Defendant’s Invalidity Contentions
`Exhibit H2
`
`
`Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 10,212,586
`by
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0041746 to Kirkup, et al. (“Kirkup ’746”)
`
`
`The excerpts cited herein are exemplary. For any claim limitation, Defendant may rely on excerpts cited for any other limitation and/or
`additional excerpts not set forth fully herein to the extent necessary to provide a more comprehensive explanation for a reference’s
`disclosure of a limitation. Where an excerpt refers to or discusses a figure or figure items, that figure and any additional descriptions
`of that figure should be understood to be incorporated by reference as if set forth fully therein.
`
`Except where specifically noted otherwise, this chart applies the apparent constructions of claim terms as used by Plaintiff in its
`infringement contentions; such use, however, does not imply that Defendant adopts or agrees with Plaintiff’s constructions in any way.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,212,586 (“the ’586 Patent”) claims priority to Japanese Application No. 2012-117105, filed May 23, 2012. For
`purposes of these invaldity contentions, Defendant applies the May 23, 2012, priority date for the ’586 Patent. However, Defendant
`reserves the right to contest Plaintiff’s reliance on the May 23, 2012, priority date, should the priority date become an issue in this
`proceeding.
`
`Kirkup ’746 was filed on August 17, 2004 and published on Feb 23, 2006. As such, Kirkup ’746 qualifies as prior art with regard to
`the ’586 Patent under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), 102(b), and 102(e) (pre-AIA). Alternatively, should the claims of the ’586 Patent be found
`to not be entitled to priority to the foreign filing date, Kirkup ’746 qualifies as prior art under §§ 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) (post-AIA).
`Using Plaintiff’s interpretation of the claims, Kirkup ’746 anticipates claims 1-2, 6-7, 9-10, 13-14, and 16-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a),
`(b) and (e).
`
`Alternatively, Kirkup ’746 renders obvious claims 1-2, 6-7, 9-10, 13-14, and 16-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`Alternatively, Kirkup ’746 in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,941,534 to de la Huerga (“de la Huerga ’534”) renders obvious claims 1-2, 6-
`7, 9-10, 13-14, and 16-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). de la Huerga ’534 was filed on June 26, 2004 and was published on April 28, 2005.
`As such, de la Huerga ’534 qualifies as prior art with regard to the ’586 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), 102(b) and 102(e).
`
`Alternatively, Kirkup ’746 in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,871,063 to Schiffer (“Schiffer ’063”) renders obvious claims 1-2, 6-7, 9-10,
`13-14, and 16-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Schiffer ’063 was filed on Jun 20, 2000 and issued on March 22, 2005. As such, Schiffer
`’063 qualifies as prior art with regard to the ’586 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), 102(b) and 102(e).
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2012
`
`Page 1 of 23
`
`

`

`Defendant’s Invalidity Contentions
`Exhibit H2
`
`Alternatively, Kirkup ’746 in view of U.S. Patent No. 8,149,089 to Lin (“Lin ’089”) renders obvious claims 1-2, 6-7, 9-10, 13-14, and
`16-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Lin ’089 was filed on November 21, 2008 and issued on April 3, 2012. As such, Lin ’089 qualifies as
`prior art with regard to the ’586 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and 102(e).
`
`
`Kirkup ’746
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,212,586
`Claim 1
`[1(pre)]A mobile terminal
`configured to switch between
`an unlocked state and a locked
`state in which a predetermined
`operation is limited,
`comprising:
`
`[1(a)] a transceiver which
`performs short-range wireless
`communications;
`
`To the extent the preamble is limiting, Kirkup ’746 teaches a mobile terminal that can be locked
`and unlocked:
`
`
`The handheld electronic device 120 requires the user to authenticate himself/herself by
`providing a password or PIN code to unlock the user interface of the handheld electronic
`device 120 and enable use thereof.
`Kirkup ’746 at ¶ [0045]
`Kirkup ’746 teaches a transceiver which performs short-range communications:
`
`
`Short-range communications subsystem 340 provides for communication between handheld
`electronic device 120 and different systems or devices, such as PC 110. […] Examples of short
`range communication include standards developed by the Infrared Data Association (IrDA),
`Bluetooth, and the 802.11 family of standards developed by IEEE.
`Kirkup ’746 at ¶ [0093]; see also FIG. 3 (depicting “short-range communications subsystem 340”):
`
`
`
`2
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2012
`
`Page 2 of 23
`
`

