`U.S. Patent No. 9,633,373
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FIRSTFACE CO., LTD.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`________________
`
`Case IPR2019-00613
`Case IPR-2019-01011
`U.S. Patent No. 9,633,373
`
`________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE TO PETITION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00613
`U.S. Patent No. 9,633,373
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
`I.
`II. THE ’373 PATENT AND THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ............................ 3
`A. Problem Presented ............................................................................................. 3
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................... 6
`IV. LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART ..................................................................... 7
`V. SUMMARY OF THE REFERENCES .............................................................. 7
`A. Griffin ................................................................................................................. 7
`B. Goertz ................................................................................................................. 8
`C. Davis .................................................................................................................. 9
`D. iOS.................................................................................................................... 10
`VI. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS .......................................................... 11
`VII. THE PETITION DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE UNDER
`GROUND 1. ..................................................................................................... 13
`A. The cited references do not disclose an activation button separate from a
`power button. ................................................................................................... 14
`B. The cited art does not disclose turning on the display (displaying a lock
`screen) and performing a first function in response to a one-time pressing
`of the activation button. ................................................................................... 16
`1. Griffin does not disclose turning on the display and performing a first
`function in response to a one-time pressing of the activation button. ......... 17
`2. The deficiencies of Griffin are not resolved by Davis. ................................ 19
`C. A POSITA would not combine Griffin with Davis to arrive at the claimed
`invention. .......................................................................................................... 25
`VIII. THE PETITION DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE UNDER
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00613
`U.S. Patent No. 9,633,373
`
`
`
`
`GROUND 2. ..................................................................................................... 30
`A. The cited art does not disclose an activation button that turns on a display
`in response to a press. ...................................................................................... 31
`B. The cited art does not disclose turning on the display and performing a first
`function in response to a one-time pressing of the activation button. ............. 34
`1. Goertz does not disclose turning on the display and performing a first
`function in response to a one-time pressing of the activation button. ......... 35
`2. The deficiencies of Goertz are not resolved by Davis. ................................ 37
`C. A person of skill in the art would not combine Goertz with Davis to arrive
`at the claimed invention. .................................................................................. 37
`IX. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 44
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00613
`U.S. Patent No. 9,633,373
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases:
`
`Bausch & Lomb v. Barnes-Hind/Hydrocurve,
`796 F.2d 443 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ........................................................................... 22
`
`
`CFMT, Inc. v. YieldUp Int’l Corp.,
`349 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ......................................................................... 11
`
`
`Garmin Int’l, Inc. v. Patent of Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC,
`Case No. IPR2012-00001, Paper 15 (PTAB Jan. 9, 2013) ................................ 12
`
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ............................................................................................... 15
`
`
`Grain Processing Corp. v. American Maize-Prods. Co.,
`840 F.2d 902 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ........................................................................... 13
`
`
`In re Gordon,
`733 F.2d 900, 221 USPQ 1125 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ......................................... 12, 26
`
`
`In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ........................................................................... 15
`
`
`In re Rijckaert,
`9 F.3d 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ............................................................................. 12
`
`
`In re Royka,
`490 F.2d 981 (C.C.P.A. 1974) ...................................................................... 11-12
`
`
`Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
`688 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ......................................................................... 39
`
`
`KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ..................................................................................... 12, 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00613
`U.S. Patent No. 9,633,373
`
`
`
`Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. United States,
`702 F.2d 1005 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ......................................................................... 13
`
`
`Princeton Biochemicals, Inc. v. Coulter, Inc.,
`411 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ................................................................... 30, 43
`
`
`Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex, Inc.,
`655 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ......................................................................... 12
`
`
`Rules and Statutes:
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .................................................................................................. 11-12
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) .................................................................................................. 11
`
`35 U.S.C. § 282(b) .................................................................................................... 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ............................................................................................... 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107 .................................................................................................... 1
`
`Other Authorities:
`
`M.P.E.P § 2143.01(V) ....................................................................................... 12, 26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00613
`U.S. Patent No. 9,633,373
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`2001
`
`2008
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Alfred C. Weaver
`
`Bederson Deposition Transcript
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00613
`U.S. Patent No. 9,633,373
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.107, Patent Owner Firstface Co., Ltd. (“Firstface”
`
`or “Patent Owner”) submits this Response to the Petitions1 of Apple Inc. ( “Apple”
`
`or “Petitioner”) seeking inter partes review of claims 1-2, 4-6, 10-14, and 18 of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,633,373 (Ex. 1001, the “’373 patent”).
