UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`MOBILEIRON, INC.,
`Petitioner
`v.
`BLACKBERRY LIMITED,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. IPR2021-00162
`U.S. Patent No. 8,442,489
`Issue Date: May 14, 2013
`Title: SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CONFIGURING DEVICES FOR SECURE OPERATIONS
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,442,489
`
`
`
`
`
`ACTIVE/105715199.9
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. Mandatory Notices Under §42.8(A)(1) .......................................................... 1
`A.
`Real Party-In-Interest under §42.8(b)(1) .............................................. 1
`B.
`Related Matters under §42.8(b)(2) ....................................................... 2
`C.
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel under §42.8(b)(3) .................................... 3
`Fee Payment .................................................................................................... 5
`II.
`III. Requirements Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ....................................................... 5
`A.
`Grounds for Standing ........................................................................... 5
`B.
`Identification of Challenge and Statement of Relief Requested .......... 5
`C.
`List of Claims Challenged .................................................................... 6
`D.
`Considerations under 35 U.S.C. §325(d) ........................................... 12
`IV. Overview of the ‘489 Patent ......................................................................... 12
`A.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ...................................................... 12
`B.
`The ‘489 Patent .................................................................................. 13
`C.
`Prosecution of the ’489 Patent ........................................................... 15
`Claim Construction ....................................................................................... 16
`V.
`VI. Overview of the Prior Art ............................................................................. 17
`A. Mann [Ex.1005] .................................................................................. 17
`B. Kaplan [Ex.1006] ............................................................................... 18
`C.
`S/MIME Profile [Ex.1007] ................................................................. 19
`VII. The Challenged Claims are Unpatentable .................................................... 20
`A.
`GROUND 1: Claims 1, 4, 5, 10, 15-18, 22 and 23 Are
`Anticipated by Mann .......................................................................... 20
`1.
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................ 20
`2.
`Claim 4 ..................................................................................... 40
`Claim 5 ..................................................................................... 42
`3.
`4.
`Independent Claim 10 .............................................................. 43
`5.
`Claim 15 ................................................................................... 52
`6.
`Claim 16 ................................................................................... 52
`
`
`ACTIVE/105715199.9
`
`i
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,442,489
`
`
`Independent Claim 17 .............................................................. 52 
`7.
`Claim 18 ................................................................................... 55 
`8.
`Claim 22 ................................................................................... 56 
`9.
`10. Claim 23 ................................................................................... 56 
`B. GROUND 2: Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 10-20, 22, and 23 Are
`Unpatentable as Obvious over Mann in View of Kaplan .................. 57 
`1. Motivation to Combine Mann and Kaplan .............................. 57 
`2.
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................ 59 
`3.
`Claims 4 and 5 .......................................................................... 62 
`4.
`Claim 7 ..................................................................................... 62 
`5.
`Independent Claim 10 .............................................................. 64 
`6.
`Claim 11 ................................................................................... 64 
`7.
`Claim 12 ................................................................................... 66 
`8.
`Claim 13 ................................................................................... 67 
`9.
`Claim 14 ................................................................................... 69 
`10. Claims 15 and 16...................................................................... 70 
`11.
`Independent Claim 17 .............................................................. 70 
`12. Claim 18 ................................................................................... 71 
`13. Claim 19 ................................................................................... 71 
`14. Claim 20 ................................................................................... 71 
`15. Claim 22 ................................................................................... 72 
`16. Claim 23 ................................................................................... 73 
`C. GROUND 3: Claims 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, and 21 Are Unpatentable as
`Obvious over Mann in View of S/MIME-Profile .............................. 73 
`1. Motivation to Combine Mann and S/MIME-Profile ............... 73 
`2.
`Claim 2 ..................................................................................... 76 
`3.
`Claim 3 ..................................................................................... 77 
`4.
`Claim 6 ..................................................................................... 78 
`5.
`Claim 8 ..................................................................................... 80 
`
`
`ACTIVE/105715199.9
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,442,489
`
`
`Claim 9 ..................................................................................... 84 
`6.
`Claim 21 ................................................................................... 85 
`7.
`D. GROUND 4: Claims 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, and 21 Are Unpatentable as
`Obvious over Mann in View of Kaplan, Further in View of
`S/MIME-Profile .................................................................................. 86 
`E.
