APPLE INC.
`v.
`FIRSTFACE CO., LTD.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,633,373
`IPR2019-00613
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`IPR2019-00614
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,633,373
`IPR2019-01011
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`IPR2019-01012
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`May 5, 2020
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Apple Ex. 1040
`
`1
`
`

`

`Table Of Abbreviations
`
`Pet.2
`
`Pet.3
`
`Abbreviation Description
`IPR2019-00613, Paper 2, Petition for Inter Partes Review of United States
`Pet.1
`Patent No. 9,633,373
`IPR2019-00614, Paper 2, Petition for Inter Partes Review of United States
`Patent No. 9,779,419
`IPR2019-01011, Paper 2, Petition for Inter Partes Review of United States
`Patent No. 9,633,373
`IPR2019-01012, Paper 2, Petition for Inter Partes Review of United States
`Patent No. 9,779,419
`IPR2019-00613, Paper 8, Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response to Petition
`IPR2019-00614, Paper 8, Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response to Petition
`IPR2019-00613, Paper 16, Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`IPR2019-00614, Paper 16, Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`IPR2019-00613, Paper 18, Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00614, Paper 18, Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00613, Paper 21, Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply to Petition
`IPR2019-00614, Paper 21, Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply to Petition
`IPR2019-00613, Paper 10, Decision – Institution of Inter Partes Review
`IPR2019-00614, Paper 10, Decision – Institution of Inter Partes Review
`
`Pet.4
`POPR1
`POPR2
`POR1
`POR2
`Reply1
`Reply2
`SR1
`SR2
`ID1
`ID2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`
`

`

`Instituted Grounds
`
`References
`Griffin, Davis, iOS
`Goertz, Davis, iOS
`
`Basis
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`’373 Claims Challenged
`1, 2, 4-6, 10-14, 18
`1, 2, 4-6, 10-14, 18
`
`References
`Griffin, Davis, iOS
`Goertz, Davis, iOS
`
`Basis
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`’419 Claims Challenged
`1-4, 6-7, 9-13, 15-17
`1-4, 6-7, 9-13, 15-17
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3
`
`

`

`Overview Of The Disputed Issues
`
`Ground 1:
`• Whether the combination of Griffin and Davis discloses turning on
`the display and performing a fingerprint authentication function in
`response to a one-time pressing of the activation button
`• Whether the combination of Griffin and iOS discloses an activation
`button separate from a power button and configured to turn on
`the display
`• Whether there is motivation to combine Griffin, Davis, and iOS
`Ground 2:
`• Whether the combination of Goertz and Davis discloses turning on
`the display and performing a fingerprint authentication function in
`response to a one-time pressing of the activation button
`• Whether the combination of Goertz and iOS discloses an activation
`button separate from a power button and configured to turn on
`the display
`• Whether there is motivation to combine Goertz, Davis, and iOS
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`4
`
`

`

`“in response to the one-time
`pressing of the activation
`button, the first function is
`performed”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`5
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Reading Of “In Response To the One-Time Pressing Of The Activation
`Button, The First Function Is Performed” Is Based On An Incorrect Claim Interpretation
`
`Petitioner:
`Plain language of the claim.
`
`“in response to the one-time pressing of the
`activation button, the first function
`[fingerprint authentication] is performed”
`
`Patent Owner:
`
`“in response to the one-time pressing of the
`activation button, the first function
`[fingerprint authentication] is performed”
`excludes “another user input to complete the
`fingerprint authentication function”
`
`-00613 Ex. 1001 (’373), Claim 1;
`Reply1, 3-10; Reply2, 4-10.
`
`SR1, 10, 17-18; POR1, 13, 16-22.
`SR2. 10, 17; POR2, 13, 16-23.
`
`Patent Owner argues that the claims exclude “another user input to complete the fingerprint
`authentication function”
`SR1, 10, 17-18; SR2, 10, 17.
`
`But the claims necessarily require two inputs:
`
`•
`
`a one-time “press” of an activation button. This is a first input.
`
`• when the first function is fingerprint authentication, the fingerprint sensor scans a
`fingerprint. The fingerprint scan is a second input.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply1, 6; -00613 Ex. 1039 (Bederson) ¶25; ID1, 17, 22-23.
`Reply2, 6-7; -00614 Ex. 1039 (Bederson) ¶26; ID2, 22-23, 36.
`
`6
`
`

