UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FIRSTFACE CO., LTD.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2019-01012
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`____________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS .............................................................................................. iii 
`I. 
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1 
`II.  MANDATORY NOTICES PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §42.8 .................. 1 
`A. 
`Real Party-In-Interest ............................................................................ 1 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 1 
`
`Lead Counsel, Back-Up Counsel, and Service Information ................. 3 
`
`III.  PAYMENT OF FEES ................................................................................... 3 
`IV.  REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW ................................ 4 
`A.  Grounds for Standing ............................................................................ 4 
`
`B. 
`
`Identification of Challenge .................................................................... 4 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`Prior Art ...................................................................................... 4 
`
`Grounds ....................................................................................... 6 
`
`V. 
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ........................................................................ 7 
`A. 
`’419 Patent ............................................................................................. 7 
`
`B. 
`
`Prosecution History ............................................................................... 9 
`
`VI.  LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................ 9 
`VII.  CLAIM INTERPRETATION ...................................................................... 9 
`VIII.  GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY ..................................................... 10 
`A.  Ground 1: Claim 9 is rendered obvious by Griffin in view of Davis
`and iOS under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)........................................................ 12 
`
`1. 
`
`The Underlying Independent Claim 1 is obvious in view of
`Griffin, Davis, and iOS ............................................................. 12 
`
`i
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Fingerprint authentication ......................................................... 12 
`
`Fingerprint authentication—motivation to combine ................ 18 
`
`a) 
`
`b) 
`
`c)  Mobile device functions ............................................................ 19 
`
`d)  Mobile device functions—motivation to combine ................... 21 
`
`2. 
`
`a) 
`
`b) 
`
`3. 
`
`Dependent Claim 9 is obvious in view of Griffin, Davis, and
`iOS ............................................................................................. 25 
`
`Activation sensor....................................................................... 25 
`
`User Identification Module ....................................................... 27 
`
`Claim charts .............................................................................. 28 
`
`B. 
`
`Ground 2: Claim 9 is rendered obvious by Goertz in view of Davis
`and iOS under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)........................................................ 42 
`
`1. 
`
`a) 
`
`b) 
`
`The Underlying Independent Claim 1 is obvious in view of
`Goertz, Davis, and iOS ............................................................. 42 
`
`Fingerprint authentication ......................................................... 42 
`
`Fingerprint authentication—motivation to combine ................ 45 
`
`c)  Mobile device functions ............................................................ 46 
`
`d)  Mobile device functions—motivation to combine ................... 48 
`
`2. 
`
`a) 
`
`b) 
`
`3. 
`
`Dependent Claim 9 is obvious in view of Goertz, Davis, and
`iOS ............................................................................................. 51 
`
`Activation Sensor ...................................................................... 51 
`
`User Identification Module ....................................................... 53 
`
`Claim charts .............................................................................. 53 
`
`IX.  CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 64
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419 to Jung et al.
`
`Prosecution History File of Application No. 14/848,191, 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.
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