`Secondary Considerations .................................................................. 88 
`VIII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 88 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ACTIVE/105715199.9
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,442,489
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`EXHIBIT NO.
`
`DESCRIPTION
`
`1001
`
`U.S. 8,442,489 (the “’489 Patent”)
`
`1002
`
`Declaration of Markus Jakobsson, Ph.D.
`
`1003
`
`File History of the ’489 Patent
`
`1004
`
`File History of U.S. 8,010,989
`
`1005
`
`U.S. 7,665,118 to Mann et al. (Mann)
`
`1006
`
`U.S. 7,043,263 to Kaplan et al. (Kaplan)
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST),
`“Federal S/MIME V3 Client Profile,” NIST Special
`Publication 800-49 (2002) (S/MIME-Profile)
`
`R. Karri and P. Mishra, “Minimizing Energy Consumption
`of Secure Wireless Session with QoS Constraints," in
`Proceedings of the2002 IEEE International Conference on
`Communications Conference (ICC 2002) vol. 4, pp. 2053-
`2057 (2002) (Karri)
`
`Aoki, Kazumaro, and Helger Lipmaa, “Fast
`Implementations of AES Candidates," in Proceedings of
`AES Candidate Conference, pp. 106-120 (2000).
`
`Srivaths Ravi et al., “Security in Embedded Systems:
`Design Challenges,” 3 ACM Transactions on Embedded
`Computing Systems, pp. 461–491 (2004)
`
`
`ACTIVE/105715199.9
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,442,489
`
`
`EXHIBIT NO.
`
`DESCRIPTION
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2003/0182435
`by Redlich et al. (Redlich)
`
`Federal Information Processing Standards Publication 197
`(FIPS-197)
`Original Complaint filed April 27, 2020 in MobileIron. Inc.
`v. Blackberry Corp., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-02877 (N.D.
`Cal.)
`
`First Amended Complaint filed June 29, 2020 in MobileIron. Inc.
`v. Blackberry Corp., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-02877 (N.D. Cal.)
`
`Affidavit of Elizabeth Rosenberg Regarding S/MIME-
`Profile
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ACTIVE/105715199.9
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,442,489
`
`
`MobileIron, Inc. (“Petitioner”) seeks Inter Partes review of claims 1-23 of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,442,489 (“the ’489 patent”) (Ex.1001). Petitioner’s request is
`
`supported by the Expert Declaration of Markus Jakobsson, Ph.D. (Ex.1002), and
`
`other exhibits submitted herewith. The challenged claims cover methods and
`
`systems for revoking privileges on computing devices. The prior art renders the
`
`claimed subject matter obvious.
`
`The Board should institute review because there is a reasonable likelihood
`
`that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 314(a). This is Petitioner’s first petition challenging any claim of the ’489
`
`patent. As described below, the petition cites prior art that has never previously
`
`been presented to the Office.
`
`I. Mandatory Notices Under §42.8(A)(1)
`A. Real Party-In-Interest under §42.8(b)(1)
`MobileIron, Inc. is the real party-in-interest to this IPR petition.1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Ivanti, Inc. publicly announced that it has signed “definitive agreements” to
`
`acquire Petitioner. See https://www.ivanti.com/company/press-
`
`releases/2020/ivanti-announces-strategic-acquisitions-of-mobileiron-and-pulse-
`
`
`ACTIVE/105715199.9
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,442,489
`
`
`B.
`Related Matters under §42.8(b)(2)
`This is the first IPR petition filed against the ’489 patent. The ’489 patent is
`
`the subject of a declaratory judgment claim brought by Petitioner against
`
`BlackBerry Corporation (Patent Owner) and BlackBerry Ltd. (collectively,
`
`Defendants): MobileIron. Inc. v. Blackberry Corp., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-02877
`
`(N.D. Cal.). Petitioner filed the original complaint (Ex.1013, ¶¶83-89). Petitioner
`
`filed a First Amended Complaint (Ex.1014, ¶¶84-90) on June 29, 2020. Petitioner
`
`has not asserted in those complaints that any claim of the ’099 patent is invalid.
`
`Defendants have not yet answered, and no trial date has been set.
