`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PROXENSE, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`___________________
`
`IPR2021-_____
`Patent No. 8,352,730
`___________________
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,352,730
`UNDER 35 U.S.C § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,352,730
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`I.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 2
`
`A. Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)) ..................................... 2
`
`B. Real Party in Interest ................................................................................ 3
`
`C. Related Matters ......................................................................................... 3
`
`D. Lead and Back-Up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)) and Service
`Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)-(4)) ........................................... 3
`
`E. Payment of Fees (37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a)) ................................................... 4
`
`III. LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART ................................................................... 4
`
`III.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED ......... 5
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’730 PATENT ............................................................ 6
`
`A.
`
`Prosecution History ............................................................................... 7
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 8
`
`VI. CITED ART ..................................................................................................... 9
`
`A.
`
`Scott (WO1999056429) ........................................................................ 9
`
`B.
`
`Russell (US20040044627) ..................................................................10
`
`C.
`
`Lapsley (US2001/0000535) ................................................................11
`
`D.
`
`Robinson (US2003/0177102) ..............................................................11
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`
`
`
`
`Rhoads (US2004/0153649) .................................................................12
`
`Berardi (US7239226) ..........................................................................12
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,352,730
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`G.
`
`Rosen (US6175921) ............................................................................13
`
`H.
`
`Shreve (US2002/0109580) ..................................................................13
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`Kinoshita (US2003/0055792) .............................................................14
`
`Enablement ..........................................................................................14
`
`VII. DISCRETIONARY FACTORS ...................................................................15
`
`A.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) Does Not Favor Denial ......................................15
`
`B.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) Does Not Favor Denial ......................................16
`
`VII. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS FOR INVALIDITY ..........22
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-2, 4-9, and 11 are rendered obvious by Scott,
`Russell, and Lapsley. ...........................................................................22
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Ground 2: Claims 3 and 10 are rendered obvious by Scott, Russell,
`Lapsley, and Robinson. .......................................................................43
`
`Ground 3: Claim 6 is rendered obvious by Scott, Russell, Lapsley,
`and Rhoads. .........................................................................................45
`
`D. Ground 4: Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, and 11 are rendered obvious by
`Berardi, Rosen, Shreve, and Kinoshita. ..............................................46
`
`VIII. SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS ...........................................................60
`
`IX. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................61
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,352,730
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`No.
`
`Exhibit
`
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,352,730
`
`1002 File History for U.S. Patent No. 8,352,730
`
`1003 Declaration of Andrew Wolfe, Ph.D.
`
`1004 Curriculum vitae of Andrew Wolfe, Ph.D.
`
`1005
`
`International App. No. WO 1999056429 to Scott et al.
`
`1006 U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2004/0044627 A1 to Russell et al.
`
`1007 U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2001/0000535 A1 to Lapsley et al.
`
`1008 U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2003/0177102 A1 to Robinson
`
`1009 U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2004/0153649 A1 to Rhoads et al.
`
`1010 U.S. Patent No. 7,239,226 B2 to Berardi et al.
`
`1011 U.S. Patent No. 6,175,921 B1 to Rosen
`
`1012 U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2002/0109580 A1 to Shreve et al.
`
`1013 U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2003/0055792 A1 to Kinoshita et al.
`
`1014
`
`“Applied Cryptography—Protocols, Algorithms, and Source Code in
`C” (1996) by Schneier
`
`1015 Declaration of Sylvia Hall-Ellis, Ph.D.
