UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`GOPRO, INC., GARMIN INT’L. AND GARMIN USA, INC.
`Petitioners
`
`vs.
`
`CELLSPIN SOFT, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Case IPR2019--01108
`Patent No. 9,258,698
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`The undersigned, acting on behalf of the patent owner, Cellspin Soft, Inc.
`
`(“Cellspin”), and, pursuant to 37 U.S.C. § 42.120107(a) and 35 U.S.C. § 316313,
`
`respectfully responds in opposition to the petition of GoPro, Inc., Garmin
`
`International, Inc. and Garmin USA, Inc. (collectively “Petitioner”) for Inter Partes
`
`Review (“IPR”) and request that institution be denied, including because Petitioner
`
`fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on any claim.
`
`
`
`Dated: August 22, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/s/ John J. Edmonds
`John J. Edmonds, Reg. No. 56,184
`EDMONDS & SCHLATHER, PLLC
`355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: 213-973-7846
`Facsimile: 213-835-6996
`Email: pto-edmonds@ip-lit.com
`
`
`Stephen F. Schlather, Reg. No. 45,081
`EDMONDS & SCHLATHER, PLLC
`2501 Saltus Street
`Houston, TX 77003
`P: 713-234-0044
`F: 713-224-6651
`E: sschlather@ip-lit.com
`
`
`
`
`
`P a g e 1 | 75
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST .......................................................................................................... 5
`I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 7
`II. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ......................................................................... 8
`III. SUPPORTING EVIDENCE ............................................................................... 9
`IV. LEGAL PRINCIPLES ........................................................................................ 9
`IV. THE ’698 PATENT .......................................................................................... 10
`V. THE LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ...................................... 13
`VI. ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................... 14
`A. Claim Construction ...................................................................................... 14
`B. Claim Construction Summary ..................................................................... 29
`C. Prior Art Relied Upon by Petitioner ............................................................. 29
`1. Mashita ..................................................................................................... 29
`a. Mashita’s local wireless link termination issue .................................... 34
`b. Mashita teaches away from a cellular phone using HTTP ................... 39
`2. Onishi ........................................................................................................ 41
`3. Hiraishi ..................................................................................................... 42
`D. Non-obviousness of Claims 1,3–5,7,8,10–13 and 15–20 over
` Mashita, Onishi, and Hiraishi ....................................................................... 43
`1. “Limitation C” – No paired Connection ................................................... 43
`2. “Limitation C” – No Cryptographic Authentication ................................ 42
`3. “Limitation D” – No Established Paired Connection ............................... 49
`4. “Limitation G” – No Data Transfer Request ............................................. 51
`5. “Limitation H – No Established Paired Connection ................................. 53
`6. “Limitation J” – No HTTP Upload of New-Media .................................. 54
`7. “Limitation K” – No GUI Deletion of New-Media File .......................... 57
`7. N73 ............................................................................................................ 61
`8. Z520A ....................................................................................................... 61
`E. Response to Dr. Strawn’s Overview of the State of the Art and the Knowledge
` of a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ...................................................... 61
`F. Lack of Motivation to Combine Mashita, Onishi and Hiraishi ................... 63
`G. Claim 5 and Claim 8 – No Single Application Performing Steps ............... 64
`H. Claim 6 – Mobile Application Performing All Steps Lacking .................... 67
`I. Conclusions regarding independent claims 1, 5, 8, and 13 ........................... 68
`J. Dependent Claims 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 ................. 68
`VII. THIS PROCEEDING AND ANY INVALIDITY RULINGS
`P a g e 2 | 75
`
`

