`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`RFCYBER CORP.,
`Patent Owner
`_________________
`
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No. IPR2022-00412
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,787
`
`_________________
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
`I.
`II. ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................... 2
`A. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................. 2
`B. Philips is Prior Art to the ’787 Patent ............................................................. 3
`C. PO’s Motivation to Combine Critiques Rehash Twice Rejected Arguments 6
`D. Limitation [1a]: The Combination Discloses an Emulator That Stores
`Updated Transaction Logs .................................................................................. 15
`E. Limitation [1c]: The Combination Discloses Personalizing the Emulator in
`Two Ways ........................................................................................................... 17
`F. Limitation [1c]: The Combination Discloses Two-Channel Personalization
`in Two Ways ....................................................................................................... 18
`G. Limitation [1e]: The Combination Discloses a Second Interface Which
`Performs Mobile Commerce Against the Fund Stored in the Emulator ............. 20
`H. Claims 6 and 16: The Combination Discloses a SAM External to the Smart
`Card Module ........................................................................................................ 23
`III. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 25
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2022-00412
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,787
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The Challenged Claims relate to securely funding an e-purse in a portable
`
`device. A focus of the parties’ disputes is the claimed “security,” which is
`
`accomplished by personalizing an e-purse with security keys. This key-based
`
`personalization process was well known in the prior art, having been standardized
`
`by GlobalPlatform. Indeed, even the ’787 Patent points to GlobalPlatform in support
`
`of the claimed security. Ex. 1001, 4:24-32 (noting an embodiment of the alleged
`
`invention uses “a global platform security . . . to personalize a smart card”).
`
`The Petition’s base reference—Dua—teaches a smart card e-purse loaded on
`
`a mobile device. Dua acknowledges the importance of complying with then-
`
`governing smart card standards, but does not describe these standards in any detail.
`
`Nor does Dua describe basic smart card implementation details, focusing instead on
`
`smart card agnostic communication protocols. The Petition proposes that a POSITA
`
`would have looked to well-known smart card teachings to realize Dua’s goal of
`
`implementing its smart card-equipped mobile device in compliance with governing
`
`standards. Specifically, the Petition proposes that a POSITA would have looked to
`
`GlobalPlatform for its card architecture, security, life cycle models, and command
`
`teachings, and to the commercial Philips SmartMX controller specification for its e-
`
`purse specific emulator—another claimed concept well established in commercial
`
`prior art smart cards.
`
` 1
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2022-00412
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,787
` Patent Owner’ (“PO”) Response (“POR”) focuses largely on the motivations
`
`underlying Petitioner’s proposal to supplement Dua’s limited smart card teachings
`
`with the then-dominant smart card standards. These arguments mirror those in PO’s
`
`Preliminary Response (“POPR”), which were correctly rejected at institution both
`
`in the now-terminated Samsung proceeding (IPR2021-00980, “Samsung IPR”) and
`
`the instant proceeding. Seeking a different outcome with its rehashed arguments, PO
`
`supplements the record with testimony of a declarant. But PO’s declarant not only
`
`lacks experience with smart card standards, he has no mobile commerce experience
`
`at all. Accordingly, his testimony should be accorded little to no weight.
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`A.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`The Parties and the Board unanimously agree that the focus of the ’787 Patent
`
`is mobile payments. Petition, 1-2; POR, 1-6; Institution Decision (“ID”), 4-7.
`
`Accordingly, the Board adopted Petitioner’s POSITA definition which it
`
`preliminarily held is “consistent with the ’787 patent and the asserted prior art.” That
`
`definition requires knowledge of “mobile payment methods and systems[,]” and at
`
`least “one year of professional experience relating to mobile payment technology.”
`
`ID, 10-11; Petition, 11.
