Case IPR2019-00612
`U.S. Patent No. 8,831,557
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`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 IPR2019-00612
`U.S. Patent No. 8,831,557
`
`________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO PETITION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00612
`U.S. Patent No. 8,831,557
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. THE ’557 PATENT AND THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS .............................. 3
`A. Problem Presented ............................................................................................ 3
`B. Claim Construction ........................................................................................... 5
`1. “simultaneously” ........................................................................................... 7
`2. “inactive state” and “active state” ............................................................... 10
`III. SUMMARY OF THE REFERENCES .......................................................... 13
`A. Fadell .............................................................................................................. 13
`B. Gagneraud ....................................................................................................... 15
`C. iOS .................................................................................................................. 16
`D. Goertz ............................................................................................................. 17
`E. Herfet .............................................................................................................. 18
`IV. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS ......................................................... 19
`A. Standard for Institution ................................................................................... 19
`B. Obviousness .................................................................................................... 20
`V. THE PETITION DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE CHALLENGED
`CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE UNDER GROUND 1. .................................... 22
`A. Fadell Does Not Perform User Identification Simultaneously with Switching
`the Display to an Active State............................................................................... 22
`B. The Deficiencies of Fadell Are Not Resolved by Gagneraud. ....................... 25
`C. A POSITA Would Not Combine Fadell With Gagneraud to Arrive at the
`Claimed Invention. ................................................................................................ 26
`VI. THE PETITION DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE UNDER GROUND 2. ........ 29
`A. Goertz Does Not Disclose an Activation Button That Switches the Display
`from an Inactive State to an Active State. ............................................................ 29
`B. Goertz Does Not Perform User Identification Simultaneously with Switching
`
` 
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00612
`U.S. Patent No. 8,831,557
`
`
`
`the Display to an Active State............................................................................... 31
`C. The Deficiencies of Goertz Are Not Resolved by Herfet. ............................. 32
`D. There Is No Motivation to Combine Goertz With Herfet. ............................. 33
`VII. NO PRIOR ART REFERENCE DISCLOSES A DEVICE THAT
`PERFORMS FINGERPRINT RECOGNITION AND SIMULTANEOUSLY
`ACTIVATES THE DISPLAY SCREEN “BY A PRESS OF THE ACTIVATION
`BUTTON.” ............................................................................................................... 35
`VIII. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL OF INSTITUTION FOR ABUSE OF
`PROCESS ................................................................................................................ 36
`IX. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 38
`
`
`
`
`
` 
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00612
`U.S. Patent No. 8,831,557
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases:
`
`3M Innovative Props. Co. v. Tredegar Corp.,
`725 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ....................................................................... 6, 7
`
`
`Advanced Fiber Techs. Trust v. J&L Fiber Servs.,
`674 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........................................................................... 8
`
`
`CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp.,
`288 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ........................................................................... 9
`
`CFMT, Inc. v. YieldUp Int’l Corp.,
`349 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ......................................................................... 20
`
`Digital Biometrics, Inc. v. Identix, Inc.,
`149 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ........................................................................... 7
`
`
`Garmin Int’l, Inc. v. Patent of Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC,
`Case No. IPR2012-00001, Paper 15 (PTAB Jan. 9, 2013) ................................ 20
`
`
`Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc.,
`815 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ......................................................................... 36
`
`
`Hill-Rom Servs. v. Stryker Corp.,
`755 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ........................................................................... 6
`
`
`In re Gordon,
`733 F.2d 900, 221 USPQ 1125 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ......................................... 21, 27
`
`
`In re Rijckaert,
`9 F.3d 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ............................................................................. 20
`
`
`In re Royka,
`490 F.2d 981 (C.C.P.A. 1974) ........................................................................... 20
`
`
`Kara Tech. Inc. v. Stamps.com Inc.,
`582 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ........................................................................... 7
`
` 
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00612
`U.S. Patent No. 8,831,557
`
`
`
`KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ........................................................................................... 21
`
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ........................................................................... 5
`
`
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc.,
`711 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ........................................................................... 6
`
`
`Rexnord Corp. v. Laitram Corp.,
`274 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ........................................................................... 5
`
`Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp.,
`299 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ........................................................................... 6
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ....................................................................... 6, 8
`
`Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex, Inc.,
`655 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ......................................................................... 21
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ............................................................................. 6
`
`Yotrio Corp. v. Lakesouth Holdings, LLC,
`Case No. IPR2017-00299, Paper 7 (PTAB May 15, 2017) ............................... 37
`
`Rules and Statutes:
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................................................................................. 20, 21
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) .................................................................................................. 20
`
`35 U.S.C. § 282(b) .................................................................................................... 5
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ............................................................................................ 20, 36
`
` 
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00612
`U.S. Patent No. 8,831,557
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) .................................................................................................. 37
`
`37 C.F.R § 42.65(a) ................................................................................................. 28
`
`37 C.F.R § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................ 5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107 .................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) .............................................................................................. 36
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) .............................................................................................. 20
`
`Other Authorities:
`
`157 Cong. Rec. S1376 (daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Kyl) ............... 37
`
`M.P.E.P § 2143.01(V) ............................................................................................. 21
`
`Office Pat. Trial Prac. Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,756 (Aug. 14, 2012) ........ 20
`
`PTAB 2018 Trial Practice Guide Update ............................................................... 28
`
`
`
` 
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.107, Patent Owner Firstface Co., Ltd.
