UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________
`
`INGENICO INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`IOENGINE, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________________
`
`IPR2019-00879
`
`Patent 9,059,969
`____________________
`
`DECLARATION OF KEVIN BUTLER, PH.D.
`
`Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC
`IPR2019-00879 (US 9,059,969)
`Exhibit 2003
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 4
`
`QUALIFICATIONS ............................................................................................................... 4
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .................................................................. 9
`
`LEGAL FRAMEWORK ...................................................................................................... 10
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Standard of Proof ...................................................................................................... 10
`
`Anticipation............................................................................................................... 11
`
`Obviousness .............................................................................................................. 11
`
`V.
`
`THE ’969 PATENT .............................................................................................................. 13
`
`VI. ASSERTED GROUNDS AND REFERENCES RELIED ON IN PETITION .................... 15
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Iida ............................................................................................................................ 16
`
`The Fuji Guide .......................................................................................................... 17
`
`Shaffer ....................................................................................................................... 18
`
`Ford ........................................................................................................................... 19
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .................................................................................................. 19
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`“an interactive user interface” ................................................................................... 19
`
`GUI ........................................................................................................................... 26
`
`“communications . . . to a communications network node through the
`terminal [network] communication interface” and “communication[s] . . .
`through . . . the terminal network interface to a communications network
`node” ......................................................................................................................... 26
`
`D.
`
`“node” ....................................................................................................................... 29
`
`VIII. GROUND 1: IIDA DOES NOT ANTICIPATE CLAIMS 1-8, 10-16, 19-21, 24, 25,
`OR 27-29 ............................................................................................................................... 29
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Iida does not teach an “interactive user interface” .................................................... 29
`
`Iida does not teach “communications . . . to a communications network node
`through the terminal [network] communication interface” or
`“communication[s] . . . through . . . the terminal network interface to a
`communications network node” ............................................................................... 32
`
`Iida does not teach “first program code which, when executed by the terminal
`processor, is configured to present an interactive user interface on the
`terminal output component” ..................................................................................... 34
`
`
`
`2
`
`Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC
`IPR2019-00879 (US 9,059,969)
`Exhibit 2003
`
`

`

`
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Iida does not teach executing fourth program code/fourth program code
`configured to be executed “in response to a communication received by the
`portable device resulting from user interaction with the interactive user
`interface” ................................................................................................................... 36
`
`Iida does not teach “program code which, when executed by the terminal
`processor, is configured to provide a communications node on the terminal”
`or “program code [which, when executed by the portable device processor, is
`configured]/[stored on the portable device memory] to provide a
`communications node on the portable device” ......................................................... 37
`
`F.
`
`The challenged dependent claims are not anticipated by Iida .................................. 39
`
`IX. GROUND 2: CLAIMS 1-8, 10-16, 19-21, AND 24-29 ARE NOT OBVIOUS OVER
`IIDA AND THE FUJI GUIDE ............................................................................................. 45
`
`X.
`
`GROUND 3: CLAIMS 57 AND 106 ARE NOT OBVIOUS OVER IIDA IN VIEW
`OF SHAFFER ....................................................................................................................... 52
`
`XI. GROUND 4: GROUND 4: CLAIM 4 IS NOT OBVIOUS OVER IIDA AND THE
`FUJI GUIDE IN VIEW OF SHAFFER ................................................................................ 56
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC
`IPR2019-00879 (US 9,059,969)
`Exhibit 2003
`
`

`

`I, Kevin Butler, make this declaration in connection with the proceedings
`
`identified above.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained as an expert on behalf of IOENGINE, LLC
`
`(“IOENGINE”) in connection with the proceedings identified above. I submit this
`
`Declaration on behalf of IOENGINE in support of its Preliminary Response responding
`
`to the Petition for Inter Partes Review (the “Petition”) filed by Ingenico Inc.
`
`(“Ingenico” or “Petitioner”) challenging claims 1-8, 10-16, 19-21, and 24-29 (the
`
`“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,059,969 to McNulty (“the ’969 Patent”)
`
`(Ex. 1001).
`
`2.
`
`The opinions in this Declaration are based on my professional training and
`
`experience and my review of the exhibits discussed herein.
`
`3.
`
`I am being compensated for my services in connection with the
`
`proceedings identified above at my regular rate of $350 per hour (plus reimbursement
`
`for expenses). My compensation is in no way contingent on the outcome of the
`
`proceedings identified above or on any of the opinions I provide below.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`4.
`
`I have summarized in this section my educational background, career
`
`history, publications, and other relevant qualifications. My curriculum vitae is
`
`submitted as Ex. 2062.
`
`
`
`4
`
`Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC
`IPR2019-00879 (US 9,059,969)
`Exhibit 2003
`
`

