
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq.
`
`The ’557 patent claims the simple concept of performing a fingerprint
`
`recognition function at the same time as activating a display screen of a mobile
`
`device. Neither of these processes, alone or in combination, were new at the time of
`
`the ’557 patent.
`
`To secure the allowance of the ’557 patent, Patent Owner argued that the
`
`asserted prior art disclosed activation of a device, not necessarily its display screen,
`
`and that any such activation was not simultaneously performed with a user
`
`identification function.1 Of course, there is no doubt that the activation of a display
`
`by pressing a button was a common feature of consumer products prior to the ’557
`
`patent. See, e.g., descriptions of Apple Inc.’s popular iPhones in Ex. 1008 at 4 (when
`
`the display is off and the device locked, pressing a Home button or Sleep/Wake
`
`
`
` 1
`
` As explained in Section V(B), the Examiner did not state any reasons for allowance.
`
`Patent Owner’s after-final claim amendment was specifically made “to more clearly
`
`define the ‘inactive state’” as being a state “of the display unit.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,831,557
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`button to wake the display) and Ex. 1007 at p. 147 (when the display is off, double
`
`clicking a Home button to display controls). (See also Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 31-35.) Moreover,
`
`the technique of embedding fingerprint sensors in various keys and buttons was
`
`practiced by many in the industry. (See, e.g., Ex. 1009 at Fig. 1 (fingerprint scanner
`
`embedded in a space key) and Ex. 1010 at 5:17-22 (fingerprint sensor integrated into
`
`dedicated and multifunctional keys).) (See also Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 36-38.)
`
`With this knowledge, others in the prior art had already combined scanning
`
`and activating processes as claimed in the ’557 patent. For example, Fadell discloses
`
`a system that “authenticates the user quickly and seamlessly … as the user turns on,
`
`unlocks or wakes the device,” Herfet discloses “record[ing] the fingerprint 6 of a
`
`user during the switch-on process,” and Gagneraud discloses scanning a fingerprint
`
`“while a machine concurrently begins powering on” to save time and simplify the
`
`user interaction. (Ex. 1005 ¶ 4, Ex. 1014, 2:49-50, and Ex. 1006 ¶ 58, respectively.)
`
`The USPTO did not consider Fadell, Herfet, or Gagneraud during the
`
`prosecution of the ’557 patent, nor did the USPTO discuss on the record any
`
`references providing analogous technical features. Had such references been
`
`available and considered by the Examiner, the ’557 patent claims never would have
`
`issued.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,831,557
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`This Petition, and in particular the analysis in Section VIII, demonstrates that
`
`claims 1, 8-9, and 15 of the ’557 patent are unpatentable over the prior art and that
`
`Petitioners have a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to the same.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`
`A. Real Party-In-Interest
`
`Apple Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and Samsung Electronics
`
`America, Inc. are the real parties-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`The ’557 patent is the subject of pending litigation in the following cases:
`
`Name
`
`Case No.
`
`Filing Date
`
`Firstface Co., Ltd. v.
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`and Samsung Electronics
`America, Inc.
`
`Firstface Co., Ltd. v.
`Apple Inc.
`
`3-18-cv-02243 (N.D. Cal.)
`
`4/13/2018
`
`3-18-cv-02245 (N.D. Cal.)
`
`4/13/2018
`
`
`The following application remains pending at the USPTO and may contain,
`
`or may be amended to contain, patentably indistinct claims:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Title
`
`Activating Display and
`Performing Additional Function
`in Mobile Terminal with One-
`time User Input
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,831,557
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Application No.
`Filing Date
`
`15/938,702
`
`3/28/2018
`
`
`Petitioners concurrently are filing a separate IPR petition (IPR2019-00612)
`
`challenging claims 1, 8-9, and 15 of the ’557 patent. The grounds in the concurrently
`
`filed petition are premised on the possibility that the Board may use a construction
`
`of the term “simultaneously” based on Applicant’s statements during prosecution,
`
`which Petitioners believe are unsupported and were not relied on by the Examiner.
`
`(See Claim Interpretation sections, Section VII in each petition, for further detail.)