`
`(“Firstface” or “Patent Owner”) submits this Preliminary Response to the Petition
`
`of Apple Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and Samsung Electronics America,
`
`Inc. (together, “Petitioners”) seeking inter partes review of claims 1, 8-9, and 15
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,831,557 (Ex. 1101, the “’557 patent”).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The ’557 patent claims an elegant solution to the problem of incorporating
`
`fingerprint recognition into a mobile device while maintaining usability.
`
`According to the challenged claims, a press of the activation button when a
`
`device’s display is in an inactive state causes the device to perform a user
`
`identification function (via a fingerprint recognition) simultaneously with
`
`switching the display to an active state. By initiating performance of fingerprint
`
`recognition with the same button that turns on the display, and turning on the
`
`display regardless of whether authentication is successful, the claimed inventions
`
`increase device security while allowing users to interact with their devices as they
`
`have grown accustomed.
`
`None of the prior art references cited by Petitioners disclose simultaneous
`
`user identification and display activation. The primary references, Fadell and
`
`Goertz, disclose sequential operations; thus, Petitioners rely on secondary
`
`references, Gagneraud and Herfet, for their purported disclosure of powering-on a
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00612
`U.S. Patent No. 8,831,557
`
`
`
`device simultaneously with authenticating a user. But, as Petitioners appear to
`
`concede, these secondary references do not address switching a display from an
`
`inactive state (i.e., a state in which the display is turned off yet the device itself is
`
`on) to an active state, certainly not in any relevant context. Moreover, a POSITA
`
`would not combine Fadell with Gagneraud because doing so would render Fadell
`
`incapable of achieving its stated purpose: to condition access to the device,
`
`including turning on the display, on the user authentication result. Nor would a
`
`POSITA combine Goertz with Herfet because Herfet counsels against applying its
`
`disclosure beyond the power-on context. Finally, even if Petitioners could
`
`overcome the aforementioned hurdles, Petitioners cannot show that any prior art
`
`reference, alone or in combination, discloses performing fingerprint recognition
`
`simultaneously with switching the display from an inactive state to an active state
`
`“by pressing the activation button.”
`
`Because the prior art does not disclose all limitations of the challenged
`
`claims, and because a POSITA would not combine the cited references, Petitioners
`
`have failed to show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim is obvious.
`
`The Petition should therefore be denied.
`
`
`
`
`
` 
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00612
`U.S. Patent No. 8,831,557
`
`
`
`II. THE ’557 PATENT AND THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`
` 
`
`A.
`
`Problem Presented
`
`The ’557 patent explains that, as mobile communications devices have
`
`proliferated, their capabilities have expanded from simple communication to
`
`include innumerable other features and functions. See, e.g., Ex. 1101 (’557 patent),
`
`1:26-33. Indeed, while early mobile communications devices were largely used
`
`only as telephones, they now have cameras, web browsers, games, word-
`
`processing and messaging applications, e-mail software, and numerous other
`
`applications and features. As developers added functionality to these devices, they
`
`also added complexity. For example, historically, newly-added functions required
`
`that a device display be turned on before the functions could be accessed or
`
`executed, requiring a user to perform multiple initiating steps. Id., 1:34-38.