`

`Defendant’s Invalidity Contentions
`Exhibit H2
`
`
`
`Short-range communications subsystem 340 establishes wireless communications link 145:
`
`
`infrared
`for example, be established by
`link 145 may,
`Wireless communication
`communications or short-range radio frequency communications, such as those specified by
`the Bluetooth or 802.11 standards. […] Other short-range wireless communications media
`and/or protocols may be used to provide communication link 145.
`Wireless communication link 145 may be employed in place of communication link 115 in
`any of the embodiments of systems 100A, 100B, 100C, 100D and 100F (described
`hereinafter).
`
`3
`
`
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2012
`
`Page 3 of 23
`
`

`

`Defendant’s Invalidity Contentions
`Exhibit H2
`
`
`[1(b)] a memory which
`previously stores information
`about an another mobile
`terminal; and
`
`Id. at ¶¶ [0067]-[0068].
`Kirkup ’746 teaches storing the user’s authetication code for PC 110 (which “may be of any kind
`of computer, such as a normal desktop computer, laptop or other portable or fixed computer
`system,” see ¶ [0047]) in a memory of the mobile device:
`
`
`Advantageously, providing wireless communication link 145 enables a user to approach PC
`110, activate the PC 110 and have it communicate automatically and wirelessly, for example
`using the Bluetooth short-range communication specification, with handheld electronic
`device 120 to access the user's authentication code (stored on the smart-card, SIM card or
`memory of the handheld electronic device) and authenticate the user.
`Kirkup ’746 at ¶ [0068].
`
`This memory can be, in various disclosed embodiments, smartcard 130, SIM 316 or non-volatile
`memory 324:
`
`
`
`4
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2012
`
`Page 4 of 23
`
`

`

`Defendant’s Invalidity Contentions
`Exhibit H2
`
`
`
`
`
`Alternatively, de la Huerga ’534 teaches this limitation. De la Huerga ’534 teaches that security
`device 10 stores information about other computer devices it can unlock:
`
`
`In some cases the electronic security device can include an address of one or more trusted
`computer systems or servers.
`de la Huerga ’534 at 15:3-4.
`
`These computer devices can include mobile devices (e.g., patient monitoring devices) to which the
`user may authenticate (“mobile terminals”):
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2012
`
`Page 5 of 23
`
`

`

`Defendant’s Invalidity Contentions
`Exhibit H2
`
`
`System 194 includes a plurality of personal computers or computer terminals comprising
`workstations 60 and 60’, which may be located in patient rooms, at nurse stations, in doctor
`offices and administrative offices, a plurality of network devices including databases 158 and
`162 and servers including an Admit, Discharge, and Transfer system or server 166, at least
`one laboratory system or server 170, various bedside treatment devices 116 and 116’ such as
`ventilators and IV infusion pumps, patient monitoring devices 80 and 80’, a pharmacy system
`or server 186, a security verification system or server 168, a billing system or server 171, a
`patient historical records system or server 173 and a unit dose medication dispenser 150.”
`Id. at 20:1-15 (parentheticals omitted).
`
`De la Huerga ’534 further contemplates mobile terminals including patient bracelets (see FIG. 2)
`and locking pill containers (FIG. 5):
`
`
`The other devices include two smart devices including a patient monitor 80’ and a patient
`treatment device 116’, each equipped with a wireless transceiver input device 64 which is
`similar to transceiver 81’ on band 40 (see FIG. 2) and transceiver 81’ on container 200 (see
`FIG. 5)
`Id. at 24:1-5; see also FIGs 2, 5:
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2012
`
`Page 6 of 23
`
`