`
`I.
`
` INTRODUCTION
`
` The ’373 patent claims an elegant solution to the problem of incorporating
`
`new functionalities, such as fingerprint authentication, into mobile devices while
`
`maintaining simplicity. According to the challenged claims, a single, one-time
`
`pressing of an activation button when a device display is off causes the device to
`
`both turn on the display (actively displaying the lock screen) and perform a first
`
`function (such as fingerprint authentication). And when the activation button is
`
`pressed for longer than a threshold time period, the device performs a second
`
`function, such as a hands-free function. The claimed inventions thus increase the
`
`
`1 Petitioner originally filed a Petition seeking inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 4–
`
`6, and 11–14 in Case IPR2019-00613. Petitioner subsequently filed a Petition
`
`seeking inter partes review of claims 10 and 18 in Case IPR2019-1011. The Board
`
`instituted review in both proceedings and consolidated them for trial. This Response
`
`therefore addresses the arguments made in both Petitions.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00613
`U.S. Patent No. 9,633,373
`
`
`
`usefulness of a device without complicating the user interface because the new
`
`functionalities do not require additional buttons or other hardware, nor do they
`
`require the user to perform additional steps to access additional device
`
`functionalities. A single press of the activation button will both turn on the display
`
`(as the user would expect) and perform the additional function(s) while a lock
`
`screen is displayed. See Ex. 2001, ¶ 72.
`
`No prior art reference cited by Petitioner discloses activating a device display
`
`(displaying the lock screen) and performing a first function, each in response to a
`
`one-time pressing of the activation button. The primary references, Griffin and
`
`Goertz, disclose, instead, multi-step processes requiring multiple user actions. And
`
`Davis, the secondary reference that Petitioner combines with Griffin or Goertz, does
`
`not fill the void. It also discloses a multi-step process requiring multiple user
`
`actions. Thus, Petitioner’s proposed combinations do not disclose the claimed
`
`invention. Because the prior art does not disclose all limitations of the challenged
`
`claims, Petitioner has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that any
`
`challenged claim is obvious.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00613
`U.S. Patent No. 9,633,373
`
`
`
`II. THE ’373 PATENT AND THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Problem Presented
`
`The ’373 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. 1001 (’373 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 functions could be accessed or executed, requiring a
`
`user to perform multiple initiating steps. Id., 1:34-39. Moreover, many functions
`
`required new buttons, convoluting and congesting the user interface. Id.
`
`The inventors of the ’373 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 while on the move. Id., 1:45-49. Accordingly, the
`
`inventors developed technologies involving use of an activation button to perform
`
`predetermined functions at the same time as turning on the display. Id., 1:52-56.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00613
`U.S. Patent No. 9,633,373
`
`
`
`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., 8:3-
`
`20. To further enhance user experience, the inventors also recognized that the user
`
`would prefer that the display turn on while authentication is being performed. See
`
`Ex. 1001, claim 1. This configuration gives the user assurance that the terminal is
`
`operating normally and, as such, successfully received the user’s identifying
`
`biometrics (despite authentication being in process). 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 or long press can turn on the display and initiate yet
`
`another function. Id., 4:51-5:13; see also Ex. 2001, ¶ 74.
