Petitioner’s Demonstratives
`
`Google LLC
`v.
`Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`IPR2020‐00756
`
`July 15, 2021
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1028
`GOOGLE v. UNILOC
`IPR2020-00756
`
`Page 1 of 51
`
`
`
`Google LLC
`v.
`Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`IPR2020‐00756
`
`July 15, 2021
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1028
`GOOGLE v. UNILOC
`IPR2020-00756
`
`Page 1 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`Challenged Patent: ’952 Patent Challenged Patent: ’952 Patent
`
`“Near Field Authentication Through
`Communication of Enclosed Content Sound Waves”
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,564,952
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`’952 Patent (Ex. 1001) at Cover Page.
`
`2
`
`Page 2 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`’952 Patent: Near‐Field Authentication Using Sound Waves’952 Patent: Near‐Field Authentication Using Sound Waves
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petition (Paper 1) at 4;
`’952 Patent (Ex. 1001) at Figure 6.
`
`3
`
`Page 3 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`Challenged Claims: ’952 Patent Challenged Claims: ’952 Patent
`
`A method for near field authentication of a source, the source using an audio
`transceiver computing device, the method comprising:
`scanning a plurality of predetermined frequencies for a free frequency;
`selecting the free frequency from the plurality of predetermined frequencies;
`generating a periodic enclosed content message;
`generating a modulated carrier wave representing the periodic enclosed content
`message; and
`transmitting the modulated carrier wave at the free frequency;
`wherein each period of the periodic enclosed content message includes a begin
`indication, a content, and an end indication;
`wherein the content includes device identification data including a bit array derived
`from user-configurable and non-user-configurable data specific to the audio
`transceiver computing device; and wherein the modulated carrier wave comprises a
`sound wave.
`
`Claim 9
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petition (Paper 1) at 5-6;
`’952 patent (Ex. 1001) at 14:53-15:5.
`
`4
`
`Page 4 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`Challenged Claims: ’952 Patent Challenged Claims: ’952 Patent
`
`The method of claim 9, wherein the transmitting step further comprises transmitting
`the modulated carrier wave for a predetermined number of periods, or a
`predetermined period of time.
`The method of claim 9, wherein the transmitting step 10 further comprises
`transmitting the modulated carrier wave until a stop indication is received from a
`user.
`The method of claim 9 wherein the carrier wave is modulated by the periodic
`enclosed content message.
`
`Claim 10
`
`Claim 11
`
`Claim 12
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petition (Paper 1) at 6;
`’952 patent at 15:6-14.
`
`5
`
`Page 5 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`Instituted Grounds of Unpatentability Instituted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Surprenant, and Beenau
`
`Surprenant, and McConnell
`
`Ground 1: Claims 9-12 would have been obvious over Paulson
`and Surprenant
`Ground 2: Claims 9-12 would have been obvious over Paulson,
`Ground 3: Claim 11 would have been obvious over Paulson,
`Ground 4: Claim 11 would have been obvious over Paulson,
`
`Surprenant, Beenau, and McConnell
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Institution Decision (Paper 15) at 6.
`
`6
`
`Page 6 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`Paulson: Sonic‐Enabled Communication ServicesPaulson: Sonic‐Enabled Communication Services
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petition (Paper 1) at 10-11;
`Paulson(Ex. 1005) at Fig. 1 (annotated);
`First Lipoff Declaration (Ex. 1003) ¶ 39.
`
`7
`
`Page 7 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`Paulson: Sonic‐Enabled Communication ServicesPaulson: Sonic‐Enabled Communication Services
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petition (Paper 1) at 24;
`Paulson(Ex. 1005) at Fig. 4;
`E.g.,First Lipoff Declaration (Ex. 1003) ¶ 66.
`
`8
`
`Page 8 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`Surprenant: Incorporates Paulson by ReferenceSurprenant: Incorporates Paulson by Reference
`
`Paulson
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petition (Paper 1) at 11-12;
`Surprenant(Ex. 1006) at 1:6-10.
`
`9
`
`Page 9 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`Surprenant: Acoustic Modulation ProtocolSurprenant: Acoustic Modulation Protocol
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petition (Paper 1) at 12;
`Surprenant(Ex. 1006) at Fig. 3.