`

`The Claims Are Not Limited To A Single Input Or A Single User Action
`To Both Press The Activation Button And Scan The Fingerprint
`Specification:
`’373 Claim 1:
`[1a] A mobile communication terminal comprising:
`“The user can use the functions as
`described above by setting the
`[1f] … the activation button configured for pressing to turn
`application to be operated immediately
`on the touch screen display and to initiate one or more
`when the activation button 120 is pressed
`additional functions of the terminal,
`… Although an example of an
`[1g] wherein the terminal has a first function and a second
`authentication method through iris
`function to perform in response to user input via the
`recognition has been described above,
`activation button and [1h] is configured to provide user
`other authentication methods, for
`settings for configuring at least one of the first and second
`example, an authentication key matching
`functions such that at least one of the first and second
`method, a password matching method,
`functions is set to be performed in addition to turning on the
`a face recognition method, a fingerprint
`touch screen display upon pressing of the activation button
`recognition method, and the like, can be
`while the touch screen display is turned off, wherein the first
`used. That is, one or more of the
`and second functions are different from each other and
`authentication methods can be
`selected from the group consisting of fingerprint
`authentication, activating the camera, playing music and a
`performed by pressing the activation
`button 120.”
`hands-free function,
`[1i] 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:
`[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….
`-00613 Ex. 1001 (’373), 12:51-13:31.
`
`Reply1, 7-9; -00613 Ex. 1039 (Bederson) ¶¶22-31;
`Reply2, 8-9; -00614 Ex. 1039 (Bederson) ¶¶22-32.
`
`-00613/-00614 Ex. 1001 (’373/’419), 8:2-20.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`7
`
`

`

`The Claims Are Not Limited To A Single Input Or A Single User Action
`To Both Press The Activation Button And Scan The Fingerprint
`Specification:
`’373 Claim 1:
`[1a] A mobile communication terminal comprising:
`[1f] … the activation button configured for pressing to turn
`on the touch screen display and to initiate one or more
`additional functions of the terminal,
`[1g] wherein the terminal has a first function and a second
`function to perform in response to user input via the
`activation button and [1h] 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,
`[1i] 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:
`[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….
`-00613 Ex. 1001 (’373), 12:51-13:31.
`
`“If the activation sensing unit
`410 senses that the activation
`button 120 has been pressed,
`the user identification unit 420
`operates the user identification
`function in various methods.”
`-00613/-00614 Ex. 1001 (’373/’419), 7:23-28.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`8
`
`-00613/-00614 Ex. 1001 (’373/’419), Fig. 4A.
`
`Reply1, 6-7; -00613 Ex. 1039 (Bederson) ¶26;
`Reply2, 7-8; -00614 Ex. 1039 (Bederson) ¶27.
`
`

