throbber
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`FACEBOOK, INC., INSTAGRAM, LLC and WHATSAPP INC.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`BLACKBERRY LIMITED
`Patent Owner
`
`______________
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,372,961
`Issue Date: May 13, 2008
`
`Title: METHOD OF PUBLIC KEY GENERATION
`______________
`
`
`DECLARATION OF JONATHAN KATZ, PH.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002
`0001
`
`MOBILEIRON, INC. - EXHIBIT 1028
`Page 001
`
`

`

`
`
`Declaration of Jonathan Katz, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,372,961
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS .............................................. 5
`A. Qualifications and Experience ............................................................. 5
`B. Materials Considered ............................................................................ 7
`PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................ 10
`II.
`III. LEGAL PRINCIPLES USED IN THE ANALYSIS ............................... 13
`B.
`Prior Art .............................................................................................. 13
`C.
`Claim Construction............................................................................. 14
`D.
`Legal Standards for Obviousness ....................................................... 16
`IV. RELEVANT TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND ................................... 21
`B.
`Random Number Generation ............................................................. 22
`C.
`Cryptography and Its Reliance on Random Number Generators ...... 23
`D. Modular Reduction and the Modulo Bias Problem ........................... 29
`E.
`Rejecting Random Numbers Above a Desired Range, aka
`Rejection Sampling ............................................................................ 34
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’961 PATENT ...................................................... 46
`A.
`The Specification ................................................................................ 46
`B.
`The Challenged Claims ...................................................................... 51
`C.
`Interpretation of Claim Limitations in the ’961 Patent ...................... 53
`VI. APPLICATION OF THE PRIOR ART TO THE CHALLENGED
`CLAIMS OF THE ’961 PATENT ............................................................. 59
`B.
`Brief Description and Summary of the Prior Art ............................... 60
`1.
`Brief Summary of DSS (EX. 1004) ......................................... 60
`2.
`Brief Summary of Rose (EX. 1006) ........................................ 66
`3.
`Brief Summary of Menezes (EX. 1005) .................................. 70
`4.
`Brief Summary of Schneier (EX. 1008) .................................. 72
`5.
`Brief Summary of Rao (EX. 1018) and Floyd (EX. 1019) ...... 73
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002
`0002
`
`MOBILEIRON, INC. - EXHIBIT 1028
`Page 002
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jonathan Katz, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,372,961
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4.
`5.
`
`C. Ground 1: Comparison of the Prior Art to the Challenged
`Claims Based on DSS, Schneier, and Rose........................................ 75
`1.
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................ 75
`2.
`Dependent Claim 2: The method of claim 1 wherein
`another seed value is generated by said random number
`generator if said output is rejected. ........................................ 116
`Dependent Claim 5: The method of claim 1 wherein said
`order q is a prime number represented by a bit string of
`predetermined length L. ......................................................... 116
`Independent Claim 15: ........................................................... 117
`Dependent Claim 16: The computer readable medium
`of claim 15 wherein another seed value is generated by
`said random number generator if said output is rejected. ...... 120
`Dependent Claim 19: The computer readable medium of
`claim 15 wherein said order q is a prime number
`represented by a bit string of predetermined length L. .......... 121
`D. Ground 2: Comparison of the Prior Art to the Challenged
`Claims Based on DSS, Schneier, and Menezes ............................... 121
`2.
`Independent Claim 1 .............................................................. 122
`3.
`Dependent Claim 2: The method of claim 1 wherein
`another seed value is generated by said random number
`generator if said output is rejected. ........................................ 135
`Dependent Claim 5: The method of claim 1 wherein said
`order q is a prime number represented by a bit string of
`predetermined length L. ......................................................... 136
`Independent Claim 15: ........................................................... 136
`5.
`Dependent Claims 16, 19 ....................................................... 136
`6.
`Grounds 3-4: Comparison of the Prior Art from Grounds 1-2, in
`Further View of Rao and Floyd........................................................ 137
`2.
