Case IPR2019-00614
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO PETITION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00614
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1
`I.
`II. THE ’373 PATENT AND THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ............................... 2
`A. Problem Presented ............................................................................................. 2
`III. Claim Construction ............................................................................................ 6
`IV. SUMMARY OF THE REFERENCES ............................................................. 6
`A. Griffin ................................................................................................................ 6
`B. Goertz ................................................................................................................ 7
`C. Davis .................................................................................................................. 8
`D. iOS ..................................................................................................................... 9
`V. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS ............................................................. 10
`A. Standard for Institution .................................................................................... 10
`B. Obviousness ..................................................................................................... 10
`VI. THE PETITION DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE UNDER GROUND 1. ......... 12
`A. Griffin Does Not Disclose Turning on the Display (Displaying a Lock Screen)
`and Performing a Fingerprint Authentication Function in Response to a One-Time
`Pressing of the Activation Button. ......................................................................... 13
`B. The Deficiencies of Griffin Are Not Resolved by Davis. ............................... 15
`C. A POSITA Would Not Combine Griffin With Davis to Arrive at the Claimed
`Invention. ............................................................................................................... 18
`VII. THE PETITION DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE UNDER GROUND 2. ......... 19
`A. Goertz Does Not Disclose an Activation Button Configured for Pressing to
`Turn On the Touch Screen Display. ...................................................................... 20
`B. Goertz Does Not Disclose Turning On the Display and Performing a
`
` 
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00614
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`
`
`
`Fingerprint Authentication Function in Response to a One-Time Pressing of the
`Activation Button. .................................................................................................. 22
`C. The Deficiencies of Goertz Are Not Resolved by Davis. ............................... 24
`VIII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 24
`
`
`
`
`
` 
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00614
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases:
`
`Bausch & Lomb v. Barnes-Hind/Hydrocurve,
`796 F.2d 443 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ........................................................................... 17
`
`
`CFMT, Inc. v. YieldUp Int’l Corp.,
`349 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ......................................................................... 11
`
`
`Garmin Int’l, Inc. v. Patent of Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC,
`Case No. IPR2012-00001, Paper 15 (PTAB Jan. 9, 2013) ................................ 11
`
`
`In re Gordon,
`733 F.2d 900, 221 USPQ 1125 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ......................................... 12, 19
`
`
`In re Rijckaert,
`9 F.3d 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ............................................................................. 11
`
`
`In re Royka,
`490 F.2d 981 (C.C.P.A. 1974) ........................................................................... 11
`
`
`KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ........................................................................................... 11
`
`
`Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex, Inc.,
`655 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ......................................................................... 11
`
`
`Rules and Statutes:
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................... 10, 11, 17
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) .................................................................................................. 11
`
`35 U.S.C. § 282(b) .................................................................................................... 6
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) .................................................................................................. 10
`
` 
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00614
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`
`
`37 C.F.R § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................ 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107 .................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) .............................................................................................. 10
`
`Other Authorities:
`
`M.P.E.P § 2143.01(V) ....................................................................................... 12, 19
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,756 (Aug. 14, 2012) 10
`
`
`
` 
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00614
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.107, Patent Owner Firstface Co., Ltd. (“Firstface”
`
`or “Patent Owner”) submits this Preliminary Response to the Petition of Apple Inc.
`
`( “Apple” or “Petitioner”) seeking inter partes review of claims 1-4, 9-7, 10-13, and
`
`15-17 of U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419 (Ex. 1001, the “’419 patent”).
`
`I.
`
` INTRODUCTION
`
` The ’419 patent claims an elegant solution to the problem of incorporating
`
`new functionalities, such as fingerprint authentication, into mobile devices while
`
`maintaining simplicity. According to the challenged claims, a single, one-time
`
`pressing of an activation button when a device display is off causes the device to
`
`turn on the display (actively displaying the lock screen), perform a fingerprint
`
`authentication function, and, if the user is authenticated, release a lock state of the
`
`terminal. Further, when the activation button is pressed for longer than a threshold
`
`time period, the device initiates a hands-free operation. The claimed inventions thus
`
`increase the usefulness of a device without complicating the user interface because
`
`the new functionalities (fingerprint authentication and a hands-free operation) do
`
`not require additional buttons or other hardware; nor do they require the user to
`
`perform additional steps to access these functionalities. A single press of the
`
`activation button will turn on the display (as the user would expect), show a lock
`
`screen, and perform the additional functions.