`
`Moreover, many of the functions required a new button, adding complexity and
`
`congestion to the user interface. Id.
`
`The inventors of the asserted patent, including Firstface’s co-CEO, Jae Lark
`
`Jung, developed innovative solutions for improving the user experience with these
`
`increasingly complex devices. The inventors recognized that users habitually turn
`
`on the display of their devices with one specific button. Id., 1:45-56. Accordingly,
`
`the inventors developed technologies involving use of that button—which the
`
` 
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00612
`U.S. Patent No. 8,831,557
`
`
`
`patents often call the activation button—to perform multiple functions or
`
`operations (often at once). Id., 1:52-56. The activation button can be used, for
`
`instance, to turn on the display and perform a user identification process, such as
`
`fingerprint, facial, or iris recognition. Id., 1:62-64, 8:3-9. To further enhance user
`
`experience, the inventors also recognized that the user would prefer that the display
`
`turn on even if authentication fails. See Ex. 1101, claim 1. This configuration gives
`
`the user assurance that the terminal is operating normally and, as such, successfully
`
`received the user’s fingerprint (despite authentication failure). In addition, the
`
`function(s) performed may differ based on how the user presses the activation
`
`button. For example, a single press of the button can turn on the display and initiate
`
`one function, while a double press can turn on the display and initiate another
`
`function. Id., 4:40-5:6.
`
`The claims of the ’557 patent are directed to using the activation button to
`
`perform a fingerprint recognition function simultaneously with turning on the
`
`display of the mobile device. See, e.g., id., claim 1. Claim 1 is representative:
`
`1. A mobile communication terminal comprising:
`a display unit; and
`an activation button configured to switch from an inactive state,
`which is an OFF state of the display unit, to an active state, which is
`an ON state of the display unit; and
`
` 
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00612
`U.S. Patent No. 8,831,557
`
`
`
`
`a user identification unit configured to operate a user
`identification function,
`wherein 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,
`wherein the user identification function includes a fingerprint
`recognition.
`
`B. Claim Construction
`
`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 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). To this end, claim terms generally receive their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`This is the meaning given by a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the filing
`
`date of the relevant patent application. Id. at 1313. Indeed, “unless compelled to do
`
`otherwise, a court will give a claim term the full range of its ordinary meaning as
`
`understood by an artisan of ordinary skill.” Rexnord Corp. v. Laitram Corp., 274
`
`F.3d 1336, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2001). A court will only give a claim term a meaning
`
` 
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00612
`U.S. Patent No. 8,831,557
`
`
`
`other than its plain and ordinary meaning “(1) when a patentee sets out a definition
`
`and acts as his own lexicographer, or (2) when the patentee disavows the full scope
`
`of the claim term either in the specification or during prosecution.” Hill-Rom
`
`Servs. v. Stryker Corp., 755 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Thorner v.
`
`Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).
`
`Notwithstanding the primacy of the claim language, courts interpret claim
`
`language “in light of the intrinsic evidence of record, including the written
`
`description, the drawings, and the prosecution history.” Power Integrations, Inc. v.
`
`Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc., 711 F.3d 1348, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (quoting
`
`Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2000)
`
`(internal quotation marks omitted)). The specification can be useful, for example,
`
`to “determine whether the inventor has used any terms in a manner inconsistent
`
`with their ordinary meaning.” Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, 90 F.3d 1576, 1582
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1996). Additionally, “[i]diosyncratic language, highly technical terms, or
`
`terms coined by the inventor are best understood by reference to the specification.”
`
`3M Innovative Props. Co. v. Tredegar Corp., 725 F.3d 1315, 1321 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2013). Although the specification can be a useful guide to how the inventor used a
`
`disputed term, “limitations discussed in the specification may not be read into the
`
` 
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00612
`U.S. Patent No. 8,831,557
`
`
`
`claims.” Id.; see also Kara Tech. Inc. v. Stamps.com Inc., 582 F.3d 1341, 1348
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2009).