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

`

`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`iPhone 3G Finger Tips (2009)
`
`P. Tarr, W. Harrison, H. Ossher, A. Finkelstein, B. Nuseibeh, & D.
`Perry, Workshop on Multi-Dimensional Separation of Concerns in
`Software Engineering, Proceedings of the 2000 International
`Conference on Software Engineering: ICSE 2000 the New
`Millennium, Pages 809-810 (2000)
`(DOI=https://doi.org/10.1145/337180.337827)
`
`[intentionally left blank]
`
`Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement, Docket No. 57,
`Firstface Co., Ltd. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-02245 (N.D. Cal.)
`
`Declaration of Victor Cheung
`
`U.S. Patent 7,423,557 to Kang
`
`Declaration of Scott A. McKeown
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. respectfully requests inter partes review (IPR) of claim
`
`9 of U.S. Patent 9,779,419 (“’419 patent,” Ex. 1001) in accordance with 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§311-319 and 37 C.F.R. §42.100 et seq.
`
`This Petition demonstrates that claim 9 is unpatentable over the prior art and
`
`that Petitioner has a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to the same.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §42.8
`
`A. Real Party-In-Interest
`
`Apple Inc. is the real party-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`As discussed above, Petitioner previously filed a petition for inter partes
`
`review of the ’419 patent (IPR2019-00614). As set forth below, IPR2019-00614
`
`challenged claims 1-4, 6-7, 10-13, and 15-17 of the ’419 patent. The present Petition
`
`challenges dependent claim 9. Petitioner has also filed petitions for inter partes
`
`review of related U.S. Patent Nos. 8,831,557 and 9,633,373, and is concurrently
`
`filing an additional petition for inter partes review challenging two dependent claims
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,633,373. Each inter partes review proceeding is at the pre-
`
`institution stage.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`IPR
`
`Patent
`
`Filing Date
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Claim(s)
`
`IPR2019-00611
`
`8,831,557
`
`1/23/2019
`
`IPR2019-00612
`
`8,831,557
`
`1/23/2019
`
`1, 8-9, 15
`
`1, 8-9, 15
`
`IPR2019-00613
`
`9,633,373
`
`1/23/2019
`
`1-2, 4-6, 11-14
`
`IPR2019-00614
`
`9,779,419
`
`1/23/2019
`
`1-4, 6-7, 10-13, 15-17
`
`9,633,373
`
`4/24/2019
`
`IPR2019-01011
`
`The ’419 patent is the subject of pending litigation in the following cases:
`
`10, 18
`
`Name
`
`Case No.
`
`Filing Date
`
`Firstface Co., Ltd. v.
`Apple Inc.
`
`3-18-cv-02245 (N.D. Cal.)
`
`4/13/2018
`
`
`Further, the following applications remain pending at the USPTO and may
`
`contain, or may be amended to contain, patentably indistinct claims:
`
`Title
`
`Application No.
`
`Filing Date
`
`Activating Display and
`Performing Additional Function
`in Mobile Terminal with One-
`time User Input
`
`
`
`15/938,702
`
`3/28/2018
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`C. Lead Counsel, Back-Up Counsel, and Service Information
`
`Lead Counsel
`Gabrielle E. Higgins
`Reg. No. 38,916
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`1900 University Avenue, 6th Floor
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2284
`Phone: +1-650-617-4015
`Fax: +1-617-235-9492
`gabrielle.higgins@ropesgray.com
`
`Mailing address for all PTAB
`correspondence:
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`IPRM—Floor 43
`Prudential Tower
`800 Boylston Street
`Boston, Massachusetts 02199-3600
`
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES
`
`Backup Counsel
`Scott A. McKeown
`Reg. No. 42,866
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
`Washington, D.C. 20006-6807
`Phone: +1-202-508-4740
`Fax: +1-617-235-9492
`scott.mckeown@ropesgray.com
`
`Christopher M. Bonny
`Reg. No. 63,307
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`1900 University Avenue, 6th Floor
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2284
`Phone: +1-650-617-4011
`Fax: +1-617-235-9492
`christopher.bonny@ropesgray.com
`
`Victor Cheung
`Reg. No. 66,229
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
`Washington, D.C. 20006-6807
`Phone: +1-202-508-4641
`Fax: +1-617-235-9492
`victor.cheung@ropesgray.com
`
`The undersigned authorizes the Office to charge the fee required by 37 C.F.R.
`
`§42.15(a) for this Petition for IPR to Deposit Account No. 18-1945. Any additional
`
`fees that might be due are also authorized.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