`Independent Claim 23: ........................................................... 137
`3
`
`3.
`
`6.
`
`4.
`
`E.
`
`
`
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002
`0003
`
`MOBILEIRON, INC. - EXHIBIT 1028
`Page 003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jonathan Katz, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,372,961
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`
`
`Dependent Claim 24: The cryptographic unit of claim
`23 wherein another seed value is generated by said
`random number generator if said output is rejected. ............. 145
`Dependent Claim 27: The cryptographic unit of claim
`23 wherein said order q is a prime number represented by
`a bit string of predetermined length L. .................................. 146
`VII. CONCLUSION
`146
`
`
`4.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002
`0004
`
`MOBILEIRON, INC. - EXHIBIT 1028
`Page 004
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jonathan Katz, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,372,961
`
`
`
`I, Jonathan Katz, PhD., declare as follows:
`
`
`
`1.
`
`I have personal knowledge of the facts stated in this declaration, and
`
`could and would testify to these facts under oath if called upon to do so.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS
`A. Qualifications and Experience
`I received an undergraduate degree in mathematics from the
`2.
`
`Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1996. My coursework included several
`
`classes in computer science. I entered the Ph.D. program in computer science at
`
`Columbia University in 1998. My doctoral work focused on cryptography.
`
`3.
`
`In early 2000, I taught a course “Introduction to Programming in C” at
`
`Columbia University, and in early 2001, I taught a graduate-level “Introduction to
`
`Cryptography” course there. In 2002, I received my Ph.D. (with distinction) in
`
`computer science; my doctoral thesis was entitled “Efficient Cryptographic
`
`Protocols Preventing ‘Man-in-the-Middle’ Attacks.”
`
`4.
`
`From May 1999 to March 2000, while I was conducting my doctoral
`
`research, I worked as a security consultant for Counterpane Systems. In connection
`
`with my work for Counterpane, I discovered security flaws in the popular email
`
`encryption software Pretty Good Privacy (PGP). This work was covered in the press
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002
`0005
`
`MOBILEIRON, INC. - EXHIBIT 1028
`Page 005
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jonathan Katz, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,372,961
`
`
`
`and led to two published papers and a refinement of existing standards for email
`
`
`
`encryption. I also designed and implemented secure cryptographic protocols for
`
`clients. In March 2000, I began work as a Research Scientist in the cryptography
`
`group at the Mathematical Sciences Research Center of Telcordia Technologies.
`
`5.
`
`Since 2002, I have worked as a professor in the Department of
`
`Computer Science at the University of Maryland. In that capacity I regularly teach
`
`courses in cryptography and cybersecurity at both the undergraduate and graduate
`
`level, conduct research in those fields, and supervise graduate-student research. I
`
`was appointed Director of the Maryland Cybersecurity Center in 2013. In that
`
`capacity I regularly interact with cybersecurity researchers at other academic
`
`institutions around the world, as well as with industry professionals working in the
`
`area of cybersecurity.
`
`6.
`
`In 2007, I co-authored a
`
`textbook Introduction
`
`to Modern
`
`Cryptography, now in its second edition. This text has been used in courses on
`
`cryptography worldwide. I also authored the book Digital Signatures in 2010. Since
`
`2011, I have served as an editor of the Journal of Cryptology, the leading journal in
`
`the field. In 2016 and 2017, I served as co-program chair of the annual Crypto
`
`conference, the leading and longest-running academic conference focused on
`6
`
`
`
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002
`0006
`
`MOBILEIRON, INC. - EXHIBIT 1028
`Page 006
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jonathan Katz, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,372,961
`
`
`
`cryptography. I am currently serving as co-program chair of the ACM Conference
`
`
`
`on Computer and Communications Security, one of the top conferences in the field
`
`of cybersecurity. A list of other program committees and editorial boards I have
`
`served on can be found as part of my curriculum vitae.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`I have attached a more detailed list of my qualifications as Exhibit A.