`
`On September 17, 2020, Patent Owner filed five IPR petitions for patents
`
`asserted by Petitioner against Patent Owner in the litigation: (1) BlackBerry Ltd. v.
`
`MobileIron, Inc., IPR2020-01519 (PTAB) (2) BlackBerry Ltd. v. MobileIron,
`
`Inc., IPR2020-01593 (PTAB); (3) BlackBerry Limited v. MobileIron, Inc.,
`
`IPR2020-01594 (PTAB); (4) BlackBerry Limited v. MobileIron, Inc., IPR2020-
`
`01604 (PTAB); and BlackBerry Limited v. MobileIron, Inc., IPR2020-01634
`
`(PTAB). Petitioner has filed an IPR petition for a patent asserted in the litigation:
`
`MobileIron, Inc. v. BlackBerry Ltd., IPR2020-01741 (PTAB). The Board has
`
`
`secure (last visited October 2, 2020). As of the filing of this Petition, the
`
`acquisition by Ivanti, Inc. of Petitioner has not occurred.
`
`
`ACTIVE/105715199.9
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,442,489
`
`provided filing dates for the five petitions filed by Patent Owner and approved the
`
`mandatory notices, but no responses have as yet been filed by the Petitioner or
`
`Patent Owner in any of the actions. None of these petitions relates to the ’489
`
`patent.
`
`On November 2, 2020, Petitioner filed an additional IPR petition for another
`
`patent asserted in the litigations, MobileIron, Inc. v. BlackBerry Ltd., IPR2021-
`
`00157 (PTAB). On November 4, 2020, Petitioner filed yet another IPR petition for
`
`a another, different patent asserted in the litigation contemporaneous with this
`
`petition. MobileIron, Inc. v. BlackBerry Ltd., IPR2021-00126 (PTAB).
`
`C.
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel under §42.8(b)(3)
`Petitioner provides the following designation of counsel.
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`
`Sanjeet Dutta
`Registration No. 46,145
`Goodwin Procter LLP
`601 Marshall Street
`Redwood City, CA 94063
`Email: sdutta@goodwinlaw.com
`Tel: (650) 752-3100
`Fax: (650) 853-1038
`
`Rachel Walsh (admission pro hac vice
`to be filed)
`Goodwin Procter LLP
`Three Embarcadero Center, 24th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94111
`rwalsh@goodwinlaw.com
`Tel: (415) 733-6000
`Fax: (415) 677-9041
`
`
`
`ACTIVE/105715199.9
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,442,489
`
`I. Neel Chatterjee (admission pro hac
`vice to be filed)
`Goodwin Procter LLP
`601 Marshall Street
`Redwood City, CA 94063
`Email: nchatterjee@goodwinlaw.com
`Tel: (650) 752-3100
`Fax: (650) 853-1038
`Monte M.F. Cooper
`(Admission pro hac vice to be filed)
`Goodwin Procter LLP
`601 Marshall Street
`Redwood City, CA 94063
`Email: mcooper@goodwinlaw.com
`Tel: (650) 752-3100
`Fax: (650) 853-1038
`
`Service Information
`D.
`This Petition is being served by Federal Express to the attorney of record for
`
`the ’489 patent, BlackBerry Limited - Direct Practice - (US Team), ATTN:
`
`PATENT TEAM, 2200 University Avenue, E. Waterloo ON N2K 0A7. Petitioner
`
`consents to electronic service at the addresses provided above for lead and back-up
`
`counsel.
`
`E.
`
`Power of Attorney
`
`
`ACTIVE/105715199.9
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,442,489
`
`
`Filed concurrently in accordance with 37 C.F.R. §42.10(b).
`
`II.
`
`Fee Payment
`Petitioners authorize the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office to charge Deposit
`
`Account No. 506989 for the fee set in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) for this Petition and
`
`further authorizes any additional fees to be charged to this Deposit Account.
`
`III. Requirements Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`A. Grounds for Standing
`Petitioner certifies that the ’489 patent is available for IPR and that
`
`Petitioner is not barred or otherwise estopped.
`
`B.