`

` BASED THEREON ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, INCLUDING
`UNDER THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS ..................... 69
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 71
`
`P a g e 3 | 75
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc. et al. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A., IPR2015-
`01615, Paper 13 at p. 9 (Feb. 17, 2016) ............................................................... 36
`KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) ......................................... 36
`Perreira v. Dep't of Health and Human Serv., 33 F.3d 1375, 1377 n.6
` (Fed.Cir. 1994) ....................................................................................................... 37
`Tre Milano, LLC v. TF3, Ltd., IPR2015-00649, Paper 37
`(P.T.A.B. May 2, 2016) ........................................................................................... 37
`Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186, 203,206 (2003) .................................................. 55
`Concrete Pipe & Prods. of Cal. v. Construction Laborers Pens. Trust, 508 U.S.
`602, 617-18 (1993) ............................................................................................... 56
`In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136 (1955) .............................................................56
`Brown v. Duchesne, 60 U.S. 183, 197 (1857) ......................................................... 56
`Horne v. Dept’ of Ag., 135 S. Ct. 2419, 2427 (2015) .............................................. 56
`Celgene Corp. v. Peter, No. 18-1167 (Fed. Cir. July 30,2019) ............................... 56
`
`
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 313 .......................................................................................................... 2
`35 U.S.C. § 42.107 ..................................................................................................... 2
`
`
`
`
`
`P a g e 4 | 75
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`Exhibit
`No. Short Name
`2001 AIRCable
`AIRcable User Manual Rev 0.95 December 7, 2004
`Manual
`U.S. Patent No. 9,398,891 to Bagha
`2002
`‘891 Patent
`Silicon Labs UG103.10: RF4CA Fundamentals
`2003 RF4CA
`IEEE Part 15.4: Low-Rate Wireless Personal Area
`2004 LR-WPANs
`Networks (LR-WPANs)
`2005 NIST Glossary Glossary of Key Information Security Terms by NIST
`2006
`--Skipped--
`--Skipped--
`2007
`--Skipped--
`--Skipped--
`2008 Mobile Comm
`Mobile Communications and Networks by Prentice Hall
`& Net.
`2009 Foley
`Declaration of Michael Foley, Ph.D.
`Declaration
`2010 Foley CV
`2011 Techopedia
`definition for
`encryption
`2012 Science
`Dictionary
`definition of
`cryptographic
`2013 Schneier
`Excerpt
`
`CV of Michael Foley, Ph.D.
`Definition of “encryption” from the Techopedia
`dictionary from
`https://www.techopedia.com/definition/5507/encryption
`Definition of “cryptographic” from Academic Press
`Dictionary of Science And Technology 556 (1992)
`(second edition)
`
`2014 Stallings
`Excerpt
`
`2015 CNSSI
`Excerpt
`2016 NISTIR
`Excerpt
`
`2017 ZigBee
`Analysis
`
`Excerpt from Bruce Schneier, Applied Cryptography:
`Protocols, Algorithms and Source Code in C, 2nd
`Edition, 1996, pp. 1-2.
`Excerpt from W. Stallings, "Cryptography And Network
`Security", 2nd, Edition, Chapter 13, IP Security, Jun. 8,
`1998, pp. 399-440.
`Excerpt from CNSSI No. 4009, which is a Committee
`on National Security Systems Glossary
`Excerpt from NISTIR 7298, Revision 2, entitled
`“Glossary of Key Information Security Terms,” which
`was published by the National Institute of Standards and
`Technology
`Security Analysis of Zigbee
`
`P a g e 5 | 75
`
`

`

`2021 ‘802
`Application
`2022 Webster
`Definition of
`“along with”
`2023 Bluetooth BIP
`Profile
`2024 Foley
`Supplemental
`Dec.
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No. Short Name
`2018 Bluetooth v2.1 Bluetooth v2.1 + EDR Core Specification
`2019 Techopedia
`Definition of “authentication” from the Techopedia
`definition for
`dictionary from
`authentication
`https://www.techopedia.com/definition/342/Authenticati
`on
`Definition of “graphical user interface” from the
`Techopedia dictionary from
`https://www.techopedia.com/ definition/5435/graphical-
`user-interface-gui
`U.S. Patent Application No. No. 11/901,802
`
`2020 Techopedia
`definition for
`GUI
`
`Definition of “along with” from the Merriam-Webster
`dictionary: https://www.merriam-
`webster.com/dictionary/along%20with
`Bluetooth Basic Imaging Profile, Interoperability
`Specification, dated July 30, 2003
`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Michael Foley
`
`
`
`P a g e 6 | 75
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pending before the Board is Petitioner’s motion for joinder with IPR2019-
`
`00131 filed by Panasonic. As stated in Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder:
`
`The GoPro/Garmin Petition does not present any new grounds of
`unpatentability; rather it is substantively identical to the Panasonic IPR
`Petition and is therefore a “copycat” of the Panasonic IPR Petition…
`Regarding the claim construction standards (i.e., BRI vs. Phillips), any
`proposed constructions in the Panasonic IPR are at least included
`within the scope of either construction. Therefore, the difference in
`standards should not have any material effect... In sum, there are no
`changes to the facts, citations, evidence, or arguments presented...
`
`Paper 4,p.4.
`
`Although the Board has already instituted IPR proceedings in the ‘131-IPR,
`
`even if joinder is allowed,1 proceedings should not be instituted on this Petition. This
`
`Preliminary Response is substantially different from, and more detailed than, Patent
`
`Owner’s Preliminary Response in the ‘127 IPR. This Preliminary Response
`
`primarily tracks the substance of Cellspin’s actual, detailed Response filed in the
`
`‘131-IPR. Further, this Preliminary Response is supported by the Foley Declaration
`
`at Ex.2009. Further, this Preliminary Response is supported by the Foley
`
`Declaration at Ex. 2009. Further, the Phillips standard for claim construction applies
`
`in this proceeding, while the BRI standard applies in the ‘131-IPR.
`
`
`1 Petitioner concedes that its Petition would be untimely unless joinder is allowed. Paper 4,p.3. As
`noted by Petitioner, its May 2019 Petition was filed over seventeen months after Cellspin’s
`Complaints for patent infringement were filed against Petitioners in October 2017 in N.D.
`California.Id.,pp.1-2.
`
`P a g e 7 | 75
`
`