`

`
`
`5.
`
`I received a B.Sc. degree in Electrical Engineering from Queen’s
`
`University in 1999, an M.S. degree in Electrical Engineering from Columbia
`
`University in 2003, and a Ph.D. in Computer Science and Engineering from the
`
`Pennsylvania State University in 2010.
`
`6.
`
`I am an Associate Professor with tenure in Computer and Information
`
`Science and Engineering and Associate Director of the Florida Institute for
`
`Cybersecurity Research at the University of Florida. I founded and directed the Oregon
`
`Systems Infrastructure and Information Security (OSIRIS) Lab at the University of
`
`Oregon, where I was an assistant professor of computer and information science for
`
`four years before moving to Florida under the Rising to National Preeminence
`
`initiative. I have authored 94 peer-reviewed publications including book chapters,
`
`journal articles, conference proceedings papers, and workshop papers. My research is
`
`in the area of computer systems security, including embedded systems and firmware,
`
`as well as network security, and with a particular focus on the security of peripheral
`
`devices that use the USB protocol and the hosts that these devices connect to. I also
`
`teach a course on the security of computer systems, including from a historical
`
`perspective (dating back to the 1960s). I received a National Science Foundation
`
`CAREER award in 2013, an International Educator of the Year award within the
`
`Herbert Wertheim College of Engineering at the University of Florida in 2017, a
`
`University of Florida Term Professorship for 2018-2021, and an Arnold and Lisa
`
`
`
`5
`
`Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC
`IPR2019-00879 (US 9,059,969)
`Exhibit 2003
`
`

`

`
`
`Goldberg Rising Star Endowed Professorship in Computer Science for 2018-2024. I
`
`also received an Outstanding Community Service Award from the IEEE Technical
`
`Committee on Security and Privacy in 2017. I am a Senior Member of the Institute of
`
`Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), and a Senior Member of the Association
`
`for Computing Machinery (ACM). I have been involved with international standards-
`
`setting bodies; in particular, I was co-chair and leader of the Security Workstream for
`
`the International Telecommunications Union (ITU)’s Technology, Innovation, and
`
`Competition Working group within the Focus Group on Digital Financial Service from
`
`2015-2016, and from 2017-present, I serve as Co-Chair of the Security, Infrastructure,
`
`and Trust Working Group within the ITU’s Financial Inclusion Global Initiative. I
`
`currently serve on two journal editorial boards, have served on numerous funding
`
`panels for the National Science Foundation and reviewed grant proposals on behalf of
`
`science and engineering boards in Austria, Canada, and Israel. I have served on 95
`
`technical program committees for selecting papers to appear at academic conferences
`
`on computer security, and I have served as program committee chair and general
`
`conference chair for multiple conferences. I have also given over 90 presentations and
`
`invited talks, including invited lectures at the University of Oxford, ETH Zurich, the
`
`Chinese Academy of Sciences, Dartmouth College, Columbia University, and UCLA.
`
`My research has been featured in news outlets such as the Wall Street Journal, BBC
`
`News, and WIRED.
`
`
`
`6
`
`Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC
`IPR2019-00879 (US 9,059,969)
`Exhibit 2003
`
`