`
`Although PO did not dispute this definition in its POPR, the POR quietly
`
`removes a requirement for mobile payment experience. POR, 10. The POR does not
`
` 2
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2022-00412
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,787
`acknowledge this definition shift, nor does it provide any justification for removing
`
`this key requirement. PO’s strategy is transparent. It seeks to rely on an unqualified
`
`declarant who admitted he has no specific mobile payment technology experience,
`
`no experience with e-purses, no experience with the relevant protocols, and no
`
`educational experience to remedy his professional deficiencies. Ex. 1041 (Gomez
`
`Tr.), 8:11-19, 9:7-20:4, 37:8-39:9, 50:15-51:18. To do so, PO must redefine a
`
`POSITA’s qualifications. Yet PO makes no attempt to justify this significant shift.
`
`As the Board correctly found at institution and as Petitioner’s expert explains
`
`in a supplemental declaration, experience with mobile payments is required. Ex.
`
`1042 (Supp. Dec.), ¶¶4-10. Accordingly, the Board should make its preliminary
`
`findings on the requisite level of skill final and accord Mr. Gomez’s unqualified
`
`testimony little to no weight. Best Med. Int.’l, Inc. v. Elekta Inc., 46 F.4th 1346,
`
`1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (affirming Board’s decision to discount testimony where
`
`the declarant failed to satisfy POSITA definition).
`
`B.
`Philips is Prior Art to the ’787 Patent
`PO misapplies the law and mischaracterizes the record, contesting that Philips
`
`was published and available prior to the purported September 26, 2006 effective
`
`filing date of the ’787 Patent. POR, 11-13.
`
`“Whether a reference qualifies as a ‘printed publication’ is a legal conclusion
`
`based on underlying factual findings[.]” Nobel Biocare Servs. AG v. Instradent USA,
`
` 3
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2022-00412
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,787
`Inc., 903 F.3d 1365, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2018). A petitioner need only show that such
`
`document has been “disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that
`
`persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising
`
`reasonable diligence can locate it.” Id.
`
`Despite this low bar, PO contends that “Apple cannot possibly carry its burden
`
`of persuasion to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Phillips [sic] is prior
`
`art[,]” suggesting Apple has only shown it is “possible.” POR, 12-13 (emphasis
`
`omitted). As an initial matter, the standard of proof in this proceeding requires a
`
`preponderance of the evidence, not clear and convincing evidence. Hulu, LLC v.
`
`Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 66, *22 (PTAB Oct. 5, 2021)
`
`(citing 35 U.S.C. § 316(e)). As set forth below, Petitioner has well-satisfied this
`
`burden.
`
`Directly refuting PO’s challenge, Philips was submitted to the USPTO in a
`
`September 12, 2005 IDS during prosecution of U.S. Patent No. 7,213,766.1 Ex.
`
`1043.2 While a petitioner need not establish that “specific persons actually accessed
`
`
`1 A “Petitioner is permitted to file additional evidence in response to [PO]’s
`
`arguments[.]” Hulu, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 66, *26.
`
`2 Petitioner has attempted to secure a certified copy of the ’766 file history including
`
`the non-patent literature, but due to the COVID restrictions still in place, Petitioner’s
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2022-00412
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,787
`or received a work to show that the work was publicly accessible[,]” Ex. 1043
`
`conclusively shows that a third-party company actually did have access to Philips
`
`no later than September 2005 when it submitted Philips with the IDS. See Samsung
`
`Elec.’s Co., Ltd. v. Infobridge Pte. Ltd., 929 F.3d 1363, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Once
`
`the ’766 Patent published on May 26, 2005, the file history would have been open
`
`to the general public. 37 C.F.R. § 1.11; see also Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters,
`
`Inc., 445 F.3d 1374, 1377-78 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (finding content in file history publicly
`
`available prior art). Like Bruckelmyer, Philips was “laid open for public inspection”
`
`in the patent file and was thus publicly accessible. Id. at 1378-79.
`
`The sole affirmative evidence PO submits to dispute Philips’s public
`
`accessibility is its expert’s unsupported contention that Philips “is a datasheet of the
`
`sort that were released confidentially or subject to NDAs…” POR, 11 (citing Mr.
