Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent Nos. 9,189,787 and 9,240,009
`
`Oral Argument, April 21, 2023
`
`Apple Inc. v. RFCyber Corp.;
`Case Nos. 2022-00412, 2022-00413
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Petitioner’s DX-1
`
`IPR2022-00413
`Apple EX1054 Page 1
`
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 9,189,787 and 9,240,009
`
`Oral Argument, April 21, 2023
`
`Apple Inc. v. RFCyber Corp.;
`Case Nos. 2022-00412, 2022-00413
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Petitioner’s DX-1
`
`IPR2022-00413
`Apple EX1054 Page 1
`
`
`
`IPR 2022-00412 (’787 Patent) Grounds
`(cid:1) Ground 1: Claims 1-19
`(cid:1) Dua (Ex. 1004) in view of GlobalPlatform (Ex. 1006) and Philips
`(Ex. 1012)
`
`Petition, 6-7 (identifying challenged claims).
`
`Petitioner’s DX-2
`
`IPR2022-00413
`Apple EX1054 Page 2
`
`
`
`Remaining Disputes
`1. POSITA Definition
`2. Philips is Prior Art
`3. Motivation to Combine Dua with GlobalPlatform and
`Philips
`4. Claims 1 & 11 Substantive Disputes:
`[1a]/[11a] An emulator that stores updated transaction logs
`a)
`[1c]/[11c] Personalizing the emulator and two-channel
`personalization
`[1e]/[11e] Second interface to perform mobile commerce
`against the fund
`5. Claims 6 and 16: SAM External to the Smart Card
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`Petitioner’s DX-3
`
`IPR2022-00413
`Apple EX1054 Page 3
`
`
`
`Level of Skill of a POSITA
`(cid:1) Petitioner’s proposal adopted by the Board at Institution as
`“consistent with the ’787 patent and the asserted prior art”:
`
`Petition, 11; ID, 10-11.
`
`Petitioner’s DX-4
`
`IPR2022-00413
`Apple EX1054 Page 4
`
`
`
`Level of Skill of a POSITA (cont.)
`
`(cid:1) Petitioner’s proposal consistent with PO’s and its expert’s
`description of ’787 patent:
`
`(cid:1) POR, 1:
`
`Gomez Dec. (Ex. 2007), ¶34 (same)
`
`Petitioner’s DX-5
`
`IPR2022-00413
`Apple EX1054 Page 5
`
`
`
`Level of Skill of a POSITA (cont.)
`
`(cid:1) POR, without explanation, broadens the definition to remove any
`requirement for mobile payment technology experience:
`
`POR, 10.
`
`Petitioner’s DX-6
`
`IPR2022-00413
`Apple EX1054 Page 6
`
`
`
`Level of Skill of a POSITA (cont.)
`(cid:1) Sur-Reply insists Mr. Gomez qualifies under even Petitioner’s
`definition, identifying two areas of experience.
`(cid:1) General Networking:
`
`(cid:1) Memory:
`
`Sur-Reply, 4-5 (citing Ex. 1045 at 14:1-6, 14:7-24).
`
`Petitioner’s DX-7
`
`IPR2022-00413
`Apple EX1054 Page 7
`
`
`
`Philips is Eligible as Prior Art
`(cid:1) PO argues that Philips was not published prior to the ’787
`patent’s September 24, 2006 priority date.
`(cid:1) Sole affirmative evidence is unsupported speculation.
`(cid:1) POR, 11-13 (“Philips is a datasheet of the sort that were released
`confidentially or subject to NDAs…”).
`(cid:1) Ex. 2007 (Mr. Gomez Declaration):
`
`Reply, 5-6.
`
`Petitioner’s DX-8
`
`IPR2022-00413
`Apple EX1054 Page 8
`
`
`
`Philips is Eligible as Prior Art (cont.)
`(cid:1) Mr. Smith has no personal knowledge that Philips was restricted.
`
`Reply, 5-6; Ex. 1041, 20:21-22:20.