`
`Nonetheless, the grounds of unpatentability presented in the two concurrent petitions
`
`demonstrate that the claims would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art, regardless of which construction the Board adopts.
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. is also concurrently filing petitions for inter partes
`
`review of related U.S. Patent Nos. 9,633,373 and 9,779,419 (IPRs 2019-00613 and
`
`-00614, respectively) and recommends assigning all petitions to the same panel.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,831,557
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`C. Lead Counsel, Back-Up Counsel, and Service Information
`
`Lead Counsel
`Scott A. McKeown
`Reg. No. 42,866
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
`Washington, D.C. 20006-6807
`Phone: +1-202-508-4740
`Fax: +1-617-235-9492
`scott.mckeown@ropesgray.com
`
`Mailing address for all PTAB
`correspondence:
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`IPRM—Floor 43
`Prudential Tower
`800 Boylston Street
`Boston, Massachusetts 02199-3600
`
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES
`
`Backup Counsel
`Gabrielle E. Higgins
`Reg. No. 38,916
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`1900 University Avenue, 6th Floor
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2284
`Phone: +1-650-617-4015
`Fax: +1-617-235-9492
`gabrielle.higgins@ropesgray.com
`
`Christopher M. Bonny
`Reg. No. 63,307
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`1900 University Avenue, 6th Floor
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2284
`Phone: +1-650-617-4011
`Fax: +1-617-235-9492
`christopher.bonny@ropesgray.com
`
`Victor Cheung
`Reg. No. 66,229
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
`Washington, D.C. 20006-6807
`Phone: +1-202-508-4641
`Fax: +1-617-235-9492
`victor.cheung@ropesgray.com
`
`The undersigned authorizes the Office to charge the fee required by 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.15(a) for this Petition for inter partes review to Deposit Account No. 18-1945.
`
`Any additional fees that might be due are also authorized.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,831,557
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`A. Grounds for Standing
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a), Petitioners certify that the ’557 patent is
`
`available for inter partes review and that Petitioners are not barred or estopped from
`
`requesting inter partes review challenging the claims of the ’557 patent on the
`
`grounds identified herein.
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Challenge
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b) and (b)(1), Petitioners request inter partes
`
`review of claims 1, 8-9, and 15 of the ’557 patent, and that the Board cancel the same
`
`as unpatentable. The ’557 patent matured from U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`13/590,483 (filed 8/21/2012). The ’557 patent claims foreign priority to Korean
`
`Application No. 10-2011-0106839 (filed 10/19/2011).2
`
`1.
`
`The Specific Art on Which the Challenge is Based
`
`Petitioners rely upon the following prior art:
`
`
`
`Ex. 1005 – U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0083850 to Fadell
`
`et al. (“Fadell”) published on 3/26/2009. Fadell claims priority to U.S. Provisional
`
`
`
` 2
`
` Petitioners take no position as to the propriety of the priority claims since the art
`
`presented herein predates the earliest filing. Petitioners reserve the right to challenge
`
`these priority claims.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,831,557
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent Application No. 60/995,200 filed 9/24/2007 (Ex. 1028). Fadell is prior art to
`
`the ’557 patent under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`
`
`Ex. 1006 – WIPO International Application Publication No. WO
`
`2010/126504 to Gagneraud et al. (“Gagneraud”) published on 11/4/2010.
`
`Gagneraud is prior art to the ’557 patent under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).
`
`
`
`Ex. 1007 – Apple iPhone OS 3.1 User Guide (September 2009) (“iOS”) was
`
`published and accessible to the public by at least 9/9/2009. See Declaration of
`
`Michael Hulse (Ex. 1004) and Declaration of Yosh Moriarty (Ex. 1031). iOS is prior
`
`art to the ’557 patent under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`
`
`Ex. 1013 – U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0017872 to Goertz
`
`et al. (“Goertz”) published on 1/21/2010. Goertz is prior art to the ’557 patent under
`
`at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`
`
`Ex. 1014 – German Patent Application Publication No. DE 197 10 546 A1 to
`
`Herfet (“Herfet”) published on 9/17/1998. Ex. 1014 includes a certified English
`
`translation of DE 197 10 546 A1 and the original publication. Citations to Herfet
`
`herein are made to the corresponding column and line numbers of the certified
`
`English translation. Herfet is prior art to the ’557 patent under at least 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(b).
