UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________
`
`ROKU, INC. and VIZIO, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ANCORA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`__________
`
`Case IPR2021-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941 B1
`
`____________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01406: Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1 
`I. 
`II.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................ 2 
`A. 
`The Plain Meaning of “Agent” Excludes Hardware in the
`Context of the ’941 Patent ................................................................... 2 
`Ancora’s Interpretation of “Agent” is Not Inconsistent with
`Positions it Adopted in Related District Court Cases ......................... 4 
`“Agent” Is Properly Interpreted to Require an OS-Level
`Software Program or Routine in View of the ’941 File History ......... 6 
`The Meaning of “OS-Level” Is Reasonably Certain ........................ 10 
`D. 
`III.  NEITHER HELLMAN NOR CHOU NOR THE ALLEGED
`COMBINATION DISCLOSES USING AN AGENT TO SET UP A
`VERIFICATION STRUCTURE IN THE ERASABLE, NON-VOLATILE
`MEMORY OF THE BIOS .................................................................................. 10 
`A.  Hellman Discloses Hardware Used to Store License Records In
`an EEPROM, and Replacing Hellman’s Hardware with
`Software Would Not Have Been Obvious ........................................ 11 
`Hellman Does Not Disclose Any Operating System, Nor Would
`the Asserted Combination Render the Claimed Agent Obvious ...... 13 
`The Reply Does Not Redeem Petitioners’ Failed Motivation to
`Combine Arguments ......................................................................... 17 
`1. 
`Petitioners’ Reply Fails to Resurrect the Petition’s Flawed
`Motivation to Modify Hellman’s EEPROM ........................... 17 
`The Reply Fails to Establish a Motivation for Value “M”
`in Chou’s BIOS Memory ........................................................ 19 
`Petitioners’ Supplemental “Verification Structure” Arguments
`Did Not Appear in the Petition or the Supporting Wolfe
`Declaration ........................................................................................ 19 
`
`2. 
`
`D. 
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01406: Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`IV.  PETITIONERS’ MODIFIED HELLMAN, ASSERTED AGAINST
`DEPENDENT CLAIMS 3, 8, 9, AND 14, RELIES ON THE ’941 PATENT
`AS THE ROADMAP FOR SELECTING A SINGLE SPECIFIC
`EMBODIMENT IN A PARTICULAR WAY ................................................... 20 
`V.  OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE OF NON-OBVIOUSNESS ......................... 21 
`A. 
`The Joint Press Release Establishes Industry Praise ......................... 21 
`B. 
`Additional Settlement Agreements Show the Value of the ’941
`Patent ................................................................................................. 21 
`Settlements for Less That the Cost of Litigation Have No Value
`When Evaluating Commercial Success of the ’941 Patent ............... 22 
`VI.  CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 24 
`
`C. 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01406: Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`Cases 
`Akzo N.V. v. United States ITC,
`808 F.2d 1471 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ............................................................................ 20
`Ancora Techs., Inc. v. Apple, Inc.,
`74 F.3d 732 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................................. 9
`Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`856 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .............................................................................. 6
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC,
`No. IPR2014-00454, paper 12 at 9–10 (PTAB Aug. 29, 2014) ............................. 2
`Cole Kepro Int’l, LLC v. VSR Inds., Inc.,
`695 Fed. Appx. 566 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ................................................................... 22
`Communique Lab., Inc. v. Citrix Xyx., Inc.,
`889 F.3d 735 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ................................................................................ 4
`GE Lighting Sols., LLC v. AgiLight, Inc.,
`750 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .............................................................................. 7
`Ideal Instruments, Inc. v. Rivard Instruments, Inc.,
`498 F. Supp. 2d 1131 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ................................................................... 3
`Irdeto Access, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp.,
`383 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .............................................................................. 3
`Iron Grip Barbell Co. v. USA Sports, Inc.,
`392 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................ 22
`Kaken Pharma. Co., Ltd. v. Iancu,
`952 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .............................................................................. 6
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`572 U.S. 898 (2014) ............................................................................................. 10
`Novatis AG v. Noven Pharms., Inc.,
`853 F.3d 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .............................................................................. 5
`Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Drilling USA, Inc.,
`699 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................ 22
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .............................................................................. 6
`Rembrandt Wireless Techs., LP v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd.,
`853 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .............................................................................. 6
`Regulations 
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23 ..................................................................................................... 19
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01406: Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`EXHIBIT NO. TITLE
`1001
`U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941 to Mullor et al. (“’941 Patent”)
`Image File Wrapper of U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941 (“File
`1002
`History”)
`1003
`Declaration of Andrew Wolfe, Ph.D. (“Wolfe Decl.”)