`
`The claims of the ’373 patent are directed to using the activation button to
`
`turn on a touch screen display and to initiate additional functions (such as
`
`fingerprint authentication) in response to a one-time pressing of the activation
`
`button. See, e.g., id., claim 1; see also Ex. 2001, ¶ 75. Claim 1 (as corrected in the
`
`certificates of correction) is representative:
`
`1. A mobile communication terminal comprising:
`a touch screen display;
`a camera;
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00613
`U.S. Patent No. 9,633,373
`
`
`
`
`a power button configured to turn on and off the terminal by pressing;
`and
`an activation button separate from the power button and located
`outside the touch screen display, the activation button
`configured for pressing to turn on the touch screen display and
`to initiate one or more additional functions of the terminal,
`wherein the terminal has a first function and a second function to
`perform in response to user input via the activation button and is
`configured to provide user settings for configuring at least one
`of the first and second functions such that at least one of the first
`and second functions is set to be performed in addition to
`turning on the touch screen display upon pressing of the
`activation button while the touch screen display is turned off,
`wherein the first and second functions are different from each
`other and selected from the group consisting of fingerprint
`authentication, activating the camera, playing music and a
`hands-free function,
`wherein upon one-time pressing of the activation button while the
`touch screen display is turned off, the terminal is configured to
`turn on the touch screen display and further perform at least one
`of the first and second functions in addition to turning on the
`touch screen display such that:
`a lock screen is displayed on the touch screen display upon turning on
`the touch screen display in response to the one-time pressing of
`the activation button while the touch screen display is turned off,
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00613
`U.S. Patent No. 9,633,373
`
`
`
`
`in response to the one-time pressing of the activation button, the first
`function is performed in addition to turning on the touch screen
`display for displaying the lock screen thereon, and
`the second function is performed when the one-time pressing is for a
`long time, longer than a reference time period,
`wherein at least one of the first and second functions is performed
`subsequent to turning on the touch screen display and displaying
`the lock screen in response to the one-time pressing of the
`activation button,
`wherein the touch screen display displays the lock screen when at least
`one of the first and second functions is being performed.
`
` Independent claim 11 is substantively similar.
`
`III. 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). Petitioner has not argued for any claim elements to be construed and, for
`
`the purposes of this Response, Patent Owner does not seek the construction of any
`
`term.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00613
`U.S. Patent No. 9,633,373
`
`
`
`IV. LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART
`
`Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`’373 patent would have had 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.” See Pet. at 11-12. For the purposes of this trial,
`
`Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal for level of ordinary skill in the
`
`art.
`
`V.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE REFERENCES
`
`A. Griffin
`
`Griffin (Ex. 1027) is a United States Patent Application dated May 31, 2012,
`
`with a filing date of November 29, 2010. It was considered by the examiner during
`
`prosecution and is listed as a reference cited in the ’373 patent. Griffin is titled
`
`“Multiple Input Device Lock and Unlock” and generally describes unlocking a
`
`device, which can refer either to waking the device or moving the device from a
`
`secure mode to an unsecure mode, in response to two different actions by the user.
`
`Ex. 1027 at [0024]-[0025]. For example, Griffin discloses that a user may unlock a
`
`device by pressing a button and then swiping in a specific way across the screen.
`
`See Ex. 1027, Figs. 5A-5C. Griffin makes clear that a single action, such as a button
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00613
`U.S. Patent No. 9,633,373
`
`
`
`press, is not enough to unlock a device: “[I]t can be seen that the foregoing methods
`
`and devices are configured to permit the device 100 to transition from a locked to
`
`an unlocked state not simply on the basis of a single type of input, such as a
`
`keypress or a single touch-screen gesture, but on the basis of a two-input or
`
`multiple-input action that must be detected across a plurality of user input interfaces
`
`provided on the device 100.” Ex. 1027 at [0116]; see also Ex. 2001, ¶ 78.
`
`B. Goertz
`
`Goertz (Ex. 1013) is a U.S. Patent Application Publication dated January 21,
`
`2010, bearing a filing date of June 17, 2009. Goertz is titled “User Interface for
`
`Mobile Computer Unit,” and its Abstract explains that the invention relates to
`
`providing a touch screen interface that presents keys in a way that facilitates entry
`
`of Chinese characters using stroke and Pinyin input. Ex. 1013 at Abstract; see also
`
`Ex. 2001, ¶ 79.