`

`
`
`7.
`
`I have experience designing and implementing communication protocols,
`
`including peripheral device communications. As a research assistant at Columbia
`
`University in 2001-2002, I incorporated authentication protocols into a Java-based
`
`software stack for the Session Initiation Protocol used for Internet telephony. At
`
`Flarion Technologies in 2003, I implemented packet diversion and IP header
`
`modification program in the FreeBSD operating system for mobile IP packet testing,
`
`to be deployed on WiFi devices. Since then I have led the development of mechanisms
`
`to constrain the functionality of USB devices by incorporating user expectations of
`
`device capabilities into the services that they can advertise. I also lead the development
`
`of protocols for allowing a rule-based approach to constraining malicious functionality
`
`in USB, Bluetooth, and near-field communication (NFC) devices.
`
`8.
`
`I have experience with the development and analysis of software and
`
`firmware. In 1998 at the Royal Bank of Canada, I developed client-server applications,
`
`including design of graphical user interfaces on the client side, to port business
`
`processes from mainframe environments. Further, in 2006 I compiled and modified
`
`OpenEmbedded
`
`firmware
`
`to support
`
`the SlugOS environment
`
`to allow
`
`experimentation with storage devices, in order to develop a disk prototype for
`
`preventing a type of malware called a rootkit from persisting on a system after reboot.
`
`Since then, I have led efforts to analyze firmware on embedded devices, particularly
`
`firmware from USB flash drives that uses the Intel 8051 microcontroller, and
`
`
`
`7
`
`Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC
`IPR2019-00879 (US 9,059,969)
`Exhibit 2003
`
`

`

`
`
`demonstrated how such binary firmware could be lifted to an intermediate
`
`representation to enable control flow graph recovery and symbolic analysis. I also led
`
`a project that demonstrated the extraction of data from smartphone firmware images
`
`and demonstrated that legacy command sets (i.e., “AT commands” developed for
`
`modems in the 1980s) were being used to provide undocumented features on these
`
`devices that could be accessed over a USB connection, as well as methods for enabling
`
`the transmissions of these commands.
`
`9.
`
`I have experience with peripherals and portable devices. In course
`
`projects as an undergraduate in 1997 and 1998, I developed code for communication
`
`with a Motorola HC11 microcontroller to interface with a host computer. Since then,
`
`I have developed storage devices as discussed above that provide security services.
`
`Further, in 2009, I developed a USB device capable of attesting the integrity of the host
`
`computer it was attached to while at Symantec Research. This work was later patented
`
`(U.S. Patent 8,856,918, Host validation mechanism for preserving integrity of portable
`
`storage data. Petros Efstathopulos, Bruce Montague, Dharmesh Shah, Kevin Butler.
`
`October 7, 2014.). Since then, I have overseen the development of USB devices that
`
`allow for tracking the provenance of data at the block level and the development of
`
`mobile device software that automates the collection of USB enumeration data.
`
`10.
`
`I have experience with encryption and cryptographic protocols. At
`
`Telcordia Technologies in 2000 and 2001, I provisioned and configured cable modems
`
`
`
`8
`
`Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC
`IPR2019-00879 (US 9,059,969)
`Exhibit 2003
`
`

`

`
`
`within a hybrid fibre-coax lab that involved secure telephony and the use of encryption
`
`over DOCSIS modems. I further led the design of developing cryptographic primitives
`
`to support the secure delivery of routing information within the Border Gateway
`
`Protocol and have been involved with numerous projects incorporating encryption,
`
`such as a mechanisms using additive homomorphic encryption to support accounting
`
`audits for preserving the confidentiality of wiretap records and cryptographic schemes
`
`for assuring the secure time release of data.
`
`III. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`11.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would be
`
`a person with a Bachelor of Science degree in Computer Science, or related discipline,
`
`and two to three years of experience in developing, implementing, or deploying
`
`systems for the encryption of data on a portable device.
`
`12. Such a level of skill would encompass a knowledge of computer hardware,
`
`software development, operating systems, networking, portable or embedded devices,
`
`data encryption, data storage, and peripherals, which would be sufficient for
`
`understanding the technology of the ’969 Patent.
`
`13. This definition of a POSITA characterizes the ordinary skill of persons
`
`involved with Internet telephony research at Telcordia Technologies, where I was a
`
`research scientist from 2000-2001. It also characterizes the ordinary skill of persons
`
`within the Internet Routing Lab at Columbia University involved in research relating
`
`
`
`9
`
`Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC
`IPR2019-00879 (US 9,059,969)
`Exhibit 2003
`
`