`
`I am being compensated for my time working on this matter at my
`
`standard hourly rate plus expenses. I have no personal or financial stake or interest
`
`in the outcome of the present proceeding, and the compensation is not dependent on
`
`the outcome of this IPR and in no way affects the substance of my statements in this
`
`Declaration.
`
`B. Materials Considered
`The analysis that I provide in this Declaration is based on my education
`9.
`
`and experience in cryptography, software, and mathematics, as well as the
`
`documents I have considered, including U.S. Patent No. 7,372,961 (the “’961
`
`Patent”) [EX1001], which states on its face that it issued from an application filed
`
`on December 26, 2001, in turn claiming priority back to a foreign application filed
`
`on December 27, 2000. For purposes of this Declaration, I have assumed December
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002
`0007
`
`MOBILEIRON, INC. - EXHIBIT 1028
`Page 007
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jonathan Katz, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,372,961
`
`
`
`27, 2000 as the effective filing date for the ’961 patent. I have cited to the following
`
`
`
`documents in my analysis below:
`
`Description of Document
`Ex. No.
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 7,372,961 B2 to Scott A. Vanstone et al. (filed
`December 26, 2001, issued May 13, 2008)
`
`1003
`1004
`
`File Wrapper of U.S. Patent No. 7,372,961
`
`Federal Information Processing (FIPS) Publication 186, Digital
`Signature Standard (DSS) (May 19, 1994)
`1005 Excerpts from Alfred J. Menezes et al., Handbook of Applied
`Cryptography (1997)
`
`1006 USENET article by Greg Rose to sci.crypt and sci.math, Re: “Card-
`shuffling” algorithms (March 10, 1993)
`1007 Excerpts from Donald E. Knuth, The Art of Computer Programming,
`Vol. 2 (3d ed. 1998)
`
`1008 Excerpts from Bruce Schneier, Applied Cryptography (2d ed. 1996)
`1009 USENET article by Steve Brecher, Re: How can I generate random
`numbers? (October 12, 1996)
`
`1010 USENET article by Steve Brecher, Re: Help: Random numbers?
`(November 13, 1996)
`1011 USENET article by Trevor L. Jackson, III, Re: Random Generator
`(April 7, 2000)
`
`1012 Declaration of Aviel Rubin, Ph.D Regarding Claim Construction of the
`’961 Patent, filed in Blackberry Limited v. Facebook, Inc. et al., No.
`2:18-cv-01844-GW-KS (C.D. Cal.), filed February 28, 2019
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002
`0008
`
`MOBILEIRON, INC. - EXHIBIT 1028
`Page 008
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jonathan Katz, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,372,961
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Description of Document
`Ex. No.
`1013 U.S. Patent No. 5,732,138 to Landon Curt Noll et al. (filed January 29,
`1996, issued March 24, 1998)
`1014 Excerpts from Jenny A. Fristrup, USENET: Netnews for Everyone
`(1994)
` 1015 Federal Information Processing (FIPS) Publication 186-2, Digital
`Signature Standard (DSS) (January 27, 2000)
`(https://web.archive.org/web/20000815231203/http:/csrc.nist.gov/fips/f
`ips186-2.pdf)
`1016 Brian W. Kernighan & Dennis M. Ritchie, The C Programming
`Language (2d ed. 1988)
`
`1017
`
`John von Neumann, Various Techniques Used in Connection with
`Random Digits, Summary by G.E. Forsythe, National Bureau of
`Standards Applied Math Series, 12 (1951), pp 36-38, reprinted in von
`Neumann's Collected Works, 5 (1963), Pergamon Press pp 768-770.
`1018 Excerpts from Thammavarapu R. N. Rao, Error Coding for Arithmetic
`Processors (1974)
`1019 Excerpts from Nancy A. Floyd, Essentials of Data Processing (1987)
`1020 Amendments to Claims and Remarks, October 30, 2007, filed in U.S.