`
`Figures 12-15 show various “Key lock” functions of the device. Figure 12
`
`depicts, for instance, the device with a lock gadget and explains that by pressing the
`
`lock gadget, the phone is then locked. The specification explains that when the
`
`phone is locked, activation of the phone is restricted in some manner, “e.g., when
`
`the phone is locked, touching the screen in a way that would activate a gadget when
`
`the phone is unlocked, does not activate the gadget when the phone is locked.” Ex.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00613
`U.S. Patent No. 9,633,373
`
`
`
`1013 at [0060]. Goertz explains that unlocking the phone is achieved by activating a
`
`home key. Id.; see also Ex. 2001, ¶ 80.
`
`Goertz discloses a device mode called “Key lock high security mode,” in
`
`which the device sequentially turns on the screen and then prompts the user to
`
`authenticate. For example, as depicted in Figure 15, a keypad is displayed and a
`
`user is prompted to enter a security code after the home key is activated (such as by
`
`touching the home key). Once the proper code is entered, the phone is unlocked.
`
`See Ex. 2001, ¶ 81.
`
`Goertz also discloses that, “[o]ptionally, additional security is implemented
`
`by use of fingerprint identification, wherein the phone cannot be unlocked unless a
`
`fingerprint is authenticated.” Id. at [0061]. Notably, Goertz does not disclose that
`
`the authentication process is any different when fingerprint recognition is used in
`
`addition to a security code. Thus, Goertz is limited to a multi-step process, requiring
`
`multiple user actions to unlock the device. Goertz never presents an embodiment in
`
`which a one-time pressing of a button will both unlock a device and perform an
`
`authentication function. See Ex. 2001, ¶ 82.
`
`C. Davis
`
`Davis (Ex. 1015) is the secondary reference that Petitioner includes in
`
`separate combinations with Griffin and Goertz. Davis is a U.S. Patent Application
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00613
`U.S. Patent No. 9,633,373
`
`
`
`Publication dated June 3, 2010, with a filing date of December 1, 2008. It is titled
`
`“System and Method of Providing Biometric Quick Launch” and relates to easing
`
`the burden of multi-factor authentication by causing a device to both unlock and
`
`launch a specific application once the biometric portion of the multi-step
`
`authentication procedure is complete. Ex. 1015 at Abstract, Figure 5, [0077]. In its
`
`background, Davis criticizes the use of single-factor, password-based authentication
`
`to secure a device, and notes that two-factor or three-factor authentication using a
`
`smart card and/or biometric information is more secure. Ex. 1015 at [0002]-[0004].
`
`Davis recognizes that three-factor authentication, in particular, can be cumbersome.
`
`It thus proposes that “a user may associate a specific application with a stored
`
`fingerprint template such that the specific application may be launched, if not
`
`already executing, on the mobile device 102 responsive to provision of [a]
`
`fingerprint to the fingerprint sensor 325.” Ex. 1015 at [0054]. Notably, nothing in
`
`Davis discusses the use of a button to turn on a display screen, let alone use that
`
`button to turn on the display screen and perform another function, like fingerprint
`
`authentication. See Ex. 2001, ¶ 83.
`
`D.
`
`iOS
`
`iOS (Ex. 1007) is a User Guide for the iPhone OS 3.1 software that, like
`
`Davis, Petitioner includes in the combinations with Griffin and Goertz. Petitioner
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00613
`U.S. Patent No. 9,633,373
`
`
`
`refers to the manual for the presence of an iPhone home button that is separate from
`
`a power button and that has certain software settings functions. According to
`
`Petitioner, the home button is an activation button that is separate from the power
`
`button because it can be used to turn on the display. Pet. at 32-34. Patent Owner
`
`disputes that the iOS manual actually supports the proposition that the home button
`
`turns on the device display. While iOS discloses a “home button” that is separate
`
`from the power button, it only discloses that the home button can be used to unlock
`
`a device. See Ex. 1007 at 27. It never discloses that the home button can be used to
`
`activate a display. The home button accordingly is not an “activation button” within
`
`the meaning of the claims of the ’373 patent. See Ex. 2001, ¶ 84.