`

`
`
`to computer security for voice communication. I was a member of this group as a
`
`research assistant from 2001-2003. This level of experience would be required due to
`
`the goal of deployment of voice-based protocols such as the Session Initiation Protocol
`
`and assuring secure communication to resource-constrained telephony devices.
`
`Furthermore, in my role as an Associate Professor of Computer and Information
`
`Science and Engineering where I train students to become persons of ordinary skill in
`
`the area of peripheral security, an understanding of how to develop, implement, or
`
`deploy systems for encrypting data on a portable device would require the skills
`
`outlined above. I cultivate these skills in students so that they can go on to become
`
`practitioners and researchers in the area of portable device security.
`
`IV. LEGAL FRAMEWORK
`
`14.
`
`I am not a legal expert and I offer no opinions on the law. However, I
`
`have been advised by counsel about some of the legal principles relevant to an analysis
`
`of patentability of claims in a United States patent, as summarized below. I have
`
`conducted my analysis in accordance with these principles.
`
`15.
`
`I understand that, for an invention claimed in a patent to be found
`
`patentable, or to be valid, it must be, among other things, new and not obvious in light
`
`of what came before it such as “prior art.”
`
`A.
`
`Standard of Proof
`
`16.
`
`I understand that, in these proceedings, the burden is on the party asserting
`
`
`
`10
`
`Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC
`IPR2019-00879 (US 9,059,969)
`Exhibit 2003
`
`

`

`
`
`unpatentability to prove it by a preponderance of the evidence. I understand that “a
`
`preponderance of the evidence” is evidence sufficient to show that something is more
`
`likely than not.
`
`B. Anticipation
`
`17.
`
`I have been informed that a patent claim is invalid as anticipated only if
`
`each and every element and limitation of that claim is publicly disclosed, either
`
`explicitly or inherently, in a single prior art reference, already in practice in the industry
`
`in a single process or method, already in a single marketed product, or otherwise
`
`previously invented. I also understand that anticipation requires the presence in a single
`
`prior art disclosure of all elements of the claim arranged as in the claim. For a step or
`
`limitation to be inherent in a reference, I understand that the step or limitation must
`
`necessarily and inevitably occur or be present when one follows the teachings of the
`
`reference. I am informed that for a reference to be considered as anticipating, it must
`
`disclose the relevant technology in a manner such that a POSITA would be able to
`
`carry out or utilize the technology that the reference describes without having to
`
`undertake considerable experimentation.
`
`C. Obviousness
`
`18.
`
`I have been informed that a patent claim is invalid as obvious only if it
`
`would have been obvious to a POSITA at the time the patent was filed, in light of the
`
`prior art. The prior art may include one or more references that a POSITA trying to
`
`
`
`11
`
`Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC
`IPR2019-00879 (US 9,059,969)
`Exhibit 2003
`
`

`

`
`
`solve the problem that the inventor addressed would likely have considered, as well as
`
`the body of knowledge that such a person would possess. As in the case of a single
`
`reference that anticipates a patent claim, when one or more references make a patent
`
`claim obvious, the reference or combined references relied upon must disclose each
`
`and every limitation of the challenged claim. If the reference or combined references
`
`relied upon fail to disclose any element in the challenged claim, then it is not obvious.
`
`19.
`
`I have been informed that, although a challenger may rely on a
`
`combination of separate prior art references to support an obviousness challenge, a
`
`POSITA at the time of filing must have had some motivation to combine the references.
`
`That motivation can come from the problem the invention purports to solve, from other
`
`references, from the teachings of those references showing the invention is obvious,
`
`from other references, or from the common sense knowledge of a POSITA. However,
`
`obviousness findings grounded in common sense must contain explicit and clear
`
`reasoning providing some rational underpinning why common sense compels a finding
`
`of obviousness.
`
`20.
`
`I have been informed that assessing which prior art references to combine
`
`and how they may be combined to match the asserted claim may not be based on
`
`hindsight reconstruction or ex-post reasoning. That is, one must view the prior art
`
`forward from the perspective of the POSITA at the time of invention, not backwards
`
`from the current time through the lens of hindsight. It is my understanding that it is
`
`
`
`12
`
`Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC
`IPR2019-00879 (US 9,059,969)
`Exhibit 2003
`
`