`

`The Claims Are Not Limited To A Single Input Or A Single User Action
`To Both Press The Activation Button And Scan The Fingerprint
`Specification:
`’373 Claim 1:
`“In addition, according to an
`[1a] A mobile communication terminal comprising:
`embodiment of the present invention,
`[1f] … the activation button configured for pressing to turn
`on the touch screen display and to initiate one or more
`an operation which differs according
`additional functions of the terminal,
`to the number of presses …of the
`activation button 120 can be
`[1g] wherein the terminal has a first function and a second
`function to perform in response to user input via the
`performed when the mobile
`activation button and [1h] is configured to provide user
`communication terminal 100 is in the
`settings for configuring at least one of the first and second
`inactive state. For example, a first
`functions such that at least one of the first and second
`operation can be set to be performed if
`functions is set to be performed in addition to turning on the
`touch screen display upon pressing of the activation button
`the activation button 120 is pressed
`while the touch screen display is turned off, wherein the first
`once, and a second operation can be set
`and second functions are different from each other and
`to be performed if the activation
`selected from the group consisting of fingerprint
`button 120 is continuously pressed
`authentication, activating the camera, playing music and a
`three times.”
`hands-free function,
`[1i] 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:
`[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….
`-00613 Ex. 1001 (’373), 12:51-13:31.
`
`-00613/-00614 Ex. 1001 (’373/’419), 4:57-65.
`“performing various functions according
`to the number of presses or a press time
`of a button”
`
`-00613/-00614 Ex. 1001 (’373/’419), 1:17-23.
`Reply1, 5-6; -00613 Ex. 1039 (Bederson) ¶24;
`Reply2, 5-6; -00614 Ex. 1039 (Bederson) ¶25.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`9
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Reading Of “In Response To the One-Time Pressing Of The Activation
`Button, The First Function Is Performed” Is Based On An Incorrect Claim Interpretation
`
`Petitioner:
`Plain language of the claim.
`
`“in response to the one-time pressing of the
`activation button, the first function
`[fingerprint authentication] is performed”
`
`Patent Owner:
`
`“in response to the one-time pressing of the
`activation button, the first function
`[fingerprint authentication] is performed”
`excludes “another user input to complete the
`fingerprint authentication function”
`
`-00613 Ex. 1001 (’373), Claim 1;
`Reply1, 3-10; Reply2, 4-10.
`
`SR1, 10, 17-18; POR1, 13, 16-22.
`SR2. 10, 17; POR2, 13, 16-23.
`
`Patent Owner’s argument that none of the prior art discloses turning on the display and
`performing a fingerprint authentication function in response to a one-time pressing of the
`activation button is based on an incorrect claim interpretation.
`
`The combinations of references in Grounds 1 and 2 disclose the plain language of the claims.
`
`Reply1, 3, 23-24; Reply2, 4, 23-24.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`10
`
`

`

`Ground 1: Whether the
`combination of Griffin and Davis
`discloses turning on the display
`and performing a fingerprint
`authentication function in
`response to a one-time pressing
`of the activation button
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`11
`
`

`

`The Combination of Griffin and Davis Discloses Turning On The
`Display And Performing A Fingerprint Authentication Function In
`Response To A One-Time Pressing Of The Activation Button
`
`Griffin discloses a single, continuous
`unlock action with two input mechanisms:
`
`• Pressing an activation button (home
`or convenience key) turns on the
`touch screen display (from a sleep
`mode).
`• This pressing of the activation button
`initiates an unlock procedure that
`detects a second input.
`
`-00613/-00614 Ex. 1027 (Griffin) ¶25.
`
`-00613/-00614 Ex. 1027 (Griffin) ¶86-88, 121.
`
`•
`
`If the second input is received, the
`device is unlocked.
`
`-00613/-00614 Ex. 1027 (Griffin) ¶122.
`
`-00613/-00614 Ex. 1027 (Griffin), Fig. 11.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Pet.1, 13-16, 33-35; -00613 Ex. 1003 (Bederson) ¶¶51-56, 76;
`Pet.2, 12-15, 30-33; -00614 Ex. 1003 (Bederson) ¶¶51-56, 76;
`-00613/-00614 Ex. 1027 (Griffin) ¶¶24-25, 29, 35, 77, 85-88, 121-22, Abstract, Fig. 5A-C, 11;
`Reply1, 10-11, 13-14; Reply2, 10-11, 14.
`
`12
`
`

`

`The Combination of Griffin and Davis Discloses Turning On The
`Display And Performing A Fingerprint Authentication Function In
`Response To A One-Time Pressing Of The Activation Button
`Davis teaches performing a function (fingerprint authentication) in response to an
`unlock command (e.g., Griffin’s pressing of the home/convenience button):
`
`• Receive an unlock command
`• Display a fingerprint dialog (i.e., a lock screen)
`• Scan a fingerprint and unlock the device if the fingerprint is valid
`-00613/-00614 Ex. 1015 (Davis), Fig. 4 (modified), ¶¶46-48, 52-53, 71, Claim 1;
`Pet.1, 16-19, 35-38; -00613 Ex. 1003 (Bederson) ¶¶58-61, 76; ID1, 17;
`Pet.2, 15-19, 33-35; -00614 Ex. 1003 (Bederson) ¶¶58-61, 76; ID2, 22-23;
`Bederson:
`Reply1, 11-12; Reply2, 11-12.
`“[A] POSITA would have implemented an unlocking procedure that included an
`unlock command followed by a fingerprint dialog and a fingerprint unlock
`function (steps 416-422 …), but without any intervening input mechanisms.”
`-00613 Ex. 1003 (Bederson) ¶60; Pet.1, 17-18; ID1, 17
`-00614 Ex. 1003 (Bederson) ¶60; Pet.2, 16-17.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`13
`
`