`
`10
`
`Page 10 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`Surprenant: Acoustic Modulation ProtocolSurprenant: Acoustic Modulation Protocol
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petition (Paper 1) at 13;
`Surprenant(Ex. 1006) at Fig. 4.
`
`11
`
`Page 11 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`Motivation To Combine Paulson and SurprenantMotivation To Combine Paulson and Surprenant
`
`No dispute over motivation to combine/reasonable expectation of success
`It would have been obvious to combine Paulsonwith Surprenantto utilize
`Surprenant’s improved modulation protocol in Paulson’s sonic
`communication system
`– Same field of endeavor: sonic communication systems;
`– Common inventors;
`– Paulson is a related patent application that is incorporated by reference into Surprenant;
`– Paulsonand Surprenantprovide complementary disclosures regarding acoustic data
`transmission;
`– Substituting Surprenant’s modulation protocol for Paulson’s would have been obvious
`because it is a mere substitution of one known element (a modulation protocol) for
`another (a similar modulation protocol), with predictable results that provided a
`reasonable expectation of success.
`Petition (Paper 1) at 15-20;
`First Lipoff Declaration (Ex. 1003) ¶¶ 47-56.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`12
`
`Page 12 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`Paulson and Surprenant Render Obvious Claims 9‐12Paulson and Surprenant Render Obvious Claims 9‐12
`
`A method for near field authentication of a source, the source using an audio
`transceiver computing device, the method comprising:
`scanning a plurality of predetermined frequencies for a free frequency;
`selecting the free frequency from the plurality of predetermined frequencies;
`generating a periodic enclosed content message;
`generating a modulated carrier wave representing the periodic enclosed content
`message; and
`transmitting the modulated carrier wave at the free frequency;
`wherein each period of the periodic enclosed content message includes a begin
`indication, a content, and an end indication;
`audio transceiver computing device; and wherein the modulated carrier wave
`comprises a sound wave.
`
`Claim 9
`
`wherein the content includes device identification data including a bit array
`derived from user‐configurable and non‐user‐configurable data specific to the
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`13
`
`Page 13 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`Paulson and Surprenant Render Obvious Claims 9‐12Paulson and Surprenant Render Obvious Claims 9‐12
`
`A method for near field authentication of a source, the source using an audio
`transceiver computing device, the method comprising:
`scanning a plurality of predetermined frequenciesfor a free frequency;
`selecting the free frequency from the plurality of predetermined frequencies;
`generating a periodic enclosed content message;
`generating a modulated carrier wave representing the periodic enclosed content
`message; and
`transmitting the modulated carrier wave at the free frequency;
`wherein each period of the periodic enclosed content message includes a begin
`indication, a content, and an end indication;
`wherein the content includes device identification data including a bit array derived
`from user-configurable and non-user-configurable data specific to the audio
`transceiver computing device; and wherein the modulated carrier wave comprises a
`sound wave.
`
`Claim 9
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`14
`
`Page 14 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`“Scanning a Plurality of Predetermined Frequencies”“Scanning a Plurality of Predetermined Frequencies”
`
`Yes, under Google’s
`interpretation of Paulson:
`
`Does Paulson disclose scanning
`a plurality of predetermined
`frequencies?
`• No expert support; relies on attorney
`• Supported by the only expert testimony of
`argument
`record about how a person of ordinary skill
`• Argues that Paulsonteaches a system that is
`would understand Paulson
`not effective at achieving its goal of avoiding
`• Consistentwith each of Paulson’s teachings
`noise interference
`• Nonetheless, Uniloc’s interpretation still
`results in scanning a plurality of
`predetermined frequencies
`End result:
`End result:
`CLAIMS UNPATENTABLE
`CLAIMS UNPATENTABLE
`Petition (Paper 1) at 23-29;
`Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 20) at 2-11;
`First Lipoff Declaration (Ex. 1003) ¶¶ 65-75;
`Second Lipoff Declaration (Ex. 1027) ¶¶ 8-22.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Yes, even under Uniloc’s
`interpretation of Paulson:
`
`15
`
`Page 15 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`“Scanning a Plurality of Predetermined Frequencies”“Scanning a Plurality of Predetermined Frequencies”
`
`Yes, under Google’s
`interpretation of Paulson:
`
`Does Paulson disclose scanning
`a plurality of predetermined
`frequencies?