`

`
`
`improper to use a patent claim as a template and pick and choose among the prior art
`
`to meet the elements of that claim to show obviousness.
`
`21.
`
`I have been informed that a reference qualifies as prior art for determining
`
`obviousness when it is analogous to the claimed invention. I understand that prior art
`
`may be considered analogous if it is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the
`
`problem addressed, as the claimed invention. I also understand that prior art may be
`
`considered analogous if it is “reasonably pertinent” to the particular problem with
`
`which the inventor is involved. I have been informed that a reference is “reasonably
`
`pertinent” if it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would
`
`have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering the inventor’s problem.
`
`22.
`
`I have been informed that the factual elements of the obviousness
`
`inquiry—the scope and content of the prior art, the differences between the prior art
`
`and the claims, and the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention—
`
`are primary to performing a proper obviousness analysis and drawing the appropriate
`
`conclusions from that analysis.
`
`V. THE ’969 PATENT
`
`23. The ’969 Patent describes a tunneling client access point (“TCAP”) that
`
`communicates with an access terminal (e.g., a cellular telephone or computer), and also
`
`communicates with a remote network device (e.g., a server). Ex. 1001 abstract, 1:19-
`
`25, 2:39-51, 3:41-4:30, 18:12-14, Figs. 1, 9-10.
`
`
`
`13
`
`Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC
`IPR2019-00879 (US 9,059,969)
`Exhibit 2003
`
`

`

`
`
`24. To prevent the terminal from accessing information sent between the
`
`TCAP and the server, the TCAP secures the data such that “if data moving out of the
`
`TCAP and across the [access terminal] were captured at the [access terminal], such
`
`data would not be readable.” Id. at 13:1-4, 27:28-28:15, Fig. 10. For example, the
`
`TCAP can include a Cryptographic Server Module, which can be used to “encrypt all
`
`data sent through the access terminal based on the TCAP’s unique ID and user’s
`
`authorization information.” Id. at 28:12-15. The concept of “tunneling” is captured in
`
`the title and summary descriptions of the ’969 Patent. Id. at Title (“Apparatus, method
`
`and system for a tunneling client access point”) (emphasis added); Abstract (“The
`
`disclosure details the implementation of a tunneling client access point (TCAP) that is
`
`a highly secure, portable, power efficient storage and data processing device. The
`
`TCAP “tunnels” data through an access terminal’s (AT) input/output facilities.”)
`
`(emphasis added); 2:39-51; 3:41-4:30. Thus, when the ’969 Patent claims refer to the
`
`portable device facilitating communications “through” the terminal’s network interface
`
`to a network device (as opposed to communicating “with” the terminal), it means that
`
`communicated data or information is “tunneled” through the terminal in a secure
`
`manner, such that the terminal cannot access it.
`
`25. Users interact with the TCAP through an interactive user interface
`
`(“IUI”)—e.g., an interactive graphical user interface—presented by the terminal.
`
`Ex. 1001 abstract, 2:39-46, 3:57-62, 17:51-18:3. The TCAP may include a User
`
`
`
`14
`
`Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC
`IPR2019-00879 (US 9,059,969)
`Exhibit 2003
`
`

`

`
`
`Interface Module that “provides a facility through which users may affect, interact,
`
`and/or operate a computer system,” and which causes the IUI to be presented to the
`
`user on the terminal’s output component. Ex. 1001 at 26:19-20, 6:64-67, 7:12-13,
`
`7:45-47, 8:37-41, 9:5-10:46, 12:33-62, 26:7-14, Figs. 4, 5-8, 10.
`
`26. Applications of the TCAP described in the ’969 Patent include, for
`
`example, improving the security of accessing remote data, encrypted communication,
`
`and secure purchasing, payment and billing. Ex. 1001 at Abstract, 2:49-51, 3:64-4:30,
`
`5:32-54, 7:9-8:45, 8:63-9:1, 10:44-61, 12:55-13:27, 19:38-20:24, 27:28-28:15, Figs. 2,
`
`4, 9-10.
`
`VI. ASSERTED GROUNDS AND REFERENCES RELIED ON IN PETITION
`
`27.
`
`I understand that the Petition asserts the following grounds for invalidity:
`
` Ground 1 – Anticipation of claims 1-8, 10-16, 19-21, 24, 25, and 27-29
`
`US Patent Pub. No. 2003/0020813 (“Iida”) (Ex. 1003);
`
` Ground 2 – Obviousness of claims 1-8, 10-16, 19-21, and 24-29 over Iida
`
`in view of FujiFilm Software Quick Start Guide (“Fuji Guide”)
`
`(Ex. 1004);
`
` Ground 3 – Obviousness of claim 4 over Iida in view of US Patent No.
`
`5,784,461 (“Shaffer”) (Ex. 1006); and
`
` Ground 4 – Obviousness of claim 4 over Iida in view of Fuji Guide and
`
`Shaffer.
`
`
`
`15
`
`Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC
`IPR2019-00879 (US 9,059,969)
`Exhibit 2003
`
`