`Appl. Ser. No. 10/025,924 (issuing as the ’961 patent)
`
`1028 Excerpts from Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th ed.
`1998)
`1029 Excerpts from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English
`Language (4th ed. 2000)
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002
`0009
`
`MOBILEIRON, INC. - EXHIBIT 1028
`Page 009
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jonathan Katz, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,372,961
`
`
`
`II.
`
`PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`I understand that an assessment of the claims of the ’961 patent should
`10.
`
`
`
`be undertaken from the perspective of what would have been known or understood
`
`by a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the earliest claimed priority date of the
`
`patent claims which, as noted, I have assumed is December 27, 2000.
`
`11. Counsel has advised me that to determine the appropriate level of one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art, I may consider the following factors: (a) the types of
`
`problems encountered by those working in the field and prior art solutions thereto;
`
`(b) the sophistication of the technology in question, and the rapidity with which
`
`innovations occur in the field; (c) the educational level of active workers in the field;
`
`and (d) the educational level of the inventor.
`
`12. The relevant technical field for the ’961 patent is key generation and
`
`cryptography. (’961, 1:5-6.) Based on the factors listed above, in my opinion a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art as of December 2000 would have had a bachelor’s
`
`degree or the equivalent in electrical engineering or computer science (or equivalent
`
`degree) and at least two years of experience with computer-based cryptographic
`
`techniques. A person could also have qualified as a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art with (1) less technical experience and more formal education (such as a master’s
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002
`0010
`
`MOBILEIRON, INC. - EXHIBIT 1028
`Page 010
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jonathan Katz, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,372,961
`
`
`
`degree or Ph.D.) or (2) more technical experience and less formal education.
`
`
`
`Additionally, the requisite technical experience and formal education could have
`
`been acquired concurrently. As part of such person’s basic education and/or
`
`experience, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have obtained a working
`
`knowledge of computer programming and would have learned how to implement
`
`cryptographic algorithms in software, how to test those algorithms, and how to adapt
`
`them for practical applications (e.g., for digital communications).
`
`13. My opinions regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art are based
`
`on, among other things, my more than 20 years of experience in cryptography and
`
`related fields, my understanding of the basic qualifications that would be relevant to
`
`an engineer or scientist tasked with investigating methods and systems in the
`
`relevant area, and my familiarity with the backgrounds of colleagues, co-workers,
`
`and employees, both past and present, who work in that area.
`
`14. Although my qualifications and experience exceed those of the
`
`hypothetical person having ordinary skill in the art defined above, my analysis and
`
`opinions regarding the ’961 patent have been based on the perspective of a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art in December 2000.
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002
`0011
`
`MOBILEIRON, INC. - EXHIBIT 1028
`Page 011
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jonathan Katz, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,372,961
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15. My opinions herein regarding the understanding of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art and my other opinions set forth herein would remain the same if the
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art were determined to have somewhat more or less
`
`education and/or experience than I have identified above.
`
`16.
`
`I have reviewed the “Declaration of Aviel Rubin, Ph.D Regarding
`
`Claim Construction of the ’961 Patent,” which contains a declaration by an expert
`
`retained by the Patent Owner. (Rubin Decl., Ex. 1012.) Dr. Rubin opines in that
`
`declaration that a person of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of the ’961 patent
`
`“would have had a bachelor of science degree in Computer Science or the equivalent,
`
`and approximately three years of work or research experience in the field of
`
`cryptography or an equivalent subject matter; or an advanced degree (masters or
`
`doctorate) in Computer Science or the equivalent, and less work or research
`
`experience (dependent in part on the level of degrees achieved) in the field of
`
`cryptography or an equivalent subject matter.” (Rubin Decl., Ex. 1012, ¶34.)
`
`17.