`
`None of Fadell, Gagneraud, iOS, Goertz, or Herfet were considered during
`
`the original prosecution of the ’557 patent, and they are not cumulative of any prior
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,831,557
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`art considered by the original patent examiner. Fadell, Herfet, and Gagneraud
`
`disclose performing the processes of waking a device’s screen and user
`
`authentication simultaneously—the combination of which was deemed missing
`
`from the prior art identified during prosecution. (See the prosecution history of the
`
`’557 patent in Section V(B) below.)
`
`2.
`
`Statutory Grounds on Which the Challenge is Based
`
`# Claims
`
`35
`U.S.C. §
`
`Prior Art
`
`1 1, 8-9, 15
`
`103(a) Fadell in view of iOS and Gagneraud
`
`2 1, 8-9, 15
`
`103(a) Goertz in view of Herfet
`
`
`
`3. How the Construed Claims are Unpatentable under the
`Statutory Grounds Identified in 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2) and
`Supporting Evidence Relied upon to Support the Challenge
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4), an explanation of how claims 1, 8-9,
`
`and 15 of the ’557 patent are unpatentable under the statutory grounds identified
`
`above, and that Petitioners have at least a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on
`
`these grounds, including the identification of where each element of the claim is
`
`found in the prior art, is provided in Section VIII, below. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.104(b)(5), the exhibit numbers of the supporting evidence relied upon to support
`
`the challenges and the relevance of the evidence to the challenges raised, including
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,831,557
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`identifying specific portions of the evidence that support the challenges, are provided
`
`in Section VIII, below.
`
`V.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`Summary of the ’557 Patent
`
`The ’557 patent, titled “Method, System, and Mobile Communication
`
`Terminal for Performing Specific Function When Mobile Communication Terminal
`
`is Activated,” claims a simple combination of functions well-known in consumer
`
`electronics: namely, activating a display via a button and performing a fingerprint
`
`identification function. (Ex. 1001, Abstract, claim 1.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,831,557
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Fig. 1 of the ’557 patent, shown to the
`
`right, includes an example of a mobile
`
`communication terminal 100.
`
`Terminal 100 includes a display unit
`
`110 and an activation button 120. (Id., 3:48-
`
`53.) The display unit 110 can be switched
`
`from an OFF state (an “inactive state”) to an
`
`ON state (an “active state”) by pressing the
`
`activation button 120. (Id., 3:28-46, 4:27-
`
`31.)
`
`The activation button 120 can be
`
`configured to perform other functions as
`
`well. (Id., 4:40-45, 5:44-49.) The particular
`
`operation performed can also depend on how the activation button 120 is pressed
`
`(e.g., pressed three times or pressed for a long time). (Id., 4:45-5:6.)
`
`In one example, the operation is a “user authentication process” that is
`
`performed “[w]hen the mobile communication terminal 100 is in the inactive state”
`
`(i.e., when the display is off). (Id., 7:5-7.) The process can include fingerprint
`
`recognition. (Id., 8:3-8.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,831,557
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`The ’557 patent describes that the particular operation can be performed
`
`“simultaneously” with switching the display from an OFF state to an ON state by
`
`pressing the activation button. (Id., Abstract, 2:1-17.)
`
`Accordingly, the ’557 patent purports to enable a particular procedure for user
`
`authentication by pressing an activation button. (Id., 11:50-54, 11:60-63.) But, as
`
`shown below, the configuration of a button to perform an authentication function
`
`was already well known in the art, as others had already implemented authentication
`
`functions in “activation” buttons prior to the ’557 patent. The claims of the ’557
`
`patent are simply obvious combinations of known techniques.
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History of the ’557 Patent
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 13/590,483 (“’557 patent application”), which
`
`matured into the ’557 patent, was filed on 8/21/2012. (Ex. 1002 at 1-45.)
`
`The USPTO issued a Non-Final Office Action on 11/20/2013, which included
`
`rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(e) and 103(a) as being anticipated
`
`by various prior art references. (Id. at 87-96.)