`
`1016 Proxense’s Infringement Contention Chart for U.S. 8,352,730
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,352,730
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`LIST OF CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`
`Claim
`
`1pre
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,352,730
`
`A method for verifying a user during authentication of an integrated
`device, comprising the steps of:
`
`1A
`
`1B
`
`1C
`
`1D
`
`1E
`
`1F
`
`1G
`
`1H
`
`2
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`persistently storing biometric data of the user and a plurality of codes
`and other data values comprising a device ID code uniquely identifying
`the integrated device and a secret decryption value in a tamper proof
`format written to a storage element on the integrated device that is
`unable to be subsequently altered;
`
`wherein the biometric data is selected from a group consisting of a palm
`print, a retinal scan, an iris scan, a hand geometry, a facial recognition, a
`signature recognition and a voice recognition;
`
`responsive to receiving a request for a biometric verification of the user,
`receiving scan data from a biometric scan;
`
`comparing the scan data to the biometric data to determine whether the
`scan data matches the biometric data;
`
`responsive to a determination that the scan data matches the biometric
`data, wirelessly sending one or more codes from the plurality of codes
`and the other data values for authentication by an agent that is a third-
`party trusted authority possessing a list of device ID codes uniquely
`identifying legitimate integrated devices,
`
`wherein the one or more codes and other data values includes the device
`ID code; and
`
`responsive to authentication of the one or more codes and the other data
`values by the agent, receiving an access message from the agent allowing
`the user access to an application,
`
`wherein the application is selected from a group consisting of a casino
`machine, a keyless lock, a garage door opener, an ATM machine, a hard
`drive, computer software, a web site and a file.
`
`The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more codes and the other data
`values are transmitted to the agent over a network.
`
`The method of claim 1, further comprising: registering an age
`
`- iv -
`
`
`
`

`

`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7.
`
`8pre
`
`8A
`
`8B
`
`8C
`
`8D
`
`8E
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,352,730
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`verification for the user in association with the device ID code.
`
` The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more codes and the other
`data values indicate that the biometric verification was successful.
`
`The method of claim 1, wherein the biometric data and the scan data are
`both based on a fingerprint scan by the user.
`
`The method of claim 1, further comprising: establishing a secure
`communication channel prior to sending the one or more codes and the
`other data values for authentication.
`
`The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a request for the
`one or more codes and the other data values without a request for
`biometric verification; and responsive to receiving the request for the
`one or more codes and the other data values without a request for
`biometric verification, sending the one or more codes and the other data
`values without requesting the scan data.
`
`An integrated device for verifying a user during authentication of the
`integrated device, comprising:
`
`a memory stores biometric data of a user and a plurality of codes and
`other data values comprising a device ID code uniquely identifying the
`integrated device and a secret decryption value in a tamper proof format
`written to the memory that is unable to be subsequently altered;
`
`wherein the biometric data is selected from a group consisting of a palm
`print, a retinal scan, an iris scan, a hand geometry, a facial recognition, a
`signature recognition and a voice recognition;
`
`a verification unit, in communication with the memory, receives scan
`data from a biometric scan for comparison against the biometric data,
`
`and if the scan data matches the biometric data,
`
`wirelessly sends one or more codes from the plurality of codes and the
`other data values for authentication by an agent that is a third-party
`trusted authority possessing a list of device ID codes uniquely
`identifying legitimate integrated devices, wherein the one or more codes
`and the other data values includes the device ID code; and
`
`8F
`
`responsive to the agent authenticating the one or more codes and the
`other data values,
`
`8G
`
`receives an access message from the agent allowing the user access to an
`
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,352,730
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`application,
`
`wherein the application is selected from a group consisting of a casino
`machine, a keyless lock, a garage door opener, an ATM machine, a hard
`drive, computer software, a web site and a file.
`
`The integrated device of claim 8, wherein the one or more codes and the
`other data values are transmitted to the agent over a network.
`
`The integrated device of claim 9, wherein an age verification is
`registered in association with the device ID code.
`
`The integrated device of claim 8, wherein the verifier comprises: an LED
`to be activated for requesting the biometric scan.
