IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Backholm, et al.
`In re Patent of:
`10,027,619
`U.S. Patent No.:
`July 17, 2018
`Issue Date:
`Appl. Serial No.: 14/609,189
`Filing Date:
`Jan. 29, 2015
`Title:
`MESSAGING CENTRE FOR FORWARDING E-MAIL
`
` Attorney Docket No.: 39521-0089IP2
`
`DECLARATION OF PATRICK TRAYNOR, Ph.D.
`
`I, Patrick Traynor, Ph.D., of Gainesville, FL, declare that:
`
`ASSIGNMENT
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained as a technical expert by counsel on behalf of
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. (“Apple” or “Petitioner”). I understand that Apple is
`
`requesting that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “Board”) institute
`
`an inter partes review (“IPR”) proceeding of U.S. Patent No. 10,027,619 (“the
`
`’619 patent”) (APPLE-1001).
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to provide my independent analysis of the ’619
`
`patent in light of the prior art publications cited below.
`
`3.
`
`I am not, and never have been, an employee of Apple. I received no
`
`compensation for this declaration beyond my normal hourly compensation based
`
`on my time actually spent analyzing the ’619 patent, the prior art publications cited
`
`below, and the issues related thereto, and I will not receive any added
`
`1
`
`APPLE 1003
`
`
`
`Backholm, et al.
`In re Patent of:
`10,027,619
`U.S. Patent No.:
`July 17, 2018
`Issue Date:
`Appl. Serial No.: 14/609,189
`Filing Date:
`Jan. 29, 2015
`Title:
`MESSAGING CENTRE FOR FORWARDING E-MAIL
`
` Attorney Docket No.: 39521-0089IP2
`
`DECLARATION OF PATRICK TRAYNOR, Ph.D.
`
`I, Patrick Traynor, Ph.D., of Gainesville, FL, declare that:
`
`ASSIGNMENT
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained as a technical expert by counsel on behalf of
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. (“Apple” or “Petitioner”). I understand that Apple is
`
`requesting that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “Board”) institute
`
`an inter partes review (“IPR”) proceeding of U.S. Patent No. 10,027,619 (“the
`
`’619 patent”) (APPLE-1001).
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to provide my independent analysis of the ’619
`
`patent in light of the prior art publications cited below.
`
`3.
`
`I am not, and never have been, an employee of Apple. I received no
`
`compensation for this declaration beyond my normal hourly compensation based
`
`on my time actually spent analyzing the ’619 patent, the prior art publications cited
`
`below, and the issues related thereto, and I will not receive any added
`
`1
`
`APPLE 1003
`
`
`
`compensation based on the outcome of any IPR or other proceeding involving the
`
`’619 patent.
`
` QUALIFICATIONS
`4. My qualifications for forming the conclusions set forth in this report
`
`are summarized here and explained in more detail in my curriculum vitae, which is
`
`attached as Appendix A, and which includes a list of publications I have authored
`
`over the course of my career.
`
`5.
`
`I received a B.S. in Computer Science from the University of
`
`Richmond in 2002 and an M.S. and a Ph.D. in Computer Science and Engineering
`
`from the Pennsylvania State University in 2004 and 2008, respectively. My
`
`dissertation, entitled “Characterizing the Impact of Rigidity on the Security of
`
`Cellular Telecommunications Networks,” focused on security problems that arise
`
`in cellular infrastructure when gateways to the Internet are created.
`
`6.
`
`I am currently a Professor in the Department of Computer and
`
`Information Science and Engineering (CISE) at the University of Florida. I was
`
`hired under the “Rise to Preeminence” Hiring campaign and serve as the Associate
`
`Chair for Research for my Department, and am the John and Mary Lou Dasburg
`
`Preeminent Chair in Engineering. Prior to joining the University of Florida, I was
`
`an Associate Professor from March to August 2014 and an Assistant Professor of
`
`Computer Science from 2008 to March 2014 at the Georgia Institute of
`
`2
`
`
`
`Technology. I have supervised many Ph.D., M.S. and undergraduate students
`
`during the course of my career.