`

`Defendant’s Invalidity Contentions
`Exhibit H2
`
`
`
`Furthermore, de la Huerga ’534 disparages the prior art as not being suitable for portable devices:
`
`
`This [prior art] system is primarily directed to accessing desktop computer terminals on a
`sensitive computer network and is not easily adaptable, however, for restricting access to
`laptops, portable instruments, medical equipment such as respirators, or electronically-
`controlled medication dispensers.
`Id. at 11:38-42.
`
`The motivation to incorporate de la Huerga ’534’s memory storing information about another
`mobile terminal into the system of Kirkup ’746 would be to allow for additional devices to be
`unlocked by the handheld device 120. Modifying Kirkup ’746 in this way would be the use of a
`known technique to improve a similar device in the same way.
`Kirkup ’746 teaches that the microprocessor 338 of handheld device 120 performs all functions:
`
`
`Handheld electronic device 120 comprises a number of components, the controlling
`component being microprocessor 338. Microprocessor 338 controls the overall operation of
`the handheld electronic device 120. The hardware and software control functions described
`above in relation to FIGS. 1A to 1F and FIG. 2 are performed by microprocessor 338.
`Kirkup ’746 at ¶ [0085].
`
`These functions include locking (disabling the use of) and unlocking the device:
`The handheld electronic device 120 requires the user to authenticate himself/herself by
`providing a password or PIN code to unlock the user interface of the handheld electronic
`device 120 and enable use thereof.
`Kirkup ’746 at ¶ [0045]; see also FIG. 3:
`
`[1(c)] a controller which
`switches the mobile terminal
`between an unlocked state and
`a locked state based on an
`authentication input to the
`mobile terminal, wherein the
`locked state prevents
`unauthorized access to the
`mobile terminal;
`
`
`
`7
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2012
`
`Page 7 of 23
`
`

`

`Defendant’s Invalidity Contentions
`Exhibit H2
`
`
`[1(d)] wherein, when
`conditions are met, the
`controller controls the mobile
`terminal to transmit
`information to the another
`mobile terminal for switching
`a state of the another mobile
`terminal from a locked state to
`an unlocked state, wherein the
`conditions include:
`
`
`
`
`Kirkup ’746 teaches that handheld electronic device 120, controlled by the controller, transmits the
`authentication information to PC 110 when the conditions are met, as described below.
`
`
`
`
`The handheld electronic device is configured to transmit the authentication code to the
`computer so as to enable the user to unlock the desktop of the computer and thus gain access
`to the computer functions.
`Kirkup ’746 at ¶ [0040].
`
`
`Advantageously, the described arrangements generally allow a user to unlock both the PC
`110 and the handheld electronic device 120 by simply inputting one authorization code,
`namely that for the handheld electronic device 120. Advantageously, the PIN code or other
`
`8
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2012
`
`Page 8 of 23
`
`

`

`Defendant’s Invalidity Contentions
`Exhibit H2
`
`
`unlocking code for the handheld electronic device 120 may be entered either into a user
`interface of the handheld electronic device 120 or that of the PC 110 so as to unlock handheld
`electronic device 120 (if it is not already unlocked) and PC 110. … [I]f the user interfaces
`directly with handheld electronic device 120 then, upon authentication of the user (if
`required), the authentication code for PC 110 is extracted from Smart-card 130 and provided
`to PC 110 over communication link 115.
`Kirkup ’746 at ¶ [0053]; see also Fig. 2:
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2012
`
`Page 9 of 23
`
`

`

`Defendant’s Invalidity Contentions
`Exhibit H2
`
`
`[1(e)] first, the mobile terminal
`is in a locked state, the another
`mobile terminal is in a locked
`state, and the another mobile
`terminal is within
`communication range of the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Kirkup ’746 teaches that entering the PIN into handheld electronic device 120 serves to unlock
`both it and PC 110 (thus, at the beginning of the authentication process, both devices are necessarily
`in the locked state):
`
`
`10
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2012
`
`Page 10 of 23
`
`

`

`Defendant’s Invalidity Contentions
`Exhibit H2
`
`
`short-range wireless
`communications of the
`transceiver while in the locked
`state;
`
`[1(f)] second, after the mobile
`terminal is in the locked state,
`the another mobile terminal is
`in the locked state, and the
`another mobile terminal is
`within communication range
`of the short-range wireless
`communications of the
`transceiver while in the locked
`state, performing, via the
`transceiver, the short-range
`wireless communications with
`the another mobile terminal;
`and
`[1(g)] third, after the
`performing, receiving, by the
`controller, the authentication
`input for switching the mobile
`
`
`
`Advantageously, the described arrangements generally allow a user to unlock both the PC
`110 and the handheld electronic device 120 by simply inputting one authorization code,
`namely that for the handheld electronic device 120.
`Kirkup ’746 at ¶ [0053].
`
`Kirkup ’746 further teaches that the process may be initiated when handheld electronic device 120
`enters short-range wireless communications range of PC 110:
`
`
`Advantageously, providing wireless communication link 145 enables a user to approach PC
`110, activate the PC 110 and have it communicate automatically and wirelessly, for example
`using the Bluetooth short-range communication specification, with handheld electronic
`device 120 to access the user's authentication code (stored on the smart-card, SIM card or
`memory of the handheld electronic device) and authenticate the user.
`Id. at ¶ [0068]; see also [0066]-[0067], [0093].
`Kirkup ’746 teaches that wireless communication device 120 automatically communicates over
`communication link 115 (and therefore over wireless communication link 145; see element [1(a)]
`above) with PC 120 when both devices are locked (see element [1(e)] above), when PC 120 detects
`the presence of wireless communication device 120 and initiates the authentication process by
`seeking the authentication code:
`When the user wishes to use PC 110, he or she may perform an activation action, such as
`typing on the keyboard or moving the mouse, whereupon the user may be requested to provide
`a user identification code (either to the PC 110 or the handheld electronic device 120) to
`unlock the PC desktop and enable use thereof […] PC 110 is preferably configured to
`automatically seek the authentication code from handheld electronic device 120 over
`communication link 115 in response to activation.
`Kirkup ’746 at ¶¶ [0048]-[0049]; see also Fig. 2 (supra).
`
`Kirkup ’746 teaches that, responsive to the request for authentication by PC 120, mobile device
`110 requests and receives an authentication code from the user:
`
`Alternatively, if greater security is desired, the handheld electronic device can be configured
`to require entry of a user code, Such as a personal identification number (PIN) or other form
`
`11
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2012
`
`Page 11 of 23
`
`

`

`Defendant’s Invalidity Contentions
`Exhibit H2
`
`
`terminal from the locked state
`to the unlocked state.
`
`Claim 2
`terminal
`[2] The mobile
`according to claim 1, wherein
`the operation
`includes a
`biometrics authentication.
`
`
`
`of authorization, to initiate release of the authentication code for transmission to the
`computer.
`Kirkup ’746 at ¶ [0042].
`
`Depending on the configuration of the handheld electronic device 120, receipt of a
`communication from PC 110 […] may cause the handheld electronic device 120 to request
`user authentication before retrieving the authentication code and communicating it to PC
`110 (or authorization).
`Id. at ¶ [0049].
`
`
`Advantageously, the described arrangements generally allow a user to unlock both the PC
`110 and the handheld electronic device 120 by simply inputting one authorization code,
`namely that for the handheld electronic device 120. Advantageously, the PIN code or other
`unlocking code for the handheld electronic device 120 may be entered either into a user
`interface of the handheld electronic device 120 or that of the PC 110 so as to unlock handheld
`electronic device 120 (if it is not already unlocked) and PC 110. … [I]f the user interfaces
`directly with handheld electronic device 120 then, upon authentication of the user (if
`required), the authentication code for PC 110 is extracted from Smart-card 130 and provided
`to PC 110 over communication link 115.
`Id. at ¶ [0053]; see also Fig. 2 (supra).
`
`
`Kirkup ’746 teaches that the handheld device must be unlocked before the user has access to the
`computer functions:
`
`
`The handheld electronic device is configured to transmit the authentication code to the
`computer so as to enable the user to unlock the desktop of the computer and thus gain access
`to the computer functions.
`Kirkup ’746 at ¶ [0040].
`
`Thus, the “predetermined operation to which access is limited” includes biometric authentication
`together with all other “computer functions” accessed by the user.
`
`
`12
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2012
`
`Page 12 of 23
`
`

`

`Defendant’s Invalidity Contentions
`Exhibit H2
`
`
`Alternatively, de la Huerga ’534 teaches this limitation. De la Huerga ’534 teaches that, in the
`disabled state, ICD 401 (“essentially identical” to security device 10; see 32:17-22) disables itself
`(including its biometric authentication functions) when it locks itself:
`
`
`Where the discerned fingerprint characteristics do no match the stored characteristics, ICD
`401 may do any of several different things. First, ICD 401 may simply disable itself until an
`authorized facility administrator resets the ICD 401 for another identification attempt.
`Second, ICD 401 may allow several (e.g. 3 or 4) attempts to generate a match and only after
`several failed attempts disable itself. Moreover, when ICD 401 disables itself, ICD 401 may
`either cause an audible or a visual signal indicating a mismatch and may continue to cause
`the signal to alert passersby that an unauthorized person attempted to use the ICD 401.
`de la Huerga ’534 at 32:63-33:6 (allowing only one authentication attempt as in the first option
`implicitly discloses disabling the biometric authentication function).
`
`The motivation to modify Kirkup ’746’s system to incorporate the biometric authentication
`teachings of de la Huerga ’534 would be to increase user convenience by not requiring the user to
`remember and enter a password or PIN. Doing so would the the use of a known technique to
`improve a similar device in the same way.
`
`Alternatively, to the extent that this claim is construed to require biometric authentication to unlock
`the device, de la Huerga ’534 teaches biometric authentication to electronic security device 10 as
`well:
`
`
`Authenticating a user to device 10 using device authentication protocol information 1153 can
`include presenting a biometric indicia to sensor 405, which measures or images the indicia.
`Processor 250 then compares it to biometric reference information, measurements, or images
`1152 stored in memory 262. When there is a match the user is authenticated to device 10,
`which then retrieves stored authentication protocol 1165 (e.g. user name 1166 and password
`1167, a time varying algorithm to compute a time based response code, or other user unique
`code) for corresponding to received computer identifier 1202.
`Id. at 72:65-73:7
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2012
`
`Page 13 of 23
`
`

`

`Defendant’s Invalidity Contentions
`Exhibit H2
`
`
`Alternatively, Schiffer ’063 teaches this limitation. In particular, Schiffer ’063 teaches that the user
`can authenticate via “voice recognition” (biometrics):
`
`
`Authentication of a user to the mobile phone may be accomplished by, for example, the user
`entering a password onto keypad 105 of mobile phone 100 of FIG. 1. […] Alternatively,
`authentication of the user by the mobile phone may include performing voice recognition of
`the user.
`Schiffer ’063 at 3:25-37.
`
`The motivation to modify Kirkup ’746’s system to incorporate the biometric authentication
`teachings of Schiffer ’063 would be to increase user convenience by not requiring the user to
`remember and enter a password or PIN. Doing so would the the use of a known technique to
`improve a similar device in the same way.
`
`Alternatively, Lin ’089 teaches this limitation. In particular, Lin ’089 teaches that the user can
`authenticate via “biological recognition technology:”
`
`
`The present invention relates to a method for unlocking a locked computing device and, more
`specifically, to a method that utilizes biological recognition technology to unlock a locked
`computing device.
`Lin ’089 at 1:9-12.
`
`
`The locked computing device 220 then obtains biometric infor mation, Step 120, by using a
`camera sensor 230 to capture an image of the external environment in this scenario 200.
`Then the computing device 220 determines in Step 130 whether the biometric information
`meets a predetermined requirement; in this scenario 200, the biometric information obtained
`is a facial profile of user 210, and the predetermined requirement is whether the obtained
`image comprises a facial profile of a human face (such as that of user 210). When the obtained
`biometric information (facial profile) does not meet the requirement, the computing device
`220 proceeds to Step 180 and remains locked; when the predetermined requirement is met,
`then the process continues to Step 150.
`Id. at 3:20-33
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2012
`
`Page 14 of 23
`
`

`

`Defendant’s Invalidity Contentions
`Exhibit H2
`
`
`For example, in another embodiment of the present invention, the locked computing device
`220 includes a fingerprint reader (touch screen 240) utilized for capturing a fingerprint
`image of a finger 250 of the user 210 to thereby obtain the biometric information. If specific
`user authorization is (step 150) is not enabled, the computing device 220 unlocks upon
`recognition of the fingerprint image. On the other hand, if further security is required, the
`locked computing device 220 can also check to see if the fingerprint image matches a
`predetermined fingerprint image of an authorized user of the computing device and only
`unlock upon the fingerprint image matching that of the authorized user.
`Id. at 4:34-45; see also FIGs 1, 2 infra:
`
`
`
`15
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2012
`
`Page 15 of 23
`
`

`

`Defendant’s Invalidity Contentions
`Exhibit H2
`
`
`
`The motivation to modify Kirkup ’746’s system to incorporate the biometric authentication
`teachings of Lin ’089 would be to increase user convenience by not requiring the user to remember
`and enter a password or PIN. Doing so would the the use of a known technique to improve a similar
`device in the same way.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2012
`
`Page 16 of 23
`
`

`

`Defendant’s Invalidity Contentions
`Exhibit H2
`
`
`Kirkup ’746 teaches that the handheld device must store information about the computer in order
`to communicate with it. See element [1(b)]. supra. Kirkup ’746 further contemplates
`communicating with multiple systems and devices such as the computer:
`
`
`Short-range communications subsystem 340 provides for communication between handheld
`electronic device 120 and different systems or devices, such as PC 110.
`Kirkup ’746 at ¶ [0093]. Thus Kirkup ’746 necessarily contemplates storing information in the
`memory about each of these “different systems or devices.”
`
`Alternatively, de la Huerga ’534 teaches this limitation. De la Huerga ’534 teaches that security
`device 10 can unlock multiple devices, and therefore stores information about each of them (see
`element [1(b)] supra):
`
`
`In some cases the electronic security device can include an address of one or more trusted
`computer systems or servers.
`de la Huerga ’534 at 15:3-4; see also FIG. 34 (showing “list of computer systems 1160”), each of
`which can be unlocked by security device 10:
`
`
`FIG. 34 shows the expanded list of trusted or registered computer system information 1160
`stored in memory 262 of device 10. For each electronic or computer system 194 the user is
`to access, security information 1161 is provided including trusted computer system identifier
`1162 that electronic device 10 has been programmed to recognize or trust and may be in the
`form of a name, a URL address, an internet protocol (IP) address, or other method of
`identifying a computer system.
`Id. at 66:39-49.
`
`The motivation to incorporate de la Huerga ’534’s teaching of storing information about multiple
`mobile terminals into the system of Kirkup ’746 would be to allow Kirkup ’746’s handheld
`elevtronic device 120 to unlock multiple devices such as PC 110, thereby further increasing
`convenience for the user. Doing so would be the simple use of known technique to improve a
`similar devices in the same way.
`
`17
`
`Claim 6
`[6] The mobile terminal
`according to claim 1, further
`configured to store
`information about two or more
`another mobile terminals.
`
`Claim 7
`
`
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2012
`
`Page 17 of 23
`
`

`

`Defendant’s Invalidity Contentions
`Exhibit H2
`
`
`[7] The mobile terminal
`according to claim 1, wherein
`the short-range wireless
`communication is via a
`Bluetooth connection.
`
`Claim 9
`[9(pre)] A method for
`controlling a mobile terminal
`to transit between an unlocked
`state and a locked state in
`which a predetermined
`operation is limited,
`comprising the steps of:
`
`[9(a)] performing short-range
`wireless communications;
`[9(b)] storing information
`about an another mobile
`terminal in a memory; and
`
`[9(c)] transmitting information
`from the mobile terminal to
`the another mobile terminal
`
`
`
`Kirkup ’746 teaches that the short-range communication may be estbilied via a Bluetooth
`connection:
`
`
`infrared
`for example, be established by
`link 145 may,
`Wireless communication
`communications or short-range radio frequency communications, such as those specified by
`the Bluetooth or 802.11 standards.
`Kirkup ’746 at ¶ [0067].
`
`To the extent that the preamble is limiting, Kirkup ’746 teaches a method for unlocking a mobile
`terminal. In particulat, Kirkup ’746 teached method for authenticating a user of a computer (which
`may be a mobile device; see ¶ [0047):
`
`
`The invention relates generally to methods, systems and devices for authenticating a user of
`a computer by using a handheld electronic device.
`Kirkup ’746 at ¶ [0001].
`
`This authentication process unlocks the device:
`
`
`If the entered authentication code is correct, the handheld electronic device 120 then provides
`the authentication code for the PC 110 (as extracted from smart-card 130) across
`communication link 115, thereby authenticating the user and unlocking the desktop of PC
`110.
`Id. at ¶ [0052].
`Kirkup ’746 teaches a step of performing short-range communications. See element [1(a)], supra.
`
`Kirkup ’746 teaches a step of storing information about another mobile terminal in memory. See
`element [1(b)], supra.
`
`Alternatively, de la Huerga ’534 teaches this limitation. See id.
`
`Kirkup ’746 teaches a step of transmitting unlocking information when conditions are met. See
`elements [1(c)] and [1(d)], supra.
`
`
`18
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2012
`
`Page 18 of 23
`
`