`

`Petitioner fails to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that any of the
`
`challenged claims 1,3,4,5,7,8,10,11,12,13,15,16,17,18,19 or 20 are invalid or
`
`otherwise unpatentable. Petitioner’s argument fails to render any claim obvious due
`
`to, inter alia, at least six essential claimed requirements noted in the Summary of
`
`Arguments below. Moreover, Petitioner’s declaration of Dr. Strawn impermissibly
`
`uses hindsight to arrive at alleged obviousness, it fails to provide a logical nexus
`
`between alleged motivations to combine and the specific features being combined,
`
`and it fails to support rendering any of the challenged claims obvious.
`
`I.
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.
`
`The references and combination of refences do not disclose many of the
`
`teachings of the ‘698 patent. Without limitation, these key points are not shown or
`
`rendered obvious any of the prior art asserted by Petitioner:
`
` Paired wireless connection between a camera and a mobile device;
`
` Cyrtographic authentication of the mobile device by the camera;
`
` Mashita teaches away from a cellular phone using HTTP;
`
` Combining Mashita with Hiraishi would not work;
`
` GUI’s in general and specifically not for image deletion on the wirelessly
`
`connected digital camera; and
`
` For claims 5 and 8, a single mobile application performing all the required
`
`functions (e.g., request, store, HTTP media upload, delete using GUI).
`
`
`
`P a g e 8 | 75
`
`

`

`III. SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
`
`The exhibit numbers of the supporting evidence relied upon and the relevance
`
`of the evidence to the challenges raised are provided herein. An Exhibit List
`
`identifying the exhibits is included supra. In support of the proposed grounds, this
`
`Petition is accompanied by the declaration of Michael Foley, Ph.D., an expert in the
`
`fields of electrical and computer engineering, with extensive experience with
`
`wireless communications including Bluetooth.Ex.2009.
`
`III. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`A patent claim is unpatentable as obvious if the differences between the
`
`claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole
`
`would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
`
`In satisfying its burden of proving obviousness, Petitioner cannot employ
`
`mere conclusory statements. Petitioner must instead articulate specific reasoning,
`
`based on evidence of record, to support the conclusion of obviousness.
`
`In assessing the prior art, one must consider whether a POSITA would have
`
`been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention. It can be
`
`important to identify a reason that would have prompted a POSITA in the relevant
`
`field to combine the elements in the way of the claimed invention at the relevant
`
`time of the priority date.
`
`A POSITA may consider whether the prior art teaches a combination. Proving
`P a g e 9 | 75
`
`