`

`
`
`A.
`
`Iida
`
`28.
`
`Iida describes an inexpensive digital camera that is designed to be a lower-
`
`cost, rental alternative to more expensive digital cameras at the time that included on-
`
`board LCDs. Ex. 1003, [0005]-[0007], [0010], [0012], [0030], [0036]. The camera of
`
`Iida can be used to order from a remote photo lab high-quality photographic prints
`
`based on the digital images from the camera, which are then delivered, for example, in
`
`the mail. Id. Abstract, [0004] (describing utility of digital cameras generally), [0033]-
`
`[0036], [0072], [0076], [0138]. The camera of Iida communicates with a portable
`
`communication apparatus or image display apparatus possessed by the user. Id. [0014],
`
`[0032], [0040], [0041]; see also [0074] (use of the camera is “premised on the user
`
`possessing the portable terminal 14, which is capable of wireless communication with
`
`the digital still camera.”).
`
`29. The portable apparatus used with the digital camera of Iida can display a
`
`menu image, but the image is not interactive. Id., [0068], [0083]. The user can provide
`
`inputs to the camera only by using numerical keys on the portable apparatus,
`
`whereupon the number pressed on the keypad is transmitted to the camera. Id., [0068],
`
`[0084], [0093], [0098], Fig. 4C. The camera then determines what action to take or
`
`whether it should generate a new static image for display by the portable apparatus
`
`display. Id. [0084], [0085], [0098]-[0107], Fig. 4A, Fig. 4C.
`
`30. Unlike the terminal described in the ’969 Patent, the portable apparatus in
`
`
`
`16
`
`Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC
`IPR2019-00879 (US 9,059,969)
`Exhibit 2003
`
`

`

`
`
`Iida does not itself take any action responsive to the user pressing a numerical key; it
`
`simply transmits the inputted number to the camera. [0068], [0084]-[0085], [0097]-
`
`[0099], [0130]-[0132]. Instead, it is the camera that acts responsively to the user’s
`
`selection. Id. [0084], [0085], [0098]-[0107], Fig. 4A, Fig. 4C.
`
`31. The system described in Iida also includes a personal computer (“PC”)
`
`which allows the user to store and/or print images from the camera. Id. [0008], [0067],
`
`[0106]-[0107]. Iida consistently refers to the PC and the portable apparatus separately.
`
`Id. There is no indication that they are the same device or that the PC is involved in
`
`communication beyond the user’s premises.
`
`B.
`
`The Fuji Guide
`
`32. The FUJIFILM Software Quick Start Guide (“Fuji Guide”) is a manual
`
`that describes how to install and use certain software for viewing images on a PC.
`
`Ex. 1004 passim. The Fuji Guide is undated and contains no indication of when, if
`
`ever, it was published.
`
`33. The software described in the Fuji Guide is installed on the user’s personal
`
`computer (“PC”), which can be located in the user’s home or home office. See, e.g.,
`
`Id. 2, 3, 5, 7, 33 (referring to “in-house LAN” or “home-office LAN”). The PC must
`
`have a display resolution of 800 x 600 pixels or better. Id. 8, 35. The Fuji Guide
`
`contains no mention of connecting the camera to a portable apparatus or using the PC
`
`in a portable manner.
`
`
`
`17
`
`Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC
`IPR2019-00879 (US 9,059,969)
`Exhibit 2003
`
`