`Identification of Challenge and Statement of Relief Requested
`Petitioner requests institution of IPR based on the following grounds:
`
`Ground
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`Claims
`1, 4, 5,
`10, 15-18,
`22 and 23
`1, 4, 5, 7,
`10-20, 22,
`and 23
`2, 3, 6, 8,
`9, and 21
`
`2, 3, 6, 8,
`9, and 21
`
`
`
`
`ACTIVE/105715199.9
`
`
`Basis for Rejection
`Anticipated by Mann (Ex.1005)
`
`Obvious over Mann in view of Kaplan (Ex.1006)
`
`Obvious over Mann in view of S/MIME-Profile
`(Ex.1007)
`Obvious over Mann in view of Kaplan, further in view
`of S/MIME-Profile
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,442,489
`
`Submitted with this Petition is the Declaration of Dr. Markus Jakobsson, Ph.D.
`
`(“Jakobsson”), a qualified technical expert. Ex.1002, ¶¶1-15, Appendix. A.
`
`C.
`List of Claims Challenged
`The ’489 patent includes four independent claims (1, 10, 17 and 24). Claim
`
`24 is not challenged. The following chart lists the claims from the ’489 patent
`
`challenged by Petitioner, and their dependency upon the independent claims (the
`
`elements of which are provided letters for further reference in this Petition):
`
`Claim Limitation
`
`Claim
`Element
`[1.pre] A system for use in establishing a security-related mode of operation
`for computing devices, comprising:
`a policy data store for storing configuration data related to a plurality
`of computing devices;
`a security mode data structure contained within the policy data store;
`wherein the security mode data structure stores a security mode of
`operation;
`wherein the stored security mode of operation is provided to the
`plurality of computing devices over a network;
`wherein the security mode of operation places the plurality of
`computing devices in a predetermined security mode of operation;
`wherein at least one of the plurality of computing devices comprises
`user interface instructions configured to send an output to a display
`associated with the one of the plurality of computing devices,
`
`[1.a]
`
`[1.b]
`[1.c]
`
`[1.d]
`
`[1.e]
`
`[1.f]
`
`
`ACTIVE/105715199.9
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Claim
`Element
`[1.g]
`
`[1.h]
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`[4.a]
`
`[4.b]
`
`[4.c]
`
`[5.a]
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,442,489
`
`
`Claim Limitation
`
`the output being configured to comprise a visual indication of the
`security mode of operation to the user of the one of the plurality of
`computing devices,
`wherein the security mode of operation forces use of one or more
`cryptographic algorithms.
`The system of claim 1, wherein the security mode of operation
`comprises a Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) mode of
`operation.
`The system of claim 2, wherein the FIPS mode of operation includes
`forcing use of Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) or Triple Data
`Encryption Standard (3DES).
`The system of claim 1, wherein the security mode data structure
`comprises a first security mode data structure and a second security
`mode data structure;
`wherein the first security mode data structure includes a first security
`mode being associated with a first plurality of computing devices;
`wherein the second security mode data structure includes a second
`security mode being associated with a second plurality of computing
`devices.
`The system of claim 4, wherein the first security mode of operation
`contained in the first data structure is communicated to the first
`plurality of computing devices in order to place the first plurality of
`computing devices in the first security mode;
`
`
`ACTIVE/105715199.9
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,442,489
`
`
`Claim Limitation
`
`wherein the second security mode of operation contained in the
`second data structure is communicated to the second plurality of
`computing devices in order to place the second plurality of computing
`devices in the second security mode.
`The system of claim 5, wherein the providing of the first security
`mode data structure to the first plurality of devices causes the devices
`in the first plurality of devices to be placed in a FIPS mode of
`operation that includes required use of AES encryption;
`wherein the providing of the second security mode data structure to
`the second plurality of devices causes the devices in the second
`plurality of devices to be placed in a FIPS mode of operation that
`includes required use of Triple DES (3DES) encryption.
`7. The system of claim 1, wherein at least one of the plurality of
`computing devices receives a disable message for disabling the
`security mode of operation of the one of the plurality of computing
`devices.
`The system of claim 1, wherein the policy data store stores IT security
`policies related to the plurality of computing devices;
`wherein an administrator defines through the interface a meta IT
`policy for a security mode of operation;
`wherein the defined security mode of operation limits the use of
`cryptographic algorithms by the devices to those that are specified by
`the meta IT policy.