`

`The Combination of Griffin and Davis Discloses the Claim
`Even Under Patent Owner’s Incorrect Interpretation
`Even if the claims required a single user action to both press the activation
`button and scan a fingerprint (they do not), Griffin discloses turning on the
`display and unlocking in response to a single, continuous user action:
`Griffin:
`“Accordingly, the embodiments described herein provide a method, comprising:
`detecting a single, continuous unlock action applied to at least two input
`mechanisms on a locked electronic device; and unlocking the electronic device in
`response to said detecting.”
`
`-00613/-00614 Ex. 1027 (Griffin) ¶30; see also id., Abstract, ¶¶35-36, 88, Figs. 5A-C.
`“[A]n example of the single-gesture or continuous-action input is illustrated as it
`may be implemented on a handheld mobile device 100, such as a smartphone
`equipped with a touchscreen display 510.”
`
`-00613/-00614 Ex. 1027 (Griffin) ¶86.
`
`In the combination of Griffin and Davis, the single, continuous user action
`includes two inputs, just like the Claims: (1) a button press (e.g., Griffin’s
`Fig. 11 step 1100), and (2) a second input (e.g., Davis’s fingerprint scan).
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply1, 13-14; -00613 Ex. 1039 (Bederson) ¶37; Pet.1, 13-16; ID1, 7-9, 15;
`Reply2, 14; -00614 Ex. 1039 (Bederson) ¶38; Pet.2, 12-15; ID2, 10-13, 24-25.
`
`14
`
`

`

`The Combination of Griffin and Davis Discloses Turning On The Display
`And Performing A Fingerprint Authentication Function In Response To A
`One-Time Pressing Of The Activation Button
`Patent Owner Argues:
`Petitioner’s modification of Figure 4 is inappropriate because “Davis never discloses that its complex
`authentication procedure can be reduced down to a simple fingerprint authentication.”
`POR1, 21-22; POR2, 22.
`But Petitioner’s modified Figure 4 is straightforward and expressly taught by Davis
`Figure 4:
`
`-00613/-00614 Ex. 1015 (Davis),
`Fig. 4 (modified).
`
`Davis:
`“As should be clear to a person of ordinary skill in the art, the order in which various
`authentication factors are provided by the user should not be considered to be limited to the
`order in which the authentication factors are provided in the example embodiments presented
`herein. Indeed, many embodiments will only require a subset of the authentication factors
`discussed in this application.”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-00613/-00614 Ex. 1015 (Davis) ¶¶71, 14, Claim 1; ID1, 15-17; ID2, 15, 22-24.
`Reply1, 14-16; -00613 Ex. 1039 (Bederson) ¶¶34-35;
`Reply2, 14-16; -00614 Ex. 1039 (Bederson) ¶¶35-36.
`
`15
`
`

`

`Ground 2: Whether the
`combination of Goertz and Davis
`discloses turning on the display
`and performing a fingerprint
`authentication function in
`response to a one-time pressing
`of the activation button
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`16
`
`

`

`The Combination of Goertz and Davis Discloses Turning On The
`Display And Performing A Fingerprint Authentication Function In
`Response To A One-Time Pressing Of The Activation Button
`
`Goertz discloses an activation
`button (home key) configured
`for pressing to:
`• Turn on the display and
`Initiate a high security
`•
`function (e.g., fingerprint
`authentication).
`
`-00613/-00614 Ex. 1013 (Goertz) ¶¶60-61.
`
`Thus, in response to a one-time
`press of Goertz’s home key, (1)
`the display is turned on and (2) a
`high security function such as
`fingerprint authentication is
`initiated to unlock the phone.
`
`Pet.1, 53-55, 69-71; -00613 Ex. 1003 (Bederson) ¶¶78-82, 97;
`Pet.2, 55-56, 68-70; -00614 Ex. 1003 (Bederson) ¶¶78-82, 97;
`-00613/-00614 Ex. 1013 (Goertz) ¶¶59-61, 23-24, Figs. 9-15;
`Reply1, 23; Reply2, 23.
`
`17
`
`-00613/-00614 Ex. 1013 (Goertz), Figs. 12-14.
`
`“In order to unlock the phone, the user activates the
`home key, located at the bottom center of the device,
`as shown in FIG. 13. FIG. 14 shows the phone after it
`has been unlocked: gadgets are now displayed on
`screen and are activated in response to user input”
`-00613/-00614 Ex. 1013 (Goertz) ¶60.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`