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

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Ex. 1007 – Apple iPhone OS 3.1 User Guide (September 2009) (“iOS”) was
`
`
`
`published and accessible to the public by at least 9/9/2009. See Declaration of
`
`Michael Hulse (Ex. 1004) and Declaration of Yosh Moriarty (Ex. 1031).
`
`
`
`Ex. 1013 – U.S. 2010/0017872 (“Goertz”) published on 1/21/2010.
`
`Ex. 1015 – U.S. 2010/0138914 (“Davis”) published on 6/3/2010.
`
`Griffin is prior art to the ’419 patent under 35 U.S.C. §102(e). Goertz, Davis,
`
`and iOS are prior art to the ’419 patent under §102(b).
`
`Griffin and an excerpt from a later revision of an iOS User Guide (for iOS
`
`4.2 and 4.3) were presented to the USPTO in IDSs during the original prosecution
`
`of the ’419 patent but were not considered by the USPTO with any specificity.
`
`Therefore, Griffin and iOS present new teachings for consideration with respect to
`
`the ’419 patent.2
`
`Goertz and Davis were not considered during the original prosecution of the
`
`’419 patent, and they are not cumulative of any prior art considered by the original
`
`patent examiner.
`
`
`
` 2
`
` Grounds based on a reference cited in an IDS but not considered at any length (i.e.,
`
`Griffin and iOS) should not be barred under 35 U.S.C. §325(d). See, e.g., IPR2017-
`
`00178, Paper 6 at 12-13 (PTAB April 25, 2017) and IPR2016-01876, Paper 8 at 7-9
`
`(PTAB April 3, 2017).
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Griffin and Goertz each disclose mobile devices that turn on a touch screen
`
`display and initiate unlock functions based on one-time pressings of a button, and
`
`Davis discloses displaying a fingerprint unlock dialog while fingerprint scanning is
`
`performed—the combination of which was deemed missing from the prior art
`
`identified during prosecution.
`
`2. Grounds
`
`#
`
`1
`
`2
`
`
`
`Claims
`
`35 U.S.C. §
`
`Prior Art
`
`9
`
`9
`
`103(a)
`
`103(a)
`
`Griffin, Davis, and iOS
`
`Goertz, Davis, and iOS
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(4), Petitioner provides in Section VIII
`
`below an explanation of how claim 9 of the ’419 patent is unpatentable under the
`
`statutory grounds identified above, including an identification of where each element
`
`of the claim is found in the prior art, and demonstrates that Petitioner has at least a
`
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing on these grounds. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
`
`§42.104(b)(5), the exhibit numbers of the supporting evidence relied upon to support
`
`the challenges and the relevance of the evidence to the challenges raised, including
`
`identifying specific portions of the evidence that support the challenges, are provided
`
`in Section VIII.
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`V.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`’419 Patent
`
`The ’419 patent claims a simple combination of well-known consumer
`
`electronics functions: activating a display via a button and performing different
`
`functions based on how long the button is pressed. (Ex. 1001, Abstract, claim 1.)
`
`Fig. 1 of the ’419 patent shows an example of a mobile communication
`
`terminal 100:
`
`FIG. 1
`
`100
`
`(EI slide to unlock :J
`\\
`
`Terminal 100 includes a display unit
`
`110 and an activation button 120. (Id., 3:42-
`
`48.) The display unit 110 can be switched
`
`from an OFF state (an “inactive state”) to an
`
`110
`
`ON state (an “active state”) by pressing the
`
`activation button 120. (Id., 3:21-40, 4:22-27.)
`
`A lock screen can be displayed when the
`
`terminal changes from the inactive state to the
`
`active state. (Id., 4:45-48.)
`
`The
`
`activation
`
`button
`
`120
`
`is
`
`configurable for other functions in addition to
`
`switching to the active state. (Id., 4:30-40,
`
`5:51-57, 10:1-6.) The particular operation
`
`120
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`performed can depend on how the activation button 120 is pressed (e.g., pressed
`
`three times or pressed for a long time). (Id., 4:51-5:13.) In one example, the operation
`
`is a user authentication function performed when the display is off. (Id., 7:14-8:20.)
`
`In another example, the operation is a hands-free function or playing music. (Id.,
`
`9:22-28, 10:7-10.)
`
`Accordingly, the ’419 patent purports to enable a device to perform functions
`
`based on pressing of an activation button, where at least one of the functions is
`
`performed while a lock screen is displayed.
`
`But buttons, triggering functions depending on how buttons are pressed, and
`
`lock screens were all standard components of communication devices at the time of,
`
`and in no way unique to, the ’419 patent. As explained in detail below, others had
`
`already implemented activation buttons and lock screen authentication functions
`
`prior to the ’419 patent. The claims of the ’419 patent are simply obvious
`
`combinations of known techniques.
`
`At issue in this Petition, claim 9 recites a smartphone, an activation sensor
`
`configured to detect pressing of the activation button, and a user identification
`
`module configured to perform fingerprint authentication.
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`U.S. Application 14/848,191, which matured into the ’419 patent, was filed
`
`on 9/8/2015 with a single claim (followed by a preliminary amendment). (Ex. 1002,
`
`1-77.)
`