`
`Applicant responded with amendments and arguments in its 1/7/2014
`
`response. (Id. at 110-123.)
`
`The USPTO issued a Final Office Action on 5/16/2014, which included
`
`rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(e) and 103(a) as being anticipated
`
`by Murakami et al. (US 2013/0057385), obvious in view of Murakami et al. and Chu
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,831,557
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`et al. (US 7,668,829), or obvious in view of Murakami et al. and Stephens (US
`
`2006/0142071). (Id. at 161-170.)
`
`Applicant, in its 6/26/2014 after final response, amended the claims to clarify
`
`that claimed active/inactive states were with respect to the display unit (i.e., ON/OFF
`
`states of the display screen, “not activation of the device”). Applicant argued, inter
`
`alia, that the applied prior art of Murakami was directed to activation of a
`
`biometrically activated device, not a display unit. (Id. at 181-189.)
`
`Applicant further argued that the claim term “simultaneously” in the ’557
`
`patent application meant that “when a user just presses the activation button, both
`
`the user identification function and the switching from the inactive state of the
`
`display unit to the active state of the display unit are performed, without additional
`
`steps.” (Id. at 190-191 (emphasis in original).) As discussed in the Claim
`
`Interpretation section below (Section VII), this negative limitation of “without
`
`additional steps” has no support in the ’557 patent specification and thus is of little
`
`value in determining the ’557 patent’s claim scope.
`
`The USPTO issued a Notice of Allowance on 7/15/2014 that entered
`
`Applicant’s after-final amendment but provided no statement of reasons for
`
`allowance. (Id. at 199-208.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,831,557
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Thus, the claims of the ’557 patent were apparently allowed based on
`
`Applicant’s representation that switching on a device’s display unit, and not the
`
`device itself, or simultaneous operations were deemed missing from the prior art.
`
`As explained in detail below, the features that purportedly distinguished the
`
`claims of the ’557 patent from the prior art of record were indeed well-known in the
`
`art at the earliest possible priority date of the ’557 patent.
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`The level of ordinary skill in the art is evidenced by the prior art. (See In re
`
`GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (determining that the Board did not
`
`err in adopting the approach that the level of skill in the art was best determined by
`
`references of record).) The prior art discussed herein, and in the declaration of
`
`Benjamin B. Bederson (Ex. 1003, “Bederson Decl.”), demonstrates that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”), at the time the ’557 patent was filed, would
`
`have been a person with a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, Computer
`
`Engineering, or equivalent and at least two years of relevant experience in the fields
`
`of user interface design and mobile devices, or otherwise equivalent industry
`
`experience in the relevant field. (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 29-30.)
`
`VII. CLAIM INTERPRETATION
`
`Claim terms subject to inter partes review are to be “construed using the same
`
`claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,831,557
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`under 35 U.S.C. 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the
`
`ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” (37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.100(b))
`
`Petitioners only construe “simultaneously” below but reserve the right to
`
`construe additional terms in any related litigation.3
`
`A.
`
`“Simultaneously”
`
`Claims 1 and 9 of the ’557 patent recite, respectively, “the user identification
`
`function is performed simultaneously with switching from the inactive state of the
`
`display unit to the active state of the display unit by pressing the activation button”
`
`and “performing a user identification process by a fingerprint recognition
`
`simultaneously with switching from the inactive state of the display unit to the
`
`active state of the display unit if the pressing of the activation button is sensed.” (Ex.
`
`1001, 12:48-51, 13:26-30; emphases added.)
`
`
`
` 3
`
` While the parties have proposed constructions for additional terms in the district
`
`court (Exs. 1034 and 1035), the construction of these terms does not impact the
`
`outcome of this proceeding because the claims are invalid under both parties’
`
`proposed constructions and thus do not need to be construed here. See Nidec Motor
`
`v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,831,557
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`“Simultaneously [with]” should be construed to mean at the same time [as].
`
`(Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 50-56.)
`
`1.