`
` 
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00614
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`
`
`
`No prior art reference cited by Petitioner discloses activating a device display
`
`(displaying the lock screen) and performing a fingerprint authentication function,
`
`each in response to a one-time pressing of the activation button. The primary
`
`references, Griffin and Goertz, disclose, instead, multi-step processes requiring
`
`multiple user inputs. And Davis, the secondary reference that Petitioner combines
`
`with Griffin or Goertz, does not fill the void. It also discloses a multi-step process
`
`requiring multiple user inputs. Thus, Petitioner’s proposed combinations do not
`
`disclose the claimed invention. Because the prior art does not disclose all
`
`limitations of the challenged claims, Petitioner has failed to show a reasonable
`
`likelihood that any challenged claim is obvious.
`
`II. THE ’419 PATENT AND THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`
` 
`
`A.
`
`Problem Presented
`
`The ’419 patent explains that, as mobile communications devices have
`
`proliferated, their capabilities have expanded from simple communication to
`
`include innumerable other features and functions. See, e.g., Ex. 1001 (’419 patent),
`
`1:25-33. Indeed, while early mobile communications devices were largely used
`
`only as telephones, they now have cameras, web browsers, games, word-processing
`
`and messaging applications, e-mail software, and numerous other applications and
`
`features. As developers added functionality to these devices, they also added
`
` 
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00614
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`
`
`complexity. For example, historically, newly-added functions required that a device
`
`display be turned on before functions could be accessed or executed, requiring a
`
`user to perform multiple initiating steps. Id., 1:34-45. Moreover, many functions
`
`required new buttons, convoluting and congesting the user interface. Id.
`
`The inventors of the asserted patent, including Firstface’s co-CEO, Jae Lark
`
`Jung, developed innovative solutions for improving the user experience with these
`
`increasingly complex devices. The inventors recognized that users habitually turn
`
`on the display of their devices while on the move. Id., 1:45-49. Accordingly, the
`
`inventors developed technologies involving use of an activation button to perform
`
`predetermined functions at the same time as turning on the display. Id., 1:52-2:18.
`
`The activation button can be used, for instance, to turn on the display and perform a
`
`user identification process, such as fingerprint, facial, or iris recognition. Id., 8:7-
`
`20. To further enhance user experience, the inventors also recognized that the user
`
`would prefer that the display turn on while authentication is being performed. See
`
`Ex. 1001, claim 1. This configuration gives the user assurance that the terminal is
`
`operating normally and, as such, successfully received the user’s identifying
`
`biometrics (despite authentication being in process). In addition, the function(s)
`
`performed may differ based on how the user presses the activation button. For
`
`example, a single press of the button can turn on the display and initiate one
`
` 
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00614
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`
`
`function, while a double or long press can turn on the display and initiate yet
`
`another function. Id., 4:51-5:13.
`
`The claims of the ’419 patent are directed to using the activation button to
`
`turn on a touch screen display and to initiate fingerprint authentication in response
`
`to a one-time pressing of the activation button. See, e.g., id., claim 1. Claim 1 (as
`
`corrected in the certificates of correction) is representative:
`
`1. A mobile communication terminal comprising:
`a touch screen display;
`a power button configured to turn on and off the terminal by pressing;
`and
`an activation button separate from the power button and located
`outside the touch screen display, the activation button
`configured for pressing to turn on the touch screen display,
`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 perform a fingerprint
`authentication function in addition to turning on the touch screen
`display such that:
`a lock screen is displayed on the touch screen display upon turning on
`the touch screen display in response to the one-time pressing of
`the activation button while the touch screen display being turned
`off,
`
` 
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00614
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`
`
`
`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,
`a lock state of the terminal continues when the fingerprint
`authentication function fails to authenticate a user, and
`the lock state is released for enabling other functions of the terminal
`when the fingerprint authentication function authenticates a user
`in response to the one-time pressing of the activation button
`while the touch screen display being turned off, wherein the
`terminal is further configured to perform at least one function
`other than the fingerprint authentication function in addition to
`turning on the touch screen display for displaying the lock
`screen in response to the one-time pressing of the activation
`button when the one-time pressing is for a long time, longer than
`a reference time period, wherein the at least one function to
`perform in addition to turning on the touch screen display for
`displaying the lock screen in response to the one-time pressing
`for the long time is associated with initiating a hands-free
`operation of the terminal.