`The Examiner issued Notices of Allowance on 7/27/2017 and 8/8/2017, which
`
`amended the independent claims to recite initiating a hands-free operation of the
`
`terminal when the one-time pressing of the activation button is for a long time. (Id.,
`
`707-717, 732-739.) The Examiner provided no reasons for allowance.
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`The prior art demonstrates that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(“POSITA”), at the time the ’419 patent was filed, would have been a person with
`
`bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, or equivalent and
`
`have at least two years of relevant experience in the fields of user interface design
`
`and mobile devices, or otherwise equivalent industry experience in the relevant field.
`
`(Ex. 1003 ¶¶29-30.)
`
`VII. CLAIM INTERPRETATION
`
`Claim terms subject to IPR are to be “construed…in accordance with the
`
`ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” (37 C.F.R.
`
`§42.100(b))3
`
`VIII. GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY
`
`Although the ’419 patent alleges to have invented a button that turns on a
`
`display and causes a function to be performed based on a press duration, such
`
`techniques—and elements such as a smartphone, an activation sensor and user
`
`identification module—were known in the communications device art prior to the
`
`earliest possible priority date of the ’419 patent. As demonstrated below, the prior
`
`art references renders claim 9 unpatentable.
`
`This Petition is supported by the Bederson Declaration, which describes the
`
`scope and content of the prior art at the time of the alleged invention of the ’419
`
`patent. (Ex. 1003 ¶¶1-108.)
`
`The Board’s discretion under 35 U.S.C. §§314(a) or 325(d) should not be used
`
`to deny institution of this Petition. General Plastic factors 1 and 3-7 favor institution,
`
`
`
` 3
`
` The parties have proposed constructions for certain terms in district court (Ex.
`
`1035). Construction of these terms does not impact the outcome of this proceeding—
`
`the claims are invalid under both parties’ proposed constructions and thus do not
`
`need to be construed here. Nidec Motor v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor, 868 F.3d
`
`1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`and factor 2 is neutral. IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 at 16 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017). Claim
`
`9 is the only claim challenged in this Petition, and no party has previously filed a
`
`petition challenging this claim (factor one). As explained in the accompanying
`
`declaration (Ex. 1038), claim 9 was inadvertently omitted from IPR2019-00614,
`
`filed January 23, 2019 (factor five). Petitioner first learned of this omission on April
`
`12, 2019 and thereupon immediately and diligently prepared the instant petition
`
`(factor four). Id. IPR2019-00614 is still in its early stages—the Board has not issued
`
`a decision on institution and Patent Owner has not filed its preliminary response (due
`
`by May 21, 2019) (factor three).4
`
`Moreover, review of dependent claim 9 introduces minimal additional work
`
`for the Board (factor six), and the Board will be able to timely issue a final
`
`determination (factor seven). Dependent claim 9 recites a smartphone, an activation
`
`sensor, and a user identification module. These elements are disclosed by the same
`
`prior art relied on in IPR2019-00614—Griffin, Goertz, and Davis. Petitioner is
`
`introducing no new grounds, and the discussions of independent claim 1 below
`
`
`
` 4
`
` Pursuant to §315(d), Petitioner requests that the Board consolidate this proceeding
`
`with IPR2019-00614, or at minimum decide to coordinate the schedules of the
`
`proceedings. Petitioner is amenable to any reasonable request for extension of time
`
`to accommodate coordination of schedules between the two proceedings.
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`mirrors those presented in IPR2019-00614. It is irrelevant whether Petitioner
`
`previously knew of the art (factor two) because Petitioner is challenging a different
`
`claim, and therefore this factor is neutral.
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board grant this Petition
`
`and institute an inter partes review of the ’419 patent. The Board has instituted and
`
`declined to exercise its discretion under §§314(a) and 325(d) in similar
`
`circumstances. See, e.g., IPR2018-01121, Paper 8 at 40-44 (PTAB Nov. 20, 2018)
`
`(instituting where Petitioner challenged different claims and had not yet received
`
`Patent Owner’s preliminary response); IPR2018-01563, Paper 11 at 7-15 (PTAB
`
`Feb. 26, 2019) (same); IPR2017-01781, Paper 9 at 4-6 (PTAB Jan. 9, 2018) (same).
`
`A. Ground 1: Claim 9 is rendered obvious by Griffin in view of Davis
`and iOS under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
`1.
`
`The Underlying Independent Claim 1 is obvious in view of
`Griffin, Davis, and iOS
`a)
`
`Fingerprint authentication
`
`Griffin discloses methods for transitioning between locked and unlocked
`
`states of a device. (Ex. 1027, Abstract.)
`
`Griffin discloses that mobile devices entered into a sleep mode or inactive
`
`mode to reduce power consumption and preserve battery life. (Id. ¶24.) In the sleep
`
`mode, functions, peripherals, and displays were disabled until the devices received
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