`

`Defendant’s Invalidity Contentions
`Exhibit H2
`
`
`Alternatively, de la Huerga ’534 teaches this limitation. See id.
`
`
`which is for switching a state
`of the another terminal from a
`locked state to an unlocked
`state when conditions are met,
`wherein the locked state
`prevents unauthorized access
`to the mobile terminal, and
`wherein the conditions
`include:
`[9(d)] first, the mobile
`terminal is in a locked state;
`the another mobile terminal is
`in a locked state; and the
`another mobile terminal is in
`communication range of the
`short-range wireless
`communications;
`[9(e)] second, after the mobile
`terminal is in the locked state,
`the another mobile terminal is
`in the locked state, and the
`another mobile terminal is
`within communication range
`of the short-range wireless
`communications, performing,
`via the mobile terminal, the
`short-range wireless
`communication with the
`another mobile terminal; and
`[9(f)] third, after the
`performing, receiving the
`authentication input by the
`mobile terminal for switching
`
`
`
`Kirkup ’746 teaches this claim limitation. See element [1(e)], supra.
`
`Kirkup ’746 teaches this claim limitation. See element [1(f)], supra.
`
`Kirkup ’746 teaches this claim limitation. See element [1(g)], supra.
`
`19
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2012
`
`Page 19 of 23
`
`

`

`Defendant’s Invalidity Contentions
`Exhibit H2
`
`
`the mobile terminal from the
`locked state to the unlocked
`state.
`Claim 10
`[10] The method according to
`claim 9, wherein the operation
`includes a biometrics
`authentication.
`
`Kirkup ’746 teaches this claim limitation. See claim [2], supra.
`
`
`Alternatively, de la Huerga ’534 teaches this limitation. See id.
`
`Alternatively, Schiffer ’063 teaches this limitation: See id.
`
`Alternatively, Lin ’089 teaches this limitation: See id.
`
`Kirkup ’746 teaches this claim limitation. See claim [6], supra.
`
`Alternatively, de la Huerga ’534 teaches this limitation. See id.
`
`
`Kirkup ’746 teaches this claim limitation. See claim [7], supra.
`
`To the extent that the preamble is limiting, Kirkup ’746 discloses a lock state control system. In
`particular, Kirkup ’746 teaches an authentication system:
`
`
`The invention relates generally to methods, systems and devices for authenticating a user of a
`computer by using a handheld electronic device.
`Kirkup ’746 at ¶ [0001].
`
`
`20
`
`Claim 13
`[13] The method according to
`claim 9, the method further
`comprising the step of storing
`information about two or more
`another mobile terminals.
`Claim 14
`[14] The method according to
`claim 9, wherein the short-
`range wireless communication
`is performed via a Bluetooth
`connection.
`Claim 16
`[16(pre)] A lock state control
`system comprising:
`
`
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2012
`
`Page 20 of 23
`
`

`

`Defendant’s Invalidity Contentions
`Exhibit H2
`
`
`This authentication system controls the lock state of the computer by unlocking it:
`
`
`[16(a)] a first mobile terminal
`and a second mobile terminal
`which are configured to switch
`between an unlocked state and
`a locked state in which a
`predetermined operation is
`limited;
`
`[16(b)] wherein the first
`mobile terminal comprises a
`transceiver which performs
`short-range wireless
`communications, a memory
`which previously stores
`information about the second
`mobile terminal, and a
`controller which switches the
`first mobile terminal between
`an unlocked state and a locked
`state based on an
`authentication input to the first
`mobile terminal from a user,
`
`
`
`If the entered authentication code is correct, the handheld electronic device 120 then provides
`the authentication code for the PC 110 (as extracted from smart-card 130) across
`communication link 115, thereby authenticating the user and unlocking the desktop of PC
`110.
`Id. at ¶ [0052].
`
`Kirkup ’746 teaches the first mobile terminal. See element [1(pre)], supra.
`
`Kirkup ’746 futher teaches the second mobile terminal. In particular, Kirkup ’746 teaches PC 110
`which may be a mobile device; see ¶ [0047]. Both the handheld device and the PC can switch
`between a locked state and an unlocked state:
`
`
`Advantageously, the described arrangements generally allow a user to unlock both the PC
`110 and the handheld electronic device 120 by simply inputting one authorization code,
`namely that for the handheld electronic device 120.
`Kirkup ’746 at ¶ [0053].
`
`Kirkup ’746 teaches the claimed transceiver. See element [1(a)], supra.
`
`Kirkup ’746 further teaches the claimed memory. See element [1(b)], supra.
`
`Alternatively, de la Huerga ’534 teaches the claimed memory. See id.
`
`
`Kirkup ’746 still further teaches the claimed controller. See element [1(c)], supra.
`
`21
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2012
`
`Page 21 of 23
`
`

`

`Defendant’s Invalidity Contentions
`Exhibit H2
`
`
`Kirkup ’746 teaches this claim l