`
`Independent claim 10 is substantively similar.
`
` 
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00614
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`
`
`III. Claim Construction
`
`Claim terms subject to inter partes review are to be “construed using the
`
`same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil
`
`action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with
`
`the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.100(b). Petitioner has not argued for any claim elements to be construed and, for
`
`the purposes of this preliminary response, Patent Owner does not seek the
`
`construction of any term.
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF THE REFERENCES
`
`A. Griffin
`
`Griffin (Ex. 1027) is a United States Patent Application dated May 31, 2012,
`
`with a filing date of November 29, 2010. It was considered by the examiner during
`
`prosecution and is listed as a reference cited in the ’419 patent. Griffin is titled
`
`“Multiple Input Device Lock and Unlock” and generally describes unlocking a
`
`device, which can refer either to waking the device or moving the device from a
`
`secure mode to an unsecure mode, via two different inputs from the user. Ex. 1027
`
`at [0024]-[0025]. For example, Griffin discloses that a user may unlock a device by
`
`pressing a button and then swiping in a specific way across the screen. See Ex.
`
` 
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00614
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`
`
`1027, Figs. 5A-5C. Griffin makes clear that a single input, such as a button press, is
`
`not enough to unlock a device: “[I]t can be seen that the foregoing methods and
`
`devices are configured to permit the device 100 to transition from a locked to an
`
`unlocked state not simply on the basis of a single type of input, such as a keypress
`
`or a single touch-screen gesture, but on the basis of a two-input or multiple-input
`
`action that must be detected across a plurality of user input interfaces provided on
`
`the device 100.” Ex. 1027 at [0116].
`
`B. Goertz
`
`Goertz (Ex. 1013) is a U.S. Patent Application Publication dated January 21,
`
`2010, bearing a filing date of June 17, 2009. Goertz is titled “User Interface for
`
`Mobile Computer Unit,” and its Abstract explains that the invention relates to
`
`providing a touch screen interface that presents keys in a way that facilitates entry
`
`of Chinese characters using stroke and Pinyin input. Ex. 1013 at Abstract.
`
`Figures 12-15 show various “Key lock” functions of the phone. Figure 12
`
`depicts, for instance, the device with a lock gadget and explains that by pressing the
`
`lock gadget, the phone is then locked. The specification explains that when the
`
`phone is locked, activation of the phone is restricted in some manner, “e.g., when
`
`the phone is locked, touching the screen in a way that would activate a gadget when
`
`the phone is unlocked, does not activate the gadget when the phone is locked.” Ex.
`
` 
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00614
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`
`
`1013 at [0060]. Goertz explains that unlocking the phone is achieved by activating a
`
`home key. Id. Goertz further explains that in a “Key lock high security mode,” as
`
`depicted in Figure 15, a keypad is displayed and a user is prompted to enter a
`
`security code after the home key is activated (such as by touching the home key).
`
`Once the proper code is entered, the phone is unlocked. And Goertz also discloses
`
`that “[o]ptionally, additional security is implemented by use of fingerprint
`
`identification, wherein the phone cannot be unlocked unless a fingerprint is
`
`authenticated.” Id. at [0061]. Notably, Goertz does not disclose that the
`
`authentication process is any different when fingerprint recognition is used instead
`
`of a security code. In other words, Goertz is limited to a multi-step process,
`
`requiring multiple user inputs to unlock the device. Goertz never presents an
`
`embodiment in which a one-time pressing of a button will both unlock a device and
`
`perform an authentication function.