`
`
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`
`
`8H
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,352,730
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`GROUNDS OF CHALLENGE (37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(2))
`
`No. Ground for Challenge
`
`Scott, Russell, and Lapsley render obvious Claims 1-2, 4-9, and 11
`
`Scott, Russell, Lapsley, and Robinson render obvious Claims 3 and 10
`
`Scott, Russell, Lapsley, and Rhoads render obvious Claim 6
`
`Berardi, Rosen, Shreve, and Kinoshita render obvious Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9,
`and 11
`
`
`
`
`
`- vii -
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,352,730
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The claims of the ’730 patent relate to preventing unauthorized use of a
`
`wireless device by verifying both biometric data and the device itself. The ’730
`
`patent describes biometric authentication of a user of a wireless device using a
`
`generic “computerized authentication” system that provides secure access to
`
`resources such as ATMs and locked areas. Ex. 1001 (’730 Patent) at 1:15-18,
`
`1:51-53. The wireless device validates a user’s biometric scan against biometric
`
`data stored on the device. Id. at 1:59-64. Next, the wireless device transmits an ID
`
`code to a third-party to indicate that the user’s identity has been verified. Id. at
`
`1:64-67. If the third-party determines that the code is authentic, access is granted
`
`to the user to a secure resource. Id. at 2:1-4. The ’730 patent purports to solve the
`
`problem of users having to “memorize or otherwise keep track of the[ir]
`
`credentials,” id. at 1:28-30, while providing security from illegitimate users
`
`“us[ing] a stolen access object to enter a secured location because the user’s
`
`identity is never checked.” Id. at 1:41-43.
`
`But this type of biometric authentication system was known years before the
`
`’730 patent was filed. For example, in 1999—five years before the ’730 patent’s
`
`earliest filing date—the Scott reference disclosed a wireless personal identification
`
`device that verified biometric data of user via a biometric scan and authenticated
`
`the user for access to protected resources such as a hotel room or an electronic
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,352,730
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`transaction. Likewise, the Berardi reference also expressly discloses verifying
`
`biometric data and authenticating a user by means of a third-party trusted agent to
`
`provide access to a secure resource. In fact, numerous prior art patents teach the
`
`same concept. For example, the Russell, Shreve, and Kinoshita reference uses
`
`similar portable devices in secure authentication processes.
`
`Thus, the challenged claims merely recite the well-known concept of
`
`verifying biometric data and authenticating a user’s device using a third-party
`
`trusted agent—well-worn concepts known in the art years before the ’730 patent
`
`was filed. Accordingly, the challenged claims should be held unpatentable.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`Pursuant 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1), the following mandatory notices are
`
`provided as part of this Petition.
`
`A. Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a))
`
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“Samsung” or “Petitioner”) respectfully
`
`requests inter partes review (“IPR”) of Claims 1-11 (“Challenged Claims”) of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,352,730 to Giobbi (“the ’730 Patent”) (Ex-1001), which is indicated
`
`as assigned to Proxense LLC. (“Patent Owner” or “Proxense”).
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’730 Patent is available for inter partes review
`
`and Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting review of the Challenged
`
`Claims on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,352,730
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`B. Real Party in Interest
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), Petitioner certifies Samsung Electronics,
`
`Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. are the real parties-in-interest.
`
`C. Related Matters
`
`The ’730 patent has been asserted against Petitioner in: Proxense, LLC v.
`
`Samsung Electronics, Co., Ltd. et al., No. 6.21-CV-00210 (W.D. Tex. March 5,
`
`2021).
`
`Moreover, Patent Owner also has asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 9,049,188;
`
`9,298,905; 9,235,700; and 10,698,989 in the above litigation, and Petitioner also is
`
`concurrently filing a petition challenging that patent.
`
`D. Lead and Back-Up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)) and Service
`Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)-(4))
`
`Petitioner provides the following counsel and service information. Pursuant
`
`to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), a Power of Attorney accompanies this Petition. Petitioner
`
`
`
`agrees to accept electronic service at the email addresses listed below. 1
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`
`James M. Glass (Reg. No. 46729)
`jimglass@quinnemanuel.com
`
`Postal and Hand Delivery Address:
`
`Marissa Ducca (Reg. No. 59,807)
`marissaduca@quinnemanuel.com
`
`Richard Lowry (Reg. No. 70,306)
`
`
`1 Petitioner consents to electronic service to qe-samsung-
`
`proxense@quinnemanuel.com and the email addresses listed in the table below.
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,352,730
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`QUINN EMANUEL
`URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
`51 Madison Ave, 22nd Floor
`New York, New York 10010
`Tel:
`(212) 849-7000
`Fax: (212) 849-7100
`
`richardlowry@quinnemanuel.com
`
`Postal and Hand Delivery Address:
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN, LLP
`1300 I St. NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`Tel:
`(202) 538-8000
`Fax: (202) 538-8100
`
`Sean Gloth (Reg. No. 75,316 )
`seangloth@quinnemanuel.com
`
`Postal and Hand Delivery Address:
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN, LLP
`51 Madison Ave, 22nd Floor
`New York, New York 10010
`Tel:
`(212) 849-7000
`Fax: (212) 849-7100
`
`E. Payment of Fees (37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a))
`
`The undersigned authorizes the Office to charge the fee required for this
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review to Deposit Account No. 50-5708. Any additional
`
`fees that might be due are also authorized.
`
`III. LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART
`
`Petitioner proposes that a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art would have had
`
`a bachelor’s degree in computer or electrical engineering (or an equivalent degree)
`
`with at least three years of experience in the field of encryption and security (or an
`
`equivalent). Petitioner further proposes that more education could compensate for
`
`less experience and vice versa.
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,352,730
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`III.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 1-11 of the ’730 Patent and requests that these
`
`claims be found unpatentable in view of the following references:
`
`1. PCT Application No. WO 99/56429 to Scott et al., filed April 26,
`1999 and published November 4, 1999 (Ex. 1005, hereinafter
`“Scott”);
`
`2. US Patent Application Publication No. US 2004/0044627 to Russell et
`al., filed November 29, 2000 and published March 4, 2004 (Ex. 1006,
`hereinafter “Russell”)
`
`3. US Patent Application Publication No. US 2001/0000535 to Lapsley
`et al., filed December 6, 2000 and published April 26, 2001 (Ex. 1007,
`hereinafter “Lapsley”)
`
`4. US Patent Application Publication No. US 2003/0177102 to
`Robinson, filed February 19, 2003 and published September 18, 2003
`(Ex. 1008, hereinafter “Robinson”)
`
`5. US Patent Application Publication No. US 2004/0153649 to Rhoads
`et al., filed September 4, 2003 and published August 5, 2004. (Ex.
`1009, hereinafter “Rhoads”)
`
`6. US Patent No. US 7,239,226 to Berardi et al., filed July 9, 2002 and
`published July 3, 2007. (Ex. 1010, hereinafter “Berardi”)
`
`7. US Patent No. 6,175,921 to Rosen, filed July 16, 1997 and published
`January 16, 2001. (Ex. 1011, hereinafter “Rosen”)
`
`8. US Patent Application No. US 2002/0109580 to Shreve et al., filed
`February 15, 2001 and published August 15, 2002. (Ex. 1012,
`hereinafter “Shreve”)
`
`9. US Patent Application Publication No. US 2003/0055792 to Kinoshita
`et al., filed July 19, 2002 and Published March 20, 2003. (Ex. 1013,
`hereinafter “Kinoshita”)
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,352,730
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Pursuant
`
`to §§42.22(a)(1) and 42.22(b)(1)-(2), Petitioner
`
`requests
`
`cancellation of claims 1-11 of the ’730 Patent on the following grounds:
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-2, 4-9, and 11 are rendered obvious by Scott, Russell,
`
`and Lapsley.
`
`Ground 2: Claims 3 and 10 are rendered obvious by Scott, Russell,
`
`Lapsley, and Robinson.
`
`Ground 3: Claim 6 is rendered obvious by Scott, Russell, Lapsley, and
`
`Rhoads.
`
`Ground 4: Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, and 11 are rendered obvious by Berardi,
`
`Rosen, Shreve, and Kinoshita.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’730 PATENT
`
`As explained herein, the ’730 patent relates to integrated wireless devices in
`
`a generic “computerized authentication” system that are used to gain access to
`
`devices, applications, or accounts through a biometric validation procedure. Ex.
`
`1001 at 1:15-18, 1:51-53. The device validates a user’s biometric scan against
`
`biometric data stored on the device. Id. at 1:59-64. After validation, a code stored
`
`on the device is transmitted to indicate that the user’s identity has been verified.