`
`In my opinion, Dr. Rubin’s formulation of a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art is not materially different from mine. His formulation adds one additional
`
`year of work or research experience (“approximately three years”), a difference that
`
`I do not consider material to my analysis. My opinions as expressed in this
`12
`
`
`
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002
`0012
`
`MOBILEIRON, INC. - EXHIBIT 1028
`Page 012
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jonathan Katz, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,372,961
`
`
`
`Declaration would therefore remain the same regardless of whether I applied my
`
`
`
`own formulation or the one provided by Dr. Rubin.
`
`III. LEGAL PRINCIPLES USED IN THE ANALYSIS
`I am not a patent attorney, nor have I independently researched the law
`18.
`
`on patent validity. Attorneys for the Petitioner explained certain legal principles to
`
`me that I have relied upon in forming my opinions set forth in this report.
`
`B.
`19.
`
`Prior Art
`I understand that the law provides categories of information that
`
`constitute prior art that may be used to anticipate or render obvious patent claims.
`
`To be prior art to a particular patent, a reference must have been made, known, used,
`
`published, or patented, or be the subject of a patent application by another, before
`
`the priority date of the patent. I am informed that admissions by the patent
`
`application regarding the presence of features in the prior art, whether contained in
`
`the patent specification or made during the prosecution history, can be relied upon
`
`to show anticipation or obviousness of a claim. I also understand that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art is presumed to have knowledge of the relevant prior art.
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002
`0013
`
`MOBILEIRON, INC. - EXHIBIT 1028
`Page 013
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jonathan Katz, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,372,961
`
`
`
`
`
`
`20.
`
`I understand that the Petitioner has assumed, for purposes of my
`
`Declaration, that the challenged claims of the ’961 patent are entitled to a December
`
`27, 2000 priority date.
`
`C. Claim Construction
`I understand that under the applicable legal principles, claim terms are
`21.
`
`generally given their ordinary and customary meaning, which is the meaning that
`
`the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application. I further
`
`understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read claim terms
`
`not only in the context of the particular claim in which a claim term appears, but in
`
`the context of the entire patent, including the specification.
`
`22.
`
`I am informed by counsel that the patent specification, under the
`
`applicable legal principles, is often the single best guide to the meaning of a claim
`
`term, and is thus highly relevant to the interpretation of claim terms. And I
`
`understand for terms that do not have a customary meaning within the art, the
`
`specification usually supplies the best context of understanding their meaning.
`
`23.
`
`I am further informed by counsel that other claims of the patent in
`
`question, both asserted and unasserted, can be valuable sources of information as to
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002
`0014
`
`MOBILEIRON, INC. - EXHIBIT 1028
`Page 014
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jonathan Katz, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,372,961
`
`
`
`the meaning of a claim term. Because the claim terms are normally used consistently
`
`
`
`throughout the patent, the usage of a term in one claim can often illuminate the
`
`meaning of the same term in other claims. Differences among claims can also be a
`
`useful guide in understanding the meaning of particular claim terms.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that the prosecution history can further inform the meaning
`
`of the claim language by demonstrating how the inventors understood the invention
`
`and whether the inventors limited the invention in the course of prosecution, making
`
`the claim scope narrower than it otherwise would be. Extrinsic evidence, such as
`
`my expert testimony, may also be consulted in construing the claim terms.
`
`25.
`
`I have been informed by counsel that, in Inter Partes Review (IPR)
`
`proceedings, a claim of a patent shall be construed using the same claim construction
`
`standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action filed in a U.S.
`
`district court (which I understand is called the “Phillips” claim construction
`
`standard), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and
`
`customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.
`
`26.
`
`I have been instructed by counsel to apply the “Phillips” claim
`
`construction standard for purposes of interpreting the claims in this proceeding, to
`15
`
`
`
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002
`0015
`
`MOBILEIRON, INC. - EXHIBIT 1028
`Page 015
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jonathan Katz, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,372,961
`
`
`
`the extent they require an explicit construction. The description of the legal
`
`
`
`principles set forth above provides my understanding of the “Phillips” standard as
`
`provided to me by counsel.