`
`C. Davis
`
`Davis (Ex. 1015) is the secondary reference that Petitioner includes in
`
`separate combinations with Griffin and Goertz. Davis is a U.S. Patent Application
`
`Publication dated June 3, 2010, with a filing date of December 1, 2008. It is titled
`
`“System and Method of Providing Biometric Quick Launch” and relates to easing
`
`the burden of multi-factor authentication by causing a device to both unlock and
`
` 
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00614
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`
`
`launch a specific application once the biometric portion of the multi-step
`
`authentication procedure is complete. Ex. 1015 at Abstract, Figure 5, [0077]. In its
`
`background, Davis criticizes the use of single-factor, password-based authentication
`
`to secure a device, and notes that two-factor or three-factor authentication using a
`
`smart card and/or biometric information is more secure. Ex. 1015 at [0002]-[0004].
`
`Davis recognizes that three-factor authentication, in particular, can be cumbersome.
`
`It thus proposes that “a user may associate a specific application with a stored
`
`fingerprint template such that the specific application may be launched, if not
`
`already executing, on the mobile device 102 responsive to provision of [a]
`
`fingerprint to the fingerprint sensor 325.” Ex. 1015 at [0054]. Notably, nothing in
`
`Davis discusses the use of a button to turn on a display screen, let alone use that
`
`button to turn on the display screen and perform another function, like fingerprint
`
`authentication.
`
`D.
`
`iOS
`
`iOS (Ex. 1007) is a User Guide for the iPhone OS 3.1 software that, like
`
`Davis, Petitioner includes in the combinations with Griffin and Goertz. Petitioner
`
`refers to the manual for the presence of an iPhone home button that is separate from
`
`a power button and that has certain software settings functions. According to
`
`Petitioner, the home button depicted in the manual is used to turn on the device
`
` 
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00614
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`
`
`display, and, according to Petitioner, iOS 3.1 was the operating system deployed in
`
`iPhones as of September 9, 2009. For the purposes of this Response, Patent Owner
`
`does not contest either point as immaterial to the denial of institution; though
`
`whether the manual actually supports the proposition that the home button activates
`
`the display is, at best, unclear.
`
`V. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`A.
`
`Standard for Institution
`
`The Board may only grant a petition for inter partes review where “the
`
`information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood
`
`that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged
`
`in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). Petitioner bears the
`
`burden of showing that this statutory threshold has been met. See Office Patent
`
`Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,756 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“The
`
`Board . . . may institute a trial where the petitioner establishes that the standards for
`
`instituting the requested trial are met . . . .”).
`
`B. Obviousness
`
`Section 103 of the Patent Act provides that “[a] patent may not be
`
`obtained . . . if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and
`
`the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at
`
` 
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00614
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`
`
`the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which
`
`said subject matter pertains.” 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). If a single element of the claim is
`
`absent from the prior art, the claims cannot be considered obvious. See CFMT, Inc.
`
`v. YieldUp Int’l Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[O]bviousness
`
`requires a suggestion of all limitations in a claim.”) (citing In re Royka, 490 F.2d
`
`981, 985 (C.C.P.A. 1974)); In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1534 (Fed. Cir. 1993)
`
`(reversing obviousness rejection where prior art did not teach or suggest all claim
`
`limitations); Garmin Int’l, Inc. v. Patent of Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC, Case No.
`
`IPR2012-00001, Paper 15 at 15 (PTAB Jan. 9, 2013) (refusing to institute an inter
`
`partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 103 where prior art did not disclose all claim
`
`limitations).
`
`Further, “[o]bviousness requires more than a mere showing that the prior art
`
`includes separate references covering each separate limitation in a claim under
`
`examination.” Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 655 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2011) (citing KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)). “Rather,
`
`obviousness requires the additional showing that a person of ordinary skill at the
`
`time of the invention would have selected and combined those prior art elements in
`
`the normal course of research and development to yield the claimed invention.” Id.
`
`In other words, if a proposed modification or enhancement of a first prior art
`
` 
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00614
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`
`
`reference through the combination of a second prior art reference would result in
`
`the first reference being rendered unsuitable for its intended purpose, then there is
`
`no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification or enhancement. In
`
`re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 221 USPQ 1125 (Fed. Cir. 1984); see also M.P.E.P §
`
`2143.01(V).
`
`As explained below, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood
`
`that any challenged claims are unpatentable as obvious.
`
`VI. THE PETITION DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE UNDER GROUND 1.