`

`The Combination of Goertz and Davis Discloses Turning On The
`Display And Performing A Fingerprint Authentication Function In
`Response To A One-Time Pressing Of The Activation Button
`Davis teaches performing a function (fingerprint authentication) in response to an
`unlock command (e.g., Goertz’s pressing of the home key):
`
`• Receive an unlock command
`• Display a fingerprint dialog (i.e., a lock screen)
`• Scan a fingerprint and unlock the device if the fingerprint is valid
`-00613/-00614 Ex. 1015 (Davis), Fig. 4 (modified), ¶¶46-48, 52-53, 71, Claim 1;
`Pet.1, 17-19, 55-56, 71-72; -00613 Ex. 1003 (Bederson) ¶¶58-61, 83-84, 97; ID1, 17, 22-23;
`Pet.2, 16-19, 56-57, 70-71; -00614 Ex. 1003 (Bederson) ¶¶58-61, 83-84, 97; ID2, 22-23, 36-37;
`Bederson:
`Reply1, 24; Reply2, 24.
`“[A] POSITA would have implemented an unlocking procedure that included an
`unlock command followed by a fingerprint dialog and a fingerprint unlock
`function (steps 416-422 …), but without any intervening input mechanisms.”
`-00613 Ex. 1003 (Bederson) ¶60; Pet.1, 17-18, 55-56; ID1, 17;
`-00614 Ex. 1003 (Bederson) ¶60; Pet.2, 16-17, 56-57.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`18
`
`

`

`The Combination of Goertz and Davis Discloses Turning On The
`Display And Performing A Fingerprint Authentication Function In
`Response To A One-Time Pressing Of The Activation Button
`
`Patent Owner Argues:
`“Petitioner presents a heavily-altered version of [Figure 4 of Davis].”
`
`But Petitioner’s modified Figure 4 is straightforward and expressly taught
`by Davis (see slide 15)
`
`POR1, 37; POR2, 38.
`
`Reply1, 14-16, 24; -00613 Ex. 1039 (Bederson) ¶¶34-35, 58;
`Reply2, 14-16, 24; -00614 Ex. 1039 (Bederson) ¶¶35-36, 60.
`
`Patent Owner Argues:
`Davis discloses a multi-step process.
`
`But the claims are not limited to a single step or single user action to both
`press the activation button and scan a fingerprint (see slides 5-10)
`
`POR1, 37; POR2, 38.
`
`Reply1, 23-24; Reply2, 23-24.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`19
`
`

`

`Ground 1: Whether the
`combination of Griffin and iOS
`discloses an activation button
`separate from a power button
`and configured to turn on the
`display
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`20
`
`

`

`The Combination of Griffin and iOS Discloses an Activation
`Button Separate From a Power Button
`
`Griffin:
`
`iOS:
`
`-00613/-00614 Ex. 1027 (Griffin), Fig. 5B, ¶¶86, 25;
`Pet.1, 31-33; -00613 Ex. 1003 (Bederson) ¶¶52-53, 76;
`Pet.2, 29-30; -00614 Ex. 1003 (Bederson) ¶¶52-53, 76.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-00613/-00614 Ex. 1007 (iOS), 20, 26-27;
`Pet.1, 20-21, 30-32; -00613 Ex. 1003 (Bederson) ¶¶66, 76; ID1, 11;
`Pet.2, 19-20, 29-30; -00614 Ex. 1003 (Bederson) ¶¶66, 76; ID2, 16;
`Reply1, 1-3; Reply2, 1-3.
`
`21
`
`