`
`The prosecution history can also inform the meaning of the claim language
`
`“because it may contain contemporaneous exchanges between the patent applicant
`
`and the PTO about what the claims mean.” Digital Biometrics, Inc. v. Identix, Inc.,
`
`149 F.3d 1335, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The prosecution history, however, cannot be
`
`relied upon “to construe the meaning of [a] claim to be narrower than it would
`
`otherwise be unless a patentee limited or surrendered claim scope through a clear
`
`and unmistakable disavowal.” 3M Innovative Props., 725 F.3d at 1322.
`
`Because of unmistakable statements in the prosecution history and clear
`
`lexicography in the specification, Patent Owner requests that the Board construe
`
`the following terms or phrases: “simultaneously,” “an OFF state of the display
`
`unit,” “inactive state,” “an ON state of the display unit,” and “active state.” Patent
`
`Owner does not believe any other terms require construction at this time.
`
`1.
`
`“simultaneously”
`
`The Board should construe “simultaneously” as “at the same time, without
`
`additional steps, and not sequentially.” In the prosecution history, the applicants
`
`defined “simultaneously” as “without additional steps,” while also making clear
`
`that “without additional steps” requires that the mobile communication terminal
`
` 
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00612
`U.S. Patent No. 8,831,557
`
`
`
`turn on the display of the device at the same time as performing a user
`
`identification function, and that the steps of turning on the display and performing
`
`a user identification function are not performed sequentially. Thus, the Board
`
`should adopt a construction consistent with this understanding of
`
`“simultaneously.”
`
`To this point, in response to a final office action rejecting the then-pending
`
`claims in the application that led to the ’557 patent, the applicants stated:
`
`“[I]n view of the specification and the claim language, it is clear that
`the term ‘simultaneously’ in claims 1 and 13 of the present application
`means that, when a user presses the activation button, both the user
`identification function and the switching from the inactive state of the
`display to the active state of the display unit are performed, without
`additional steps.”
`Ex. 1102 at 190 (emphasis in original).
`
`The Federal Circuit has previously held that a patentee acts as a
`
`lexicographer when it uses the word “means” to define a term. See Thorner, 669
`
`F.3d at 1366 (“[T]he patentee acted as its own lexicographer when the
`
`specifications stated: ‘Multiple embossed’ means ….”). That is precisely what the
`
`applicants did here. The Board could therefore simply define “simultaneously” as
`
`“without additional steps” and be wholly consistent with the intrinsic record. See
`
`Advanced Fiber Techs. Trust v. J&L Fiber Servs., 674 F.3d 1365, 1374 (Fed. Cir.
`
` 
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00612
`U.S. Patent No. 8,831,557
`
`
`
`2012) (“[T]he court correctly relied on a clear definition of a claim term set forth
`
`… in the prosecution history.”) (citing CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288
`
`F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).
`
`Nevertheless, to avoid dispute about what “without additional steps” means,
`
`Patent Owner is comfortable with the Board construing “simultaneously,” in
`
`context, to include “at the same time” and “not sequentially.” The applicants
`
`themselves understood “without additional steps” to require that activation of the
`
`display and performance of user identification occur at the same time, and not as a
`
`sequence of steps. In fact, after defining “simultaneously” to mean “without
`
`additional steps,” the applicants applied their definition to distinguish their
`
`inventions over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2013/0057385 A1 (“Murakami”), a prior art
`
`reference cited by the examiner. The applicants argued that, in Murakami, the data
`
`is displayed only on the condition that the user’s identity is authenticated. Ex. 1102
`
`at 191. If the user is not authenticated, the device does not display any data. Id.
`
`Thus, in Murakami, activation of the display occurs after performance of the
`
`identification function, not simultaneously with performance of the identification
`
`function. Id. Accordingly, “without additional steps” means that the two steps—
`
`activating the display and performing user identification—cannot occur
`
`sequentially, but must occur at the same time (and one is not dependent on the
`
` 
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00612
`U.S. Patent No. 8,831,557
`
`
`
`other). The Board should adopt this understanding and construe “simultaneously”
`
`to mean “at the same time, without additional steps, and not sequentially.”
`
`Petitioners argue that “simultaneously” should be construed to mean “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 user action.” Petitioners argue that
`
`it is unclear what a “step” is, and contend that a POSITA would have understood
`
`that a “step” relates to user action. Pet. at 16-17. Accordingly, Petitioners attempt
`
`to add a requirement of “without additional user action.”
