UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`IPR2019-00614
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FIRSTFACE CO., LTD.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2019-006141
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`____________
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 1
`
` Case IPR2019-01012 has been consolidated with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00614
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FIRSTFACE CO., LTD.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2019-006141
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`____________
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 1
`
` Case IPR2019-01012 has been consolidated with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00614
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`GROUND 1: THE COMBINATION OF GRIFFIN, DAVIS, AND
`IOS RENDERS OBVIOUS THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ........................ 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Combination of Griffin and iOS Discloses an Activation
`Button Separate From a Power Button .................................................. 1
`
`The Combination of Griffin and Davis Renders Discloses
`Turning on the Display and Initiating a Fingerprint
`Authentication Function in Response to a One-Time Pressing of
`the Activation Button ............................................................................ 4
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The Claims Are Not Limited to a Single Step or a Single
`User Action for Pressing the Activation Button and
`Scanning a Fingerprint ................................................................ 4
`
`The Combination of Griffin and Davis Discloses the
`Express Language of the Claim ................................................10
`
`Petitioner’s Modification of Davis’s Figure 4 Is
`Expressly Taught by Davis .......................................................14
`
`C.
`
`A POSITA Would Have Been Motivated to Combine Griffin,
`Davis, and iOS .....................................................................................16
`
`III. GROUND 2: THE COMBINATION OF GOERTZ, DAVIS, AND
`IOS RENDERS OBVIOUS THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ......................19
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Combination of Goertz and iOS Discloses an Activation
`Button Separate From The Power Button and Configured to
`Turn on The Display............................................................................19
`
`The Combination of Goertz and Davis Discloses Turning on the
`Display Initiating a Fingerprint Function in Response to a One-
`Time Pressing of the Activation Button ..............................................23
`
`
`
`A POSITA Would Have Been Motivated to Combine Goertz,
`Davis, and iOS .....................................................................................25
`
`IPR2019-00614
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`
`C.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00614
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Accent Packaging, Inc. v. Leggett & Platt, Inc.,
`707 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................ 9
`Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc. v. Dow Chemical Co.,
`811 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 5
`Bausch & Lomb v. Barnes-Hind/Hydrocurve,
`796 F.2d 443 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ............................................................................ 16
`In re Gordon,
`733 F.2d 900 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ............................................................................ 17
`In re Merck & Co., Inc.,
`800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ...................................................................... 2, 13
`Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.
`688 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 26
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................ 24
`Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.,
`395 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................ 5
`In re Mouttet,
`686 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ...................................................................... 2, 13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`IPR2019-00614
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`
`Description
`Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-13, and 15-17 of U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`IPR2019-00614, Paper 2, Petition for Inter Partes Review
`IPR2019-01012, Paper 1, Petition for Inter Partes Review
`IPR2019-00614, Paper 10, Decision Granting Institution of
`Inter Partes Review
`IPR2019-01012, Paper 9, Decision Granting Institution of Inter
`Partes Review
`Patent Owner
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`IPR2019-00614, Paper 16, Patent Owner’s Response to Petition
`
`IPR2019-00614, Paper 8, Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`to Petition
`
`Shorthand
`Challenged
`Claims or
`Claims
`P1
`P2
`ID1
`
`ID2
`
`PO
`POSITA
`POR or
`Response
`POPR
`
`
`Note: All emphasis herein added unless otherwise stated.
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00614
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`1003
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`1008
`1009
`1010
`1011
`1012
`1013
`
`1014
`
`Exhibit Description
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419 to Jung et al.
`1001
`1002
`Prosecution History File of Application No. 14/848,191, which
`matured into U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`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.
`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)
`
`1015
`1016
`1017
`1018
`1019
`1020
`1021
`
`v
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00614
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`
`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.p
`df)
`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
`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]
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`1028
`1029
`1030
`1031
`1032
`1033
`
`1034
`
`vi
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00614
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`
`Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement, Docket No. 57,
`Firstface Co., Ltd. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-02245 (N.D. Cal.)