`
`Gomez’s declaration). But Mr. Gomez conceded he has no personal knowledge that
`
`Philips was subject to an NDA or that Philips was chained with confidentiality
`
`restrictions. Ex. 1041 (Gomez Tr.), 20:21-22:20. Such unsupported speculation is
`
`entitled no weight. Nobel Biocare Servs. AG, 903 F.3d at 1382. PO also cites the
`
`
`vendor has been unable to personally make copies and despite several attempts, has
`
`been unable to otherwise secure a copy, to date. Petitioner will provide this certified
`
`file history, if requested, once Petitioner obtains it.
`
` 5
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2022-00412
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,787
`testimony of Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Smith, out of context to suggest Philips would
`
`be under an NDA. POR, 11 (citing Ex. 2009, 88:15-89:5). But Mr. Smith never
`
`opined that Philips was or would have been subject to an NDA.3
`
`Additional evidence refutes PO’s contention that Philips was under NDA or
`
`was not publicly accessible prior to September 26, 2006:
`
`• Ex. 1050 – (Web Archive declaration for prior art Web Archive capture
`of www.nxp.com that includes a link to Philips with a filename,
`sfs085513)
`• Ex. 1044 - https://www.win.tue.nl/pinpasjc/docs/cards-docs/jcop41/
`(link to Philips on University website with last modified date of August
`16, 2006 and same “sfs085513” filename as shown in archived nxp.com
`link above)
`• Ex. 1045 - https://www.cs.ru.nl/E.Poll/papers/evaluationBasis.pdf
`(article also listing 2004 date for Philips at note 16 including same
`“sfs085513” filename)
`
`
`Additionally, Philips itself provides strong indicia that it was publicly
`
`accessible prior to September 26, 2006. Petition, 14-15.
`
`C.
`
`PO’s Motivation to Combine Critiques Rehash Twice Rejected
`Arguments
`PO advances the same motivation to combine critiques that the Board soundly
`
`rejected twice at institution. Namely, the POPR argued (1) that Dua’s security
`
`renders GlobalPlatform redundant, (2) that there is no flaw in Dua necessitating
`
`
`3 PO also criticizes Petitioner for not discussing in the Petition how it acquired
`
`Philips. POR, 12. But PO fails to point to any authority requiring Petitioner to do so.
`
` 6
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2022-00412
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,787
`GlobalPlatform, and (3) that the combination would destroy Dua’s allegedly
`
`“important” SIP-based wireless device targeting. POPR, 16-20.
`
`Instituting the Samsung IPR, the Board first rejected [PO]’s redundancy
`
`arguments, finding “Petitioner has identified a concrete benefit from combining Dua
`
`with GlobalPlatform—namely, compatibility of Dua’s wallet application with the
`
`‘most important international specification’ for Smart Cards.” Samsung IPR ID, 36.
`
`The Board also disagreed “that the use of SIP is an essential aspect of Dua’s
`
`invention” such that replacing SIP would destroy some contrived central objective
`
`for server-side targeting of devices—a purported “objective” not found in the claims.
`
`Id., 35.
`
`Similarly, the Board here found that that “SIP is not an essential aspect of
`
`Dua’s invention[,]” that the plethora of express motivations in Dua’s disclosures
`
`motivate combination with GlobalPlatform, and that Petitioner established a
`
`sufficient rationale for its combination by identifying a “concrete benefit” of
`
`improved interoperability. ID, 25-29. Here, the POR simply reasserts the same
`
`arguments (POR, 13-22), supplementing the record with the testimony of a declarant
`
`with no relevant mobile payment experience that would inform the motivation at
`
`issue (supra, Sec. II.A) who simply parrots the positions in PO’s brief. Xerox Corp.
`
`v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9, *15 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2022)
`
` 7
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2022-00412
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,787
`(precedential) (affording little weight to expert’s opinions which restate attorney
`
`arguments without additional supporting evidence or reasoning).
`
`At the outset, the law does not demand a “flaw” in a reference to make a
`
`combination. Petitioner must show only that “there is something in the prior art as a
`
`whole to suggest the desirability…of making the combination[.]” Intel Corp. v.
`
`Qualcomm Inc., No. 2020-2092, WL 880681, *4 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 24, 2022) (internal
`
`citations omitted); see also Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1374 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2019) (describing exemplary means to find motivation to combine). At
`
`institution, the Board correctly reasoned that Petitioner identified a “concrete
`
`benefit” from combining Dua with GlobalPlatform. ID, 29. As outlined in the
`
`Petition, while Dua discloses its wireless device includes “an embedded smart card”
`
`where its extensions reside (Dua, [0295]), “Dua does not describe conventional
`
`smart card details.” Petition, 16; Ex. 2009 (Smith Tr., 45:10-11 (“[Dua] was very
`
`light, almost non-existent on smart card detail”)); Ex. 1041 (Gomez Tr.), 23:23-
`
`28:10, 64:21-65:7. To provide this implementation detail, a POSITA would look to
`
`GlobalPlatform—the dominant standard at the time. Petition, 15-18. GlobalPlatform
`
`“specifically facilitates loading and installing of issuer specific Applications, such
`
`as Dua’s extensions,” logically leading a POSITA to apply GlobalPlatform’s
`
`functionalities when implementing Dua’s extensions. Id.; Realtime Data, LLC, 912
`
` 8
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2022-00412
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,787
`F.3d at 1374 (affirming motivation to look to well-known text to better understand
`
`or interpret base reference).
`
`Neither PO nor its expert rebut this framework. Instead, PO doubles down on
`
`its previously rejected position that incorporating GlobalPlatform into Dua would
`
`“destroy” the allegedly critical feature of using SIP to securely target a particular
`
`wireless device, creating an endpoint-to-endpoint connection. POR, 16-18. But PO’s
`
`argument is premised on a critical misunderstanding of Petitioner’s combination—
`
`that Petitioner’s combination “discard[s]” SIP entirely. Id. The Petition never
`
`advanced this theory. It did not address the specific mechanisms used to construct
`
`endpoint-to-endpoint connections because the claims do not require this.
`
`Contrary to POR’s criticism regarding unclaimed aspects of the proposed
`
`combination, a POSITA would indeed be motivated to rely on Dua’s SIP
`
`architecture to establish an initial connection between endpoints (e.g., between
`
`Dua’s WCM server and smart card). Ex. 1042 (Supp. Dec.), ¶¶11-26. In Dua, the
`
`WCM server uses SIP to create a “pipe” (i.e., connection) between endpoints. Ex.
`
`1042 (Supp. Dec.), ¶¶12-15; Ex. 2009, 43:4-15, 46:2-47:17. In Dua’s native system
`
`and in the proposed combination, security can be established over this SIP “pipe.”
`
`Pursuant to Dua’s native teachings, the SIP connection is secured with TLS (secure
`
`channel 1), and the communications within this TLS-secured SIP “pipe” are further
`
`secured with S/MIME (secure channel 2). But both TLS and S/MIME are generic
`
` 9
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2022-00412
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,787
`encryption and security protocols. Ex. 1041 (Gomez Tr.), 31:5-32:14 (Mr. Gomez
`
`admits he has not seen SIP, TLS, or S/MIME used for financial transactions outside
`
`of Dua). The Petition established that a POSITA would be motivated to employ
`
`GlobalPlatform for an improved two-channel, smart card-specific, mechanism to
`
`secure the communications. Petition, 15-18; Ex. 1042 (Supp. Dec.), ¶¶12-15. This
`
`smart card-specific security could be implemented—like Dua’s expressly discussed
`
`security mechanisms—over the SIP “pipe.” Ex. 1042 (Supp. Dec.), ¶¶12-20. As Dua
`
`expressly teaches, “all security mechanisms available for HTTP (RFC 2617) can
`
`also be applied to SIP sessions.” Ex. 1004 (Dua), [0201]. And it was well known
`
`that GlobalPlatform-secured
`
`transactions were
`
`compatible with HTTP
`
`communications sessions. Ex. 1042 (Supp. Dec.), ¶¶12-20. Tellingly, neither PO nor
`
`its declarant identify any evidence disputing that GlobalPlatform could be used to
`
`secure a transaction over Dua’s SIP “pipe.”
`
`PO also criticizes Petitioner’s expert, arguing that Mr. Smith’s expertise
`
`purportedly “has nothing to do with networking.” POR, 15. But this case is not about
`
`networking. PO’s own expert, Mr. Gomez, characterizes the ’787 Patent as targeting
`
`“methods and system for providing electronic purses (e-purses) for use in electronic
`
`and mobile commerce[,]” rather than generic networking. Ex. 2007, ¶34; Ex. 1041
`
`(Gomez Tr.), 7:4-8:3. PO’s criticisms are a transparent attempt to misdirect the focus
`
`of this case from smart-card transactions to generic networking in an effort to distract
`
` 10
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2022-00412
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,787
`from Mr. Gomez’s lack of relevant experience. Ex. 1041 (Gomez Tr.), 9:7-20:4,
`
`37:8-39:9, 50:15-51:18. This sleight of hand should be rejected.
`
`In stark contrast to PO’s declarant who has no relevant smart card experience,
`
`Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Smith, testified that he spent most of his life at the low level
`
`of contact and contactless smart cards and protocols and was even on the board of
`
`GlobalPlatform around the effective filing date of the ’787 patent. Compare Ex.
`
`1041 (Gomez Tr.), 9:7-20:4, 37:8-39:9, 50:15-51:18 with Ex. 2009, 43:20-24, 87:10-
`
`88:11; Ex. 1003 at ¶59 (Mr. Smith was “part of the GlobalPlatform organization
`
`during the relevant time-frame”). Thus, Mr. Smith is the only expert with relevant
`
`smart card and mobile payment technology expertise and his testimony supporting
`
`the proposed combination should be accorded significant weight.4
`
`
`4 PO also mischaracterizes Mr. Smith’s testimony to infer that “the field of the
`
`invention” was unpredictable and no solutions were obvious. POR, 16 (citing Ex.
`
`2009 at 93:8-23, 96:13-97:13). Read in context with his surrounding testimony, Mr.
`
`Smith simply testified that, by 2006, mobile payments in the United States were less
`
`developed than in Europe. Ex. 2009, 91:13-97:13. This does not take away from the
`
`proposed combination, which relies on GlobalPlatform—the “most important
`
`international specification” for smart cards (Ex. 1003, ¶59)—and Philips—a “very
`
`
`
` 11
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2022-00412
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,787
`Finally, PO disputes that Dua expressly motivates a POSITA to implement
`
`known standards like GlobalPlatform. POR, 18-22. As detailed in the Petition, Dua
`
`expressly acknowledges the value of ensuring compatibility with card organization
`
`standards. Petition, 16-17 (citing Dua, [0525] (“[EMV-Compliant—The] wallet
`
`application should meet standards defined by card organizations”). As further
`
`detailed in the Petition, modifying Dua pursuant to GlobalPlatform and Philips
`
`furthers this goal, enabling Dua’s payment methods to comply with then governing
`
`standards. Petition, 16-17. None of PO’s arguments disputing this straightforward
`
`motivation have merit.
`
`Relying on its expert, an individual with no smart card or mobile payment
`
`technology experience, PO first argues that Dua does not motivate the combination
`
`because GlobalPlatform “is not a card organization” and even suggests that
`
`GlobalPlatform “is not payment-related” at all. POR, 21. PO and its expert are
`
`wrong. GlobalPlatform’s opening line explains that it is “an organization that has
`
`been established by leading companies from the payments and communications
`
`industries.” Ex. 1006, 16 (emphasis added). Indeed, GlobalPlatform traces its
`
`history to one of the most widely recognized card organizations, Visa, originally
`
`
`popular smart card platform” (Ex. 2009, 38:5-7). Both were well-settled during the
`
`relevant time-period.