`1004
`U.S. Patent No. 4,658,093 (“Hellman”)
`1005
`U.S. Patent No. 5,892,906 (“Chou”)
`1006
`U.S. Patent No. 5,933,498 (“Schneck”)
`1007
`Reserved
`1008
`Reserved
`1009
`Reserved
`1010
`Reserved
`Claim Construction Order, Ancora Techs., Inc. v. Apple Inc., No.
`1011
`4:11-cv-06357 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 31, 2012) (ECF No. 107).
`Final Claim Constructions of the Court, Ancora Techs., Inc. v.
`LG Elecs., Inc., No. 1:20-cv-00034 (W.D. Tex. June 2, 2020)
`(ECF No. 69).
`Supplemental Claim Construction Order, Ancora Techs., Inc. v.
`LG Elecs., Inc., No. 1:20-cv-00034 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 19, 2020)
`(ECF No. 93).
`Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement, Ancora
`Techs., Inc. v. TCT Mobile (US), Inc., No. 8:19-cv-2192 (C.D.
`Cal. July 17, 2020) (ECF No. 49)
`
`European Patent Application No. EP 0766165A2 (“’165
`Application”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,724,425 (“’425 Patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,138,236 (“’236 Patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,802,592 (“’592 Patent”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,835,594 (“’594 Patent”)
`Telephonic Markman Hearing, Ancora Techs., Inc. v. TCT
`Mobile (US), Inc., et al., No. 8:19-cv-2192 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 15,
`2020) (ECF No. 60)
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`1018
`1019
`
`1020
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01406: Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`1021
`
`1022
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030-1032
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`1038
`1039
`
`Telephonic Markman Hearing, Ancora Techs., Inc. v. TCT
`Mobile (US), Inc., et al., No. 8:19-cv-2192 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 15,
`2020) (ECF No. 69)
`Complaint, Ancora Techs., Inc. v. TCL Corp., et al., No. 4:19-
`cv-00624 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 27, 2019) (ECF No. 1)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,734,819 (“Lewis”)
`File Wrapper of Ex Parte Reexamination of U.S. Patent No.
`6,411,941, Control No. 90/010,560 (“’560 Reexam File
`Wrapper”)
`Order Re: Joint Stipulation Re Stay Pending Inter Partes
`Review, Ancora Techs., Inc. v. Vizio, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-08534
`(C.D. Cal.) (ECF No. 78)
`Order Granting Joint Motion to Stay Pending Inter Partes
`Review, Ancora Techs., Inc. v. Roku, Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00737
`(W.D. Tex.) (ECF No. 33)
`Order Granting Joint Motion to Stay Pending Inter Partes
`Review, Ancora Techs., Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., et al., No.
`6:21-cv-00738 (W.D. Tex.) (ECF No. 46)
`Board Email Authorizing Motion For Additional Discovery,
`May 27, 2022
`Plaintiff’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief, Ancora Techs.,
`Inc., et al. v. LG Electronics, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00034-
`ADA (W.D. Tex., April 10, 2020) (ECF No. 50)
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Declaration of Andrew Wolfe, Ph.D., in Support of Petitioners’
`Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`Transcript of the Deposition of Miki Mullor, July 12, 2022
`(Confidential)
`Transcript of the Deposition of David Martin, Ph.D., July 14,
`2022
`Plaintiff’s Opening Claim Construction Brief, Ancora Techs.,
`Inc., et al. v. LG Electronics, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00034-
`ADA (W.D. Tex., March 20, 2020) (ECF No. 44)
`Denon DP-35F/DP-45F Instruction Manual, Nippon Columbia
`Co., Ltd.