`Declaration of Victor Cheung
`U.S. Patent 7,423,557 to Kang
`Declaration of Scott A. McKeown
`Rebuttal Declaration of Benjamin B. Bederson
`
`1035
`
`1036
`1037
`1038
`1039
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`IPR2019-00614
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`
`The Board correctly found at institution that Petitioner established a
`
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing in proving Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-13, and 15-17
`
`unpatentable. ID1, 40; ID2, 26. PO’s Response unsuccessfully attempts to avoid
`
`the Claims’ obviousness by improperly reading the term “initiates” out of the claims,
`
`ignoring the references’ plain disclosures, and rehashing arguments rejected by the
`
`Board. PO’s Claims are unpatentable.
`
`II. GROUND 1: THE COMBINATION OF GRIFFIN, DAVIS, AND iOS
`RENDERS OBVIOUS THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`
`A. The Combination of Griffin and iOS Discloses an Activation
`Button Separate From a Power Button
`
`PO incorrectly argues that neither Griffin nor iOS discloses an activation
`
`button that is configured to turn on the display and is separate from the power button.
`
`POR, 14-15. The combination of Griffin and iOS discloses this element.
`
`Griffin discloses a home button (activation button), as shown in Figure 5B:
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00614
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`Ex. 1027, Fig. 5B, ¶86; P1, 29. When pressed, Griffin’s activation button turns on
`
`the touch screen display. Ex. 1027 ¶25; P1, 30.
`
`Like Griffin, iOS discloses a home button (activation button). iOS further
`
`discloses a Sleep/Wake button (power button) separate from the home button, which
`
`turns on and off the terminal:
`
`
`
`Ex. 1007, 20, 26-27; P1, 19-20, 28-29.
`
`PO asserts that “Griffin fails to disclose a power button and thus cannot teach
`
`an activation button that is separate from the power button” (POR, 15), but as
`
`explained above, Petitioner relied on iOS, not Griffin, for the power button. P1, 28-
`
`30, 21-25; Ex. 1039 ¶¶14-17. Thus, PO improperly attacks Griffin in isolation. See
`
`In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800
`
`F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Non-obviousness cannot be established by
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00614
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of
`
`a combination of references.”).
`
`PO incorrectly argues that “the ‘home button’ in iOS is not an ‘activation
`
`button’...because it is not ‘configured for pressing to turn on the touch screen
`
`display.’” POR, 15. As an initial matter, Petitioner relied on Griffin for the
`
`activation button (home button) configured for pressing to turn on the touch screen
`
`display (element [1.e]). Ex. 1027 ¶25; P1, 30; Ex. 1039 ¶18. Moreover, contrary to
`
`PO’s incorrect assertion, iOS discloses that its home button—just like Griffin’s
`
`home button—turns on the display. As explained in iOS, locking the iPhone turns
`
`off the display (Ex. 1007, 145), and to subsequently unlock the iPhone the user can
`
`press the home button and then drag a slider that appears on the screen (Ex. 1007,
`
`26-27, 23). The fact that (1) the screen was off in the locked state and (2) then a
`
`slider is displayed on the screen after pressing the home button, means that pressing
`
`the home button turns on the display. Ex. 1039 ¶¶19-20.
`
`Thus, the combination of Griffin and iOS discloses an activation button that
`
`turns on the display and is separate from the power button.2 Id. ¶21.
`
`
`
` 2
`
` PO’s assertion that Petitioner failed to perform a proper Graham analysis for this
`element (POR, 14-15) is incorrect. The Petition set forth the scope and content of
`the prior art and ascertained the differences between the claimed invention and the
`prior art. P1, 19-22, 28-29. It is readily apparent from Petitioner’s analysis that
`iOS discloses the separate power button missing from Griffin.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00614
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`The Combination of Griffin and Davis Discloses Turning on the
`Display and Initiating a Fingerprint Authentication Function in
`Response to a One-Time Pressing of the Activation Button
`
`B.
`
`PO’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” (POR, 16) is based on an incorrect claim interpretation; the
`
`combination of Griffin and Davis discloses the plain language of the claim.
`
`1.
`
`The Claims Are Not Limited to a Single Step or a Single User
`Action for Pressing the Activation Button and Scanning a
`Fingerprint
`
`PO’s assertions that the claims are limited to “a single user action” and
`
`exclude “multi-step processes” (POR, 25-26) are incorrect and unsupported by the
`
`intrinsic record. The plain language of the claims requires that a “one-time pressing
`
`of the activation button” does two things: (1) turns on the touch screen display and
`
`(2) “initiates” a fingerprint authentication function. PO’s interpretation, however,
`
`incorrectly reads the word “initiates” out of the claims by requiring that a single user
`
`action both press the activation button and scan a fingerprint.