`
`Claim
`Element
`[5.b]
`
`[6.a]
`
`[6.b]
`
`7.
`
`[8.a]
`
`[8.b]
`
`[8.c]
`
`
`ACTIVE/105715199.9
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,442,489
`
`
`Claim Limitation
`
`Claim
`Element
`9.
`
`9. The system of claim 8, wherein the plurality of computing devices
`are devices from a group that includes mobile devices, desktop
`devices, and combinations thereof.
`[10.pre] A computing device utilizing a centralized policy data store to
`implement a security-related mode of operation, the device
`comprising:
`a communication interface configured to facilitate communication
`between the centralized policy data store and the computing device;
`and a processor communicatively coupled to the communication
`interface, wherein the processor is configured to execute processing
`instructions;
`wherein the processing instructions includes security instructions
`configured to place the computing device in a security mode of
`operation responsive to configuration data received from the
`centralized policy data store via the communication interface;
`wherein the computing device comprises user interface instructions
`configured to send an output to a display associated with the
`computing device,
`the output being configured to comprise a visual indication of the
`security mode of operation to the device's user,
`wherein the security mode of operation forces use of one or more
`cryptographic algorithms.
`The device of claim 10, wherein the processing instructions further
`comprise user interface instructions configured to send an output to a
`
`[10.a]
`
`[10.b]
`
`[10.c]
`
`[10.d]
`
`[10.e]
`
`[10.f]
`
`11.
`
`
`ACTIVE/105715199.9
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,442,489
`
`
`Claim
`Element
`
`Claim Limitation
`
`12.
`
`[13.a]
`
`[13.b]
`
`display associated with the computing device, the output having a
`visual indication of the security mode of operation that is visible to the
`device's user.
`The device of claim 11, wherein the visual indication of the security
`mode is provided by a security options screen.
`The device of claim 12, wherein the security instructions are
`configured to update the security mode of operation responsive to a
`change in the configuration data stored on the centralized policy data
`store,
`wherein a visual indication is provided to the device's user to indicate
`the updated security mode of operation.
`The device of claim 13, further comprising an administrator interface
`for changing the configuration data stored on the centralized policy
`data store.
`The device of claim 10, wherein the configuration data stored on the
`centralized policy data store comprises a plurality of security mode
`data structures contained within the policy data store.
`The device of claim 15, wherein the plurality of security mode data
`structures contains information about which security modes of
`operation are being used by which mobile devices.
`[17.pre] A method for use in establishing a security-related mode of operation
`for a computing device, comprising:
`storing a security mode of operation in a policy data store;
`
`14.
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`[17.a]
`
`
`ACTIVE/105715199.9
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,442,489
`
`
`Claim Limitation
`
`Claim
`Element
`[17.b]
`
`[17.c]
`
`[17.d]
`
`[17.e]
`
`[17.f]
`
`18.
`
`19.
`
`20.
`
`21.
`
`sending the stored security mode of operation to the computing device
`over a network;
`wherein the sent security mode of operation places the computing
`device into a predetermined security-related mode of operation;
`wherein the computing device comprises user interface instructions
`configured to send an output to a display associated with the
`computing device,
`the output being configured to comprise a visual indication of the
`security mode of operation to the device's user,
`wherein the security mode of operation forces use of one or more
`cryptographic algorithms.
`The method of claim 17, further comprising the step of enabling an
`administrator to configure the security mode of operation stored in the
`policy data store.
`The method of claim 17, further comprising the step of displaying the
`security mode of operation of the computing device by providing a
`visual indication on a screen of the computing device.
`The method of claim 17, further comprising the step of receiving an
`indication that the device has received and entered into the sent
`security mode of operation.
`The method of claim 17, wherein the sending of the stored security
`mode of operation forces use of Advanced Encryption Standard
`(AES) or Triple Data Encryption Standard (3DES).
`
`
`ACTIVE/105715199.9
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,442,489
`
`
`Claim Limitation
`
`Claim
`Element
`22.
`
`23.
`
`The method of claim 17, wherein the security mode of operation is
`sent via a digital signal.