`
`Petitioners’ construction is not supported by the record. The file history, in
`
`which the definition of “simultaneously” is found, says nothing about “additional
`
`user action.” It does, however, provide precise context for the applicants’ use of
`
`“without additional steps.” Patent Owner has properly proffered a construction for
`
`“simultaneously” that includes both the legally-required applicant lexicography
`
`and additional language consistent with the application of that lexicography. The
`
`Board should reject Petitioners’ proposed construction in favor of Patent Owner’s.
`
`2.
`
`“inactive state” and “active state”
`
`The Board should construe “an OFF state of the display unit” and “inactive
`
`state” as “a state in which the display is turned off yet the device itself is on.” The
`
` 
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00612
`U.S. Patent No. 8,831,557
`
`
`
`Board should also construe “an ON state of the display unit” and “active state” as
`
`“a state in which the display is turned on.” These constructions are simple
`
`applications of the definitions found in the intrinsic record.
`
`The claims of the ’557 patent themselves define “an OFF state of the display
`
`unit” and “an ON state of the display unit” as equivalent to “inactive state” and
`
`“active state,” respectively. Indeed, independent claims 1 and 9 each require an
`
`activation button that switches the device “from an inactive state, which is an OFF
`
`state of [a/the] display unit, to an active state, which is an ON state of the display
`
`unit.” Ex. 1101, claims 1, 9. Thus, “an OFF state of the display unit” and “inactive
`
`state” should be given the same construction, and “an ON state of the display unit”
`
`and “active state” should be given the same construction.
`
`The specification of the ’557 patent also defines “inactive state” and “active
`
`state” in clear acts of lexicography. The specification defines “inactive state” as “a
`
`state in which the mobile communication terminal is communicable but a display
`
`screen is turned off.” Ex. 1101, 3:21-23. The specification goes on to make clear
`
`that, even though the display screen is turned off, the device itself is on:
`
`Even when the display screen is turned off, a predetermined function
`(for example, a music play function or the like) is operable. As
`described above, the term “inactive state” used herein refers to a
`concept encompassing states in which the display screen is turned off,
`
` 
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00612
`U.S. Patent No. 8,831,557
`
`
`
`
`regardless of whether or not the mobile communication terminal
`performs a predetermined operation. However, a state in which the
`mobile communication terminal is completely turned off is excluded.
`Ex. 1101, 3:30-38 (emphasis added).
`
`The specification defines “active state” as the opposite of “inactive state.” It
`
`states that “active state” is “a state in which the display screen is turned on,” Ex.
`
`1101, 3:39-41, further explaining that:
`
`Switching from the “inactive state” to the “active state” refers to
`switching of the display screen from the OFF state to the ON state,
`regardless of information displayed on the display screen in the ON
`state. For example, the mobile communication terminal can be
`determined to be in the “active state” even when only a lock screen is
`displayed.
`Ex. 1101, 3:41-46.
`
`In litigation, Petitioners’ proposed constructions attempt to require that the
`
`device display receive no power when the device is in an inactive state (meaning
`
`the display is in an OFF state) and that the device display receive power when the
`
`device is in an active state (meaning the display is in an ON state). See Ex. 1134 at
`
`11-19; Ex. 1135 at 11-19. This requirement finds no support in the claims,
`
`specification, or prosecution history. The term “power” is only used in the context
`
`of a “power button.” The patents say nothing about whether the display receives
`
` 
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00612
`U.S. Patent No. 8,831,557
`
`
`
`some amount of power when it is in an OFF state. To be sure, the display must not
`
`be displaying anything to be in an OFF state, but a requirement that the display not
`
`receive any power, even if it is not displaying anything, is unsupported. Instead,
`
`the Board should find that “an OFF state of the display unit,” and “inactive state”
`
`mean “a state in which the display is turned off yet the device itself is on,” and that
`
`“an ON state of the display unit” and “active state” mean “a state in which the
`
`display is turned on,” consistent with the definitions and explanations of the terms,
`
`“inactive state” and “active state,” given in the patent.
`
`III. SUMMARY OF THE REFERENCES
`
`A.