`• No expert support; relies on attorney
`• Supported by the only expert testimony of
`argument
`record about how a person of ordinary skill
`• Argues that Paulsonteaches a system that is
`would understand Paulson
`not effective at achieving its goal of avoiding
`• Consistentwith each of Paulson’s teachings
`noise interference
`• Nonetheless, Uniloc’s interpretation still
`results in scanning a plurality of
`predetermined frequencies
`End result:
`End result:
`CLAIMS UNPATENTABLE
`CLAIMS UNPATENTABLE
`Petition (Paper 1) at 23-29;
`Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 20) at 2-11;
`First Lipoff Declaration (Ex. 1003) ¶¶ 65-75;
`Second Lipoff Declaration (Ex. 1027) ¶¶ 8-22.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Yes, even under Uniloc’s
`interpretation of Paulson:
`
`16
`
`Page 16 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`“Scanning a Plurality of Predetermined Frequencies”“Scanning a Plurality of Predetermined Frequencies”
`
`Excerpt of Paulson’s Figure 4
`
`Step 402: Identifies
`the claimed “plurality
`of predetermined
`frequencies”
`
`Steps 404‐406: Scans
`and selects one or
`more free frequencies
`for transmission
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paulson(Ex. 1005) at Fig. 4;
`Petition (Paper 1) at 23-29;
`Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 20) at 2-11;
`First Lipoff Declaration (Ex. 1003) ¶¶ 65-75
`Second Lipoff Declaration (Ex. 1027) ¶ 8.
`
`17
`
`Page 17 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`Paulson’s Step 402: Initial Frequency DeterminationPaulson’s Step 402: Initial Frequency Determination
`
`Paulsondiscloses initially determining a range of frequencies:
`
`Paulson at 12:51-56
`Paulson(Ex. 1005) at 12:51-56;
`Petition (Paper 1) at 24-25;
`Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 20) at 8;
`First Lipoff Declaration (Ex. 1003) ¶¶ 65-75;
`Second Lipoff Declaration (Ex. 1027) ¶ 19.
`
`18
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 18 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`Paulson Expressly Links Step 402 and Step 404Paulson Expressly Links Step 402 and Step 404
`
`Paulson’sStep 402 feeds into Step 404:
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paulson(Ex. 1005) at Fig. 4 (annotated);
`Petition (Paper 1) at 25;
`Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 20) at 8-9;
`Second Lipoff Declaration (Ex. 1027) ¶ 20.
`
`19
`
`Page 19 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`Paulson’s Steps 404/406: Reducing Noise InterferencePaulson’s Steps 404/406: Reducing Noise Interference
`
`Paulson’s goal at Steps 404 and 406 is to reduce the probability of
`interference from noise:
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paulson (Ex. 1005) at Cover, 3:1-4, 11:14-17;
`Petition (Paper 1) at 11, 25-26;
`Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 20) at 3-4;
`First Lipoff Declaration (Ex. 1003) ¶ 70;
`Second Lipoff Declaration (Ex. 1027) ¶ 10.
`
`20
`
`Page 20 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`Mr. Lipoff: Paulson’s Step 404 Covers Step 402’s FrequenciesMr. Lipoff: Paulson’s Step 404 Covers Step 402’s Frequencies
`
`Google’s unrebutted expert testimony from Stuart Lipoff:
`
`Second Lipoff Declaration ¶ 11
`Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 20) at 4;
`Second Lipoff Declaration (Ex. 1027) ¶ 11.
`
`21
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 21 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`Paulson’s Step 406 Generates a “Yes” or “No”Paulson’s Step 406 Generates a “Yes” or “No”
`
`Under Uniloc’s view—where the frequencies scanned in Step 404 do
`not correspond to those determined in Step 402—the answer would
`be undefined and not “yes” or “no” as disclosed:
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paulson(Ex. 1005) at Fig. 4 (annotated);
`Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 20) at 4-5;
`Second Lipoff Declaration (Ex. 1027) ¶ 12.