`
`Id. at 1:64-67. The device transmits the code to a third-party trusted key authority
`
`that determines if the code is authentic by checking it against a list of legitimate
`
`integrated device codes. Id. at 2:1-4. If the code is authentic, the user is allowed
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,352,730
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`access to the device, application, or account they seek access to. Id. at 2:4-5. The
`
`’730 patent purports to solve for users the problem of having to “memorize or
`
`otherwise keep track of the[ir] credentials.” Id. at 1:28-30. The patents also
`
`purport to solve the problem of illegitimate users “us[ing] a stolen access object to
`
`enter a secured location because the user’s identity is never checked.” Id. at 1:41-
`
`43.
`
`A.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`The ’730 Patent was filed on December 20, 2005. Ex. 1002 at 761.
`
`On April 27, 2009, after lengthy exchange regarding various formalities, the
`
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (hereinafter “Patent Office”) issued the first non-
`
`final Office Action rejecting claims 1-21 under both 35 U.S.C 012 and 103 in light
`
`of Hsu et al. (US 6,041,410) in view of Saito et all (US 20040129787). Ex. 1002 at
`
`469-86.
`
`After a series of amendments and further rejections, additionally citing
`
`Stanko(US 2005/0074126) and Beenau et al. (US 2004/0230488), the Patent Office
`
`issued a Notice of Allowance on August 31, 2012. Ex. 1002 at 18-20, 102-15, and
`
`284-95.
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,352,730
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION2
`
`Petitioner submits that express interpretations of the challenged claims are
`
`not required to resolve this petition. Because no constructions are necessary to
`
`resolve this petition, Petitioner proposes that the claim terms should be given their
`
`plain and ordinary meaning. Petitioner reserves its right to respond to any claim
`
`constructions raised by the Patent Owner or the Board in the future.
`
`A. “persistently storing biometric data of the user and a plurality of codes
`
`and other data values comprising a device ID code uniquely identifying the
`
`integrated device and a secret decryption value in a tamper proof format written to
`
`a storage element on the integrated device that is unable to be subsequently
`
`altered;”
`
`Patent Owner’s infringement contentions and the prosecution history
`
`indicate that “tamper proof format” applies to each of (1) “biometric data of the
`
`
`2 Petitioners reserve the right to pursue different claim constructions,
`
`including that certain claim terms are indefinite, during this and related
`
`proceedings as well as in any district court litigation concerning the ’730 Patent.
`
`See Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc. v. Prisua Eng’g Corp., 948 F.3d 1342, 1350 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2020) (“[T]he Board may not cancel claims for indefiniteness in an IPR
`
`proceeding.”).
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,352,730
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`user,” (2) “a plurality of codes and other data values comprising a device ID code
`
`uniquely identifying the integrated device,” and (3) “a secret decryption value.”
`
`Patent Owner’s infringement contentions allege that Samsung Pay preload
`
`smartphones persistently store (1) “biometric data of the user” (Ex. 1016 (’730
`
`patent Infringement Contentions) at 1-3), (2) “a device ID code uniquely
`
`identifying the smartphone (id. at 4-6), and (3) “a private key,” each “in a tamper
`
`proof format written to a storage element on the integrated device that is unable to
`
`be subsequently altered.” Id. at 6-7.
`
`The prosecution history of the ’730 patent reflects the same construction.
`
`Patent Owner distinguished prior art by stating that the biometric data and the
`
`plurality of codes and other data values are “written to a storage element on the
`
`integrated device that is unable to be subsequently altered.” Ex. 1002 at 89-90
`
`(Applicant’s Remarks of December 5, 2011 at 8-9).
`
`VI. CITED ART
`
`A.
`
`Scott (WO1999056429)
`
`Scott discloses a method for verifying a user during authentication of an
`
`integrated device (e.g., personal identification device (“PID”) 6), in order to, for
`
`example, provide secure access to protected resources such as a hotel room or a
`
`point-of-sale transaction. Ex. 1005 at Abstract, 2:5-23, 4:22-5:9, 7:24-8:12; see
`
`claims [1A]-[1H] infra.
`
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,352,730
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1005 at Fig. 1. 3
`
`B. Russell (US20040044627)
`
`Russell discloses a single personal identifying device (PID) 100 that can
`
`wireless transmit communications to securely conduct transactions. Ex. 1006 at
`
`Abstract, ¶¶182, 189, 223. Russell discloses that an encryption scheme may be
`
`used to protect these communications, including the encryption techniques
`
`described in Bruce Schneier’s book titled “Applied Cryptography—Protocols,
`
`Algorithms, and Source Code in C” (1996) (Ex. 10144) which Russell incorporates
`
`by reference. Id. at ¶171. In this book, Schneier describes public and private key
`
`encryption.
`
`
`3 Annotations are added to figures unless indicated otherwise.
`
`4 Schneier was publicly available before the filing of the patent at issue.
`Ex. 1015.
`
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,352,730
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`C. Lapsley (US2001/0000535)
`
`Lapsley discloses a
`
`third-party authentication system to validate a
`
`transaction initiated at a biometric device (i.e., Party Identification Apparatus
`
`(PIA)). Ex. 1007 at Abstract, ¶54. The PIA includes a biometric sensor that
`
`receives a user’s biometric input accompanying an electronic payment. Id. at ¶167.
`
`The PIA transmits the biometric data and a PIA hardware identification code to a
`
`trusted third-party Data Processing Center (DPC). Id. at ¶168. The DPC includes
`
`a list of hardware identification codes for PIAs, wherein each respective code
`
`“makes the PIA uniquely identifiable to the DPC in all transmissions from that
`
`device.” Id. at ¶¶85, 161. Using this list, the DPC identifies the PIA by its PIA
`
`hardware identification code. Id. at ¶¶85, 103, 104, 158, 166. Lapsley also
`
`discloses that communication security is achieved using an encryption scheme that
`
`uses public/private keys and admits doing so is “well known in the industry.” Id.
`
`at ¶82.
`
`D. Robinson (US2003/0177102)
`
`Robinson discloses that a central database 102 holds information related to
`
`users to authenticate a user’s age to access an age restricted area, for example. Ex.
`
`1008 at ¶¶27-28, 32, 66-67 Fig. 1. The central database 102 stores age verification
`
`records related to individuals seeking age verification (called “presenters”),
`
`including information such as a user’s age, date of birth, government ID number,
`
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,352,730
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`biometric template, and at least one ID number that identifies the presenter within
`
`the system. Id. Prior to using the age-verification system, an individual presents
`
`biometric and age-verifying information. Id. at ¶¶13-15. Robinson further
`
`discloses that age-verifying information is associated with at least one ID number
`
`(SID) identifying the user.
`
`E. Rhoads (US2004/0153649)
`
`Rhoads discloses a user terminal 42 that establishes communication with a
`
`central site 46 to establish authorization for a financial transaction. Ex. 1009 at
`
`¶¶279-280. Specifically, the user terminal 42 establishes a secure communication
`
`channel prior to sending values for authentication such as an encrypted document
`
`ID, document type, unique image hash, the user terminal’s IP address, and a
`
`timestamp of the request. Id. at ¶280. Rhoads also discloses that additional
`
`security is possible by encrypting the request with a key. Id.
`
`F.
`
`Berardi (US7239226)
`
`Berardi discloses a method for verifying a user during authentication of an
`
`integrated device (e.g., portable electronic Fob 102) that engages with RFID reader
`
`104 to, for example, facilitate a point-of-sale transaction. Ex. 1010 at Abstract,
`
`3:45-4:3, 12:36-48, Fig. 2. Berardi further discloses the conventional encryption
`
`techniques may be used, such as those described in the text “Applied
`
`Cryptography: Protocols, Algorithms, and Source Code in C,” written by Bruce
`
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,352,730
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Schneier (second edition, 1996), which Berardi incorporates by reference. Id. at
`
`7:19-27. The fob 102 is thus useful for completing a contactless transaction and
`
`would ordinarily be carried by a user for verification. Ex. 1010 at 1:15-18, 1:32-
`
`36.
`
`G. Rosen (US6175921)
`
`Rosen discloses a tamper-proof electronic processing device referred to as a
`
`trusted agent. Ex. 1011 at 4:4-14, 11:4-11, claim 1. The tamper-proof trusted
`
`agent stores a private key to encrypt messages (id. at 7:31-42), device ID (id. at
`
`claim 1, 7:43-57, 11:12-24), and biometrics (id. at 11:24-29). Id. at Fig. 2, claims
`
`1-8. The tamper-proof agent may be composed of discrete tamper-proof
`
`components or as a tamper-proof module. Id. at 19:64-20:5.
`
`H. Shreve (US2002/0109580)
`
`Shreve discloses a transceiver/fob device 12, which is “a remote keyless
`
`entry-based transceiver device,” capable of two-way wireless communications with
`
`domain system 14 for secure access authorization based on biometrics. Ex. 1012 at
`
`Fig. 2a, ¶¶33, 35. Shreve discloses a service provider 24 with a secured database
`
`31 that provides authentication of a transaction initiated by a fob device 12. Id. at
`
`¶39. For authentication, the database 31 contains cross-references between “the
`
`key fob ID and other user specific information (e.g., accounts, access privileges,
`
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,352,730
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`biometrics, etc) that can be used by the authentication algorithm 23 to further
`
`facilitate the authentication process.” Id. at ¶39, claim 47.
`
`I. Kinoshita (US2003/0055792)
`
`Kinoshita discloses a portable device 14 that authenticates a user before
`
`transmitting a user ID to a POS terminal 11, which forwards the user ID to a third-
`
`party payment gateway 15 to authorize a payment transaction. Ex. 1013 at ¶¶168-
`
`69, Fig. 1. Specifically, the payment gateway 15 confirms the authenticity of the
`
`portable device 14 by comparing the device ID of the portable device 14 to stored
`
`device ID in a user table 154a. Id. at ¶171. After the payment gateway 15 receives
`
`a user ID and a request for transaction, the payment gateway 15 sends an e-mail
`
`message that includes commands for direction of payment to be executed by the
`
`portable device 14. ¶¶168-69. Upon receiving the e-mail message, the portable
`
`device 14 “executes an application for payment according to the commands
`
`included in the e-mail.” Id. at ¶¶168-69, 179-83.
`
`J. Enablement
`
`The above described reference both individually and in the combinations
`
`explained below enable the systems and methods they are cited for. Ex. 1003.
`
`None of the above-mentioned references describe an aspirational or otherwise
`
`unachievable system or method. Id. To the extent Patent Owner argues that any
`
`of the above described references are not self-enabled or otherwise do not satisfy
`
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,352,730
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Raytheon Techs. Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 993 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2021), a
`
`POSITA would have understood how to combine the references to achieve at least
`
`the challenged claims. Id.
`
`VII. DISCRETIONARY FACTORS
`
`A.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) Does Not Favor Denial
`
`The Board uses a two-part framework to analyze denial under 325(d):
`
`(1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was
`presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same
`arguments previously were presented to the Office; and
`
`(2) if either condition of first part of the framework is satisfied,
`whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a
`manner material to the patentability of challenged claims.
`
`Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, Paper 6 at
`
`7 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020). When considering the first prong, the PTAB considers
`
`the prosecution of the patent, and any post-issuance proceedings like ex parte
`
`reexams. Id. at 7-8. As to the second prong, the PTAB provided examples of
`
`“material errors,” including whether the office overlooked a specific teaching of
`
`the relevant prior art or an error of law, such as misconstruing a claim term. Id. at
`
`n. 9. In Advanced Bionics the Board explained that the Becton Dickinson factors
`
`are used within this framework to provide useful insight into how to apply each
`
`prong. Id. at 9.
`
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,352,730
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`With respect to the first prong, the ’730 patent was issued over rejections in
`
`view of Hsu, Stanko, Saito and Beenau5. None of the prior art in this petition were
`
`cited or addres