`Excerpt from Dictionary of Computing, 4th ed., Oxford
`University Press, 1996
`U.S. Patent No. 5,568,552 to Davis
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01406: Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`1040
`
`1041
`1042
`1043
`1044 – 1049
`1050
`1051
`1052
`1053
`1054
`
`2001
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`2008
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`Guttman, B., et al., Computer Security, National Institute of
`Standards and Technology, 1995)
`Kaliski, B., “PKCS #1: RSA Encryption,” RFC 2313, The
`Internet Society, Network Working Group, March 1998
`U.S. Patent No. 5,724,425 to Chang et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,935,246 to Benson
`Intentionally Left Blank
`LG Settlement and License Agreement (Confidential)
`TCL Settlement (Confidential)
`Sony Settlement and License Agreement (Confidential)
`Microsoft Settlement and License Agreement (Confidential)
`Lenovo Settlement and License Agreement (Confidential)
`
`Microsoft Corporation’s Request for Ex Parte Reexamination
`Image File Wrapper, Control No. 90010560
`Ancora Techs., Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 744 F.3d 732 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
`Deposition Excerpts of Jon Weissman, Ancora Techs., Inc. v.
`HTC America, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-01919 (W.D. Wa. Sep. 9,
`2019)
`Declaration of Ian Jestice, Ancora Techs., Inc. v. HTC America,
`Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-01919 (W.D. Wa. Aug. 26, 2019)
`Brief of Appellees HTC America, Inc. and HTC Corporation,
`Ancora Techs., Inc. v. HTC America, Inc., HTC Corp., Case No.
`18-1404 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 23, 2018)
`Declaration of Jon Weissman, Ancora Techs., Inc. v. HTC
`America, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-01919 (W.D. Wa. Sep. 4, 2019)
`Terplan, Kornel, Morreale, Patricia, THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS
`HANDBOOK, CRC Press, 2000
`COMPUTER USER’S DICTIONARY, Microsoft Press, 1998
`MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY FOURTH EDITION, Microsoft
`Press,1999
`PC MAGAZINE ENCYCLOPEDIA, available at
`https://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia (excerpt, definition of
`“Agent”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941 File History with Beeble White Paper
`Joint Claim Construction Chart, Ancora Techs., Inc. v. TCT
`Mobile (US) Inc., Huizhou TCL Mobile Commc’n Co., Ltd., and
`Shenzhen TCL Creative Cloud Tech. Co., Ltd., Case No. 8:19-
`cv-02192 (Dkt. #49, 49-1, 49-2)
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01406: Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`Declaration of Dr. David Martin, Ph.D., Sony Mobile Commc’ns
`AB, Sony Mobile Commc’ns, Inc., Sony Elecs. Inc., and Sony
`Corp. v. Ancora Techs., Inc., IPR2021-00663, Ex. 2015 (PTAB
`Apr. 23, 2021)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,189,146 (Misra)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,479,639 (Ewertz)
`Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review, Samsung
`Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v.
`Ancora Technologies, Inc., IPR2020-01184
`Declaration of Ian Jestice, Ancora Technologies Inc. v. LG
`Electronics Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A. Inc., Samsung
`Electronics Co., Ltd., and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,
`Case No. 1:20-cv-00034 (Dkt. # 44-8)
`Declaration of Dr. David Martin (May 3, 2022)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,892,900 (Ginter)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,734,819 (Lewis)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,153,835 (Schwartz)
`Ancora Techs. Inc. v. Apple, inc., Case No. 4:11-cv-06357 (Dkt.
`# 171-3) [Apple Inc.’s N.D. Cal. L.R. 3-3 (Invalidity)
`Disclosures]
`Petition, HTC Corp. v. Ancora Techs. Inc., Case No. CBM2017-
`00054, Paper 1 (PTAB May 26, 2017)
`Institution Decision, HTC Corp. v. Ancora Techs. Inc., Case No.
`CBM2017-00054, Paper 7 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2017)
`Croucher, “The BIOS Companion” (1997) (Excerpts)
`Transcript of Deposition of Dr. Andrew Wolfe (April 22, 2022)
`Joint News Release (February 14, 2005)
`March 25, 2022 Email from Board regarding IPR2021-01338
`and IPR2021-01406
`
` (Confidential)
`Declaration of Miki Mullor
`
` (Confidential)
` (Confidential)
`
`Reserved
`Reserved
`AIPLA statistics
`Reserved
`
`2013
`
`2014
`2015
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`2018
`2019
`2020
`2021
`
`2022
`
`2023
`
`2024
`2025
`2026
`2027
`2028
`2029
`2030
`2031
`2032
`2033
`2034
`2035
`2036
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01406: Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`2037
`
`2038
`2039
`2040
`2041
`2042
`
`2043
`
`2044
`2045
`
`2046
`
`2047
`
`2048
`
`2049
`
`2050
`
`2051
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Confidential)
`Proposed Protective Order
`Redline Relative To Standard Protective Order
`Reserved
`Reserved
`Barron’s Dictionary of Computing and Internet Terms (5th Ed.
`1996)
`Decision Granting Institution, Case No. IPR2020-01609, Paper
`7 (PTAB Feb. 16, 2021)
`Free On-Line Dictionary of Computing (June 6, 1999), available
`at http://foldoc.org/bios
`U.S. Patent No. 5,684,951 (Goldman)
`Paul C. Kocher, Timing Attacks on Implementations of Diffie-
`Hellman, RSA, DSS, and Other Systems, Proceedings of 16th
`Annual Int’l Cryptology Conf. (Aug. 18–22, 1996)
`Ancora’s Patent Owner Preliminary Response, Sony Mobile
`Communications AB v. Ancora Techs., Inc., Case No. IPR2021-
`0063, Paper 13 (PTAB Apr. 23, 2021)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` (Confidential)
`
`
`
`(Confidential)
`
`(Confidential)
`
`(Confidential)
`
`viii
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01406: Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`As discussed in Ancora’s Response, both the applicants and the USPTO
`
`examiner agreed that the novelty of the ’941 patent included using an OS level
`
`software program or routine to set up a verification structure in the memory of the
`
`BIOS, as recited in claims 1 and 18 of the ’941 patent. Petitioners’ Reply erroneously
`
`maintains that the purported novelty of the ’941 patent is the mere storing a
`
`verification structure in BIOS—ignoring intrinsic evidence that emphasizes the
`
`importance of distinguishing OS level software from BIOS routines.
`
`The Reply further relies on a series of improper, hindsight-biased arguments
`
`and assumptions relating to Hellman and Chou. Petitioners’ arguments cannot
`
`overcome the differences cited in Ancora’s Response. Specifically, Hellman never
`
`mentions BIOS or any operating system, and does not disclose a BIOS EEPROM.
`
`Combined, Hellman and Chou do not disclose an OS-level software program or
`
`routine for setting up a verification structure, which was the differentiator that the
`
`applicants and the examiner cited during prosecution of the ’941 patent.
`
`Lastly, the Reply attempts to impugn Ancora and its settlement agreements.
`
`Petitioners offer no legal basis for its theory that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01406: Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A. The Plain Meaning of “Agent” Excludes Hardware in the Context
`of the ’941 Patent
`The plain meaning of “agent” requires “a software program or routine.” (See
`
`POR 33.) Multiple technical dictionaries, relied on by Ancora’s expert Dr. Martin,
`
`require this meaning. (See Ex. 2018 ¶¶126, 133; Ex. 2007 at 2–11; Ex. 2008 at 13;
`
`Ex. 2009 at 18–19; Ex. 2010 at 1.) Petitioners argue in passing that the plain and
`
`ordinary meaning of “agent” is not limited to software. (Reply 1–2.) The Reply cites
`
`nine contiguous paragraphs of Dr. Wolfe’s declaration, does not cite either of the
`
`underlying references, and does not discuss Dr. Wolfe’s analysis, leaving the
`
`impression that it seeks to improperly incorporate Dr. Wolfe’s analysis by reference.
`
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC, No. IPR2014-00454, paper 12 at 9–10
`
`(PTAB Aug. 29, 2014) (informative) (noting impropriety of citations to an expert
`
`declaration “to support conclusory statements for which petition does not otherwise
`
`provide an argument or explanation”).
`
`Dr. Wolfe’s supplemental declaration relies solely on a dictionary definition
`
`that relates to “robots” and a patent that discloses a unique “hardware agent”—
`
`neither of which applies in the context of the ’941 patent. (Ex. 1033 ¶5 (citing Ex.
`
`1038 & Ex. 1039).) The Oxford Dictionary of Computing, cited by Dr. Wolfe,
`
`explicitly explains that a “robot (see robotics) is an example of an agent that
`
`perceives its physical environment through sensors and acts through effectors.” (Ex.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01406: Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`1038 at 4.) The definition does not identify any other agent comprising “hardware.”
`
`(Id.) The definition is inconsistent with the ’941 patent and should not be relied upon.
`
`See Ideal Instruments, Inc. v. Rivard Instruments, Inc., 498 F. Supp. 2d 1131, 1153
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2007) (“the court must choose the proper dictionary definition in light of
`
`the ‘intrinsic’ evidence of the meaning of patent terms”). The use of special hardware
`
`in the agent would be anathema to the ’941 patent, which specifically distinguishes
`
`prior art hardware-based products. (Ex. 1001 1:27–35; Ex. 2018 ¶61 (“the ’941
`
`patent discloses using existing computer hardware with ‘a conventional BIOS
`
`module . . . .’”) (emphasis added).)
`
`The Davis patent (Ex. 1039) cited by Dr. Wolfe likewise does not establish
`
`that “agent” is normally understood to include hardware. Davis does not disclose a
`
`single instance where the unmodified word “agent” is used to describe a hardware-
`
`based agent. (See, e.g., Ex. 1039 8:55–9:12.) Instead, Davis consistently uses
`
`“hardware agent” as shorthand to describe an integrated circuit component. (Id. 3:1–
`
`10 (integrated circuit component is “a hardware agent”).) Further, usage in a patent
`
`does not necessarily indicate a word’s plain meaning since it is well known that
`
`patentees are free to act—even by implication—as their own lexicographers. See
`
`Irdeto Access, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp., 383 F.3d 1295, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01406: Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`B. Ancora’s Interpretation of “Agent” is Not Inconsistent with
`Positions it Adopted in Related District Court Cases
`Ancora has never opposed a construction requiring “agent” to be an “OS level
`
`software program or routine.” Contrary to the alleged “practicing the prior art”
`
`defense at issue in 01 Communique, Petitioners here cite no evidence that
`
`infringement or invalidity would have come out differently in any case where
`
`Ancora argued for the plain meaning of “agent.” Cf. 01 Communique Lab., Inc. v.
`
`Citrix Xyx., Inc., 889 F.3d 735, 741–42 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (alternate invalidity defense
`
`was allowable at trial to prevent patentee from attempting “to expand the scope of
`
`its claims”). Further, in Ancora’s earlier lawsuits Ancora was opposing defendants’
`
`means-plus-function arguments. (See Ex. 1070 at 17 (“the parties’ dispute regarding
`
`this term is whether ‘agent’ is a nonce word”); Ex. 1071 at 2; Ex. 1073 at 12–19; Ex.
`
`1074 at 6–7; Ex. 1075 at 3.)