`
`22
`
`Page 22 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`Paulson: Noise Affects the Available FrequenciesPaulson: Noise Affects the Available Frequencies
`
`Paulson discloses at least two examples when noise may interfere:
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paulson(Ex. 1005) at 13:11-35;
`Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 20) at 5-6;
`Second Lipoff Declaration (Ex. 1027) ¶¶ 14-15.
`
`23
`
`Page 23 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`Paulson’s System Seeks Reliable ReceptionPaulson’s System Seeks Reliable Reception
`
`Paulson discloses that at Step 406, using the noise characteristic, the
`system determines whether the receive device may reliably receive
`the data at the identified frequency given the signal-to-noise ratio:
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paulson(Ex. 1005) at 13:52-59;
`Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 20) at 7;
`Second Lipoff Declaration (Ex. 1027) ¶ 16.
`
`24
`
`Page 24 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`“Scanning a Plurality of Predetermined Frequencies”“Scanning a Plurality of Predetermined Frequencies”
`
`Yes, under Google’s
`interpretation of Paulson:
`
`Does Paulson disclose scanning
`a plurality of predetermined
`frequencies?
`• No expert support; relies on attorney
`• Supported by the only expert testimony of
`argument
`record about how a person of ordinary skill
`• Argues that Paulsonteaches a system that is
`would understand Paulson
`not effective at achieving its goal of avoiding
`• Consistent with each of Paulson’s teachings
`noise interference
`• Nonetheless, Uniloc’s interpretation still
`results in scanning a plurality of
`predetermined frequencies
`End result:
`End result:
`CLAIMS UNPATENTABLE
`CLAIMS UNPATENTABLE
`Petition (Paper 1) at 23-29;
`Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 20) at 2-11;
`First Lipoff Declaration (Ex. 1003) ¶¶ 65-75;
`Second Lipoff Declaration (Ex. 1027) ¶¶ 8-22.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Yes, even under Uniloc’s
`interpretation of Paulson:
`
`25
`
`Page 25 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`Uniloc’s Reading of Paulson Still Falls Within Claim 9Uniloc’s Reading of Paulson Still Falls Within Claim 9
`
`Claim 9 of the ’952 patent does not require a perfect overlap between
`Paulson’s Step 402 and Step 404; there only needs to be an overlap
`between two or more frequencies:
`
`’952 patent at Claim 9
`
`Two or More Frequencies
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 20) at 10-11;
`Second Lipoff Declaration (Ex. 1027) ¶ 22.
`
`26
`
`Page 26 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`Uniloc’s Reading of Paulson Still Falls Within Claim 9Uniloc’s Reading of Paulson Still Falls Within Claim 9
`
`Claimed “scanning a plurality of predetermined frequencies”
`
`Predetermined
`frequencies
`
`Scanned
`frequencies
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 20) at 10-11;
`Second Lipoff Declaration (Ex. 1027) ¶ 22.
`
`27
`
`Page 27 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`Uniloc’s Reading of Paulson Still Falls Within Claim 9Uniloc’s Reading of Paulson Still Falls Within Claim 9
`
`Unrebutted expert testimony demonstrates at least partial overlap
`between the frequency range initially determined in Step 402 and
`scanned in Step 404:
`
`Second Lipoff Declaration ¶ 22
`Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 20) at 10-11;
`Second Lipoff Declaration (Ex. 1027) ¶ 22.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`28
`
`Page 28 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`Uniloc’s Reading of Paulson Still Falls Within Claim 9Uniloc’s Reading of Paulson Still Falls Within Claim 9
`
`Unrebutted expert testimony demonstrates that a plurality of
`frequencies initially determined in Step 402 are scanned in Step 404:
`
`Second Lipoff Declaration ¶ 22
`Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 20) at 10-11;
`Second Lipoff Declaration (Ex. 1027) ¶ 22.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`29
`
`Page 29 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`Paulson and Surprenant Render Obvious Claims 9‐12Paulson and Surprenant Render Obvious Claims 9‐12
`
`A method for near field authentication of a source, the source using an audio
`transceiver computing device, the method comprising:
`scanning a plurality of predetermined frequencies for a free frequency;
`selecting the free frequency from the plurality of predetermined frequencies;
`generating a periodic enclosed content message;
`generating a modulated carrier wave representing the periodic enclosed content
`message; and
`transmitting the modulated carrier wave at the free frequency;
`wherein each period of the periodic enclosed content message includes a begin
`indication, a content, and an end indication;
`computing device; and wherein the modulated carrier wave comprises a sound wave.