`

`
`
`34. The software described in the Guide allows the user to save photos from
`
`a camera to the PC, but does not allow the camera to communicate through the PC to
`
`a network or with a server. Ex. 1004, 7 (“images stored on your PC”), 18 (“saving
`
`images on your PC”). The software gives the PC access to the information provided
`
`by the camera, using the camera as an ordinary portable storage device. For example,
`
`the software allows the user to save photos from the camera to a regular folder on the
`
`PC for later access, view thumbnails and full-size images on the screen of the PC, and
`
`perform image processing. Ex. 1004, 7, 17-18.
`
`C.
`
`Shaffer
`
`35. Shaffer describes a system for controlling access to images created by
`
`scanning a customer’s exposed film at a photofinishing location, and providing services
`
`related to those images by a fulfillment center. Ex. 1006, Title, Abstract; 1:26-31 (“[I]t
`
`has been proposed that a photography customer would drop off her exposed film at a
`
`photofinisher where it would be processed, photographically printed and optionally
`
`scanned at a high resolution (e.g. 2048x3072 samples over surface of 35 mm film
`
`frame) and the digital images stored at the photofinisher.”); 2:25-30 (“a secure method
`
`for granting customer access to images and image related services at an image
`
`fulfillment center, includes the steps of: scanning a customer film image to generating
`
`high and low resolution digital versions of the image . . . .”). The customer’s film is
`
`processed and scanned at a photofinishing site to produce digital images. Id. 3:12-14.
`
`
`
`18
`
`Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC
`IPR2019-00879 (US 9,059,969)
`Exhibit 2003
`
`

`

`
`
`The digital images are processed to produce high and low resolution versions. Id. 3:14-
`
`17. The system allows a customer to store the high-resolution photographic images at
`
`an image fulfillment center 12 and the low-resolution versions of those images locally
`
`on a floppy diskette 26 for use with the customer’s home computer 14. Id. 3:28-31,
`
`3:42-48, 4:16-22, 5:4-6, 17-19, Fig. 1. To view a high-resolution image, the customer
`
`sends a request to the fulfillment center, whereupon the fulfillment center may, for
`
`example, provide prints and enlargements of the image, create or send image bearing
`
`products such as T-shirts or mugs, or send the difference between the low and high
`
`resolution versions of the image so that the high-resolution image can be reconstructed.
`
`Id. 5:26-30, 5:44-50, 6:6-18.
`
`D.
`
`Ford
`
`36. Ford is a 160-page collection of chapters and a partial chapter from a
`
`textbook on secure electronic commerce. The excerpts of the Ford textbook provided
`
`by Petitioner generally discuss cryptography, Internet security, and certificates. There
`
`is no identifiable connection between Ford and Iida, Shaffer, or the Fuji Guide.
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`A.
`
`“an interactive user interface”
`
`37. As used in the claims, “an interactive user interface” means “a
`
`presentation containing interface elements with which a user may interact to result in
`
`the terminal taking action responsively by modifying what is presented.”
`
`
`
`19
`
`Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC
`IPR2019-00879 (US 9,059,969)
`Exhibit 2003
`
`

`

`
`
`38. An example of the commonly used definition of an interactive user
`
`interface comes from an influential paper published at the 1992 ACM Conference on
`
`Human Factors in Computing Systems. Dennis J. M. J. de Baar et al., Coupling
`
`Application Design and User Interface Design, Published in CHI ’92 Proceedings of
`
`the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, New York,
`
`NY, USA (1992), available at https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=142806, Ex. 2004. In
`
`this paper, de Baar et al. write that “[b]uilding an interactive application involves the
`
`design of both a data model and a graphical user interface (GUI) to present that model
`
`to the user.” Id. at p. 1 (Abstract). Furthermore, “[e]xternal attributes and methods are
`
`represented in the user interface as standard interaction objects such as buttons,
`
`settings, or sliders (hereafter referred to as “controls”) or as data manipulated directly
`
`by the user.” Id. at p. 1 (Introduction). Therefore, it would have been understood that
`
`an interactive user interface for such an interactive application w