`

`obviousness cannot involve hindsight reconstruction. Modifications that render the
`
`prior art unsatisfactory for its intended purpose may not be obvious.
`
`IV. THE ’698 PATENT
`
`The application for ‘698 patent is a continuation of application no.
`
`12/333,303, filed on December 11,2008, and it claims priority to provisional
`
`application No. 61/017,202, filed on December 28,2007. For purposes of this
`
`declaration and analysis, Cellspin assumes (as did Petitioner) that the claims of the
`
`‘698 patent are entitled to a priority date of December 28,2007. Ex.2009,¶21.
`
`The ‘698 patent states that, prior to the ‘698 invention, capture methods were
`
`crude. Ex.1003,1:46–55. As for the invention, the ‘698 specification describes
`
`embodiments comprising digital data capture device 201, e.g., a digital camera,
`
`paired with a physically separate mobile device 202, e.g., a Bluetooth enabled
`
`cellular phone with client application 203. See Ex.1001,3:39-46. Figure 2
`
`“illustrates a system for utilizing a digital data capture device in conjunction with a
`
`Bluetooth enabled mobile device.”Id.,3:14–18. As stated in the specification,
`
`Bluetooth “pairing occurs when the BT communication device 201a agrees to
`
`communicate with the mobile device 202 in order to establish a connection.”Id.,4:1-
`
`3. As noted hereinbelow, a POSITA understands that Bluetooth pairing involves
`
`other aspects as well.
`
`In one embodiment, “In order to initiate the pairing process between the BT
`
`communication device 201a and the mobile device 202, a common password known
`P a g e 10 | 75
`
`

`

`as a passkey is exchanged between the BT communication device 201a and the
`
`mobile device 202.Id.,4:5-7.
`
`As stated in the specification, “[a] passkey is a code shared by the Bluetooth
`
`communication device 201a and the mobile device 202.”Id.,4:7-8.
`
`In request/response mode, client application 203 on the cellular phone (i.e.,
`
`mobile device 202) detects the captured image on the digital camera (i.e., digital data
`
`capture device 201), and, over the established, paired Bluetooth connection, initiates
`
`transfer of the captured image and associated files.Id., Abstract, 2:35-37,6:36-
`
`40,8:37-40. Digital data capture device 201 responds by transferring the captured
`
`image and associated files to client application 203 on mobile device 202.Id.,8:40-
`
`42.
`
`User information and translation to HTTP are applied in transit and on mobile
`
`device 202. See Id.,8:52-55,9:61-10:9. The captured data is then transferred via
`
`HTTP from client application 203 of mobile device 202 to publishing service 401
`
`via network 402, including as illustrated in FIG. 4.Id.,5:9-11,8:43-50.
`
`A Bluetooth device that wants to communicate only with a trusted device can
`
`cryptographically authenticate the identity of another Bluetooth device.Id.,3:59-61.
`
`In a preferred embodiment communication is authenticated cryptographically using
`
`the passkey noted above.Id.,4:3-7.
`
`30. The claims of the ’698 patent are broken down in the Foley Declaration.
`
`Ex. 2009,¶30. A diagram showing the inventive way of claim 5 is as follows:
`P a g e 11 | 75
`
`

`

`mflm Dimital Camera
`bill
`a” w
`
`Device Claim
`
`“whim?
`
`wireless
`Device
`I593 Gain; 5
`“Exam g
`
`
`
`sh
`
`“"u'afphme
`
`11m User Media
`“It!
`
`cm Publishins
`
`Webslte
`
`
`Mum
`"°"°"° " wirelesslnternet u. u-uu’
`cmnection
`
`
`W
`
`
`
`Establish amen-range um wireiess connection
`
`mmermmfayummmng
`
`GUI ho Delete
`
`QM
`New-Media
`File
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`P a g e 12 | 75
`Page 12|75
`
`

`

`V.
`
`THE LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`The Petitioner states that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant
`
`time would have at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer
`
`science, or an equivalent degree, and at least two years of industry experience with
`
`software development and/or electronic system design. More education can
`
`supplement relevant experience and vice versa. Pet.,9; Ex. 1001,¶24. For purposes
`
`of institution, the Board determined that a POSITA would have had a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering
`
`or computer science, or an equivalent degree, and two years of industry experience
`
`with software development, electronic system design, digital camera technology,
`
`and/or wireless communications. ‘131-IPR Institution Decision,15. Cellspin agrees
`
`that either the Board’s determination of a POSITA’s qualifications is correct, and
`
`that Petitioner’s formulation of a POSITA’s qualifications is also correct. Cellspin
`
`agrees that either the Board’s determination of a POSITA’s qualifications is correct,
`
`and that Petitioner’s formulation of a POSITA’s qualifications is also correct.
`
`Ex.2009,¶32. In this Response, Cellspin applies the Board’s determination of a
`
`POSITA’s qualifications.Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`P a g e 13 | 75
`
`