`
`Claim 9
`
`wherein the content includes device identification data including a bit array derived
`from user‐configurable and non‐user‐configurable data specific to the audio transceiver
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`30
`
`Page 30 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`Uniloc: Paulson only scans for unusable frequenciesUniloc: Paulson only scans for unusable frequencies
`
`Uniloctakes too narrow a view of Paulson’s disclosure:
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply at 7
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply (Paper 22) at 7.
`
`31
`
`Page 31 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`Paulson’s System Iterates Until It Finds a Free FrequencyPaulson’s System Iterates Until It Finds a Free Frequency
`
`If Paulson’s system does not find a free frequency initially because of
`the current noise level, it can wait and then try again:
`Paulson at 11:19-23
`
`Paulson at 11:27-33
`Paulson(Ex. 1005) at 11:19-33;
`Petition (Paper 1) at 27-29;
`Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 20) at 11-12;
`First Lipoff Declaration (Ex. 1003) ¶ 74.
`
`32
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 32 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`Paulson and Surprenant Render Obvious Claims 9‐12Paulson and Surprenant Render Obvious Claims 9‐12
`
`A method for near field authentication of a source, the source using an audio
`transceiver computing device, the method comprising:
`scanning a plurality of predetermined frequencies for a free frequency;
`selecting the free frequency from the plurality of predetermined frequencies;
`generating a periodic enclosed content message;
`generating a modulated carrier wave representing the periodic enclosed content
`message; and
`transmitting the modulated carrier wave at the free frequency;
`wherein each period of the periodic enclosed content message includes a begin
`indication, a content, and an end indication;
`audio transceiver computing device; and wherein the modulated carrier wave
`comprises a sound wave.
`
`Claim 9
`
`wherein the content includes device identification data including a bit array
`derived from user‐configurable and non‐user‐configurable data specific to the
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`33
`
`Page 33 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`“User‐Configurable and Non‐User‐Configurable Data”“User‐Configurable and Non‐User‐Configurable Data”
`
`Surprenantdiscloses both
`End result:
`CLAIMS UNPATENTABLE
`
`Does the prior art
`disclose user-
`configurable and non-
`user-configurable data?
`Background knowledge of an
`ordinary artisan, as
`evidenced by ’952 patent’s
`specification, discloses both
`End result:
`CLAIMS UNPATENTABLE
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Beenaudiscloses both
`
`End result:
`CLAIMS UNPATENTABLE
`Petition (Paper 1) at 42-46, 58-62;
`Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 20) at 12-22;
`First Lipoff Declaration (Ex. 1003) ¶¶ 101-110.
`
`34
`
`Page 34 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`“User‐Configurable and Non‐User‐Configurable Data”“User‐Configurable and Non‐User‐Configurable Data”
`
`Surprenantdiscloses both
`End result:
`CLAIMS UNPATENTABLE
`
`Does the prior art
`disclose user-
`configurable and non-
`user-configurable data?
`Background knowledge of an
`ordinary artisan, as
`evidenced by ’952 patent’s
`specification, discloses both
`End result:
`CLAIMS UNPATENTABLE
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Beenaudiscloses both
`
`End result:
`CLAIMS UNPATENTABLE
`Petition (Paper 1) at 42-46, 58-62;
`Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 20) at 12-22;
`First Lipoff Declaration (Ex. 1003) ¶¶ 101-110.
`
`35
`
`Page 35 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`Surprenant Discloses “User‐Configurable . . . Data”Surprenant Discloses “User‐Configurable . . . Data”
`
`Unilocdoes not dispute that Surprenant’sAMP ID is derived in part
`from “user-configurable . . . data” in the form of credentials:
`
`Surprenant at 7:53-57
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Surprenant(Ex. 1006) at 7:53-57;
`Petition (Paper 1) at 44-45;
`First Lipoff Declaration (Ex. 1003) ¶¶ 105-106.