`
`The Petition fails to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that any challenged
`
`claim is unpatentable under Ground 1. Ground 1 is a three-reference obviousness
`
`combination comprised of Griffin, Davis, and iOS. The suggested combination does
`
`not disclose turning on the touch screen display (displaying a lock screen),
`
`performing a fingerprint authentication function, and, if the user is authenticated,
`
`releasing the lock state, all in response to a one-time pressing of the activation
`
`button—elements common to all challenged claims. See Pet. at 30-31, 35-37 (claim
`
`elements labeled [1f], [1g], and [1h]); see also Pet. at 45-48 (claim elements labeled
`
`[10d], [10e], [10g], and [10h]). This ends the inquiry. Nevertheless, the included
`
`references are not properly combined in the first place, and thus cannot invalidate
`
`the challenged claims.
`
` 
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00614
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`
`
`
` 
`
`A. Griffin Does Not Disclose Turning on the Display (Displaying a
`Lock Screen) and Performing a Fingerprint Authentication Function in
`Response to a One-Time Pressing of the Activation Button.
`
`Griffin does not disclose turning on a display (displaying a lock screen) and
`
`performing a fingerprint authentication function in response to a one-time pressing
`
`of the activation button. Indeed, Petitioner merely argues that Griffin discloses that,
`
`upon receiving a first user input (a press of a button), a second user input interface
`
`is activated (which accepts a swipe of a finger or other user input). Pet. at 31.
`
`Petitioner does not contend that anything is displayed on the screen upon receiving
`
`a first user input. Nor does Petitioner contend that Griffin ever performs fingerprint
`
`authentication. It instead relies on Davis to satisfy both elements. Thus, despite
`
`being Petitioner’s primary reference, 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 (let alone releasing a lock state if
`
`the user is authenticated), both in response to a one-time pressing of the activation
`
`button.
`
`Even if Griffin could be said to disclose turning on the display to show a lock
`
`screen and performing a fingerprint authentication function, it discloses only a
`
`multi-step process requiring multiple user inputs to activate the display (thus
`
` 
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00614
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`
`
`displaying a lock screen) and perform the authentication. Such is not the one-step
`
`process of the challenged claims.
`
`Griffin’s multi-step process is diagrammed in Figure 10 (reproduced and
`
`annotated below):
`
`
`
`The device begins in locked state 1000, in which “only minimal user input
`
`interfaces may be activated to receive a user input.” Ex. 1027 at [0117]. In response
`
`to a first unlock input, such as a key press, the device moves to an input enabled
`
`state 1010. “While in the input enabled state 1010, the device activates a further
`
`input interface, and awaits further input.” Id. (emphasis added). It is only after the
`
`device receives a second unlock input while in the input enabled state does the
`
`device move to unlocked state 1020. Thus, Griffin requires at least two user inputs
`
` 
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00614
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`
`
`to turn on the display, perform fingerprint authentication, and, if the user is
`
`authenticated, release the lock state, not the single user input (one-time pressing of
`
`the activation button) as required by the challenged claims.
`
` 
`
`B.
`
`The Deficiencies of Griffin Are Not Resolved by Davis.
`
`Davis does not cure Griffin’s deficiencies. Like Griffin, Davis does not
`
`disclose a one-time pressing of the activation button that both turns on the display
`
`and performs a fingerprint authentication function. Davis instead discloses a multi-
`
`stage authentication system requiring multiple user inputs.
`
`Petitioner’s argument focuses on Figure 4 (reproduced and annotated below):
`
`
`
`As Petitioner recognizes, Figure 4 discloses “a combination of procedures to unlock
`
`a device.” Pet. at 15. Specifically, the device initially receives an unlock command
`15
`
` 
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00614
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`
`
`when the user makes a selection from a dialog displayed on a mobile device
`
`(highlighted in blue). Ex. 1015 at [0048]. In response, the device “arranges for the
`
`presentation of an unlock dialog (step 404) to prompt the user to enter
`
`authentication factors, such as a device and/or a smart card password.” Id. The
`
`password entry steps are highlighted in red and purple in the annotated Figure 4.