`
`7.
`
`I am a Senior Member of the Association for Computing Machinery
`
`(ACM) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). I am also
`
`a member of the USENIX Advanced Computing Systems Association.
`
`8. My area of expertise is security, especially as it applies to mobile
`
`systems and networks, including cellular networks. As such, I regularly teach
`
`students taking my courses and participating in my research group to program and
`
`evaluate software and architectures for mobile and cellular systems.
`
`9.
`
`I have published over 70 articles in the top journals and conferences in
`
`the areas of information security, mobility and networking. Many of my results are
`
`highly cited, and I have received a number of “Best Paper” Awards. I have also
`
`written a book entitled Security for Telecommunications Networks, which is used
`
`in wireless and cellular security courses at a number of top universities.
`
`10.
`
`I serve as an Associate Editor for the ACM Transactions on Privacy
`
`and Security (TOPS), have been the Program Chair for seven conferences and
`
`workshops, and have served as a member of the Program Committee for over 50
`
`different conferences and workshops.
`
`11.
`
`I have received numerous awards for research and teaching, including
`
`being named a Kavli Fellow (2017), a Fellow of the Center for Financial Inclusion
`
`3
`
`
`
`(2016) and a Research Fellow of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation (2014), won the
`
`Lockheed Inspirational Young Faculty Award (2012), was awarded a National
`
`Science Foundation (NSF) CAREER Award (2010), and the Center for the
`
`Enhancement of Teaching and Learning at Georgia Tech’s “Thanks for Being a
`
`Great Teacher” Award (2009, 2012, 2013).
`
`12.
`
`I was a co-Founder and Research Fellow for the private start-up,
`
`Pindrop Security, from spring 2012 to spring 2014. Pindrop provides anti-fraud
`
`and authentication solutions for Caller-ID spoofing attacks in enterprise call
`
`centers by creating and matching acoustic fingerprints.
`
`13.
`
`I was a co-Founder and Chief Executive of a private start-up,
`
`CryptoDrop. CryptoDrop developed a ransomware detection and recovery tool to
`
`provide state of the art protection to home, small business and enterprise users.
`
`14.
`
`I am a co-Founder and Chief Executive of a private start-up, Skim
`
`Reaper. Skim Reaper developed tools to detect credit card skimming devices, and
`
`currently works with a range of banks, law enforcement, regulators, and retailers.
`
`15.
`
`I have taught courses on the topics of network and systems security,
`
`cellular networks, and mobile systems at both Georgia Tech and the University of
`
`Florida. I also advised and instructed the Information Assurance Officer Training
`
`Program for the United States Army Signal Corps in the spring of 2010.
`
`4
`
`
`
`16.
`
`I am a named inventor on two United States patents, which are listed
`
`in my CV. These patents detail methods for determining the origin and path taken
`
`by phone calls as they traverse networks and for providing a secure means of
`
`indoor localization.
`
`17. Further detail on my education, work, and teaching experience, and
`
`the cases in which I have previously given testimony in at least the past four years
`
`are contained in my curriculum vitae (CV) included as Appendix A.
`
`18. Based on my experience and education, I believe that I am qualified to
`
`opine as to the knowledge and level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the alleged invention of the ’619 patent (which I further describe below)
`
`and what such a person would have understood at that time, and the state of the art
`
`during that time. Based on my above-described experience in wireless
`
`communications technology, and the acceptance of my publications and
`
`professional recognition by societies in my field, I believe that I am qualified to be
`
`an expert in wireless communications.
`
` LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`19.
`In forming my analysis and conclusions expressed in this declaration,
`
`I have applied the legal principles described in the following paragraphs, which
`
`were provided to me by counsel for the Petitioner.
`
`5
`
`
`
` Anticipation
`20.