`
`36
`
`Page 36 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`Surprenant Discloses “Non‐User‐Configurable Data”Surprenant Discloses “Non‐User‐Configurable Data”
`
`Surprenant’s AMP ID is derived in part from “non-user-configurable
`data”:
`
`Surprenant at 7:44-49
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Surprenant(Ex. 1006) at 7:44-49;
`Petition (Paper 1) at 42-47;
`Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 20) at 14-16;
`First Lipoff Declaration (Ex. 1003) ¶¶ 101-110.
`
`37
`
`Page 37 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`Surprenant Discloses “Non‐User‐Configurable Data”Surprenant Discloses “Non‐User‐Configurable Data”
`
`This is confirmed by Mr. Lipoff’sunrebutted testimony:
`First Lipoff Declaration ¶ 107
`
`First Lipoff Declaration ¶ 109
`Petition (Paper 1) at 45-46;
`Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 20) at 14-15;
`First Lipoff Declaration (Ex. 1003) ¶¶ 107, 109.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`38
`
`Page 38 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`“User‐Configurable and Non‐User‐Configurable Data”“User‐Configurable and Non‐User‐Configurable Data”
`
`Surprenantdiscloses both
`End result:
`CLAIMS UNPATENTABLE
`
`Does the prior art
`disclose user-
`configurable and non-
`user-configurable data?
`Background knowledge of an
`ordinary artisan, as
`evidenced by ’952 patent’s
`specification, discloses both
`End result:
`CLAIMS UNPATENTABLE
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Beenaudiscloses both
`
`End result:
`CLAIMS UNPATENTABLE
`Petition (Paper 1) at 42-46, 58-62;
`Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 20) at 12-22;
`First Lipoff Declaration (Ex. 1003) ¶¶ 101-110.
`
`39
`
`Page 39 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`Background Knowledge of an Ordinary ArtisanBackground Knowledge of an Ordinary Artisan
`
`It would have been obvious to use any of the options that the ’952
`patent specification admits were well-known.
`
`’952 patent at 6:27-37
`‘952 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 6:27-37;
`Petition (Paper 1) at 43;
`Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 20) at 17;
`First Lipoff Declaration (Ex. 1003) ¶ 108.
`
`40
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 40 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`Background Knowledge of an Ordinary ArtisanBackground Knowledge of an Ordinary Artisan
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,490,216, cited in the ’952 patent specification,
`discloses “information provided by the environment” such as a
`“hardware identifier”:
`
`Ex. 1009 at 4:6-11, 4:25-29
`Ex. 1009 at 4:6-11, 4:25-29;
`Petition (Paper 1) at 46;
`Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 20) at 16-20;
`First Lipoff Declaration (Ex. 1003) ¶ 108.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`41
`
`Page 41 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`Background Knowledge of an Ordinary ArtisanBackground Knowledge of an Ordinary Artisan
`
`U.S. App. Publication No. 2011/0093920, cited in the ’952 patent
`specification, discloses “unique manufacturer characteristics”:
`
`Ex. 1010 ¶ 45
`Ex. 1010 ¶ 45;
`Petition (Paper 1) at 46;
`Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 20) at 16-20;
`First Lipoff Declaration (Ex. 1003) ¶ 108.
`
`42
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 42 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`Background Knowledge of an Ordinary ArtisanBackground Knowledge of an Ordinary Artisan
`
`Unrebutted expert testimony establishes “non-user-configurable
`data” would have been obvious to use in the combined
`Paulson/Surprenantsystem:
`
`First Lipoff Declaration ¶ 108
`Petition (Paper 1) at 46;
`Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 20) at 16-20;
`First Lipoff Declaration (Ex. 1003) ¶ 108.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`43
`
`Page 43 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`“User‐Configurable and Non‐User‐Configurable Data”“User‐Configurable and Non‐User‐Configurable Data”
`
`Surprenantdiscloses both
`End result:
`CLAIMS UNPATENTABLE
`
`Does the prior art
`disclose user-
`configurable and non-
`user-configurable data?
`Background knowledge of an
`ordinary artisan, as
`evidenced by ’952 patent’s
`specification, discloses both
`End result:
`CLAIMS UNPATENTABLE
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Beenaudiscloses both
`
`End result:
`CLAIMS UNPATENTABLE
`Petition (Paper 1) at 42-46, 58-62;
`Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 20) at 12-22;
`First Lipoff Declaration (Ex. 1003) ¶¶ 101-110.