`
`Petitioner’s DX-9
`
`IPR2022-00413
`Apple EX1054 Page 9
`
`
`
`Philips is Eligible as Prior Art (cont.)
`(cid:1) Petition provided evidence of public availability:
`(cid:1) Objective indicia, including copyright information and release date
`(cid:1) Philips P5CT072 Controller referenced in prior art patent application
`publications: Ex. 1032 & Ex. 1037
`(cid:1) Philips listed in IDS, noting 2004 publication date (Ex. 1034) (unavailable
`at filing due to COVID restrictions)
`
`(cid:1) Additional evidence in Reply to rebut PO’s NDA arguments
`(cid:1) Philips listed in IDS submitted on Sept. 12, 2005 (unavailable at filing due
`to COVID restrictions, but later submitted as Ex. 1053)
`(cid:1) Ex. 1050 – WebArchive shows link to Philips live on Sept. 17, 2006
`(cid:1) Ex. 1044 – University website link to Philips last modified Aug. 2006
`(cid:1) Ex. 1045 – 2006 article listing Philips with Oct. 2004 publication date
`
`Reply, 5-6.
`
`Petitioner’s DX-10
`
`IPR2022-00413
`Apple EX1054 Page 10
`
`
`
`Philips is Eligible as Prior Art (cont.)
`(cid:1) Objective indicia:
`
`Petition, 14; EX. 1012.
`
`Petitioner’s DX-11
`
`IPR2022-00413
`Apple EX1054 Page 11
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine - GlobalPlatform
`(cid:1) “Dua does not describe conventional smart card details.”
`Petition, 16.
`(cid:1) To provide this implementation detail, a POSITA would look to
`GlobalPlatform—the dominant standard at the time. Reply, 8 (citing
`Petition 15-18).
`(cid:1) GlobalPlatform “specifically facilitates loading and installing of issuer
`specific Applications, such as Dua’s extensions.” Reply, 8.
`
`(cid:1) Concrete benefit noted in two institution decisions—
`compatibility with most important international specification for
`smart cards. Reply 7-8; Samsung ID, 35-38, 38; ID, 25-29.
`(cid:1) PO does not contest the merits of this benefit.
`
`Petitioner’s DX-12
`
`IPR2022-00413
`Apple EX1054 Page 12
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine (cont.)
`(cid:1) PO rehashes the arguments rejected twice at Institution:
`1. No benefit from GlobalPlatform and Dua’s security renders
`GlobalPlatform redundant
`2. Combination would destroy “important” SIP-based wireless
`device targeting
`3. Dua does not expressly motivate the combination
`
`(cid:1) Post-Institution, PO adds only the unqualified testimony of Mr.
`Gomez who simply parrots the positions in PO’s brief.
`
`Petition, 15-19; POPR, 16-20; ID, 25-29; Samsung ID, 34-36, 38;
`POR, 13-23; Reply, 6-15; Sur-Reply, 6-14.
`
`Petitioner’s DX-13
`
`IPR2022-00413
`Apple EX1054 Page 13
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine (cont.)
`GlobalPlatform is not redundant; adds compatibility benefit
`(cid:1) PO’s expert agrees Dua’s security is not smart card specific:
`
`Reply,9-10 (citing Ex. 1041, 31:5-32:14).
`
`Petitioner’s DX-14
`
`IPR2022-00413
`Apple EX1054 Page 14
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine (cont.)
`Combination does not destroy SIP-based wireless device targeting
`(cid:1) PO’s argument premised on a critical misunderstanding of Petitioner’s
`combination—that the combination “discards” SIP entirely. Reply, 9-10.
`
`(cid:1) Petitioner’s expert clarifies:
`
`(cid:1) PO elected not to cross-examine Mr. Smith on his supplemental opinions.
`
`Ex. 1042, ¶ 13 (above excerpt); Ex. 1042, ¶¶ 11-26 (full discussion).
`
`Petitioner’s DX-15
`
`IPR2022-00413
`Apple EX1054 Page 15
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine (cont.)
`Dua expressly motivates complying with standards
`
`(cid:1) GlobalPlatform was the dominant smart card standard.
`
`(cid:1) Dua expressly teaches that its system to comply with standards
`
`(cid:1) (1) Dua, [0525] (“EMV-Compliant—The wallet application should meet
`standards defined by card organizations”).
`
`(cid:1) (2) Dua, [0013] (credit card organizations “working jointly over the last
`few years to develop specifications that define a set of requirements for
`security and interoperability between chip cards and terminals on a
`global basis, regardless of the manufacturer, financial institution, or where
`the card was used”).
`
`Petition, 15-19, Reply, 12-15.
`
`Petitioner’s DX-16
`
`IPR2022-00413
`Apple EX1054 Page 16
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine (cont.)
`Dua expressly motivates complying with standards
`
`(cid:1) (1) Dua, [0525] (“EMV-Compliant—The wallet application
`should meet standards defined by card organizations”).
`(cid:1) PO argues this refers only to the EMV standard. POR, 13-14 (relying on
`Ex. 2003); Sur-reply, 11-12.
`(cid:1) PO’s own documentary support acknowledges that the EMV standard
`expressly recommends complying with GlobalPlatform.
`
`Ex. 2003 (Guide to EMV), 16
`
`Reply, 13-14; Ex. 1042 (Smith Supp. Dec.), ¶¶ 23-25.
`
`Petitioner’s DX-17
`
`IPR2022-00413
`Apple EX1054 Page 17
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine (cont.)
`Dua expressly motivates combination with standards
`(cid:1) (2) Dua, [0013] (credit card orgs working on interoperability)
`(cid:1) PO argues GlobalPlatform does not address card-terminal
`relationship.
`(cid:1) Mr. Smith:
`
`POR, 18-20; Sur-Reply, 10-11 (stating no such evidence “exists”); Ex. 1042, ¶ 21; Reply, 12-13.
`
`Petitioner’s DX-18
`
`IPR2022-00413
`Apple EX1054 Page 18
`
`
`
`Limitation [1a]/[11a]: Emulator Stores
`Updated Transaction Logs
`(cid:1) Claim [1a] an emulator loaded in a smart card module for storing
`security values and updated transaction logs
`
`Petition, 20-21.
`
`Petitioner’s DX-19
`
`IPR2022-00413
`Apple EX1054 Page 19
`
`
`
`Limitation [1a]/[11a]: Emulator Stores
`Updated Transaction Logs (cont.)
`(cid:1) PO mischaracterizes Petitioner’s obviousness position and the
`law:
`
`(cid:1) “Apple raises a new argument that this functionality is somehow
`‘mandatory of e-purses in general.’ Reply at 15-16.” Sur-Reply, 14-15.
`
`(cid:1) “Petitioner and Mr. Smith argue that this limitation is taught in view of
`another reference, the Smart Card Handbook (Ex. 1008). Pet. at 20-21”
`POR, 23.
`(cid:1) “Petitioner makes no effort to show that the Smart Card Handbook was publicly-
`available or is otherwise prior art to the ’787 Patent” POR, 24.
`
`(cid:1) “Mr. Smith’s memory is not ‘prior art consisting of patents or printed
`publications.’ 35 U.S.C. § 311 (b)” POR, 25.
`
`Reply, 15-17.
`
`Petitioner’s DX-20
`
`IPR2022-00413
`Apple EX1054 Page 20
`
`
`
`Limitation [1a]/[11a]: Emulator Stores
`Updated Transaction Logs (cont.)
`(cid:1) Reply, 16-17:
`
`Petitioner’s DX-21
`
`IPR2022-00413
`Apple EX1054 Page 21
`
`
`
`Limitation [1a]/[11a]: Emulator Stores
`Updated Transaction Logs (cont.)
`(cid:1) PO does not dispute transaction logs are mandatory in e-
`purses, and Mifare specifically.