`I have been informed that a patent claim is invalid as anticipated if
`
`each and every element of a claim, as properly construed, is found either explicitly
`
`or inherently in a single prior art reference. Under the principles of inherency, I
`
`understand that if the prior art necessarily functions in accordance with, or includes
`
`the claimed limitations, it anticipates.
`
`21.
`
`I have been informed that a claim is invalid if the claimed invention
`
`was known or used by others in the U.S., or was patented or published anywhere,
`
`before the Applicant’s invention. I further have been informed that a claim is
`
`invalid if the invention was patented or published anywhere, or was in public use,
`
`on sale, or offered for sale in this country, more than one year prior to the filing
`
`date of the patent application (critical date). I have also been informed that a claim
`
`is invalid if an invention described by that claim was described in a U.S. patent
`
`granted on an application for a patent (or in a published application for a U.S.
`
`patent) that was filed by another in the U.S. before the date of invention for such a
`
`claim.
`
` Obviousness
`22.
`I have been informed that a patent claim is invalid as “obvious” in
`
`light of one or more prior art references if it would have been obvious to a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention (“POSITA”; refer to
`
`6
`
`
`
`¶27 below), taking into account (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) the
`
`differences between the prior art and the claims, (3) the level of ordinary skill in
`
`the art, and (4) any so called “secondary considerations” of non-obviousness,
`
`which include: (i) “long felt need” for the claimed invention, (ii) commercial
`
`success attributable to the claimed invention, (iii) unexpected results of the claimed
`
`invention, and (iv) “copying” of the claimed invention by others.
`
`23. While I do not know the exact date that the alleged invention claimed
`
`in the ’619 patent was made, I do know that the ’619 patent claims priority to a
`
`foreign application filed as early as Nov. 22, 2004 (APPLE-1001 at cover page).
`
`For purposes of my analysis here, I have applied a date of Nov. 22, 2004 as the
`
`date of the alleged invention in my obviousness analysis, although in many cases
`
`the same analysis would hold true even if the date of the alleged invention
`
`occurred earlier than Nov. 22, 2004 (especially given the earlier publication or
`
`filing dates of the prior art in Exhibits cited herein).
`
`24.
`
`I have been informed that a claim can be obvious in light of a single
`
`prior art reference or multiple prior art references. To be obvious in light of a
`
`single prior art reference or multiple prior art references, there must be a reason
`
`that would have prompted a POSITA to modify the single prior art reference, or
`
`combine two or more references, in a manner that provides the elements of the
`
`claimed invention. This reason may come from a teaching, suggestion, or
`
`7
`
`
`
`motivation to combine, or may come from the reference(s) themselves, the
`
`knowledge or “common sense” of a POSITA, or from the nature of the problem to
`
`be solved, and this reason may be explicit or implicit from the prior art as a whole.
`
`I have been informed that, under the law, the combination of familiar elements
`
`according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than
`
`yield predictable results. I also understand it is improper to rely on hindsight in
`
`making the obviousness determination.
`
` Claim Construction
`25.
`I understand that, for purposes of my analysis in this inter partes
`
`review proceeding, the terms appearing in the patent claims should be interpreted
`
`according to their “ordinary and customary meaning.” In determining the ordinary
`
`and customary meaning, the words of a claim are first given their plain meaning
`
`that those words would have had to a POSITA. I understand that the structure of
`
`the claims, the specification, and the file history also may be used to better
`
`construe a claim insofar as the plain meaning of the claims cannot be understood.
`
`Moreover, treatises and dictionaries may be used, albeit under limited
`
`circumstances, to determine the meaning attributed by a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art to a claim term at the time of filing. I have followed this approach in my
`
`analysis, and for all of the claim terms considered in this declaration, I have
`
`applied the plain and ordinary meaning of those terms.
`
`8
`
`
`
`26.