`
`Defendants in prior district court proceedings could have argued that “agent”
`
`should be limited to the narrower “OS level software routine or program” asserted
`
`here. Certainly, they would have asserted this narrower construction of “agent” if it
`
`could have helped their case. In fact, defendants LG and Samsung argued that the
`
`prosecution history required the “verifying” and “acting on” steps to be performed
`
`by an OS level application. (See Ex. 1070 at 22 & 26.) Ancora distinguished
`
`arguments relating to the claimed agent in the “setting up step” from the subsequent
`
`“verifying” and “acting on” steps. (See Ex. 1071 at 17.) Specifically, the examiner’s
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01406: Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`reasons for allowance did not amount to a disavowal with respect to the “verifying”
`
`and “acting on” steps, because context suggested “the OS-level ‘agent’ is required
`
`only to ‘set up a verification structure in the erasable, non-volatile memory of the
`
`BIOS.’” (Id. at 18.) The district court agreed. (Ex. 1012 at 4.)
`
`Throughout claim construction briefing in the Samsung and LG cases, Ancora
`
`noted that the claimed “agent” is OS-level. (See Ex. 1070 at 2, 14, & 23; Ex. 1071
`
`at 5, 15–16, & 17–19; Ex. 1072 at 6 & 12–14.) Specifically, Ancora argued that
`
`“where the patentee intended that an OS-level program or application participate in
`
`a particular step, it amended the claims to say so specifically by adding the term
`
`‘agent.’” (Ex. 1070 at 23; see also id. at 24 & 26; Ex. 1071 at 17–19.) Ancora
`
`similarly argued that “the ‘setting up’ step requires the involvement of an OS-level
`
`software program or routine (i.e. an agent).” (Ex. 1072 at 12; see also id. at 13–14.)
`
`In short, Ancora’s Response is consistent with arguments from the Samsung and LG
`
`cases.
`
`Finally, differences in the burden of proof in IPR proceedings justify Ancora’s
`
`more-cautious interpretation of the claims in this matter. See Novatis AG v. Noven
`
`Pharms., Inc., 853 F.3d 1289, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2017). And applying prosecution
`
`history disclaimer here does not unfairly prejudice Petitioners. In the district court,
`
`“statements made by a patent owner during an IPR proceeding, whether before or
`
`after an institution decision, can be considered for claim construction and relied upon
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01406: Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`to support a finding of prosecution disclaimer.” Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`
`856 F.3d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`C.
`“Agent” Is Properly Interpreted to Require an OS-Level Software
`Program or Routine in View of the ’941 File History
`As discussed in the Response, disavowal of claim scope can be shown by the
`
`applicant’s actions during prosecution of a patent, particularly when the examiner
`
`accedes to the applicant’s position. (POR 31–32 (citing Rembrandt Wireless Techs.,
`
`LP v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 853 F.3d 1370, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Kaken
`
`Pharma. Co., Ltd. v. Iancu, 952 F.3d 1346, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2020).) None of
`
`Petitioners’ comments about the prosecution of the ’941 patent change the remarks
`
`offered by the applicants or the examiner. (See Reply 3–4.) And Petitioners’ appeal
`
`to extrinsic comments by the inventor, Ancora, or Ancora’s expert merits little or no
`
`weight relative to the prosecution history. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
`
`1318 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (extrinsic evidence is generally “less reliable than the patent
`
`and its prosecution history”). Petitioners’ “purported novelty” arguments are
`
`particularly unreliable given their lack of context—citing for example the district
`
`court’s wholly irrelevant discussion of “first non-volatile memory area of the
`
`computer.” (Compare Ex. 1020 at 14–18 with Reply 4–5 (citing Ex. 1020 at 18).)
`
`Lastly, Petitioners’ summary of the ’941 patent prosecution history does not
`
`contradict the way the Response characterized the history and the relevant
`
`references. (See POR 12–14 (Misra), 14–16 (Ewertz), 34 (applicants’ remarks).)
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01406: Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`The GE Lighting case cited in the Reply is factually differentiable because
`
`there, the district court erred by limiting the scope of the disputed term based on the
`
`single embodiment disclosed in the specification. GE Lighting Sols., LLC v.
`
`AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1308–09 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`Here, as discussed in Ancora’s Response, both the applicants and the
`
`examiner entered remarks that require a narrower interpretation of “agent.” (POR
`
`34–35.) The remarks in applicants’ February 5, 2002 amendment were clearly and
`
`unmistakably aimed at the function of the claimed agent—not the “selecting,”
`
`“verifying,” or “acting on” steps recited in the claims. Applicant argued that the cited
`
`references “do not teach or suggest, among other things, storing a verification
`
`structure, such as a software license information, in the BIOS of a computer as is
`
`recited in the present claim.” (Ex. 2011 at ANCC000151 (emphasis added).)
`
`Applicant secondly argued that there was no motivation to combine the cited
`
`references because “BIOS and OS level programs are normally mutually exclusive,”
`
`making it undesirable to combine the BIOS routines in Ewertz with Misra’s OS level
`
`license generator. (Id. at ANCC000153–54 (emphasis added).) Third, applicant
`
`argued that the invention proceeded against conventional wisdom in the art because
`
`“[t]here is no OS support whatsoever to write data to the system BIOS” and because
`
`the lack of a file system associated with the BIOS “is further evidence that OS level
`
`application programmers would not consider the BIOS as a storage medium for
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01406: Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`license data.” (Id. at ANCC000154 (emphasis added).) Fourth, applicant argued that
`
`“it is clear that Misra teaches away from using the BIOS as a local storage area for
`
`licenses.” (Id. at ANCC000155 (emphasis added).)
`
`The fact that the word “agent” is unstated in the February 5, 2022 amendment
`
`does not change the thrust of applicant’s arguments. After filing that amendment,
`
`applicants interviewed the examiner and agreed to further amend claim 20 (claim 18
`
`in the ’941 patent) to add “agent.” (Id. at ANCC000160 (noting interview on Feb.
`
`19, 2002).) As noted in Ancora’s Response (POR 34–35), the examiner’s reasons
`
`for allowance explained that the cited references “do not teach licensed programs
`
`running at the OS level interacting with a program verification structure stored in
`
`the BIOS” and that “a computer BIOS is not setup to manage a software license
`
`verification structure.” (Ex. 2011 at ANCC000162 (emphasis added).) The examiner
`
`further stated that “[t]he present invention overcomes this difficulty by using an
`
`agent to set up a verification structure in the erasable, non-volatile memory of the
`
`BIOS.” (Id.) Taken as a whole, the examiner’s statement clearly and unmistakably
`
`refers to the claimed agent.
`
`The Board should reject Petitioners’ attempt to pin the “OS-level” limitation
`
`imposed by the prosecution history on straw-man “verifying software.” (See Reply
`
`6–7.) “Verifying software” is not expressly recited in any claim in the ’941 patent,
`
`as Petitioners acknowledge. (Reply 6.) And the Reply fails to identify a single
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01406: Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`instance where “verifying software” appears in the written description or the file
`
`history—in fact it does not. (See Ex. 1001; Ex. 2011.) As discussed in Ancora’s
`
`Response, the Federal Circuit used “verifying software” as shorthand to distinguish
`
`“to-be-verified software” when discussing claim construction arguments related to
`
`the “to-be-verified software.” (POR 35–36 (discussing Ancora Techs., Inc. v. Apple,
`
`Inc., 74 F.3d 732, 735–36 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).) Further, the prosecution history
`
`explicitly contradicts Petitioners’ argument that only the “verifying software” must
`
`be OS-level, or that the examiner did not tie OS-level implementation to the agent.
`
`As emphasized above, the examiner noted the importance of the OS level interacting
`
`with a program verification structure and further explained that the Claim 1
`
`embodiment overcame the art “by using an agent to set up a verification structure.”
`
`(Ex. 2011 at ANCC000162 (emphasis added).) The examiner likewise noted that
`
`independent claim 20 (claim 18 in the issued ’941 patent) overcame the prior art “by
`
`utilizing an agent to verify the application software program using the license
`
`information stored in the erasable, writable, non-volatile memory of the BIOS.” (Id.
`
`at ANCC000163 (emphasis added); see also Ex. 1071 at 17–18.)