`
`The system then continues to verify the information. If a match is found, as shown
`
`highlighted in yellow, the system “presents a dialog on the display to prompt the
`
`user to provide a fingerprint candidate.” Id. at [0049]. “Responsive to being
`
`prompted (step 416) to provide a fingerprint, it is expected that the user will provide
`
`a fingerprint to the fingerprint sensor . . . .” Id. at [0051].
`
`In essence, there are multiple steps involved in the authentication process of
`
`Davis. Various dialogs are presented, and, in no way, is a device awakened and a
`
`user authenticated in response to a one-time pressing of an activation button. Thus,
`
`Davis lacks this crucial element of the challenged claims.
`
`
`
`Petitioner presents a heavily-modified version of Figure 4 in its Petition
`
`(reproduced below), in which all methods of authentication are omitted, except for
`
`fingerprint authentication:
`
` 
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00614
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`
`
`
`
`
`This is inappropriate. “It is impermissible within the framework of section 103 to
`
`pick and choose from any one reference only so much of it as will support a given
`
`position 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). Nevertheless, Petitioner argues that “a single
`
`biometric input mechanism may have been used to unlock a device and launch an
`
`application.” Pet. at 17 (emphasis added). Petitioner argues that this alteration is
`
`appropriate because Davis discloses that “many embodiments will only require a
`
`subset of the authentication factors discussed in this application.” Ex. 1015 at
`
`[0071]. But even Petitioner’s modified Figure 4 requires multiple steps. First, the
`
`unlock command is received at step 402 (in blue). Then, a fingerprint dialog is
`
`presented to the user (shown in yellow), and the user provides a fingerprint in
`
`response. Ex. 1015 at [0052]. Thus, even in the scenario presented by Petitioner, the
`
`reference requires more than a one-time pressing to unlock the device—it requires
`
` 
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00614
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`
`
`multiple user inputs. Given that neither Griffin nor Davis can satisfy this limitation
`
`(and Petitioner does not assert that iOS satisfies this claim limitation1), the
`
`combination cannot satisfy the claim.
`
`C. A POSITA Would Not Combine Griffin With Davis to Arrive at
`the Claimed Invention.
`
`Finally, even if Petitioner could show that a Griffin / Davis combination2
`
` 
`
`yields the claimed invention, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that Griffin and
`
`Davis are properly combined. Indeed, a POSITA would not combine Griffin with
`
`                                                            
`1 Petitioner argues that iOS satisfies the limitation of performing a “second
`
`function” based upon a long press of the activation button. Patent Owner does not
`
`address the sufficiency of iOS’s disclosure in this response, but only notes that
`
`Petitioner has not pointed to iOS for satisfaction of the “fingerprint authentication
`
`function” claim element. See Pet. at 30-35.
`
`2 Recall that Ground 1 is a three-reference combination that includes iOS. As
`
`discussed in Section IV.D., above, Petitioner relies on iOS for the presence of other
`
`elements, including a “initiating a hands-free operation of the terminal.” Thus, its
`
`inclusion in the combination as a secondary reference is immaterial to this
`
`Preliminary Response.
`
` 
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00614
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`
`
`Davis in the proposed manner because they each teach away from the simplicity
`
`achieved by the challenged claims.
`
`Griffin and Davis each recognize that unlocking a device should be a
`
`complex process. 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. Similarly, Davis teaches that a multi-step authentication
`
`process is desirable so that security is maximized. It explicitly criticizes single-
`
`factor, password-based authentication while arguing in favor of two- or three-factor
`
`authentication. Ex. 1015 at [0002]-[0004]. Thus, combining Griffin and Davis in an
`
`effort to invalidate the challenged claims is counterintuitive. A proposed
`
`combination cannot make a prior art invention unsatisfactory for its intended
`
`purpose. In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 221 USPQ 1125 (Fed. Cir. 1984); see also
`
`M.P.E.P § 2143.01(V). A POSITA would not combine Griffin and Davis because
`
`doing so runs contrary to the express security consciousness of those disclosures.
`
`VII. THE PETITION DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE UNDER GROUND 2.
`
`The Petition fails to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that any challenged
`
`claim is unpatentable under Ground 2. Ground 2 is a three-reference obviousness
`
`combination comprised of Goertz, Davis, and iOS. Like the combination in Ground
`
`1, the suggested combination does not disclose turning on the touch screen