`

`VI. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`With respect to claim constructions, Petitioner relies merely upon Panasonic’s
`
`proposed BRI constructions and its statement that “any proposed constructions in
`
`the Panasonic IPR are at least included within the scope of either [a BRI or Phillips]
`
`construction.” Paper 4,p.4.
`
`Including since Petitioner has purportedly sought to parrot the ‘131-IPR
`
`petition, which will be decided under BRI, Cellspin is primarily addressing the
`
`proper BRI constructions for “paired,” “cryptographically authenticating” and
`
`“graphical user interface,” including subsidiary and related terms where applicable,
`
`from the perspective of a POSITA and in view of the specification, prior art and
`
`relevant knowledge of a POSITA.Ex.2009,¶41. For purposes of this Preliminary
`
`Response, Cellspin does not need to brief the proper Phillips constructions since
`
`no reasonable likelihood of unpatentability has been shown under BRI
`
`constructions. The Board should decline institution due to the noted claimed
`
`combinations not being met (or rendered obvious) because the Phillips constructions
`
`could not possibly be broader than the correct BRI constructions noted by Cellspin.
`
`References herein to BRI constructions should be understood in the foregoing light.
`
`Cellspin will fully brief the issue of Phillips constructions if institution is granted.
`
`Petitioner (in copycatting Panasonic’s petition) proposes that the above-noted
`
`“wherein” clause be construed under BRI as: “wherein as part of establishing the
`P a g e 14 | 75
`
`

`

`short-range paired wireless connection between the digital camera device and the
`
`cellular phone, the digital camera authenticates the identity of the cellular phone
`
`using some form of secrecy, security, or encryption, including by use of a shared
`
`passkey on the digital camera device and the cellular phone.” Id. 11. However, the
`
`construction proposed by Petitioner’s expert Dr. Strawn is not the same. The
`
`difference is that Dr. Strawn does not agree with Petitioner that “some form of
`
`secrecy” is sufficient. Ex. 1001, 38, 39.
`
`Panasonic/Petitioner argue their proposed BRI construction “is consistent
`
`with the ordinary meaning of the words ‘cryptographically authenticating’ to those
`
`skilled in the art.” Pet. 11–12 (citing Ex. 1012 (McGraw-Hill Dictionary of
`
`Computing & Communications, 2003) (defining “cryptography” as “[t]he science of
`
`preparing messages in a form which cannot be read by those not privy to the secrets
`
`of the form”); Ex. 1013 (Wiley Electrical and Electronics Engineering Dictionary,
`
`2004), (defining “authentication” as “In computers and communications, the
`
`processes of verifying the legitimacy of a transmission, user, or system. Measures
`
`such as passwords and digital signatures are employed.”)
`
`Cellspin is primarily addressing the proper BRI constructions for “paired,”
`
`“cryptographically authenticating” and “graphical user interface,” including
`
`subsidiary and related terms where applicable, from the perspective of a POSITA
`
`and in view of the specification, prior art and relevant knowledge of a POSITA. Ex.
`
`2009,¶40.
`
`P a g e 15 | 75
`
`

`

`Figure 1 of the ‘698 patent illustrates a method of utilizing a digital data
`
`capture device 201 in conjunction with a physically separate Bluetooth enabled
`
`mobile device 202. Ex. 1003, 3:34-41. “The digital data capture device 201 may,
`
`for example, be a digital camera, a video camera, digital modular camera systems,
`
`or other digital data capturing systems.”Id.,3:41-44. As noted in the patent:
`
`BT pairing involves establishing a connection between two BT devices
`that mutually agree to communicate with each other. A BT device that
`wants to communicate only with a trusted device can cryptographically
`authenticate the identity of another BT device. BT pairing occurs when
`the BT communication device 201a agrees to communicate with the
`mobile device 202 in order to establish a connection. In order to initiate
`the pairing process between the BT communication device 201a and
`the mobile device 202, a common password known as a passkey is
`exchanged between the BT communication device 201a and the mobile
`device 202. A passkey is a code shared by the BT communication
`device 201a and the mobile device 202. A user sets a discoverable mode
`for the mobile device 202… the entered passkey is matched with the
`passkey of the BT communication device 201a. If a match is found, a
`trusted pair is automatically established.
`
`Ex. 1003, 3:60-4:25.
`
`Thus, Bluetooth pairing involves (among other things) establishing a
`
`connection between two Bluetooth devices that mutually agree to communicate with
`
`each other.Id. 4:1-3. Further, the specification states that:
`
`The BT communication device 201a comprises a BT association
`protocol module 201b and a data transfer protocol module 201c. The
`client application 203 on the mobile device 202 comprises a BT
`association protocol module 203a, a data and file monitoring and
`detection module 203b, a data transfer protocol module 203c, a data
`storage module 203d, a graphical user interface (GUI) 203e, and a
`media publishing module 203f. The BT association protocol module
`201b of the digital data capture device 201and the BT association
`P a g e 16 | 75
`
`

`

`protocol module 203a of the client application 203 enable the pairing
`between the BT communication device 201a and the mobile device 202.
`The pairing of the BT communication device 201a and the mobile
`device 202is explained in the detailed description of FIG. 1. The data
`capture module 201d captures the data and the multimedia content on
`the digital data capture device 201.
`
`Id. 6:23-39 (emphasis added).
`
`
`Thus, the ‘698 specification states that Bluetooth pairing involves association
`
`and establishing a connection between two Bluetooth devices that mutually agree to
`
`communicate with each other.Id. 4:1-3. To a POSITA, this points out that pairing
`
`involves association and an exchange of credentials to fulfilling the agreement in
`
`addition to merely communicating back and forth. Ex. 2009,¶45.
`
`On this issue the Bluetooth specification includes the following:
`
`
`
`
`
`P a g e 17 | 75
`
`

`

`BLUETOOTH SPECIFICATION Version 2.1 + EDR [vol 1]
`
`page 6 of 96
`
`8 Bluetooth’
`
`3.5.6
`
`Extended synchronous connection-oriented (eSCO)....44
`
`3.5.? Active slave broadcast (ASB) ........................................ 45
`
`3.5.8
`
`Parked slave broadcast (PSB) ...................................... 46
`
`3.5.9
`
`Logical links .................................................................. 47
`
`3.5.10 User Asynchronousllsochronous Logical Link (ACL-U)48
`
`3.5.11 User Synchronous/Extended Synchronous Logimi Links
`(SCO-SfeSCO-S) .......................................................... 48
`L2CAP Channels ....................................................................... 49
`
`3.6
`
`4
`
`Communication Topology ................................................................ 50
`
`4.1
`
`Piconet Topology ....................................................................... 50
`
`4.2 Operational Procedures and Modes .......................................... 52
`
`4.2.1
`
`Inquiry (Discovering) Procedure .................................... 52
`
`4.2.2
`
`Paging (Connecting) Procedure .................................... 53
`
`4.2.3 Connected mode ........................................................... 53
`
`4.2.4 Hold mode ..................................................................... 54
`
`4.2.5
`
`Sniff mode ..................................................................... 54
`
`4.2.6
`
`Parked state .................................................................. 55
`
`4.2.? Role switch procedure................................................... 55
`
`4.2.8
`
`Enhanced Data Rate ..................................................... 56
`
`5
`
`Secure Simple Pairing Overview57
`
`5.1
`
`Security Goals ........................................................................... 57
`
`Passive Eavesdropping Protection ............................................ 57
`5.2
`5. 3 Man-ln—The-Middle Protection" 58
`5.4 -Aodels .................................................................... 59
`54.1
`Numeric Comparison .................................................... 59
`
`5.4.2
`
`Just Works .................................................................... 59
`
`5.4.3 Out of Band ................................................................... 60
`
`5.4.4
`
`Passkey Entry ............................................................... 60
`
`5.4.5 Association Model Overview ......................................... 61
`
`
`
`and
`
`and
`
`P a g e 18 | 75
`Page 18|75
`
`

`

`
`Ex. 2018, 80, 135. As noted above, the Bluetooth specification refers to a passkey
`as being one of the association models. Ex. 2009,¶46.
`To a POSITA, in the context of the ‘698 patent and in other contexts as well,
`the BRI of a “paired connection” is a “bidirectional communications link
`between devices which provides encrypted data exchange between the devices,
`and the communication link can be disconnected and reconnected without
`having to repeat pairing or authentication.” Ex. 2009, 46. This is consistent with
`how paired connections were defined while creating the Bluetooth specifications as
`well as other technologies, such as Zigbee, which have implemented the paired
`connection concept.Id. To a POSITA under BRI, pairing is the steps taken which
`
`P a g e 19 | 75
`
`