`
`Even if the examiner’s remarks related only to “verifying software,”
`
`Petitioners have not identified any reason why the remarks do not also require the
`
`agent used by the verifying software to be OS-level. As discussed above, the
`
`examiner’s remarks explicitly discuss the agent in the context of setting up the
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01406: Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`verification structure. (Ex. 2011 at ANCC000162–63.) Requiring an OS-level agent
`
`also comports with the disclosure of the ’941 patent. Dr. Martin’s uncontradicted
`
`testimony establishes that the E2PROM manipulation commands disclosed in the
`
`’941 patent describe OS-level activity. (Ex. 1035 136:8–138:17; see Ex. 1001 1:65–
`
`2:9.)
`
`D. The Meaning of “OS-Level” Is Reasonably Certain
`The Reply argues in passing that Dr. Martin articulated several interpretations
`
`of “OS-level” at his deposition, without citing a single instance and without
`
`articulating any reason this would matter. (Reply 8.) But “absolute precision is
`
`unattainable” in patented claims. Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S.
`
`898, 910 (2014). Dr. Wolfe, allegedly applying the knowledge of one skilled in the
`
`art, evaluates Hellman under the “varying criteria” articulated by Dr. Martin. (Ex.
`
`1033 ¶¶27–41.) In short, the exact meaning of OS level is a non-issue.
`
`I.
`NEITHER HELLMAN NOR CHOU NOR THE ALLEGED
`COMBINATION DISCLOSES USING AN AGENT TO SET UP A
`VERIFICATION STRUCTURE IN THE ERASABLE, NON-VOLATILE
`MEMORY OF THE BIOS
`
`The crux of the asserted Grounds is that Hellman—which does not disclose a
`
`BIOS, an operating system, or any software routine or program (OS level or
`
`otherwise) that sets up a verification structure in the memory of the BIOS—would
`
`have rendered the claims obvious in view of Chou. The Petition and Institution
`
`Decision assert that Chou teaches storing sensitive information in the BIOS
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01406: Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`EEPROM to reduce the risk of tampering with that information. (E.g., Pet. 32; ID
`
`16–17 & 26.) But Chou teaches, at most, a means for password protection that cannot
`
`be defeated by removing CMOS RAM power. (POR 52–53; Ex. 2018 ¶¶191–92.)
`
`Chou discloses an attack that deleted data stored in CMOS RAM on prior art devices,
`
`by removing power from the RAM. (Ex. 1005 1:54–62.) Chou’s design beneficially
`
`stores data in non-volatile EEPROM that happens also to store the BIOS. Chou does
`
`not contemplate any other type of attack that could delete its password information
`
`and does not disclose any attack that would modify password information. Further,
`
`Chou discloses only storing a password for use by BIOS routines that run at startup;
`
`including SETUP mode 105. (Id. 8:42–61, FIG. 10.) Petitioners attempt to fill the
`
`gaps in the express disclosures of Hellman and Chou with a series of improper
`
`hindsight arguments that follow the roadmap provided by ’941 patent’s claims, as
`
`discussed below.
`
`A. Hellman Discloses Hardware Used to Store License Records In an
`EEPROM, and Replacing Hellman’s Hardware with Software Would
`Not Have Been Obvious
`The Petition alleged that “the update unit 36 and the authorization and billing
`
`unit 13 were both implemented in software or a combination of software and
`
`hardware.” (Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶137–138A).) Dr. Wolfe’s original declaration
`
`never supported this theory, and instead conceded that Hellman does not explicitly
`
`teach a software-based implementation of update unit 36. (POR 60 (citing Ex. 1003
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01406: Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`¶¶137 & 138A).) Ancora’s Response, supported by Dr. Martin, further explained
`
`why Hellman’s update unit 36 must be understood as hardware. (POR 60; Ex. 2018
`
`¶¶164–71.) In their Reply, Petitioners seemingly concede that Hellman does not
`
`disclose a software-based update unit 36. (See Reply 9.)
`
`The Reply now argues that a skilled artisan “would have been motivated” to
`
`change the implementation of the update unit 36, shifting to a pure obviousness
`
`argument. Ancora’s Response specifically addressed Petitioners’ sole asserted
`
`mo