`
`VI. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`Section 103 of the Patent Act provides that “[a] patent may not be
`
`obtained . . . if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and
`
`the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at
`
`the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which
`
`said subject matter pertains.” 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). If a single element of the claim is
`
`absent from the prior art, the claims cannot be considered obvious. See CFMT, Inc.
`
`v. YieldUp Int’l Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[O]bviousness
`
`requires a suggestion of all limitations in a claim.”) (citing In re Royka, 490 F.2d
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00613
`U.S. Patent No. 9,633,373
`
`
`
`981, 985 (C.C.P.A. 1974)); In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1534 (Fed. Cir. 1993)
`
`(reversing obviousness rejection where prior art did not teach or suggest all claim
`
`limitations); Garmin Int’l, Inc. v. Patent of Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC, Case No.
`
`IPR2012-00001, Paper 15 at 15 (PTAB Jan. 9, 2013) (refusing to institute an inter
`
`partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 103 where prior art did not disclose all claim
`
`limitations).
`
`Further, “[o]bviousness requires more than a mere showing that the prior art
`
`includes separate references covering each separate limitation in a claim under
`
`examination.” Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 655 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2011) (citing KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)). “Rather,
`
`obviousness requires the additional showing that a person of ordinary skill at the
`
`time of the invention would have selected and combined those prior art elements in
`
`the normal course of research and development to yield the claimed invention.” Id.
`
`If a proposed modification or enhancement of a first prior art reference through the
`
`combination of a second prior art reference would result in the first reference being
`
`rendered unsuitable for its intended purpose, then there is no suggestion or
`
`motivation to make the proposed modification or enhancement. In re Gordon, 733
`
`F.2d 900, 221 USPQ 1125 (Fed. Cir. 1984); see also M.P.E.P § 2143.01(V). In
`
`addition, it is impermissible to “us[e] ‘the patent in suit as a guide through the maze
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00613
`U.S. Patent No. 9,633,373
`
`
`
`of prior art references, combining the right references in the right way so as to
`
`achieve the results of the claims in suit.’” See Grain Processing Corp. v. American
`
`Maize-Prods. Co., 840 F.2d 902, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (quoting Orthopedic Equip.
`
`Co. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1012 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
`
`VII. THE PETITION DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE UNDER GROUND
`1.
`
`The Petition fails to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that any
`
`challenged claim is unpatentable under Ground 1. Ground 1 is a three-reference
`
`obviousness combination comprised of Griffin, Davis, and iOS. The suggested
`
`combination does not disclose an activation, separate from the power button, where
`
`the activation button is configured to turn on the touch screen display. Nor does the
`
`suggested combination disclose turning on the touch screen display (displaying a
`
`lock screen) and further performing a first function in response to a one-time
`
`pressing of the activation button—an element common to all challenged claims. See
`
`claim elements labeled [1j] (“in response to the one-time pressing of the activation
`
`button, the first function is performed in addition to turning on the touch screen
`
`display for displaying the lock screen thereon”) and [11g] (“in response to the one-
`
`time pressing of the activation button, the first function is performed in addition to
`
`changing to the active state for displaying the lock screen”). This ends the inquiry.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00613
`U.S. Patent No. 9,633,373
`
`
`
`Nevertheless, the included references are not properly combined in the first place,
`
`and thus cannot invalidate the challenged claims. See Ex. 2001, ¶ 85.
`
`A. The cited references do not disclose an activation button separate
`from a power button.