`
`D. Legal Standards for Obviousness
`I have been provided the instructions reproduced in part below, taken
`27.
`
`from the Federal Circuit Bar Association Model Instructions regarding obviousness.
`
`I follow these instructions in my analysis, with the caveat that I have been informed
`
`that the Patent Office will find a patent claim invalid in inter partes review if it
`
`concludes that it is more likely than not that the claim is invalid (i.e., a preponderance
`
`of the evidence standard), which is a lower burden of proof than the “clear and
`
`convincing” standard that is applied in United States district court (and described in
`
`the instructions below):
`
`4.3c OBVIOUSNESS
`
`Even though an invention may not have been identically
`disclosed or described before it was made by an inventor,
`in order to be patentable, the invention must also not have
`been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the field of
`technology of the patent at the time the invention was
`made.
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002
`0016
`
`MOBILEIRON, INC. - EXHIBIT 1028
`Page 016
`
`

`

`
`
`Declaration of Jonathan Katz, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,372,961
`
`
`
`
`[Alleged infringer] may establish that a patent claim is
`invalid by showing, by clear and convincing evidence, that
`the claimed invention would have been obvious to persons
`having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
`was made in the field of [insert the field of the invention].
`
`In determining whether a claimed invention is obvious,
`you must consider the level of ordinary skill in the field
`[of the invention] that someone would have had at the time
`the [invention was made] or [patent was filed], the scope
`and content of the prior art, and any differences between
`the prior art and the claimed invention.
`
`Keep in mind that the existence of each and every element
`of the claimed invention in the prior art does not
`necessarily prove obviousness. Most, if not all, inventions
`rely on building blocks of prior art. In considering whether
`a claimed invention is obvious, you may but are not
`required to find obviousness if you find that at the time of
`the claimed invention [or the patent’s filing date] there was
`a reason that would have prompted a person having
`ordinary skill in the field of [the invention] to combine the
`known elements in a way the claimed invention does,
`taking into account such factors as (1) whether the claimed
`invention was merely the predictable result of using prior
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002
`0017
`
`MOBILEIRON, INC. - EXHIBIT 1028
`Page 017
`
`

`

`
`
`Declaration of Jonathan Katz, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,372,961
`
`
`
`
`art elements according to their known function(s); (2)
`whether the claimed invention provides an obvious
`solution to a known problem in the relevant field; (3)
`whether the prior art teaches or suggests the desirability of
`combining elements claimed in the invention; (4) whether
`the prior art teaches away from combining elements in the
`claimed invention; (5) whether it would have been obvious
`to try the combinations of elements, such as when there is
`a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and
`there are a finite number of identified, predictable
`solutions; and (6) whether the change resulted more from
`design incentives or other market forces. To find it
`rendered the invention obvious, you must find that the
`prior art provided a reasonable expectation of success.
`Obvious
`to
`try
`is not sufficient
`in unpredictable
`technologies.
`
`In determining whether the claimed invention was
`obvious, consider each claim separately. Do not use
`hindsight, i.e., consider only what was known at the time
`of the invention [or the patent’s filing date].