`Computer software stored on one or more non-transitory computer
`readable media, the computer software comprising program code for
`carrying out a method according to claim 17.
`
`D. Considerations under 35 U.S.C. §325(d)
`This Petition does not present “the same or substantially the same prior art or
`
`arguments previously were presented to the Office.” 35 U.S.C. §325(d). None of
`
`the prior art references used herein were cited during prosecution of U.S.
`
`Application No. 13/182,827, which issued as the ‘489 patent, or during the
`
`prosecution of original U.S. Application No. 11/065,901, to which the ’489 patent
`
`claims priority, and which matured into U.S. Patent No. 8,010,989.
`
`IV. Overview of the ‘489 Patent
`A.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) as of the ‘489 patent’s April 30,
`
`2004 priority date would have possessed a bachelor’s degree in computer science,
`
`computer engineering, applied mathematics, or related field, and two or more years
`
`of experience in applied cryptography, computer science, computer engineering,
`
`
`ACTIVE/105715199.9
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,442,489
`
`mobile device management, IT or network administration, or a related field.
`
`Ex.1002,¶¶32-34.
`
`B.
`The ‘489 Patent
`The ’489 patent is titled “System and Method for Configuring Devices for
`
`Secure Operation.”
`
`The ’489 patent describes “[s]ystems and methods for establishing a
`
`security-related mode of operation for computing devices.” (Ex.1001, Abstract;
`
`see id., 1:24-30 (describing need to secure mobile devices according to government
`
`policies).)
`
`The ’489 patent’s “Background” section discloses a Federal Information
`
`Processing Standard (“FIPS”) 140-2 based mode of operation as an example of a
`
`known secure mode of operation. (Id., 1:31-36.) The ’489 patent further states that
`
`“defining and configuring a secure mode of operation on an individual IT policy
`
`basis for multiple devices is difficult.” (Id., 1:36-42.)
`
`As a purported novel solution to the above-described problem, the ’489
`
`patent describes “systems and methods” “for establishing security-related modes of
`
`operation for computing devices,” where “a policy data store contains security
`
`mode configuration data” that is “related to the computing devices,” and that is
`
`“used in establishing a security-related mode of operation for the computing
`
`
`ACTIVE/105715199.9
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,442,489
`
`devices.” (Id., 1:46-52; Ex.1002, ¶¶35-39.)
`
`Specifically, the ’489 patent describes “a system wherein an IT (information
`
`technology) administrator 200 can collect all applicable IT security policies 202
`
`into one convenient location (e.g., policy data store 210),” “configure the policies
`
`202 appropriately, and [] enable (220) or disable (230) a secure mode defined
`
`therein for the devices 250.” (Id., 5:48-61; FIG. 3.)
`
`The ’489 patent describes how an administrator can instruct devices to
`
`switch between “different secure mode of operation,” and providing a “visual
`
`indication 350 [that] indicates to the user 352 that the device 252 is operating in a
`
`specific secure mode” such as a “FIPS mode.” (Id., 5:62-64 and 6:4-11.) “[A]
`
`security policy [may be] deployed to multiple devices,” (id., 6:12-13; FIG. 6),
`
`where “the devices receive the deployed security mode and process the mode
`
`command,” “caus[ing] the devices to operate in the defined security mode,” where
`
`“a user of the device can see an indication of” the mode of operation, and “the IT
`
`administrator receives an indication from the devices” of their modes. (Id., 6:22-
`
`20; FIG. 6.)
`
`The ’489 patent also states: “an IT administrator 200 can define a meta IT
`
`policy for a FIPS mode of operation” by setting “parameters for the FIPS mode,”
`
`where the “defined FIPS mode” “limits the use of cryptographic algorithms by the
`
`devices 250 to those that are FIPS-approved (e.g., AES and Triple DES).” (Id.,
`14
`
`
`ACTIVE/105715199.9
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,442,489
`
`6:35-43; FIG. 7; Ex.1002, ¶¶40-43.)
`
`C.
`Prosecution of the ’489 Patent
`The ‘489 patent issued from U.S. Patent Application Number 13/182,827
`
`(the “’827 application”), filed on July 14, 2011, as a continuation of Application
`
`No. 11/065,901, filed on February 25, 2005, which claims priority to U.S.