`
`I also understand that the words of the claims should be interpreted as
`
`they would have been interpreted by a POSITA at the time the alleged invention
`
`was made (not today). Because I do not know at what date the alleged invention
`
`was made, I have used the date of Nov. 22, 2004 for reasons explained in ¶23,
`
`supra. However, the plain meanings/interpretations that I employed in my analysis
`
`below would have also been correct if the date of invention was anywhere within
`
`the early 2000s.
`
` PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`27. Based on my knowledge and experience in the field and my review of
`
`the ’619 patent and its file history, I believe a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(“POSITA”) at the time of the earliest possible priority date of the ’619 patent
`
`would have had either a Bachelor of Science in computer science, computer
`
`engineering, electrical engineering, or a related field, with at least 2-5 years of
`
`experience in research, design, or development of wireless communications
`
`devices or systems. Additional education might substitute for some of the
`
`experience, and substantial experience might substitute for some of the educational
`
`background. I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art is not a specific
`
`real individual, but rather a hypothetical individual having the qualities reflected
`
`by the factors discussed above.
`
`9
`
`
`
` MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`28. My analyses set forth in this declaration are based on my experience
`
`in the field of wireless communications, mobile computing, and cellular and
`
`mobile security. Based on my above-described experience in the field, I believe
`
`that I am considered to be an expert in the field. Also, based on my experiences, I
`
`understand and know of the capabilities of persons of ordinary skill in this field
`
`during the early 2000s and specifically during the time before the alleged priority
`
`date (November 22, 2004) for the ’619 patent, and not only was I a POSITA during
`
`the relevant time frame, I have taught, participated in organizations, and worked
`
`closely with many such persons in the field during that time frame.
`
`29. As part of my independent analysis for this declaration, I have
`
`considered the following: the background knowledge/technologies that were
`
`commonly known to persons of ordinary skill in this field during the time before
`
`the alleged priority date for the ’619 patent; my own knowledge and experiences
`
`gained from my work experience in the fields of communications systems
`
`generally; my experience in teaching and advising others in those subjects; and my
`
`experience in working with others involved in those fields. In addition, I have
`
`analyzed the following publications and materials:
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 10,027,619 (“the ’619 patent”) (APPLE-1001), and its
`
`accompanying prosecution history (APPLE-1002)
`
`10
`
`
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 7,603,556 to Brown et al. (“Brown”) (APPLE-1012)
`
`• U.S. Provisional Application Serial No. 60/568,119 (“Brown
`
`Provisional”) (“APPLE-1013)
`
`• PCT Publication No. WO/2001/040605 to Nielsen (“Nielsen”)
`
`(APPLE-1005)
`
`• PCT Publication No. WO2001/029731 to Thompson et al.
`
`(“Thompson”) (APPLE-1006)
`
`• U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2005/0210259 to Richardson (“Richardson”)
`
`(APPLE-1008)
`
`• U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2003/0101343 A1 to Eaton et al. (“Eaton”)
`
`(APPLE-1009)
`
`• U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2004/0049599 A1 to Friend et al. (“Friend”)
`
`(APPLE-1010)
`
`30. Although for the sake of brevity this Declaration refers to selected
`
`portions of the cited references, it should be understood that one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would have viewed the references cited herein in their entirety, and in
`
`combination with other references cited herein or cited within the references
`
`themselves. The references used in this Declaration, therefore, should be viewed
`
`as being incorporated herein in their entirety.
`
`11
`
`
`
` BACKGROUND INFORMATION
` Overview of the ’619 Patent
`31. The specification of the ’619 patent describes “a messaging centre for
`
`transmitting e-mail messages to and from a mobile terminal.” APPLE-1001, 1:20-
`
`24. As shown in Figure 1, an example system described by the ’619 patent
`
`includes a host system 100 and a mobile terminal 102, with each being equipped to
`
`“send an[d] receive e-mail messages.” APPLE-1001, 3:9-15. The host system 100
`
`and mobile terminal 102 can receive e-mails from and send e-mails to remote
`
`terminals such as the external e-mail terminal 104 shown in Figure 1. APPLE-
`
`1001, 3:13-15. The goal of the ’619 patent is to allow the host system 100 and
`
`mobile terminal 102 to “use a single e-mail account as transparently as possible”
`
`such that “the users of the external e-mail terminals 104, when sending or
`
`receiving e-mail, do not need to know if the user of the host system 100 actually
`
`uses the host system 100 or the mobile terminal 102 to communicate via e-mail.”