`

`result in a paired connection.Id.
`
`To a POSITA, in the context of the ‘698 patent but in other contexts as well,
`
`the BRI of a paired connection must be distinguished from mere authentication
`
`and from other methods of communications that involve exchanges of
`
`credentials but not pairing.Id.,¶47.
`
`For purposes of determining whether to institute this proceeding, the Board
`
`determined that “cryptographically authenticating identity of the cellular phone”
`
`encompasses “authenticating the identity of the cellular phone using some form of
`
`security or encryption, including by use of a shared passkey on the digital camera
`
`device and the cellular phone.” Here the Board essentially agreed with
`
`Panasonic/Petitioner’s proposed construction from the ‘131-IPR, except that the
`
`Board, like Petitioner’s expert Dr. Strawn, did not include the word “secrecy.”
`
`To a POSITA, in the context of the ‘698 patent but in other contexts as well,
`
`“encryption is the process of using an algorithm to transform information to make it
`
`unreadable
`
`for
`
`unauthorized
`
`users.”
`
`Ex.
`
`2009,¶50.
`
`See
`
`https://www.techopedia.com/definition/5507/encryption, Ex. 2011.2
`
`
`
` “This
`
`cryptographic method protects sensitive data such as credit card numbers by
`
`
`2 Cellspin’s Ex. 2011 to is a true and correct copy of a printout from the Techopedia dictionary
`which was printed on July 22, 2019 (as reflected on the exhibit itself) and which accurately reflects
`the
`definition
`of
`encryption
`on
`the
`webpage
`at
`https://www.techopedia.com/definition/5507/encryption. Ex. 2025,p.2.
`P a g e 20 | 75
`
`

`

`encoding and transforming information into unreadable cipher text. This encoded
`
`data may only be decrypted or made readable with a key.”Id. In the ’131-IPR for
`
`which joinder is sought, Panasonic cited its Ex. 1012, the McGraw-Hill Dictionary
`
`of Computing & Communications, 2003 at 3, as defining “cryptography” as “The
`
`science of preparing messages in a form which cannot be read by those not privy to
`
`the secrets of the form”. To a POSITA, the way in which messages cannot be read
`
`by those not privy to the secrets of the form is by the use of an algorithm to encode
`
`the data. See Academic Press Dictionary of Science And Technology 556 (1992)
`
`(second edition) (Ex. 2012). See also Bruce Schneier, Applied Cryptography:
`
`Protocols, Algorithms and Source Code in C, 2nd Edition, 1996, pp. 1-2 (“The
`
`process of disguising a message in such a way as to hide its substance is encryption.
`
`An encrypted message is ciphertext. The process of turning ciphertext back into
`
`plaintext is decryption.”) (Ex. 2013);3 W. Stallings, "Cryptography And Network
`
`Security", 2nd, Edition, Chapter 13, IP Security, Jun. 8, 1998, pp. 399-440 (“A
`
`cryptographic algorithm, also called a cipher, is the mathematical function used for
`
`encryption and decryption.”) (Ex. 2014)4; CNSSI 4009-2015 (NSA/CSS Manual
`
`
`3 Cellspin’s Ex. 2013 is a true and correct copy of an excerpt from Bruce Schneier, Applied
`Cryptography: Protocols, Algorithms and Source Code in C, 2nd Edition, 1996, pp. 1-2.
`(“Schneier”). Ex. 2025,p.2. Schneier is a textbook which is widely available including on
`www.amazon.com.Id.
`4 Cellspin’s Ex. 2014 is a true and correct copy of an excerpt from W. Stallings, "Cryptography
`And Network Security", 2nd, Edition, Chapter 13, IP Security, Jun. 8, 1998, pp. 399-440
`(“Stallings”). Ex. 2025,p.2. Stallings is a textbook which is widely available including on
`www.amazon.com.Id.
`
`P a g e 21 | 75
`
`

`

`Number 3-16 (COMSEC)) (cryptography is the “Art or science concerning the
`
`principles, means, and methods for rendering plain information unintelligible and
`
`for restoring encrypted information to intelligible form.) (Ex. 2015) . Further, the
`
`National Institute of Standards and Technology defines “cryptographic algorithm”
`
`as “[a] well-defined computational procedure that takes variable inputs, including a
`
`cryptographic key, and produces an output.” Ex. 2016. Further, the cryptographic
`
`mechanism in ZigBee, another well-known means of short-range wireless
`
`communication, is “based on symmetric-key cryptograp