`
`“Simultaneously” as used in the ’557 patent
`
`The term “simultaneously” is recited several times in the ’557 patent
`
`specification, none of which offer additional guidance beyond mere recitation of the
`
`word:
`
` The Abstract states that an activation button is configured to switch a display
`
`unit from an inactive state to an active state, and that a predetermined
`
`operation is performed “simultaneously” with the switching. Lines 1-17 of
`
`column 2 parrot the language of originally filed claims 1 and 13, which also
`
`recites the word “simultaneously.” (see Ex. 1002 at 30.)
`
` The ’557 patent states that “the application driving unit 230 can drive a
`
`predetermined application simultaneously with the activation within the
`
`mobile communication terminal 100.” (Id., 11:28-31; emphasis added.) This
`
`section is also silent as to what makes the actions technically “simultaneous”
`
`(e.g., by way of timing diagrams, flow charts, or detailed descriptions of
`
`driving the predetermined application and of activation within the mobile
`
`communication terminal).
`
`Thus, lexicography does not apply to the term “simultaneously” because that term is
`
`not expressly defined anywhere in the ’557 patent specification.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,831,557
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`“Simultaneously” as discussed
`in
`the
`’557 patent
`application’s prosecution history
`
`2.
`
`In the after-final response of 06/26/2014, Applicant attempted to establish a
`
`specific definition of “simultaneously” that precluded “additional steps.”
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1002 at 190.)
`
`However, the ’557 patent specification does not support the negative
`
`limitation of functions being performed “without additional steps.”
`
`First, Applicant’s reliance on the “problems of the conventional related art”—
`
`in which operations are performed while the display is on and in which a button may
`
`be added—is inappropriate, as that section says nothing about what the ’557 patent
`
`is actually disclosed to do, let alone dictate what particular “steps” are included in
`
`the alleged invention. (Ex. 1002 at 190 (citing [0004] of the specification).)
`
`Second, Applicant offers no further explanation of what it meant by “without
`
`additional steps.” Applicant’s explanation of “without additional steps” with respect
`
`to the prior art never uses the word “step,” and therefore it is unclear as to what a
`
`“step” is.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,831,557
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Third, a review of the specification and claims finds no support elsewhere for
`
`the negative limitation of performing both the user identification function and the
`
`display switching “without additional steps.” It is entirely unclear what “steps,” such
`
`as intervening steps, overlapping steps, parallel steps, incidental steps, and other
`
`types of steps are considered additional steps, and what “steps” are not considered
`
`additional steps for purposes of claim scope. Because the negative language “without
`
`additional steps” injects uncertainty into the meaning of the term “simultaneously”
`
`to a POSITA, and because there is no specification nor claim support for such
`
`language, “simultaneously” should be construed according to its plain and ordinary
`
`meaning to a POSITA.
`
`Last, the claim terms had been open-ended and never precluded the possibility
`
`of additional “steps” during the prosecution of the ’557 patent application.
`
`3.
`
`POSITA’s ordinary and customary understanding of
`“simultaneously”
`
`A POSITA would have understood that the term “simultaneously” referred to
`
`actions occurring at the same time. For example, a computer dictionary defined
`
`“simultaneous” as “pertaining to the occurrence of two or more events at the same
`
`instant of time.” (Ex. 1011, p. 995.) Similarly, an English language dictionary
`
`defined “simultaneous” as “existing or occurring at the same time.” (Ex. 1012, p.
`
`1099.) Notably, these and other dictionary definitions of “simultaneously” do not
`
`define “simultaneously” as an exclusionary term. In other words, two actions are
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,831,557
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`“simultaneous” because they occur at the same time, not because they are performed
`
`at the exclusion of all other actions (i.e., “without additional steps” as in the
`
`prosecution history). Therefore, because “simultaneously” is not otherwise
`
`expressly defined in the ’557 patent specification, a POSITA would have understood
`
`that “simultaneously” pertains to actions occurring at the same time.
`
`4.
`
`Conclusion
`
`Accordingly, “simultaneously [with]” in the ’557 patent should be construed
`
`to mean at the same time [as].
`
`VIII. GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY
`
`Although the ’557 patent alleges to have invented a button that turns on a
`
`display and simultaneously performs fingerprint recognition, such techniques were
`
`known in the communications device art prior to the earliest possible priority date
`
`of the ’557 patent. As demonstrated below, the prior art references render claims 1,