`
`APPLE-1001, 3:15-28. This transparency is provided by a messaging centre 110,
`
`which “maintains an association 122 for each mobile terminal supported by it.
`
`Each association 122 joins three fields, namely an e-mail address 122A assigned to
`
`the mobile terminal or its user, encryption information 122C and a temporary
`
`wireless identity 122D of the mobile terminal in the access network.” APPLE-
`
`1001, 3:41-4:28. These various components of the system of the ’619 patent are
`
`12
`
`
`
`shown in Figure 1:
`
`
`
`APPLE-1001, FIG. 1. The ’619 patent specification describes that the messaging
`
`centre 110 redirects e-mails intended for the user of the host system 100 to the
`
`mobile terminal 102. As described by the ’619 patent, “the messaging centre 110
`
`detects and retrieves the incoming e-mail from the e-mail server 108. For instance,
`
`the messaging centre 110 may regularly poll the e-mail server 108 or it may
`
`register itself as a listener to the e-mail server.” APPLE-1001, 5:56-60. After
`
`receiving an e-mail intended for the user of the host system 100, the messaging
`
`centre 110 “encrypts, and optionally packs, the e-mail message” and then
`
`“transmits the encrypted and packed e-mail to the mobile terminal that decrypts
`
`and unpacks it.” APPLE-1001, 5:56-6:9. The ’619 patent describes that some of
`
`13
`
`
`
`this functionality can be performed by a “connectivity function 600” of the
`
`messaging centre 110 and that in some instances “the connectivity function 600
`
`can be installed in each host system 100, or the host system 100 can be interpreted
`
`as a separate server configured to support multiple users.” APPLE-1001, 8:5-34.
`
`32. The ’619 patent also describes a process by which the mobile terminal
`
`102 can register with the host system 100 to receive e-mail messages, describing
`
`that “the mobile terminal 102 generates and displays a service activation code”
`
`such that “the host system 100 authenticates the person who enters the service
`
`activation code.” APPLE-1001, 4:56-62. The ’619 patent goes on to describe that
`
`“the service activation code may be entered manually or via a local connection,
`
`such as a wired or optical interface or a short-range wireless interface, such as
`
`Bluetooth.” APPLE-1001, 5:3-8. The mobile terminal is then registered to receive
`
`e-mails intended for the host system 100. Id.
`
`
`File History of the ’619 Patent
`33. As part of my preparation of this declaration, I reviewed the file
`
`history of the ’619 patent (APPLE-1002). I understand that Application no.
`
`14/609,189, which led to the ’619 patent, was filed on Jan. 29, 2015. APPLE-
`
`1001, Cover. I also understand that the ’619 patent was issued on Jul. 17, 2018.
`
`Id.
`
`14
`
`
`
`34. The application that led to the ’619 patent was filed with a single
`
`claim, with new claims 2-22 being added in an initial preliminary amendment.
`
`APPLE-1002, 496, 445-450, 535. The independent claims at issue in the Petition
`
`which this declaration accompanies (and therefore, the independent claims
`
`addressed below) are issued claims 22, 37, and 51, which were added to the
`
`application as pending claims 23, 37, and 55 (respectively) in an office action
`
`response filed on April 1, 2016. APPLE-1002, 353-362, 45-46. Independent
`
`claims 23, 37, and 55 were amended several times over the course of prosecution
`
`of the application in attempts to differentiate the claims with respect to prior art
`
`references cited by the examiner. Finally, independent claims 23, 37, and 55 were
`
`each amended to include the recitation “optically receive information including a
`
`displayed service activation code from a remote device” in amendments submitted
`
`on February 9, 2017 and these independent claims were subsequently allowed and
`
`issued as independent claims 22, 37, and 51 (respectfully). APPLE-1002, 221-226,
`
`128-130, 24-33 (underlining in original). That is, the changes made to the three
`
`independent claims analyzed herein (claims 22, 37, and 51 of the ’619 patent) were
`
`allowed by the examiner only after the Applicant specified that the service
`
`activation code was “optically receive[d]” and that the service activation code is “a
`
`displayed service activation code.” Based on this fact and my review of the
`
`prosecution history as a whole, it is clear that the claims that I analyze below,
`
`15
`
`
`
`including independent claims 22, 37, and 51 of the ’619 patent, were allowed
`
`because the examiner believed that the prior art did not disclose “optically receive
`
`information including a displayed service activation code from a remote device.”
`
`As by the references cited herein, and in the below analysis, it was known in prior
`
`art systems to optically receive information including displayed service activation
`
`code from a remote device.
`
`
`35.
`
`Interpretations of the ’619 Patent Claims at Issue
`
`I understand that, for purposes of my analysis in this inter partes
`
`review proceeding, the terms appearing in the patent claims should be interpreted
`
`according to what is referred to as the “Phillips” standard. Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005); 37 C.F.R. § 42.100. I further understand that the
`
`words of the claims should be given their plain meaning unless that meaning is
`
`inconsistent with the patent specification or the patent’s history of examination
`
`before the Patent Office. I also understand that the words of the claims should be
`
`interpreted as they would have been interpreted by a POSITA at the time of the
`
`invention (not today). Without further information on what date the invention as
`
`claimed was made, I have used the earliest possible priority date of U.S. Patent No.
`
`10,027,619 as the point in time for claim interpretation purposes. That date was
`
`November 22, 2004.
`
`16
`
`
`
`36.
`
`I have been asked to provide my interpretation of the following term
`
`of the ’619 patent set forth below. In providing the following interpretation, I have
`
`carefully considered and applied the claim construction standard referred to above.
`
`37.
`
`Independent claim 22 recites “the device is operable to.” I interpret
`
`the plain and ordinary meaning of the word “device” in the claim phrase “the
`
`device is operable to” to mean “a computing device, such as a host system.” The
`
`’619 patent specification only uses the word “device” in the background section, in
`
`reference to “a mobile data communication device (mobile terminal)” that is in
`
`communication with a “host system.” APPLE-1001, 1:26-48. A POSITA would
`
`have recognized that the “mobile data communication device” discussed in the
`
`background section is similar to the mobile terminal 102 discussed in the detailed
`
`description and depicted in Figure 1 and also the “remote device” recited by the
`
`claims (See construction for “remote device,” ¶39, below). APPLE-1001, 3:9-28,
`
`FIG. 1. Based on the functionality ascribed to the “device” recited by claim 22
`
`(including “optically receiv[ing]” the service activation code from the remote
`
`device and registering the remote device for access to a messaging account), a
`
`POSITA would have recognized that the word “device” is similar to the host
`
`system 100 depicted in Figure 1. APPLE-1001, 3:9-28, FIG. 1. The ’619 patent
`
`specification further describes that “the connectivity function 600 can be installed
`
`in each host system 100” which further indicates that the “device” recited by claim
`
`17
`
`
`
`22 is similar to the host system 100 described in the ’619 specification APPLE-
`
`1001, 8:5-34. The host system 100 is shown in the example of Figure 1 as a
`
`desktop computer but a POSITA would understand that the recited “device” could
`
`also take the form of a laptop computer, server, or other suitable computing device.
`
`APPLE-1001, 8:5-34 (“…or the host system can be interpreted as a separate
`
`server…”). Therefore, the plain and ordinary meaning of the word “device” as
`
`recited by claim 22 is “a computing device, such as a host system.”
`
`38.
`
`Independent claims 22, 37, and 51 and dependent claims 23-24, 26,
`
`32-33, 38-40, and 46, and 52 each recite the term “service activation code.” I
`
`interpret this term to mean a “code relaying information used to authenticate a
`
`user’s access to a messaging account.” The specification of the ’619 patent
`
`explains that the service activation code is used to authenticate the mobile terminal
`
`102 for access to an email account controlled by the host system 100 to allow the
`
`mobile terminal 102 “to access and manipulate e-mail” associated with that
`
`account. APPLE-1004, 4:40-5:37. As an example of the type of information that
`
`can serve as a “service activation code,” the ’619 patent identifies a “user name
`
`and password combination” used to authenticate the mobile terminal 102 to receive
`
`access to the email account. Id., 4:60-64. The Applicant emphasized that the
`
`service activation code is a code that acts to authenticate a user’s access to a
`
`messaging account in a similar manner to a user name password combination
`
`18
`
`
`
`during prosecution of the ’619 patent, stating that “to register to a messaging
`
`account, the service activation code must relay information to the host system such
`
`as user name and password combination.” APPLE-1002, 163. Therefore, the term
`
`“service activation code” is properly interpreted as a “code relaying information
`
`used to authenticate a user’s access to a messaging account.”
`
`39.
`
`Independent claims 22, 37, and 51 and dependent claims 23, 33, 36,
`
`38, 50, and 52 each recite the term “remote device.” I interpret this term to mean “a
`
`computing device that is physically distinct from the claimed device.” The
`
`specification of the ’619 patent does not use the term “remote device” or describe
`
`any of the computing devices described therein as being “remote.” However, both
`
`the claims and the specification of the ’619 patent indicate that the word “remote”
`
`is relative when used in context of the term “remote device.” That is, based on a
`
`review of the ’619 patent as a whole, and the claims in particular, the term “remote
`
`device” does not require any minimum distance of separation between the “device”
`
`recited by the claims and the “remote device” recited by the claims. Dependent
`
`claim 25 indicates that the off-line communication between the device and the
`
`remote device in which the service activation code is received by the device of
`
`claim 22 “involves a local connection.” APPLE-1001, 5-25. The specification of
`
`the ’619 patent gives additional guidance on what is meant by the term “local
`
`connection, describing that the host system 100 and mobile terminal 102 exchange
`
`19
`
`
`
`a service activation code “via a local connection, such as a wire or optical interface
`
`or a short-range wireless interface.” APPLE-1001, 4:56-5:8. Thus, a POSITA
`
`would have recognized that the term “local connection” contemplates a fairly close
`
`communication and therefore the claims indicate that the “remote device” will,
`
`during at least some points in time, be in relatively close physical proximity of the
`
`“device” recited by the claims.
`
` OVERVIEW OF CONCLUSIONS FORMED
`40.
`I have reviewed the Petition for inter partes review of the ’619 Patent,
`
`and agree with the analysis contained therein. In summary, it is my opinion that
`
`each and every limitation of each and every challenged claim would have been
`
`anticipated and/or obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`alleged invention in view of the prior art cited in the petition and further explained
`
`in this declaration. To summarize my conclusions below:
`
`• Based upon my knowledge and experience and my review of the prior
`
`art publications listed above, I believe that claims 22-26, 32, 37-40,
`
`46, and 51 of the ’619 patent are rendered obvious by Brown in view
`
`of Thompson and Nielsen.
`
`• Based upon my knowledge and experience and my review of the prior
`
`art publications listed above, I believe that claims 22-28, 32-33, 37-
`
`20
`
`
`
`42, 46, 51 of the ’619 patent are rendered obvious by Brown in view
`
`of Thompson, Nielsen, Eaton.
`
`• Based upon my knowledge and experience and my review of the prior
`
`art publications listed above, I believe that claims 32 and 46 of the
`
`’619 patent are rendered obvious by Brown in view of Thompson,
`
`Nielsen, Eaton, and Richardson.
`
`• Based upon my knowledge and experience and my review of the prior
`
`art publications listed above, I believe that claims 36, 50, and 52 of
`
`the ’619 patent are rendered obvious by Brown in view of Thompson,
`
`Nielsen, Eaton, and Friend.
`
` ANALYSIS OF THE PRIOR ART
`A. ANALYSIS OF BROWN IN VIEW OF THOMPSON AND
`NIELSEN WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS 22-26, 32, 37-40,
`46, AND 51
`41. For the reasons articulated in detail below, and based on my review of
`
`the ’619 patent and the Brown, Thompson, and Nielsen references, I am confident
`
`that a POSITA would have readily understood that the predictable combination of
`
`Brown with Thompson and Nielsen provides all elements of claims 22-26, 32, 37-
`
`40, 46, and 51.
`
`
`
`Overview of Brown
`
`21
`
`
`
`42. Brown describes a “challenge response” communications system in
`
`which “[a] challenge response scheme authenticates a requesting device by an
`
`authenticating device.” APPLE-1012, 1:12-14; Abstract. The authenticated device
`
`is then authenticated to receive access to redirected messages from an e-mail
`
`messaging account through use of a “redirection program 45” that “takes
`
`confidential and non-confidential corporate information for a specific user and
`
`redirects it out through the corporate firewall to mobile devices 100.” APPLE-
`
`1012, 6:29-59. As Brown describes:
`
`In the automatic redirection system of FIG. 2, a composed e-mail
`message 15 leaving the e-mail sender 10 arrives at the message server
`40 and is redirected by the redirection program 45 to the mobile
`device 100. As this redirection takes place the message 15 is re-
`enveloped, as indicated at 80, and a possibly proprietary compression
`and encryption algorithm can then be applied to the original message
`15. In this way, messages being read on the mobile device 100 are no
`less secure than if they were read on a desktop workstation such as 35
`within the firewall.
`
`APPLE-1012: 7:24-33.
`
`43.
`
`I have included a reproduction of Figure 2 of Brown, below, with
`
`annotations to show the mobile device 100 and the messaging server 40 operating
`
`the redirection software 45 located at a host location:
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE-1012, FIG. 2. As shown in Figure 2, at some times, the mobile device 100
`
`is docked to the host system 30 (or otherwise in local communication with the host
`
`system 30) while at other times the mobile device 100 is remote from the host
`
`system 30 and communicates with the host system 30 through one or more
`
`networks. APPLE-1012, 6:15-28, 6:60-7:23. A POSITA would have recognized
`
`from Brown’s complete disclosure that the mobile device 100 only directly
`
`23
`
`
`
`interacts with other components of the central host system 30 when docked to the
`
`docking cradle 65 and is otherwise a separate computing device from the central
`
`host system 30.
`
`44.
`
`In some examples, Brown refers to the desktop computer 35 and the
`
`message server 40 separately but also specifies that both the computer 35 and the
`
`message server 40 are part of the central host system 30 and gives an express
`
`example in which the central host system 30 is implemented as a single “home
`
`office computer.” APPLE-1012, 6:29-66. As would have been recognized by a
`
`POSITA, this implementation is reflected in Figure 2, reproduced above, in which
`
`the message server 45 appears as the monitor for the computer 35, indicating that
`
`the message server 40, executing the redirection software 45, and the computer 35
`
`are implemented as a single computing device.
`
`45. Brown also teaches that authentication of the requesting device is
`
`performed through exchange of a secret/password. As Brown describes, “a secret,
`
`such as a password, may be securely transferred between a requesting device and
`
`an authenticating device.” APPLE-1012, 1:60-2:14. The password can be hashed
`
`and encrypted prior to transmission to the authenticating devic
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