`
`Provisional Patent Application No. 60/567,137, filed on April 30, 2004.
`
`The ‘827 application was filed with 24 claims, including independent system
`
`or device claims 1, 10, and 24 and independent method claim 17. Claim 23 is a
`
`Beauregard claim that depends from claim the method claim 17. (Ex.1003 at 142-
`
`48.)
`
`On August 8, 2012, the Examiner issued a non-final Office action, rejecting
`
`claims 1, 10, 17, and 24 “on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness type double
`
`patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 8,010,989” (the
`
`“’989 patent”), claim 22 under § 101, all the claims under § 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over two combinations of references. (Id. at 179, 180, and 186.)
`
`During prosecution of the ’989 patent, in distinguishing applicant’s claims from
`
`the prior art cited in an Office action, applicant stated: “all of the settings are
`
`established by the user, which is the antithesis of what the security mode of
`
`operation [] is to accomplish.” (Ex.1004 at 196; Ex.1002, ¶¶44-51.)
`
`
`ACTIVE/105715199.9
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,442,489
`
`
`On November 2, 2012, the Applicant filed a terminal disclaimer to overcome
`
`the obviousness-type double patenting rejection, (id. at 201-04), and presented
`
`arguments regarding the prior art rejections without amending the claims. (Id.,
`
`208-21.)
`
`Thereafter, the Examiner issued a Notice of Allowance on January 17, 2013,
`
`stating in the reasons for allowance that the prior art of the record failed to teach or
`
`suggest “a cryptographic security mode of operation that forces the use of one or
`
`more cryptographic algorithms” and “places the computing devices in a
`
`predetermined security mode of operation.” (Id. at 223 and 228.)
`
`V. Claim Construction
` For the purposes of this Petition, claim terms should be given their plain and
`
`ordinary meaning.2 There are no prior claim construction rulings on the ’489
`
`patent claims. Petitioner reserves its right to respond to any claim construction
`
`arguments Patent Owner makes in response to this Petition.
`
`
`2 Nothing in this Petition should be construed as an admission that the claims, read
`
`in light of the specification and the prosecution history, inform a POSA with
`
`reasonable certainty about the scope of the invention.
`
`
`ACTIVE/105715199.9
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,442,489
`
`VI. Overview of the Prior Art
`A. Mann [Ex.1005]
`U.S. Patent 7,665,118 (“Mann”) was filed on September 23, 2002 and issued
`
`on Feb. 16, 2010 and, thus, is prior art to the ’489 patent at least under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(e) (pre-AIA).
`
`Mann describes a system that enables an organization to secure and manage
`
`mobile devices, using a server to allow administrators to “centrally create new
`
`mobile security policies” and then “distribute them to a diverse population of
`
`mobile devices” by pushing the security policies to one or more mobile devices.
`
`(Ex.1005, 3:32-40; FIG. 1; Ex.1002, ¶¶59-60.)
`
`Mann discloses forming policies, which are stored in a consolidated
`
`directory or, in a data directory associated with LDAP (“Lightweight Directory
`
`
`
`
`ACTIVE/105715199.9
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,442,489
`
`Access Protocol”). (Ex.1002, ¶61; Ex.1005, 4:1-8, 8:27-34 (describing policy
`
`files), 8:52-54 (describing tables of device-configuration parameters).) Mann also
`
`describes a mobile device having a “rules engine” to enforce policies received
`
`from a server. (Ex.1005, 11:62-67, 12:19-29, 13:14-15 and 13:18-20; FIG. 6;
`
`Ex.1002, ¶62-67.)
`
`
`
`B.
`Kaplan [Ex.1006]
`U.S. Patent 7,043,263 (“Kaplan”) was filed on April 11, 2002 and issued on
`
`May 9, 2006 and, thus, is prior art to the ’489 patent at least under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(e) (pre-AIA).
`
`Kaplan describes “a method for configuring a mobile” device where “an
`
`administrator, operating independently” can “use a SMS or an IOTA protocol to
`
`communicate feature codes to a mobile, as well as to retrieve the current
`
`
`ACTIVE/105715199.9
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,442,489
`
`configuration status of the mobile.” (Ex.1006, 4:24-29.)
`
`Specificall