`
`44
`
`Page 44 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`Beenau: Radio Frequency ID (“RFID”) TechnologyBeenau: Radio Frequency ID (“RFID”) Technology
`
`Beenau discloses an application for near-field communications in the
`context of RFID technology,
`– RFID is a contactless information acquisition technology
`– Beenau discloses a fob that can interact with an RFID reader and engage
`in an identification and “mutual authentication” process
`– Beenaudiscloses exchanging information including “a transaction
`request” having a “device authentication code[] and a unique device
`identification code”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE Beenau (Ex. 1007) at claim 1, ¶¶ [0002], [0020]-[0022];
`Petition (Paper 1) at 54-55;
`First Lipoff Declaration (Ex. 1003) ¶¶ 125-126.
`
`45
`
`Page 45 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`Motivation To Combine Paulson, Surprenant, and BeenauMotivation To Combine Paulson, Surprenant, and Beenau
`
`No dispute over motivation to combine/reasonable expectation of success
`It would have been obvious to combine Paulsonwith Surprenantand
`Beenau to implement Beenau’s RFID teachings in the combined
`Paulson/Surprenantsystem
`– Paulson and Surprenantdisclose the many benefits of using sonic communication for
`transmitting data
`– All references address similar applications, including conducting financial transactions
`– The resulting combination incorporates Beenau’s teachings regarding its fob, including
`its authentication techniques, into the sonic-capable computing devices in the
`Paulson/Surprenantsystem
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petition (Paper 1) at 55-57;
`First Lipoff Declaration (Ex. 1003) ¶¶ 127-133.
`
`46
`
`Page 46 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`Beenau Discloses “User‐Configurable . . . Data” Beenau Discloses “User‐Configurable . . . Data”
`
`Unilocdoes not dispute that Beenau’sPIN is “user-configurable . . .
`data” as claimed:
`
`Beenau¶ [0162]
`Beenau (Ex. 1007) ¶ [0162];
`Petition (Paper 1) at 60;
`First Lipoff Declaration (Ex. 1003) ¶ 138.
`
`47
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 47 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`Beenau Discloses “Non‐User‐Configurable Data” Beenau Discloses “Non‐User‐Configurable Data”
`
`Beenau’s claim 1 teaches that a fob contains and transmits a “unique
`device identification code” that constitutes the claimed “non user-
`configurable data specific to the audio transceiver computing device”
`Beenauat claim 1
`Beenau¶ [0090]
`Beenau (Ex. 1007) at claim 1, ¶ [0090];
`Petition (Paper 1) at 58-62;
`Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 20) at 20-22;
`First Lipoff Declaration (Ex. 1003) ¶¶ 134-143.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`48
`
`Page 48 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`Beenau Discloses “Non‐User‐Configurable Data” Beenau Discloses “Non‐User‐Configurable Data”
`
`Unrebutted expert testimony demonstrates Beenaudiscloses both
`“non-user-configurable data” and “user-configurable data”:
`
`First Lipoff Declaration ¶¶ 136, 137
`Petitioner (Paper 1) at 58-59;
`First Lipoff Declaration (Ex. 1003) ¶¶ 136, 137.
`
`49
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 49 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`Uniloc Waived Any Response Regarding BeenauUniloc Waived Any Response Regarding Beenau
`
`Uniloc failed to address this ground in the Patent Owner Response,
`thereby waiving any response:
`
`Scheduling Order (Paper 16) at 8
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 20) at 13;
`Scheduling Order (Paper 16) at 8.
`
`50
`
`Page 50 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`Claims 9‐12 Should Be Found UnpatentableClaims 9‐12 Should Be Found Unpatentable
`
`Paulson, Surprenant, and McConnell
`
`Ground 1: Claims 9-12 would have been obvious
`over Paulsonand Surprenant
`Ground 2: Claims 9-12 would have been obvious
`over Paulson, Surprenant, and Beenau
`Ground 3: Claim 11 would have been obvious over
`Ground 4: Claim 11 would have been obvious over
`
`Paulson, Surprenant, Beenau, and McConnell
`Institution Decision (Paper 15) at 6.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`51
`
`Page 51 of 51
`
`
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