`
`
`
` 12
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2022-00412
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,787
`referred to as Visa Open Platform, then renamed Open Platform, and finally taking
`
`the name GlobalPlatform. Ex. 1003, ¶¶58-59, 107. Further, Petitioner’s declarant,
`
`Gerald Smith, served as a Board Member of the GlobalPlatform governance body
`
`from 2000-2002 on behalf of American Express—another of the world’s most
`
`widely recognized card organizations. GlobalPlatform also explains that its goal is
`
`interoperability across industries and card organizations. Ex. 1006, 16 (explaining
`
`the “goal is to reduce barriers hindering the growth of cross-industry” smarts cards).
`
`Because GlobalPlatform is an organization established by card organizations with
`
`the specific mission of ensuring smart card interoperability, a POSITA would have
`
`understood GlobalPlatform precisely aligns with Dua’s express interoperability goal
`
`that its “wallet application should meet standards defined by card organizations.”
`
`Ex. 1042 (Supp. Dec.), ¶¶21-26; Ex. 1003, 116.
`
`Second, PO argues paragraph [0525] in Dua should be read to narrowly
`
`suggest only that its “wallet application should meet the EMV standard,” and not
`
`more broadly to encourage interoperability with standards like GlobalPlatform.
`
`POR, 20-21. As an initial matter, PO relies entirely on the unqualified testimony of
`
`Mr. Gomez for this interpretation, which should be accorded little to no weight.
`
`However, even if Dua was specifically referencing EMV, PO fails to acknowledge
`
`that
`
`the EMV standard
`
`itself expressly
`
`recommends complying with
`
`GlobalPlatform. Ex. 2003, 16 (noting EMV “cannot be considered in isolation” and
`
` 13
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2022-00412
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,787
`importance of “[a]lign[ing] with standards bodies such as
`
`stressing
`
`the
`
`GlobalPlatform”). This is not surprising. A POSITA would have been well aware
`
`that the “smart card industry encouraged interoperability in many respects and across
`
`many complementary standards.” Ex. 1042 (Supp. Dec.), ¶¶23-25.
`
`Relatedly, Dua encourages compatibility with the Java platform and Java
`
`applets—encouragement
`
`that would have motivated a POSITA
`
`to use
`
`GlobalPlatform for personalization because “GlobalPlatform ‘has primarily become
`
`the de facto standard for loading and managing Java-based applications[.]” Petition,
`
`17. PO suggests that Dua’s references to Java have nothing to do with Dua’s smart
`
`card and instead merely propose Java as an operating system for Dua’s mobile
`
`phone. POR, 21-22. Critically, PO does not identify what operating system would
`
`have run Dua’s smart card if not Java and does not identify any technical reason why
`
`Dua’s smart card would not implement Java Card. PO’s observation does not take
`
`away from the motivation to combine. Indeed, that Dua fails to describe the
`
`implementation details of its smart card is one of the fundamental premises
`
`underlying the proposed combination—because Dua does not describe how its smart
`
`card would be implemented, a POSITA would have been motivated to rely on then-
`
`governing smart card standards. Petition, 16. A POSITA would have known that
`
`Dua’s smart card requires an operating system and would have known Java Card
`
`was a dominant option at the time. Ex. 1042 (Supp. Dec.), ¶26. Given its silence on
`
` 14
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2022-00412
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,787
`the smart card implementation specifics, a POSITA would have interpreted Dua’s
`
`repeated references to Java more broadly than PO contends, recognizing Dua would
`
`be compatible with a Java smart card. Ex. 1042 (Supp. Dec.), ¶26.
`
`Accordingly, none of PO’s rehashed arguments give the Board reason to
`
`modify its initial findings and the Board should make these findings final.5
`
`D. Limitation [1a]: The Combination Discloses an Emulator That
`Stores Updated Transaction Logs
`PO, relying only on attorney argument and unsupported expert testimony,
`
`argues that the Petition fails to disclose “an emulator that stores updated transaction
`
`logs.” POR, 23. Not so. The Petition clearly articulates that Philips discloses a
`
`“MIFARE®
`
`emulator”
`
`for
`
`conducting
`
`“standard
`
`(classic) MIFARE®
`
`transaction[s]” and that such classic MIFARE transactions “involved…updating a
`
`transaction log.” Petition, 20. Even further, Mr. Smith established, unrebutted, that
`
`“[s]uch basic functionality is mandatory of e-purses in general, not just MIFARE®.”