`

`The Combination of Griffin and iOS Discloses an Activation
`Button Separate From a Power Button
`Patent Owner Argues:
`“[T]he ‘home button’ in iOS is not an ‘activation button’” because it does not turn
`on the touch screen display.
`POR1, 14; POR2, 15.
`But Petitioner relied on Griffin for the activation button configured for
`pressing to turn on the touch screen display (element [1.f] for ’373;
`element [1.e] for ’419).
`-00613/-00614 Ex. 1027 (Griffin) ¶¶25, 86;
`Pet.1, 31-33; Reply1, 1-2; -00613 Ex. 1039 (Bederson) ¶¶16-17;
`Pet.2, 29-30; Reply2, 1-3; -00614 Ex. 1039 (Bederson) ¶¶16-18.
`Moreover, iOS discloses that its home button
`turns on the display:
`iOS:
`
`-00613/-00614 Ex. 1007 (iOS), 145.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-00613/-00614 Ex. 1007 (iOS), 27.
`
`-00613/-00614 Ex. 1007 (iOS), 20, 26-27;
`Reply1, 2-3; -00613 Ex. 1039 (Bederson) ¶¶18-19; ID1, 11;
`Reply2, 3; -00614 Ex. 1039 (Bederson) ¶¶19-20; ID2, 16.
`
`22
`
`

`

`Ground 2: Whether the
`combination of Goertz and iOS
`discloses an activation button
`separate from a power button
`and configured to turn on the
`display
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`23
`
`

`

`The Combination of Goertz and iOS Discloses an Activation
`Button Separate From a Power Button
`Goertz:
`iOS:
`
`-00613/-00614 Ex.
`1013 (Goertz), Figs. 9-
`14.
`“In order to unlock the phone, the user activates the
`home key, located at the bottom center of the device,
`as shown in FIG. 13. FIG. 14 shows the phone after it
`has been unlocked: gadgets are now displayed on
`screen and are activated in response to user input”
`-00613/-00614 Ex. 1013 (Goertz) ¶60;
`Pet.1, 53-54, 67-70; -00613 Ex. 1003 (Bederson) ¶¶79-81, 97;; ID1, 20-22;
`Pet.2, 55-56, 66-69; -00614 Ex. 1003 (Bederson) ¶¶79-81, 97; ID2, 34-35.
`
`-00613/-00614 Ex. 1007 (iOS), 20, 26-27;
`Pet.1, 57-58, 66-68, 70; -00613 Ex. 1003 (Bederson) ¶¶88, 97; ID1, 11;
`Pet.2, 59-60, 66-67, 69-70; -00614 Ex. 1003 (Bederson) ¶¶88, 97; ID2, 16;
`Reply1, 19-23; Reply2, 19-23.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`24
`
`

`

`The Combination of Goertz and iOS Discloses an Activation
`Button Separate From a Power Button
`Patent Owner Argues:
`“[T]he ‘home button’ in iOS is not an ‘activation button’” because it does not turn
`on the touch screen display.
`POR1, 33-34; POR2, 35.
`But Petitioner relied on Goertz for the activation button configured for
`pressing to turn on the touch screen display (element [1.f] for ’373;
`element [1.e] for ’419).
`-00613/-00614 Ex. 1013 (Goertz) ¶60, Figs. 9-14;
`Pet.1, 67-70; Reply1, 19-22; -00613 Ex. 1039 (Bederson) ¶¶48-52;
`Pet.2, 66-69; Reply2, 19-22; -00614 Ex. 1039 (Bederson) ¶¶49-53.
`Moreover, iOS discloses that its home button
`turns on the display:
`iOS:
`
`-00613/-00614 Ex. 1007 (iOS), 145.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-00613/-00614 Ex. 1007 (iOS), 27.
`
`-00613/-00614 Ex. 1007 (iOS), 20, 26-27;
`Reply1, 22-23; -00613 Ex. 1039 (Bederson) ¶53; ID1, 11;
`Reply2, 22-23; -00614 Ex. 1039 (Bederson) ¶¶54-55; ID2, 16.
`
`25
`
`

`

`Ground 1: Whether there is
`motivation to combine Griffin,
`Davis, and iOS
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`26
`
`