`
`PO’s interpretation ignores an express limitation of the claims. All claims
`
`expressly recite that the fingerprint authentication function is “initiated” by the one-
`
`time press of the activation button:
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00614
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`
`• Claim 1:
`in addition to turning on the touch screen display and displaying the lock
`°
`screen, the one-time pressing while the touch screen display being turned
`off initiates the fingerprint authentication function,
`the lock screen is displayed on the touch screen display when the
`fingerprint authentication function initiated by the one-time pressing is
`being performed,
`• Claim 10:
`in addition to changing the terminal to the active state, the one-time
`°
`pressing while the terminal being in the inactive state initiates the
`fingerprint authentication function,
`the lock screen is displayed on the touch screen display when the
`fingerprint authentication function initiated by the one-time pressing is
`being performed,
`Thus, PO’s interpretation—which requires more than “initiat[ing]”—would
`
`°
`
`°
`
`improperly read this limitation out of the claims. Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc. v. Dow
`
`Chemical Co., 811 F.3d 1334, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (rejecting a construction that
`
`would render a term “entirely superfluous”); Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.,
`
`395 F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`PO misinterprets “one-time pressing” to require that a single user action both
`
`press the activation button and scan a fingerprint. However, consistent with the
`
`claims and specification, “one-time pressing of the activation button” refers to how
`
`many times the activation button is pressed. As the specification explains, the
`
`activation button is pressed once or multiple times:
`
`In addition, according to an embodiment of the present
`invention, an operation which differs according to the
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00614
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`
`number of presses … of the activation button 120 can be
`performed when the mobile communication terminal 100
`is in the inactive state. For example, a first operation can
`be set to be performed if the activation button 120 is
`pressed once, and a second operation can be set to be
`performed if the activation button 120 is continuously
`pressed three times.
`Ex. 1001, 4:57-65; see also Ex. 1001, 1:17-23 (“performing various functions
`
`according to the number of presses or a press time of a button”), 8:47-61 (“this
`
`operation may differ according to the number of presses or a press time of the
`
`activation button”), 4:65-5:13; IPR2019-00613, Ex. 1001 (’373 Patent), claim 17
`
`(“detecting repeated pressing of the activation button”). The term “one-time
`
`pressing of the activation button,” which initiates the fingerprint authentication
`
`function, does not preclude other inputs or user actions, such as a subsequent
`
`fingerprint scan.
`
`Moreover, the claimed apparatus/process necessarily encompasses two
`
`inputs. All claims require a one-time “press” of an activation button. This is a first
`
`input. All claims further require initiating a fingerprint authentication function (in
`
`response to the “press” of the activation button). When the fingerprint sensor scans
`
`a fingerprint, this is a second input. ID1, 22 (“Moreover, we are persuaded based
`
`on the current record that the user’s pressing of the activation button and the user’s
`
`fingerprint in the challenged claims can be considered multiple user inputs.”);
`
`IPR2019-00613 (’373 Patent), Paper 10 (Institution Decision), 17 (“We note that
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00614
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`when the first function is fingerprint authentication, claim 1 necessarily requires both
`
`the ‘one-time pressing of the activation button’ and the fingerprint scan.”).
`
`The specification discloses separate units for detecting the activation button
`
`press and operating the user identification function. The patent describes an
`
`activation sensing unit 410, which “senses whether or not the user has pressed the
`
`activation button 120.” Ex. 1001, 7:23-25. “If the activation sensing unit 410 senses
`
`that the activation button 120 has been pressed,” then a separate user identification
`
`unit 420 “operates the user identification function in various methods.”3 Id., 7:26-
`
`28. Figure 4A depicts the separate units of mobile communication terminal 100:
`
`
`See also id., claim 9 (“wherein the terminal comprises a smartphone which
`
`comprises an activation sensor configured to detect pressing of the activation
`
`button and a user identification module configured to perform the fingerprint
`
`
`
` 3
`
` There is no disclosure in the ’419 specification of how user identification unit 420
`accomplishes fingerprint authentication or detects a fingerprint.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00614
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`authentication function”). This confirms that the claims encompass multiple inputs
`
`and/or steps for pressing the activation button and scanning a fingerprint.
`
`There is no support in the claims, specification, or prosecution history for
`
`misinterpreting “one-time pressing of the activation button” as limiting the claims
`
`to a single user action or single input to both press the activation button and scan a
`
`fingerprint. Indeed, the specification includes only one sentence regarding
`
`fingerprint authentication, which says nothing about a single user action or single
`
`input to both press the activation button and scan a fingerprint, let alone how to
`
`accomplish that or what type of scanner to use:
`
`Although an example of an authentication method through
`iris
`recognition has been described above, other
`authentication methods, for example, an authentication
`key matching method, a password matching method, a
`face recognition method, a fingerprint recognition method,
`and the like, can be used.
`Ex. 1001, 8:13-20. Thus, PO’s interpretation has no support in the intrinsic record,
`
`and should be rejected.
`
`Furthermore, PO’s
`
`incorrect
`
`interpretation would
`
`improperly
`
`read
`
`embodiments out of the claims. For example, dependent claim 2 adds that the
`
`terminal “perform[s] at least one additional function in addition to the fingerprint
`
`authentication function…when the one-time pressing of the activation button is
`
`detected.” One of these additional functions disclosed by the specification is “a
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00614
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`password matching method” that “can be performed by pressing the activation
`
`button.” Ex. 1001, 8:13-20. Entering a password necessarily requires additional
`
`user inputs.4 Thus, PO’s interpretation would improperly read this embodiment out
`
`of the claims. Accent Packaging, Inc. v. Leggett & Platt, Inc., 707 F.3d 1318, 1325
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2013).
`
`PO’s assertion that the claims should be interpreted “from the perspective of
`
`the user” and “what matters from the claims is user action” (POR, 26) is unsupported
`
`and contradicted by the claims. Claim 1 is an apparatus claim directed to a mobile
`
`communication terminal, its components, and how those components are
`
`configured, e.g., “an activation button…configured for pressing.” Claim 10 is a
`
`method claim directed to steps performed by a mobile computing terminal, e.g.,
`
`“detecting one-time pressing,” “changing the terminal to the active state,” and
`
`“performing a fingerprint authentication function.”
`
`Finally, PO’s argument directed to claim 10 is incorrect for all of the reasons
`
`described above. In particular, PO again ignores the word “initiate,” which appears
`
`twice in claim 10. The claim language cited by PO—“performing a fingerprint
`
`
`
` 4
`
` The specification’s disclosure that a password matching method can be
`“performed by pressing the activation button” also undercuts any argument by PO
`that the word “perform” in the Claims precludes additional inputs or user actions
`beyond pressing the activation button.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00614
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`authentication function using fingerprint recognition without additional user input”
`
`(POR, 26)—further recites “wherein…the terminal operates such that…the one-
`
`time pressing…initiates the fingerprint authentication function.” Thus, the term
`
`merely clarifies that no additional user input beyond the one-time pressing is
`
`required by the device to initiate the fingerprint authentication function. In other
`
`words, “one-time pressing of the activation button” addresses how many times the
`
`activation button is pressed, and “without additional user input” addresses whether
`
`the claim is limited to a single input to “initiate” the fingerprint authentication
`
`function. As discussed above, PO’s interpretation, which requires a single user input
`
`and a single user action to both press the activation button and scan a fingerprint,
`
`has no support in the intrinsic record. Ex. 1039 ¶¶22-32.
`
`2.
`
`The Combination of Griffin and Davis Discloses the Express
`Language of the Claim
`
`PO argues 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” (POR, 16), but as discussed above, PO’s argument is based
`
`on an incorrect claim interpretation. Griffin in view of Davis discloses the express
`
`language of the claim: a “one-time pressing of the activation button” that turns on
`
`the touch screen display and “initiates” the fingerprint authentication function.
`
`Griffin discloses a button that is pressed to turn on the display and initiate an
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00614
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`unlock procedure, and Davis discloses that the unlock procedure can be fingerprint
`
`authentication. P1, 13-18, 30-35. Griffin discloses that pressing an activation button
`
`(home or convenience key) turns on the touch screen display (from a sleep mode).
`
`Ex. 1027 ¶25. Additionally, Griffin discloses that this pressing of the activation
`
`button initiates an unlock procedure that detects a second input. Id. ¶86, 121. If the
`
`second input is received, the device is unlocked. Id. ¶122. Thus, in response to a
`
`one-time pressing of Griffin’s home button, (1) the display is turned on and (2) an
`
`unlock procedure is initiated. Griffin further discloses that the device includes a
`
`“fingerprint detector.” Id. ¶77.
`
`Davis teaches using fingerprint authentication in an unlock procedure (e.g., as
`
`the second input in Griffin’s unlock procedure). For example, Figure 4 of Davis
`
`shows an embodiment with (1) password authentication and (2) fingerprint
`
`authentication in response to an unlock command:
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00614
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`
`
`Ex. 1015, Fig. 4 (annotated), ¶¶46-47, 52-53. Davis further discloses that “a subset
`
`of the authentication factors” can be used. Id. ¶71; ID1, 23. Thus, the steps
`
`pertaining to password authentication (steps 404-412) may be omitted. Accordingly,
`
`in Davis’s modified Figure 4, when an unlock command is received (step 402), a
`
`fingerprint dialog is presented on the screen (step 416), the device scans a fingerprint
`
`(step 418), and the device is unlocked if the fingerprint is valid (steps 420-422):
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00614
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`P1, 17. As explained by Dr. Bederson, a POSITA would have been motivated to use
`
`a fingerprint function, as taught by Davis, for the second unlock input mechanism of
`
`Griffin because biometric inputs provided higher levels of security and user
`
`convenience. Ex. 1003 ¶¶61-63, 36-41, P1, 18-19.
`
`PO incorrectly argues that “Griffin fails to disclose two key requirements of
`
`the challenged claims—turning on the display to show a lock screen and performing
`
`a fingerprint authentication function.” POR, 17. First, contrary to PO’s assertion,
`
`Griffin discloses turning on the display. Griffin discloses that pushing the home
`
`button initiates an unlock action and reactivates the monitor. P1, 13, 27; Ex. 1027
`
`¶¶24-25, 29. In fact, Griffin expressly discloses that if the home button is pressed
`
`during sleep mode, “the device display would then be activated” while the device
`
`awaits the second input. Ex. 1027 ¶29; Ex. 1039 ¶¶33-34. Second, with respect to
`
`the lock screen and fingerprint authentication function, PO is improperly attacking
`
`Griffin individually, rather than in combination with Davis. See In re Mouttet, 686
`
`at 1333; In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d at 1097. Petitioner explained in detail
`
`which element is taught by which reference. P1, 17-18, 30-35. As explained above,
`
`Davis discloses using fingerprint authentication in an unlock procedure, and
`
`discloses showing a lock screen (Davis’s fingerprint dialog) as part of the unlock
`
`process. P1, 16-17; Ex. 1015 ¶¶50-53, Fig. 4; Ex. 1039 ¶34.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00614
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`PO’s arguments that Griffin discloses “a multi-step process requiring multiple
`
`user actions” and Davis “requires multiple steps” (POR, 18-19, 22) are irrelevant,
`
`because the claims are not limited to a single step or single user action to both press
`
`the activation button and scan a fingerprint. See §II.B.1; Ex. 1039 ¶37.
`
`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 user action. For example, Griffin expressly
`
`discloses “detecting a single continuous unlock action.” See, e.g., Ex. 1027 Abstract,
`
`¶¶30-31, 35-36, 88. This single, continuous user action includes two inputs, just like
`
`the Claims: (1) a button press, and (2) a second input (e.g., Davis’s fingerprint
`
`detection). Ex. 1039 ¶¶38-39; ID1, 24-25; see also Ex. 1015, claim 1.
`
`3.
`
`Petitioner’s Modification of Davis’s Figure 4 Is Expressly
`Taught by Davis
`
`PO argues that 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” (POR, 20-22), but contrary to PO’s
`
`assertion, Petitioner’s modified Figure 4 is straightforward and expressly taught by
`
`Davis.
`
`As explained above, Figure 4 of Davis shows an embodiment with two forms
`
`of security. After receiving an unlock command, the device requires password
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00614
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`authentication (steps 404-412) and then fingerprint authentication (steps 416-422).
`
`Davis further discloses that “a subset of the authentication factors” can be used.
`
`Ex. 1015 ¶71. Thus, instead of using both authentication factors of Figure 4—
`
`password authentication and fingerprint authentication—an alternative process
`
`disclosed by Davis uses only fingerprint authentication, and the steps pertaining to
`
`the first authentication factor (steps 404-412) are omitted:
`
`
`Ex. 1015, Fig. 4 (annotated); Ex. 1039 ¶35; ID1, 25. This is further confirmed by
`
`claim 1 of Davis, which recites an unlock process that requires only a biometric
`
`candidate (e.g., a fingerprint). Ex. 1039 ¶¶35, 38.
`
`PO’s suggestion that Davis’s process is “complex” and cannot “be reduced
`
`down to a simple fingerprint authentication” (POR, 22) is incorrect. As explained
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00614
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`above, Davis expressly discloses that some embodiments require “a subset of the
`
`authentication factors.” Ex. 1015 ¶71. Applied to Figure 4, this is a straightforward
`
`reduction of authentication factors by eliminating password authentication. Ex.
`
`1039 ¶36. Moreover, Figure 6 and Paragraph 79 of Davis disclose a process using
`
`a single user fingerprint input to launch an application while the device is locked. It
`
`is apparent from Davis’s express statements, as well as its embodiments and overall
`
`disclosure, that Davis is not limited to a specific number of authentication factors.
`
`Id. Moreover, Davis does not require a complex process, and even states that “three-
`
`factor authentication may be considered time consuming.” Ex. 1015 ¶12. PO’s cited
`
`case is inapposite. Petitioner did not “pick and choose” from Davis “to the exclusion
`
`of other parts necessary to the full appreciation of what such reference fairly
`
`suggests.” Bausch & Lomb v. Barnes-Hind/Hydrocurve, 796 F.2d 443, 448 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1986). Davis expressly discloses using a subset of the factors, and Figure 4 has
`
`only two types of factors. Ex. 1039 ¶36.
`
`C. A POSITA Would Have Been Motivated to Combine Griffin,
`Davis, and iOS
`
`PO incorrectly argues that “a POSITA would not combine Griffin with Davis
`
`in the proposed manner because they each teach away from the simplicity achieved
`
`by the challenged claims.” POR, 27. As explained above, the combination uses a
`
`fingerprint authentication function, as taught by Davis, for the second unlock input
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00614
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`mechanism of Griffin. A POSITA would have been motivated to do so because
`
`biometric inputs provided higher levels of security and user convenience. P1, 18-
`
`19; Ex. 1003 ¶¶61-63, 36-41; Ex. 1039 ¶40. PO argues that Griffin teaches that a
`
`complex wake-up or unlock action may be desirable to prevent accidental waking or
`
`unlocking of a device and, thus, requires two separate user inputs (POR, 27), but as
`
`discussed the claims are not limited to a single input to both press the activation
`
`button and scan a fingerprint. PO argues that Davis teaches using two- or three-
`
`factor authentication (POR, 27), but Davis also expressly discloses using a subset of
`
`the authentication factors. Moreover, as explained above, Davis explains that using
`
`multiple authentication factors may be time consuming. For these same reasons, PO
`
`is incorrect that the combination renders the prior art unsatisfactory for its intended
`
`purpose, and thus PO’s reliance on In re Gordon is misplaced.
`
`PO argues that “Petitioner’s proposed combination is riddled with hindsight
`
`bias because it uses the ’419 patent as a roadmap” (POR, 28), but Petitioner
`
`explained that the mobile devices of Griffin, Davis, and iOS are similar, and a
`
`POSITA would have been motivated to use Davis’s teaching of fingerprint
`
`authentication for the second unlock input mechanism of Griffin because biometric
`
`inputs provided higher levels of security and user convenience. Ex. 1003 ¶¶63-68;
`
`P1, 18-19, 21-26. Petitioner also provided several reasons why a POSITA would
`
`have been motivated to add iOS’s and Davis’s mobile device functions (e.g., camera,
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00614
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`power button, long-press) and settings menu to Griffin’s mobile device, and
`
`explained that a POSITA 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. Ex. 1003 ¶¶68-
`
`75; P
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