`
`Ex. 1003, ¶¶135-136 (citing Ex. 1008, 289-290, 487–488, 547, 689, 692-693, 706-
`
`707; Ex. 1019, 199, 201; Ex. 1029, [0020]; Ex. 1030, 43-44; Ex. 1031, 32:23-36;
`
`Ex. 1038, 4:63-66, 8:53-66). Mr. Smith also indicated that the ’787 Patent itself
`
`
`5 PO’s argument against a motivation to combine Philips with Dua (see POR, 22-23)
`
`is premised on its arguments against combining Dua and GlobalPlatform. For the
`
`reasons above, PO’s arguments are misplaced.
`
` 15
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2022-00412
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,787
`admits that “a Mifare emulator 208” is a “single functional card” “for storing
`
`values[,]” leading Mr. Smith to conclude that Philips’s Mifare emulator would store
`
`updated transaction logs. Ex. 1003, ¶¶135-136.
`
`PO does not dispute that transaction logs are mandatory functionality in e-
`
`purses and Mifare, and its declarant was unable to identify any e-purses that lack
`
`such basic functionality. Ex. 1041 (Gomez Tr.), 33:17-34:19, 35:22-39:9.
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner’s expert alone has addressed this critical issue. Ex. 1003,
`
`¶135; Ex.1042 (Supp. Dec.), ¶¶27-30 (explaining that a Philips Mifare transaction
`
`would mandate a transaction log). PO instead challenges the propriety of Mr.
`
`Smith’s heavily corroborated opinions. POR, 23-25; Ex. 2007, ¶¶75-83. Initially, PO
`
`mischaracterizes Petitioner’s grounds as relying only on Ex. 1008, the Smart Card
`
`Handbook, to teach this limitation. POR, 23. Instead, the Petition argues that Philips
`
`“discloses to a POSITA that its emulator was ‘for storing…updated transaction logs”
`
`and cites to Ex. 1008 in support. Petition at 21 (emphasis added).
`
`Petitioner’s obviousness analysis, relying on what Philips discloses to a
`
`POSITA, is sound. It is well-settled that an obviousness inquiry “turns not only on
`
`the prior art, but whether…the claimed invention as a whole would have been
`
`obvious…to a person having ordinary skill in the art[.]” See Koninklijke Philips N.V.
`
`v. Google LLC, 948 F.3d 1330, 1337-38 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (internal citations omitted).
`
`An obviousness “analysis requires an assessment of the ‘…background knowledge
`
` 16
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2022-00412
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,787
`possessed by a [POSITA][.]” Id. (emphasis in original); see also Arendi S.A.R.L. v.
`
`Apple Inc., 832 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d
`
`1355, 1362–63 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
`
`Accordingly, PO’s critiques are legally unfounded and should be rejected.
`
`E.
`
`Limitation [1c]: The Combination Discloses Personalizing the
`Emulator in Two Ways
`PO begins with a blatant mischaracterization of the Petition—contending that
`
`the “Petition does not even assert that its combination discloses personalizing the
`
`emulator.” POR, 25. The Petition advances (as PO later admits) that the Mifare
`
`emulator may be personalized in one of two ways: the updated keys are stored in the
`
`Mifare emulator pursuant to either GlobalPlatform’s personalization processes or
`
`Dua’s personalization processes. Petition, 26, 34.