`

`A POSITA Would Have Been Motivated to Combine Griffin,
`Davis, and iOS
`Dr. Bederson (fingerprint function):
`“It would have been obvious to a POSITA to use a fingerprint function, as taught by Davis,
`for the second unlock input mechanism of Griffin. A POSITA would have been motivated to
`do so because biometric inputs provided higher levels of security against unauthorized
`users and increased user convenience. See, e.g., Ex. 1014, 1:24-37.”
`-00613 Ex. 1003 (Bederson) ¶¶61-63; Pet.1, 18-20;
`-00614 Ex. 1003 (Bederson) ¶¶61-63; Pet.2, 17-19.
`
`Dr. Bederson (camera and power button):
`“A POSITA would have been motivated, and it would have been obvious, to include a camera
`and power button, as taught by Davis and/or iOS, in Griffin’s analogous mobile device, to
`provide photo-taking and power-switching capabilities to the device. Such combination
`would have been, for example, the use of known techniques (camera and power button
`components) to improve similar devices (the mobile devices of Griffin, Davis, and iOS) in
`the same way (to provide camera functionality and an actuatable button for toggling
`power).”
`
`-00613 Ex. 1003 (Bederson) ¶¶68-72; Pet.1, 22-26;
`-00614 Ex. 1003 (Bederson) ¶¶68-72; Pet.2, 21-25.
`“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a [POSITA] would recognize that
`it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its
`actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417,
`82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
`Pet.1, 22; Pet.2, 21.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply1, 16-17; Reply2, 16-18.
`
`27
`
`

`

`A POSITA Would Have Been Motivated to Combine Griffin,
`Davis, and iOS
`Patent Owner Argues:
`“[A] POSITA would not combine Griffin with Davis … because they each teach away from the
`simplicity achieved by the challenged claims.” Griffin requires two separate user inputs.
`POR1, 25; POR2, 27.
`But the claims are not limited to a single input to both press the activation button and
`scan a fingerprint (see slides 5-10)
`And Griffin teaches multiple inputs should be simple so that they can be “interpreted as
`a continuous single action.”
`-00613/-00614 Ex. 1027 (Griffin), Abstract, ¶88; ID1, 15; ID2, 24-25;
`Reply1, 16-17; -00613 Ex. 1039 (Bederson) ¶39;
`Patent Owner Argues:
`Reply2, 16-17; -00614 Ex. 1039 (Bederson) ¶40.
`Davis teaches using two- or three-factor authentication.
`POR1, 25; POR2, 27.
`But Davis also expressly discloses using a subset of the authentication factors.
`Davis:
`“[M]any embodiments will only require a subset of the authentication factors discussed in this
`application.”
`-00613/-00614 Ex. 1015 (Davis), ¶¶71, 14.
`And, Davis explains that using multiple authentication factors may be time consuming.
`Davis:
`“While three-factor authentication is secure, three-factor authentication may be considered
`time consuming to employ every time access to the computer of interest is desired. It is clear that
`any gains in efficiency in accomplishing the task for which access to the computer is desired
`would be welcome.”
`-00613/-00614 Ex. 1015 (Davis), ¶12.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply1, 17; -00613 Ex. 1039 (Bederson) ¶39; ID1, 14-15;
`Reply2, 16-17; -00614 Ex. 1039 (Bederson) ¶40; ID2, 22-25.
`
`28
`
`

`

`A POSITA Would Have Been Motivated to Combine Griffin,
`Davis, and iOS
`Patent Owner Argues:
`“Petitioner’s proposed combination is riddled with hindsight bias because it uses
`the [’373/’419] patent as a roadmap.”
`But, as Dr. Bederson explained:
`“It would have been obvious to a POSITA to use a fingerprint function, as taught by Davis, for
`the second unlock input mechanism of Griffin. A POSITA would have been motivated to do so
`because biometric inputs provided higher levels of security against unauthorized users
`and increased user convenience.”
`
`POR1, 26; POR2, 28.
`
`-00613 Ex. 1003 (Bederson) ¶63; Pet.1, 18-20;
`-00614 Ex. 1003 (Bederson) ¶63; Pet.2, 17-19.
`• A POSITA would have been motivated to add iOS’s and Davis’s mobile device
`functions (e.g., camera, power button, long-press) and settings menu to Griffin’s
`mobile device, and would have recognized these would have been useful
`resources to include in any smartphone device and would have been an
`application of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same
`way.
`-00613 Ex. 1003 (Bederson) ¶¶68-75; Pet.1, 22-27 (citing KSR).
`-00614 Ex. 1003 (Bederson) ¶¶68-75; Pet.2, 21-26 (citing KSR).
`Moreover, Griffin and Davis both recognize that the configuration of a mobile
`device is highly customizable.
`-00613 Ex. 1039 (Bederson) ¶40;
`-00614 Ex. 1039 (Bederson) ¶41.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply1, 17; Reply2, 17-18.
`
`29
`
`

`

`A POSITA Would Have Been Motivated to Combine Griffin,
`Davis, and iOS
`IPR2019-00613 (‘373): Patent Owner’s suggestion that Petitioner failed to identify
`motivation to combine for Elements [1e], [1f], and [1j] (POR1, 26-30) is incorrect.
`Element Patent Owner’s
`Characterization Petitioner’s Response
`[1e]
`“No motivation listed in
`iOS teaches a separate power button, and Petitioner explained
`claim chart. No clear
`in detail the motivation to combine for that element, e.g., to
`explanation as to why one
`provide power-switching capabilities using a well-known
`of skill in the art would be
`interface implementation to improve a similar device in the
`motivated to combine....“
`same way.
`POR1, 27.
`
`Pet.1, 22-23 (citing KSR).
`
`[1f]
`
`[1j]
`
`“No motivation listed in
`claim chart. No clear
`explanation as to why one
`of skill in the art would be
`motivated to combine
`Griffin with iOS”
`POR1, 27.
`“cites to [1f] and [1h],
`otherwise no motivation
`provided”
`
`POR1, 29.
`
`Petitioner relied on Griffin for this element, not Griffin and iOS,
`and thus no motivation to combine is needed. Griffin alone
`discloses [1f], and iOS was cited as confirmation that Griffin’s
`disclosure “conforms to conventional device operations.”
`
`Pet.1, 33-34.
`
`Petitioner referred back to [1f] through [1h] (which in turn
`reference the applicable “further discussions and motivation to
`combine”), and not “[1f] and [1h]” as Patent Owner asserts.
`Aside from [1f] which is discussed above, Patent Owner does
`not argue that there is any specific deficiency in the
`motivations referenced for Element [1j].
`
`Pet.1, 19-27, 40-41; POR, 29.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply1, 18; -00613 Ex. 1039 (Bederson) ¶¶41-44.
`
`30
`
`

`

`A POSITA Would Have Been Motivated to Combine Griffin,
`Davis, and iOS
`IPR2019-00614 (‘419): Patent Owner’s suggestion that Petitioner failed to identify
`motivation to combine for Elements [1d], [1f], and [1h] (POR2, 28-31) is incorrect.
`Element Patent Owner’s
`Characterization Petitioner’s Response
`[1d]
`“No motivation listed in
`iOS teaches a separate power button, and Petitioner explained
`claim chart. No clear
`in detail the motivation to combine for that element, e.g., to
`explanation as to why one
`provide power-switching capabilities using a well-known
`of skill in the art would be
`interface implementation to improve a similar device in the
`motivated to combine....“
`same way.
`POR2, 29.
`
`Pet.2, 21-22 (citing KSR).
`
`[1f]
`
`[1h]
`
`“No clear explanation as
`to why one of skill in the
`art would be motivated to
`combine Griffin with iOS”
`POR2, 29.
`
`Petitioner relied on Griffin and Davis for this element, not
`Griffin and iOS. Pet.2, 12-19, 30-35 (including an explicit
`reference to “discussions and motivation to combine in
`Sections VIII.A.1-2” in the Petition).
`
`Pet.2, 12-19, 30-35.
`
`“No motivation
`listed”
`
`POR2, 30.
`
`Petitioner relied on the lock/unlock disclosures of Davis.
`Petitioner provided motivation for using Davis’s fingerprint
`function as Griffin’s second unlock input mechanism, e.g., to
`provide higher levels of security and user convenience.
`
`Pet.2, 16-19, 37.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply2, 18-19; -00614 Ex. 1039 (Bederson) ¶¶42-45.
`
`31
`
`

`

`Ground 2: Whether there is
`motivation to combine Goertz,
`Davis, and iOS
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`32
`
`

`

`A POSITA Would Have Been Motivated to Combine Goertz,
`Davis, and iOS
`Dr. Bederson (fingerprint function):
`“A POSITA would have been motivated, and it would have been obvious, to implement the
`fingerprint function, as taught by Davis, for the fingerpri