`
`All challenged claims require an activation button that is configured to turn
`
`on the display in response to a press that is separate from the power button. See
`
`claim elements 1[e], [f] (“an activation button separate from the power button and
`
`located outside the touch screen display, the activation button configured for
`
`pressing to turn on the touch screen display and to initiate one or more additional
`
`functions of the terminal”), 11[b] (“providing a mobile computing terminal which
`
`comprises a touch screen display, a camera, a power button for pressing to turn
`
`on/off the terminal, and an activation button for pressing to turn on the touch screen
`
`display, the activation button located outside the touch screen display”). The only
`
`reference that Petitioner points to for “an activation button separate from the power
`
`button” is the “home button” disclosed in iOS. Pet. at 32. But the “home button” in
`
`iOS is not an “activation button” within the meaning of claim 1 because it is not
`
`“configured for pressing to turn on the touch screen display.” iOS only discloses
`
`that the home button can be used to unlock a device. Ex. 1007 at 27 (“Unlock
`
`iPhone: Press the Home button or the Sleep/Wake button, then drag the slider.”). It
`
`does not disclose that the home button is used to turn on the touch screen display,
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00613
`U.S. Patent No. 9,633,373
`
`
`
`and Petitioner’s expert has not indicated that the turning on of the display is
`
`inherent in iOS. See Ex. 2001, ¶ 86
`
`Indeed, he cannot make such an argument because there are other ways in
`
`which the display could be activated. See Ex. 2001, ¶ 87. For example, the display
`
`could be activated in response to an accelerometer detecting that the user had
`
`picked up the device. Id.
`
`Additionally, Petitioner fails to explain how any combination would render
`
`this element obvious. A proper obviousness analysis requires several threshold
`
`inquiries: the level of ordinary skill in the art must be established; the scope and
`
`content of the prior art must be determined; and any differences between the prior
`
`art and the claims at issue must be ascertained. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383
`
`U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). The conclusion of obviousness based on a combination of
`
`references must also be supported with explicit analysis of a reason to combine
`
`those references. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). The
`
`Federal Circuit has stated that such reasons must include “articulated reasoning with
`
`some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re
`
`Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00613
`U.S. Patent No. 9,633,373
`
`
`
`
`The Petition and the cited art (either alone or in combination) do not disclose
`
`all claim elements of the challenged claims. The challenged claims accordingly are
`
`valid over the art cited in Ground 1.
`
`B.
`
`The cited art does not disclose turning on the display (displaying a
`lock screen) and performing a first function in response to a one-
`time pressing of the activation button.
`
`Petitioner has also failed to meet its burden of showing that the challenged
`
`claims are invalid under Ground 1 because none of the prior art discloses turning on
`
`the display and performing one of the enumerated functions in response to a one-
`
`time pressing of the activation button. Griffin does not disclose turning on the
`
`display and performing a fingerprint authentication in response to a one-time
`
`pressing of the activation. It instead discloses a multi-step process requiring
`
`multiple user actions to perform fingerprint authentication. Davis does not cure
`
`Griffin’s shortcomings—it also discloses a multi-step process requiring multiple
`
`user actions. The combination of Griffin and Davis accordingly cannot disclose
`
`turning on the display and performing a fingerprint authentication function in
`
`response to a one-time pressing of the activation button. Griffin in view of Davis
`
`and iOS accordingly does not render the challenged claims invalid. See Ex. 2001,
`
`¶ 88.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00613
`U.S. Patent No. 9,633,373
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Griffin does not disclose turning on the display and performing a
`first function in response to a one-time pressing of the activation
`button.
`
`
`
`Petitioner asserts that Griffin discloses an activation button that turns on the
`
`display and performs a first function because it discloses that, upon receiving a first
`
`user input (a press of a button), a second user input interface is activated (which
`
`accepts a swipe of a finger or other user input). Pet. at 34. In other words, in a
`
`sleight of hand, Petitioner is saying that a press of a button turns on the display
`
`(though it remains dark) such that the display can accept a second user input (the
`
`turning on of the display for this purpose being the first function of the challenged
`
`claims). Thus Petitioner essentially argues that turning on the display IS the first
`
`function. This cannot be the case. Turning on the display and performing a first
`
`function are two different things altogether. The challenged claims make this clear.
`
`They require display of a lock screen AND that the first function (performed in
`
`response to a one-time pressing of the activation button) be one of “fingerprint
`
`authentication, activating the camera, playing music and a hands-free function.”
`
`Griffin neither discloses turning on the display to display a lock screen nor the
`
`performance of any separate (enumerated) function in response to a single press of
`
`an activation button. See Ex. 2001, ¶ 89.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00613
`U.S. Patent No. 9,633,373
`
`
`
`
`Even if Griffin can