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

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Fig. 11 of Griffin, annotated below, shows one possible flow of steps for
`
`unlocking a device. At step 1100, the system detects actuation of a first input
`
`mechanism. Then, it activates a second input mechanism so that a second input can
`
`be detected, at steps 1105 through 1120. (Id. ¶121.) When the proper inputs are
`
`received, the device is unlocked, at step 140. (Id. ¶122.)
`
`Detect actuation
`
`of first input
`mechanism 11QQ
`
`Activate second
`
`input mechanism
`~
`
`Start timer and
`count 1110
`
`FIG. 11
`
`Deactivate second
`input mechanism
`11®
`
`yes
`
`Wipe device
`1165
`
`Detect Input at
`
`second input
`mechanism .112Q
`
`Detect complete
`input.lnQ
`
`Count=
`count +1
`1155
`
`no
`
`Unlock device
`
`1HQ
`
`Reset count
`1lli
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

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

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`START
`
`404
`
`402
`
`RECEIVE UNLOCK
`COMMAND
`
`PRESENT UNLOCK
`DIALOG
`
`406
`
`408
`
`416
`
`418
`
`RECEIVE DEVICE
`PASSWORD
`
`RECEIVE SMART
`CARD PASSWORD
`
`PRESENT FINGER-
`PRINT DIALOG
`
`RECEIVE LIVE
`SCAN FROM SCR
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`N
`
`INDICATE FAILURE
`TO VERIFY
`
`414
`
`INDICATE FAILURE
`TO VERIFY
`
`
`In Fig. 4, when an unlock command is received (step 402), an unlock dialog is
`
`FIG.4
`
`presented (i.e., a lock screen), and password and smart card entry functions are
`
`performed (steps 406-414). (Id. ¶¶48-50.) Higher security in the form of fingerprint
`
`authentication is then performed, including presenting a fingerprint dialog (step 416;
`
`i.e., a lock screen), scanning a user’s finger (step 418), and unlocking the device if
`
`the fingerprint is valid (steps 420-422). (Id. ¶¶50-53.)
`
`Davis further teaches that unlocking procedures were customizable—
`
`rearranging the order in which functions are performed or using only a subset of the
`
`functions. (Id. ¶71.) Thus, a POSITA would have implemented an unlocking
`
`procedure that included an unlock command followed by a fingerprint dialog and a
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

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

`

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

`

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

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`iPhone at a Glance
`
`Headset jack
`
`buttons
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`icons
`
`Dock
`connect