`
`Fadell
`
`Fadell (Ex. 1105) is a U.S. Patent Application Publication dated March 26,
`
`2009, with a filing date of September 9, 2008. Fadell is titled “Embedded
`
`Authentication Systems in an Electronic Device,” and its Abstract explains that the
`
`invention is “directed to an electronic device with an embedded authentication
`
`system for restricting access to device resources.” Ex. 1105 at Abstract. In its
`
`Background section, Fadell recognizes that electronic devices were being used “to
`
`store personal information” such as “contacts, e-mail, calendar information,
`
`documents, and other information used by the user.” Ex. 1105 at [0003]. To
`
`prevent “unauthorized people from accessing and viewing the user’s personal
`
` 
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00612
`U.S. Patent No. 8,831,557
`
`
`
`information,” Fadell suggests that passwords and pass codes may be used “prior to
`
`enabling device functions or accessing device resources.” Id. at [0003]. Fadell,
`
`thus, describes methods for authenticating a user who seeks access to various
`
`restricted resources. The methods for authenticating a user can include the use of
`
`biometric information like requiring a user to provide a fingerprint or submit to a
`
`retina scan. Id. at [0004]. Irrespective of user identification method, however,
`
`Fadell discloses a single user identification progression as depicted in Figure 15:
`
`This flow chart demonstrates that the electronic device first identifies a user at step
`
`1504, and, if access to restricted resources is requested, determines whether the
`
`user is authorized in step 1508. If the user is authorized, access to the resource is
`
` 
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00612
`U.S. Patent No. 8,831,557
`
`
`
`provided in step 1512. Importantly, access to a restricted resource is only provided
`
`after the user is identified and authorized. In other words, Fadell provides a
`
`conditional, sequential process for access—authentication is performed, and if
`
`successful, access to the resource is granted.
`
`B. Gagneraud
`
`Gagneraud (Ex. 1106) is the secondary reference that Petitioners propose
`
`combining with Fadell. It is an International Patent Publication dated November 4,
`
`2010, with a filing date of April 29, 2009. Gagneraud describes a machine, such as
`
`a laptop computer, that includes a processor, a power button, and a fingerprint
`
`scanner, where the fingerprint scanner detects a user “when the user is touching the
`
`fingerprint scanner.” Ex. 1106 at [0046]. Gagneraud discloses scanning a user’s
`
`fingerprint as the device is powered on—not as the display is switched from an
`
`inactive state to the active state. Id. at [0047]-[0049]. In one of Gagneraud’s
`
`embodiments, the fingerprint scanner scans a fingerprint while the BIOS and
`
`operating system are loaded, and the device thereafter authenticates the user. Id. at
`
`[0052], [0055]. In another embodiment, the fingerprint scanner performs
`
`authentication while the device is powering on. Id. at [0025]. But, in both cases,
`
`and unlike Fadell, the device powers on regardless of the result of the
`
`authentication. Thus, Fadell and Gagneraud operate in fundamentally different
`
` 
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00612
`U.S. Patent No. 8,831,557
`
`
`
`ways. Fadell requires a successful authentication before access to restricted
`
`resources is allowed. Gagneraud completes the power-on procedure regardless of
`
`the authentication result. As explained further below, this difference in operation
`
`renders a Fadell – Gagneraud combination irrational.
`
`C.
`
`iOS
`
`iOS (Ex. 1107) is a User Guide for the iPhone OS 3.1 software. Petitioners
`
`refer to the manual for the presence of an iPhone home button. According to
`
`Petitioners, the home button depicted in the manual is used to turn on the device
`
`display, and, according to Petitioners, iOS 3.1 was the operating system deployed
`
`in iPhones as of September 9, 2009. For the purposes of this Response, Patent
`
`Owner does not contest either point as immaterial to the denial of institution;
`
`though whether the manual actually supports the proposition that the home button
`
`activates the display is, at best, unclear.
`
`It bears mention that Petitioners introduced iOS 3.1 as relating to Fadell and
`
`its provisional application as part of Ground 1, which is a three-reference
`
`obviousness combination. Patent Owner notes that Fadell was filed on September
`
`9, 2008. Patent Owner further notes that the provisional patent application which
`
`Fadell incorporates by reference was filed on September 24, 2007. It is the
`
`provisional application—pre-datin