`
`Regarding
`
`the first way, Petitioner’s evidence establishes (1)
`
`that
`
`GlobalPlatform uses triple DES keys for cryptographic communications over its
`
`Secure Channels, (2) that Philips’s Mifare emulator uses a triple key DES-3 co-
`
`processor with these same triple DES keys for cryptographic communications, and
`
`(3) that these keys are personalized into the Mifare emulator to allow the emulator
`
`to operate. Petition, 26 (citing Ex. 1003, ¶¶149-150; Ex. 1012 at 1, 5, 7; Ex. 1019 at
`
`199, 201). PO asserts that Philips “says nothing” about the Mifare emulator using
`
`DES keys such that “personalizing keys does not equate with personalizing the
`
`emulator.” Ex. 1042 (Supp. Dec.), ¶¶31-33 (annotated figure from Philips). PO is
`
` 17
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2022-00412
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,787
`wrong. The Mifare emulator includes its own key set for accessing secure Mifare
`
`memory structures. Petition at 26 (citing Ex. 1003, ¶150); Ex. 1042 (Supp. Dec.),
`
`¶¶31-37. Dua’s SVCE then includes a derived set of keys for Secure Channel
`
`establishment. Petition at 25-31 (describing Secure Channels); Ex. 1003, ¶¶151 (“the
`
`Application uses its own key set…to create a Secure Channel), 203-206. Thus,
`
`despite PO’s contentions, separate personalized keys are stored in both the Mifare
`
`emulator and Dua’s SVCE (e-purse) to effectuate encrypted communications over a
`
`Secure Channel. Petition, 49-51 (discussing claim 3’s “transformed passwords” for
`
`the application based on keys stored in the emulator).
`
`Regarding the second way, PO advances the same tenuous arguments as
`
`above, i.e., that the emulator itself is not personalized with keys. POR, 27. As
`
`explained above, the Petition establishes that both the Mifare emulator and Dua’s
`
`SVCE are personalized with their own respective keys. Petition, 34 (citing Ex. 1003,
`
`¶164; Ex. 1012, 1-3; Ex. 1019, 199, 201).
`
`F.
`
`[1c]: The Combination Discloses Two-Channel
`Limitation
`Personalization in Two Ways
`PO admits the Petition also addresses this limitation “in two ways: i) via Dua
`
`in view of GlobalPlatform and Philips (Pet. at 25-32); and ii) via Dua in view of
`
`Philips (Pet. at 32-35).” POR, 28. In its POPR, regarding the “first way,” PO argued
`
`that there is purportedly no motivation to combine Dua and Philips with
`
`GlobalPlatform’s personalization teachings. POPR, 16-20. At institution, the Board
`
` 18
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2022-00412
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,787
`twice rejected PO’s arguments concerning the “first way” and found sufficient
`
`motivation for the reasons detailed above. Samsung IPR ID, 34-36, 38; ID, 25-29.
`
`The POR re-hashes these same arguments, failing to engage the Board’s preliminary
`
`holding and predicating its entire position on the incorrect assumption that a
`
`POSITA would not combine Dua with GlobalPlatform. Id. As set forth above and as
`
`the Board has repeatedly held, Petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated a motivation
`
`to combine. Supra, Sec. II.C.
`
`Regarding the “second way,” PO disputes that Dua’s extensions conduct
`
`transactions with network servers over a second channel via S/MIME. POR, 28-29.
`
`First, PO does not dispute that Dua’s TLS teachings disclose the claimed first secure
`
`channel. POR, 28-29. PO focuses its criticisms on whether Dua’s S/MIME teachings
`
`form a second secure channel where transactions can be conducted. Id. (arguing
`
`“S/MIME and TLS form at most a single secure channel” because they use the same
`
`certificates and that the extension would not “conduct transactions with network
`
`servers via S/MIME”). As Mr. Smith explains, this “shared certificates” argument is
`
`a red herring. TLS and S/MIME “are security used for different purposes.” Ex. 1042
`
`(Supp. Dec.), ¶¶38-41. TLS is security at the “channel level” whereas S/MIME is
`
`security at the “message level.” Ex. 1042 (Supp. Dec.), ¶¶38-41. TLS secures the
`
`SIP connection between endpoints (TLS-protected SIP is channel 1), and S/MIME
`
` 19
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2022-00412
`U.S. Patent No. 9,189,787
`forms a secure channel on top of TLS-protected SIP to