`
`In making these assessments, you should take into account
`any objective evidence (sometimes called “secondary
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002
`0018
`
`MOBILEIRON, INC. - EXHIBIT 1028
`Page 018
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jonathan Katz, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,372,961
`
`
`
`
`considerations”) that may shed light on the obviousness or
`not of the claimed invention, such as:
`
`
`
`(a) Whether the invention was commercially successful as
`a result of the merits of the claimed invention (rather than
`the result of design needs or market-pressure advertising
`or similar activities);
`
`(b) Whether the invention satisfied a long-felt need;
`
`(c) Whether others had tried and failed to make the
`invention;
`
`(d) Whether others invented the invention at roughly the
`same time;
`
`(e) Whether others copied the invention;
`
`(f) Whether there were changes or related technologies or
`market needs contemporaneous with the invention;
`
`(g) Whether the invention achieved unexpected results;
`
`(h) Whether others in the field praised the invention;
`
`(i) Whether persons having ordinary skill in the art of the
`invention expressed surprise or disbelief regarding the
`invention;
`
`(j) Whether others sought or obtained rights to the patent
`from the patent holder; and
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002
`0019
`
`MOBILEIRON, INC. - EXHIBIT 1028
`Page 019
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jonathan Katz, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,372,961
`
`
`
`
`(k) Whether the inventor proceeded contrary to accepted
`wisdom in the field.
`
`
`
`Federal Circuit Bar Association Model Jury Instructions §4.3c (2014).
`
`28.
`
`I am also informed that the United States Patent Office supplies its
`
`examining corps with a Manual of Patent Examining Procedure that provides
`
`exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness, including:
`
`(a) Combining prior art elements according to known
`methods to yield predictable results;
`
`(b) Simple substitution of one known element for another
`to obtain predictable results;
`
`(c) Use of known technique to improve similar devices
`(methods, or products) in the same way;
`
`(d) Applying a known technique to a known device
`(method, or product) ready for improvement to yield
`predictable results;
`
`(e) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of
`identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable
`expectation of success;
`
`(f) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt
`variations of it for use in either the same field or a different
`one based on design incentives or other market forces if
`20
`
`
`
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002
`0020
`
`MOBILEIRON, INC. - EXHIBIT 1028
`Page 020
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jonathan Katz, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,372,961
`
`
`
`
`the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the
`art; or
`
`
`
`(g) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior
`art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the
`prior art reference or to combine prior art reference
`teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`MPEP §2143. I apply these principles in my analysis below.
`
`IV. RELEVANT TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
`29. The ’961 patent, entitled “Method of Public Key Generation,” purports
`
`to disclose and claim a method for generation of a key for use in a cryptographic
`
`function. (’961, claim 1.) The ’961 patent focuses primarily on a single aspect of
`
`cryptographic functions – the generation of an appropriate cryptographic key. The
`
`patent thus falls generally in the fields of key generation and cryptography.
`
`30. Cryptographic keys are often generated using a random number
`
`generator. (‘961, 1:41-43) Random number generation has long been practiced in
`
`computer science and cryptography. In this section, I will provide a brief
`
`background discussion of technologies pertinent to the ’961 patent prior to
`
`December 2000.
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002
`0021
`
`MOBILEIRON, INC. - EXHIBIT 1028
`Page 021
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jonathan Katz, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,372,961
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B. Random Number Generation
`31. Random number generation refers to the generation of a sequence of
`
`numbers that are or appear random, i.e., lack any pattern. Random number
`
`generation was a highly developed field within mathematics and computer science
`
`prior to the filing of the ’961 patent.
`
`32. A simple example of a random number generator is a die with six sides
`
`showing 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.1 Each roll of the die generates a
`
`random number in the range from 0 to 5. If the die is unweighted,
`
`then each side is equally likely, i.e., each roll is equally likely to
`
`result in any of the numbers 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5. When each value in a given set of
`
`possible values is equally likely to occur, the output of the random number generator
`
`
`
`
`
` 1
`
` In my discussion, I will be using a die with faces showing 0-5 instead of 1-6
`
`because the lowest unsigned value representable in a computer is zero, not one.
`
`Thus, unsigned numbers on computers range from 0 to their maximum value.
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002
`0022
`
`MOBILEIRON, INC. - EXHIBIT 1028
`Page 022
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jonathan Katz, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,372,961
`
`
`
`is said to have a “uniform distribution” in that set. When I refer to this six-sided die
`
`
`
`further below, I always assume that it is an unweighted die for wh

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket