UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FIRSTFACE CO., LTD.
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2019-00614
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`____________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................ i 
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS .............................................................................................. iv 
`
`I. 
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1 
`
`II.  MANDATORY NOTICES PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ................. 2 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`Real Party-In-Interest ............................................................................ 2 
`
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 2 
`
`Lead Counsel, Back-Up Counsel, and Service Information ................. 4 
`
`III.  PAYMENT OF FEES ................................................................................... 4 
`
`IV.  REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW ................................ 5 
`
`A.  Grounds for Standing ............................................................................ 5 
`
`B. 
`
`Identification of Challenge .................................................................... 5 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`The Specific Art on Which the Challenge is Based ................... 5 
`
`Statutory Grounds on Which the Challenge is Based ................. 7 
`
`How the Construed Claims are Unpatentable under the
`Statutory Grounds Identified in 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2) and
`Supporting Evidence Relied upon to Support the Challenge ..... 7 
`
`V. 
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ........................................................................ 8 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`The ’419 Patent ..................................................................................... 8 
`
`Prosecution History ............................................................................. 10 
`
`VI.  LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ...................................... 11 
`
`VII.  CLAIM INTERPRETATION .................................................................... 11 
`
`i
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`VIII.  GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY ..................................................... 12 
`
`A.  Ground 1: Claims 1-4, 6-7, 10-13, and 15-17 are rendered obvious by
`Griffin in view of Davis and iOS under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ............... 12 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`Fingerprint authentication ......................................................... 12 
`
`Fingerprint authentication—motivation to combine and
`expectation of success ............................................................... 18 
`
`3.  Mobile device functions ............................................................ 19 
`
`4.  Mobile device functions—motivation to combine and
`expectation of success ............................................................... 21 
`
`5. 
`
`6. 
`
`7. 
`
`User settings .............................................................................. 25 
`
`User settings—motivation to combine and expectation of
`success ....................................................................................... 25 
`
`Claim charts .............................................................................. 26 
`
`B. 
`
`Ground 2: Claims 1-4, 6-7, 10-13, and 15-17 are rendered obvious by
`Goertz in view of Davis and iOS under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ............... 54 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`Fingerprint authentication ......................................................... 54 
`
`Fingerprint authentication—motivation to combine and
`expectation of success ............................................................... 57 
`
`3.  Mobile device functions ............................................................ 58 
`
`4.  Mobile device functions—motivation to combine and
`expectation of success ............................................................... 61 
`
`5. 
`
`6. 
`
`7. 
`
`User settings .............................................................................. 64 
`
`User settings—motivation to combine and expectation of
`success ....................................................................................... 64 
`
`Claim charts .............................................................................. 65 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`IX.  CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 88 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419 to Jung et al.
`
`Prosecution History File of Application No. 14/848,156, which
`matured into U.S. Patent No. 9,633,373
`
`Declaration of Benjamin B. Bederson
`
`Declaration of Michael Hulse
`
`[intentionally left blank]
`
`[intentionally left blank]
`
`Apple iPhone OS 3.1 User Guide (September 2009)
`
`[intentionally left blank]
`
`[intentionally left blank]
`
`[intentionally left blank]
`
`[intentionally left blank]
`
`[intentionally left blank]
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0017872 to Goertz et al.
`
`German Patent Application Publication No. DE 197 10 546 A1 to
`Herfet (certified English translation + German language publication)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0138914 to Davis et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,443,199 to Kim et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,965,449 to Rivera et al.
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0082974 to Kerr et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,703,468 to Reeves et al.
`
`
`
`iv
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,104,288 to Wever et al.
`
`Peter H. Lewis, THE EXECUTIVE COMPUTER; Compaq Finally
`Makes a Laptop, The New York Times (October 23, 1988)
`(https://www.nytimes.com/1988/10/23/business/the-executive-
`computer-compaq-finally-makes-a-laptop.html)
`
`J. Flinn & M. Satyanarayanan, Energy-aware adaptation for mobile
`applications, 33 SIGOPS Oper. Syst. Rev. 48-63 (December 12,
`1999) (DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/319344.319155)
`
`A. Roy, S. M. Rumble, R. Stutsman, P. Levis, D. Mazières, & N.
`Zeldovich, Energy Management in Mobile Devices with the Cinder
`Operating System, Proceedings of the sixth conference on Computer
`systems (EuroSys ’11), Pages 139-52 (April 10, 2011)
`(DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1966445.1966459)
`
`Your Palm Treo 680 Smart Device User Guide (2006)
`(https://www.att.com/support_static_files/manuals/Palm_Treo_680.pd
`f)
`
`D. Muthukumaran, A. Sawani, J. Schiffman, B. M. Jung, & T. Jaeger,
`Measuring Integrity on Mobile Phone Systems, Proceedings of the
`13th ACM symposium on Access control models and technologies
`(SACMAT ’08), Pages 155-64 (June 11, 2008)
`(DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1377836.1377862)
`
`M. Landman, Managing Smart Phone Security Risks, 2010
`Information Security Curriculum Development Conference
`(InfoSecCD ’10), Pages 145-55 (October 1, 2010)
`(DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1940941.1940971)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0133484 to Griffin
`
`[intentionally left blank]
`
`[intentionally left blank]
`
`[intentionally left blank]
`
`Declaration of Yosh Moriarty
`
`
`
`v
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`iPhone 3G Finger Tips (2009)
`
`P. Tarr, W. Harrison, H. Ossher, A. Finkelstein, B. Nuseibeh, & D.
`Perry, Workshop on Multi-Dimensional Separation of Concerns in
`Software Engineering, Proceedings of the 2000 International
`Conference on Software Engineering: ICSE 2000 the New
`Millennium, Pages 809-810 (2000)
`(DOI=https://doi.org/10.1145/337180.337827)
`
`[intentionally left blank]
`
`Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement, Docket No. 57,
`Firstface Co., Ltd. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-02245 (N.D. Cal.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. respectfully requests inter partes review (IPR) of claims
`
`1-4, 6-7, 10-13, and 15-17 of U.S. Patent 9,779,419 (“’419 patent,” Ex. 1001) in
`
`accordance with 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq.
`
`The ’419 patent claims the simple concept of using a button for different
`
`functions based on a duration that the button is pressed. For example, when a
`
`device’s display is off and a button is pressed, the device displays a lock screen and
`
`performs fingerprint authentication. Or, if the button is pressed for a certain duration,
`
`the device performs a hands-free operation. And, to secure the allowance of the ’419
`
`patent, Patent Owner amended the claims to recite a hands-free operation initiated
`
`by a long-press of an activation button. None of these processes—which amount to
`
`interface design choices of known device functions—were new at the time of the
`
`’419 patent, alone or in combination.
`
`“Lock screens” had been in use with mobile devices for years prior to the ’419
`
`patent’s asserted priority date;
`
`lock screen functions were available for
`
`implementation (not limited to locking/unlocking or authentication procedures); and
`
`hands-free operations were standard well-known functions of mobile devices. For
`
`example, Davis (Ex. 1015) disclosed presenting a fingerprint unlock dialog while
`
`scanning a fingerprint, and iOS (Ex. 1007) disclosed accessibility to hands-free
`
`operations at the push of a multiuse button. The fact that the screen was on during
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`any processes naturally facilitated conveying information to the user (e.g., indicating
`
`a failed unlock or a function being performed).
`
`The USPTO did not consider Davis or iOS during the prosecution of the ’419
`
`patent, nor did they discuss on the record any references providing analogous
`
`technical features. Had such references been available and considered by the
`
`Examiner, the ’419 patent claims never would have issued.
`
`This Petition demonstrates that claims 1-4, 6-7, 10-13, and 15-17 of the ’419
`
`patent are unpatentable over the prior art and that Petitioner has a reasonable
`
`likelihood of prevailing with respect to the same.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`
`A. Real Party-In-Interest
`
`Apple Inc. is the real party-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`The ’419 patent is the subject of pending litigation in the following cases:
`
`Name
`
`Case No.
`
`Filing Date
`
`Firstface Co., Ltd. v.
`Apple Inc.
`
`3-18-cv-02245 (N.D. Cal.)
`
`4/13/2018
`
`
`Further, the following applications remain pending at the USPTO and may
`
`contain, or may be amended to contain, patentably indistinct claims:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Title
`
`Activating Display and
`Performing Additional Function
`in Mobile Terminal with One-
`time User Input
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Application No.
`Filing Date
`
`15/938,702
`
`3/28/2018
`
`
`Petitioner is also concurrently filing petitions for IPR of related U.S. Patent
`
`Nos. 8,831,557 (two petitions) and 9,633,373 (IPRs 2019-00611, -00612, and -
`
`00613, respectively) and recommends assigning all petitions to the same panel.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`C. Lead Counsel, Back-Up Counsel, and Service Information
`
`Lead Counsel
`Scott A. McKeown
`Reg. No. 42,866
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
`Washington, D.C. 20006-6807
`Phone: +1-202-508-4740
`Fax: +1-617-235-9492
`scott.mckeown@ropesgray.com
`
`Mailing address for all PTAB
`correspondence:
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`IPRM—Floor 43
`Prudential Tower
`800 Boylston Street
`Boston, Massachusetts 02199-3600
`
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES
`
`Backup Counsel
`Gabrielle E. Higgins
`Reg. No. 38,916
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`1900 University Avenue, 6th Floor
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2284
`Phone: +1-650-617-4015
`Fax: +1-617-235-9492
`gabrielle.higgins@ropesgray.com
`
`Christopher M. Bonny
`Reg. No. 63,307
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`1900 University Avenue, 6th Floor
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2284
`Phone: +1-650-617-4011
`Fax: +1-617-235-9492
`christopher.bonny@ropesgray.com
`
`Victor Cheung
`Reg. No. 66,229
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
`Washington, D.C. 20006-6807
`Phone: +1-202-508-4641
`Fax: +1-617-235-9492
`victor.cheung@ropesgray.com
`
`
`The undersigned authorizes the Office to charge the fee required by 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.15(a) for this Petition for IPR to Deposit Account No. 18-1945. Any additional
`
`fees that might be due are also authorized.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`A. Grounds for Standing
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a), Petitioner certifies that the ’419 patent is
`
`available for IPR and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting IPR
`
`challenging the claims of the ’419 patent on the grounds identified herein.
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Challenge
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b) and (b)(1), Petitioner requests IPR of
`
`claims 1-4, 6-7, 10-13, and 15-17 of the ’419 patent, and that the Board cancel the
`
`same as unpatentable. The ’419 patent matured from U.S. Application 14/848,191
`
`(filed 9/8/2015). The ’419 patent claims foreign priority to Korean Application 10-
`
`2011-0106839 (filed 10/19/2011).1
`
`1.
`
`The Specific Art on Which the Challenge is Based
`
`Petitioner relies upon the following prior art:
`
`
`
`Ex. 1027 – U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0133484 to Griffin
`
`(“Griffin”) published on 5/31/2012 and is the Pre-Grant Publication of U.S.
`
`Application 12/955,350 (filed 11/29/2010).
`
`
`
` 1
`
` Petitioner takes no position as to the propriety of the priority claims since the art
`
`presented herein predates the earliest filing. Petitioner reserves the right to challenge
`
`these priority claims.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Ex. 1007 – Apple iPhone OS 3.1 User Guide (September 2009) (“iOS”) was
`
`
`
`published and accessible to the public by at least 9/9/2009. See Declaration of
`
`Michael Hulse (Ex. 1004) and Declaration of Yosh Moriarty (Ex. 1031).
`
`
`
`Ex. 1013 – U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0017872 to Goertz et al.
`
`(“Goertz”) published on 1/21/2010.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1015 – U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0138914 to Davis et al.
`
`(“Davis”) published on 6/3/2010.
`
`Griffin is prior art to the ’419 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Goertz, Davis,
`
`and iOS are prior art to the ’419 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Griffin and an excerpt from a later revision of an iOS User Guide (for iOS
`
`4.2 and 4.3) were presented to the USPTO in IDSs during the original prosecution
`
`of the ’419 patent but were not considered by the USPTO with any specificity.
`
`Therefore, Griffin and iOS present new teachings for consideration with respect to
`
`the ’419 patent.2
`
`
`
` 2
`
` Grounds based on a reference cited in an IDS but not considered at any length (i.e.,
`
`Griffin and iOS) should not be barred under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). See, e.g., IPR2017-
`
`00178, Paper 6 at 12-13 (PTAB April 25, 2017) and IPR2016-01876, Paper 8 at 7-9
`
`(PTAB April 3, 2017).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Goertz and Davis were not considered during the original prosecution of the
`
`’419 patent, and they are not cumulative of any prior art considered by the original
`
`patent examiner.
`
`Griffin and Goertz each disclose mobile devices that turn on a touch screen
`
`display and initiate unlock functions based on one-time pressings of a button, and
`
`Davis discloses displaying a fingerprint unlock dialog while fingerprint scanning is
`
`performed—the combination of which was deemed missing from the prior art
`
`identified during prosecution.
`
`#
`
`1
`
`2
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Statutory Grounds on Which the Challenge is Based
`
`Claims
`
`35 U.S.C. §
`
`Prior Art
`
`1-4, 6-7, 10-
`13, 15-17
`
`1-4, 6-7, 10-
`13, 15-17
`
`103(a)
`
`Griffin in view of Davis and iOS
`
`Goertz in view of Davis and iOS
`
`3. How the Construed Claims are Unpatentable under the
`Statutory Grounds Identified in 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2) and
`Supporting Evidence Relied upon to Support the Challenge
`
`An explanation of how claims 1-4, 6-7, 10-13, and 15-17 of the ’419 patent
`
`are unpatentable under the statutory grounds identified above, and that Petitioner has
`
`at least a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on these grounds, including the
`
`identification of where each element of the claim is found in the prior art, is provided
`
`in Section VIII. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). The exhibit numbers of the supporting
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`evidence relied upon to support the challenges and the relevance of the evidence to
`
`the challenges raised, including identifying specific portions of the evidence that
`
`support the challenges, are provided in Section VIII. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5).
`
`V.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`A. The ’419 Patent
`
`The ’419 patent claims a simple combination of well-known consumer
`
`electronics functions: activating a display via a button and performing different
`
`functions based on how long the button is pressed. (Ex. 1001, Abstract, claim 1.)
`
`Fig. 1 of the ’419 patent shows an example of a mobile communication
`
`terminal 100:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Terminal 100 includes a display
`
`unit 110 and an activation button 120.
`
`(Id., 3:42-48.) The display unit 110 can
`
`be switched from an OFF state (an
`
`“inactive state”) to an ON state (an
`
`“active
`
`state”) by pressing
`
`the
`
`activation button 120. (Id., 3:21-40,
`
`4:22-27.) A
`
`lock screen can be
`
`displayed when the terminal changes
`
`from the inactive state to the active
`
`state. (Id., 4:45-48.)
`
`The activation button 120 is
`
`configurable for other functions in
`
`addition to switching to the active state.
`
`(Id., 4:30-40, 5:51-57, 10:1-6.) The particular operation performed can depend on
`
`how the activation button 120 is pressed (e.g., pressed three times or pressed for a
`
`long time). (Id., 4:51-5:13.) In one example, the operation is a user authentication
`
`function performed when the display is off. (Id., 7:14-8:20.) In another example, the
`
`operation is a hands-free function or playing music. (Id., 9:22-28, 10:7-10.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Accordingly, the ’419 patent purports to enable a device to perform functions
`
`based on pressing of an activation button, where at least one of the functions is
`
`performed while a lock screen is displayed.
`
`But buttons, triggering functions depending on how buttons are pressed, and
`
`lock screens were all standard components of communication devices at the time of,
`
`and in no way unique to, the ’419 patent. As explained in detail below, others had
`
`already implemented activation buttons and lock screen authentication functions
`
`prior to the ’419 patent. The claims of the ’419 patent are simply obvious
`
`combinations of known techniques.
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`U.S. Application 14/848,191, which matured into the ’419 patent, was filed
`
`on 9/8/2015 with a single claim. (Ex. 1002 at 1-59.) A preliminary amendment added
`
`claims 2-20. (9/16/2015; id. at 70-77.)
`
`Prosecution
`
`involved
`
`several
`
`rejections
`
`by
`
`the USPTO
`
`and
`
`arguments/amendments by Applicant. (Id. at 214-227, 461-476, 495-509, 512-516,
`
`522-531, 632-646, 654-666.)
`
`The Examiner issued Notices of Allowance on 7/27/2017 and 8/8/2017, which
`
`amended the independent claims to recite initiating a hands-free operation of the
`
`terminal when the one-time pressing of the activation button is for a long time. (Id.
`
`at 707-717, 732-739.) The Examiner provided no reasons for allowance.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Thus, the claims of the ’419 patent were apparently allowed because the
`
`process of initiating a hands-free operation by pressing an activation button for a
`
`long time, was deemed missing from the prior art.
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`The prior art demonstrates that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(“POSITA”), at the time the ’419 patent was filed, would have been a person with
`
`bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, or equivalent and
`
`have at least two years of relevant experience in the fields of user interface design
`
`and mobile devices, or otherwise equivalent industry experience in the relevant field.
`
`(Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 29-30.)
`
`VII. CLAIM INTERPRETATION
`
`Claim terms subject to IPR 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))3
`
`
`
` 3
`
` The parties have proposed constructions for additional terms in district court (Ex.
`
`1035). Construction of these terms does not impact the outcome of this proceeding
`
`because the claims are invalid under both parties’ proposed constructions and thus
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`VIII. GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY
`
`Although the ’419 patent alleges to have invented a button that turns on a
`
`display and causes a function to be performed based on a press duration, such
`
`techniques were known in the communications device art prior to the earliest
`
`possible priority date of the ’419 patent. As demonstrated below, the prior art
`
`references render claims 1-4, 6-7, 10-13, and 15-17 of the ’419 patent unpatentable.
`
`This Petition is supported by the Bederson Declaration, which describes the
`
`scope and content of the prior art at the time of the alleged invention of the ’419
`
`patent. (See also Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 17, 50, 77.)
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-4, 6-7, 10-13, and 15-17 are rendered obvious
`by Griffin in view of Davis and iOS under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`1.
`
`Fingerprint authentication
`
`Griffin discloses methods for transitioning between locked and unlocked
`
`states of a device. (Ex. 1027, Abstract.)
`
`Griffin discloses that mobile devices entered into a sleep mode or inactive
`
`mode to reduce power consumption and preserve battery life. (Id. ¶ 24.) In the sleep
`
`mode, functions, peripherals, and displays were disabled until the devices received
`
`
`
`do not need to be construed here. See Nidec Motor v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor,
`
`868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`“wake up” signals from the user. For example, pressing a convenience key would
`
`reactivate a device, its monitor, and other processes. (Id. ¶¶ 24-25, see also ¶ 29.)
`
`Griffin discloses using a “home” button as a convenience key, which is
`
`depressed to initiate an unlock action and reactivate the device, its monitor, and other
`
`processes. (Id. ¶¶ 24-25, see also ¶¶ 29, 86.) An example of a user device 100 having
`
`a touchscreen display 510 and a convenience button 520 is shown in Fig. 5B:
`
`(Id. ¶¶ 86-88.)
`
`
`
`Griffin discloses configuring unlock procedures to use two or more input
`
`mechanisms (e.g., buttons, touchscreens, touch-sensitive surfaces, and infrared
`
`fingerprint detectors). (Id. ¶¶ 35, 57-59, 77, 85.) Griffin’s technique of using a
`
`combination of input mechanisms and keeping components unpowered, inactivated,
`
`or otherwise disabled until needed, conserves power and reduces accidental
`
`activations. (Id. ¶¶ 33, 50, 54, 85, 87.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Fig. 11 of Griffin, annotated below, shows one possible flow of steps for
`
`unlocking a device. At step 1100, the system detects actuation of a first input
`
`mechanism. Then, it activates a second input mechanism so that a second input can
`
`be detected, at steps 1105 through 1120. (Id. ¶ 121.) When the proper inputs are
`
`received, the device is unlocked, at step 140. (Id. ¶ 122.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Griffin provides an open-ended system for choosing “first” and “second”
`
`input mechanisms. (Id. ¶ 85.) Specific examples include using the home button to
`
`wake the device followed by a touchscreen path trace (id. ¶¶ 85-88) and using a
`
`trackball and space key (id. ¶ 103). See also id. ¶¶ 93, 102, 106, 107). Griffin also
`
`discloses that the device includes a fingerprint detector. (Id. ¶ 77.)
`
`However, while Griffin discloses pressing the home/convenience button to
`
`initiate an unlock action and to turn on the display, Griffin does not explicitly
`
`disclose using the fingerprint detector as the second input mechanism for unlocking
`
`the device—and therefore does not explicitly disclose the display and timing
`
`requirements claimed in the ’419 patent.
`
`(Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 51-56.)
`
`Davis teaches using biometric inputs to unlock a device and launch
`
`applications. (Ex. 1015, Abstract, ¶ 1.) Davis explains that a variety of input
`
`mechanisms were used to provide varying levels of security to the unlock process,
`
`including basic unlock commands (simple/no security), passwords (higher security),
`
`smart cards (even higher security), and biometric authentication (even higher
`
`security). (Id. ¶¶ 46-47.)
`
`In the example of Fig. 4, below, Davis teaches using a combination of
`
`procedures to unlock a device.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`In Fig. 4, when an unlock command is received (step 402), an unlock dialog is
`
`presented (i.e., a lock screen), and password and smart card entry functions are
`
`performed (steps 406-414). (Id. ¶¶ 48-50.) Higher security in the form of fingerprint
`
`authentication is then performed, including presenting a fingerprint dialog (step 416;
`
`i.e., a lock screen), scanning a user’s finger (step 418), and unlocking the device if
`
`the fingerprint is valid (steps 420-422). (Id. ¶¶ 50-53.)
`
`Davis further teaches that unlocking procedures were customizable—
`
`rearranging the order in which functions are performed or using only a subset of the
`
`functions. (Id. ¶ 71.) Thus, a POSITA would have implemented an unlocking
`
`procedure that included an unlock command followed by a fingerprint dialog and a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`fingerprint unlock function (steps 416-422; see modified Fig. 4 below), but without
`
`any intervening input mechanisms. In this way, a single biometric input mechanism
`
`may have been used to unlock a device and launch an application. (Id., claim 1.)
`
`FIG. 4
`(modified)
`
`(Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 57-60.)
`
`
`
`Thus, Griffin, as modified by the teachings of Davis would have been
`
`implemented by a POSITA as follows:
`
`(1) User presses the home/convenience button, a first input mechanism (Griffin,
`
`Fig. 11 step 1100),
`
`(1a) which is the initiation of an unlock command (Griffin ¶ 86), and
`
`(1b) which wakes the screen (Griffin ¶¶ 24-25, 29) to display a fingerprint dialog
`
`(i.e., a lock screen) (as taught by Davis, modified Fig. 4 steps 402 and 416);
`
`(2)
`
`the second input mechanism is activated (Griffin Fig. 11 step 1105);
`
`(2a) Davis teaches that the second input is a fingerprint unlock function, including
`
`scanning a fingerprint and unlocking the device if the fingerprint is valid
`
`(Davis, modified Fig. 4 steps 418-422), wherein
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`(2b) the fingerprint dialog (lock screen) is displayed while the fingerprint function
`
`is performed, such that, for example, a message is displayed if the fingerprint
`
`is not valid (Davis, modified Fig. 4 step 424).
`
`Therefore, Griffin as modified by the teachings of Davis would have indicated to a
`
`POSITA that a lock screen would have been displayed while the fingerprint function
`
`was performed. This would have allowed the user to remain informed about what is
`
`happening with the device, whether that is an indication that the fingerprint scan is
`
`taking place or that the fingerprint is invalid. (Ex. 1015 ¶ 53; see also Ex. 1017,
`
`10:61-65 and Fig. 13, Ref. Nos. 162-164, showing a fingerprint dialog known in the
`
`art.) The use of a lock screen to display a lock/unlock dialog on a device would have
`
`been little more than the use of a known technique in an existing device to yield the
`
`predictable result of displaying the device status to the user.
`
`(Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 61-62.)
`
`2.
`
`Fingerprint authentication—motivation to combine
`
`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 and user convenience. See, e.g., Ex. 1014, 1:24-37. Because Griffin
`
`discloses a fingerprint detector in its device and discloses that a variety of inputs
`
`may be used for the multiple-input unlock procedures, the use of the fingerprint
`
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`detector, as explicitly taught by Davis, would have required little more than a design
`
`decision to use the fingerprint detector as one of the inputs in Griffin’s unlock
`
`routine. A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in choosing
`
`an input for Griffin’s unlock routine, as Griffin’s “first” and “second” input
`
`mechanisms were designed to be chosen from available input mechanisms. And, as
`
`discussed above, Davis shows that fingerprint authentication was an existing and
`
`well-known unlock input at the time of the ’419 patent.
`
`(Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 63, 36-41.)
`
`3. Mobile device functions
`
`With respect to other limitations claimed in the ’419 patent, such as the device
`
`including a camera, a power button separate from an activation button or a duration-
`
`based function of the activation button to activate a camera, play a sound, or activate
`
`a hands-free function, these were standard or otherwise well-known features of
`
`mobile devices prior to the ’419 patent.
`
`For example, Davis teaches functions and applications that devices activated,
`
`including capturing a photo and playing music. (Ex. 1015 ¶ 78.)
`
`Furthermore, the iPhone User Guide for iPhone OS 3.1 Software discloses the
`
`following diagram of an iPhone available in 2009, showing a camera and a
`
`sleep/wake button that functioned as a power button and was separate from the home
`
`button (i.e., activation button) and used to turn the mobile device on/off:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1007 (“iOS”), pp. 20 (annotated), 27.) iOS further discloses that one of the
`
`functions served by the home button was to activate Voice Control, which played a
`
`beep sound when activated, to make phone calls and play music using voice
`
`commands (i.e., hands-free). Voice Control activated whenever the home button was
`
`pressed and held for a duration. (Id., pp. 38, 48, 77.) Voice Control activated
`
`regardless of the phone’s lock status. See id., pp. 39, 48 (Voice Control is always on;
`
`preventing voice dialing when locked is optional). A POSITA would have known
`
`that the detection of a long-press or “press and hold” action would have used a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`comparison of the duration (i.e., a data value that changed over time) to a reference
`
`time period.
`
`(Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 64-67.)
`
`4. Mobile device functions—motivation to combine
`
`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 a combination would have been, for example, the application of
`
`known techniques (camera and power button components) to improve similar
`
`devices (the mobile devices or Griffin, Davis, and iOS)