`
`(cid:1) Mr. Smith established this, unrebutted, with corroborated
`testimony.
`(cid:1) Ex. 1003, ¶¶135-156 (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).
`
`(cid:1) Ex. 1042, ¶¶27-30 (Ex. 1019; Ex. 1020).
`(cid:1) PO elected not to cross-examine Mr. Smith on his supplemental opinions.
`
`Reply, 15-16.
`
`Petitioner’s DX-22
`
`IPR2022-00413
`Apple EX1054 Page 22
`
`
`
`Limitation [1c]/[11c]: Personalizing the
`Emulator
`
`(cid:1) [1c] wherein both of the emulator and e-purse applet are already
`personalized via a personalization process…
`
`(cid:1) Keys generated pursuant to GlobalPlatform’s personalization
`processes
`(cid:1) Keys are stored specifically in Mifare emulator
`
`(cid:1) PO merely challenges the sufficiency of Petitioner’s evidence
`
`Petition, 26, 34; POR, 26, Reply, 16.
`
`Petitioner’s DX-23
`
`IPR2022-00413
`Apple EX1054 Page 23
`
`
`
`Limitation [1c]/[11c]: Personalizing the
`Emulator (cont.)
`(cid:1) Dua + GlobalPlatform + Philips:
`
`Reply, 17.
`
`Petitioner’s DX-24
`
`IPR2022-00413
`Apple EX1054 Page 24
`
`
`
`Limitation [1c]/[11c]: Personalizing the
`Emulator (cont.)
`(cid:1) PO disputes that keys are personalized into the emulator (i.e.,
`point (3)). POR, 25-26; Sur-Reply, 16-17.
`
`(cid:1) Petition, 26:
`
`Petitioner’s DX-25
`
`IPR2022-00413
`Apple EX1054 Page 25
`
`
`
`Limitation [1c]/[11c]: Personalizing the
`Emulator (cont.)
`(cid:1) Ex. 1003, ¶150:
`
`Petitioner’s DX-26
`
`IPR2022-00413
`Apple EX1054 Page 26
`
`
`
`Limitation [1c]/[11c]: Personalizing the
`Emulator (cont.)
`(cid:1) Ex. 1042, ¶ 34:
`
`Philips (Ex. 1012), 4.
`
`Reply, 17-18.
`
`Petitioner’s DX-27
`
`IPR2022-00413
`Apple EX1054 Page 27
`
`
`
`Limitation [1c]/[11c]: Personalizing the
`Emulator (cont.)
`
`Ex. 1042, ¶¶ 28 (discussing Ex. 1019 at 201), 32, 35; Ex. 1003, ¶135; Reply, 17-18.
`
`Petitioner’s DX-28
`
`IPR2022-00413
`Apple EX1054 Page 28
`
`
`
`Limitation [1c]/[11c]: Two-Channel
`Personalization
`(cid:1) [1c] …built on a first security channel so that the emulator is set
`to store a set of keys for subsequent data access authentication
`and the e-purse applet is configured to conduct a transaction
`with a network server over a second security channel;
`
`(cid:1) Disclosed by Dua in view of GlobalPlatform and Philips
`(cid:1) Petition, 23-34; Reply, 18.
`
`(cid:1) PO’s only argument is that there is no motivation to combine
`(addressed in prior slides).
`(cid:1) POR, 30.
`
`Petitioner’s DX-29
`
`IPR2022-00413
`Apple EX1054 Page 29
`
`
`
`Limitation [1e]/[11e]: Mobile Commerce
`Against the Fund Stored in the Emulator
`(cid:1) [1e] a second interface configured to perform mobile commerce
`with a payment server via an application against the fund stored
`in the emulator;
`
`(cid:1) PO argues Dua’s “over-the-air reload transaction would not be
`‘against the fund stored in the emulator.’” POR, 31-32
`(“‘against’ a fund … requires using that fund to pay for the
`transaction”)
`
`Petitioner’s DX-30
`
`IPR2022-00413
`Apple EX1054 Page 30
`
`
`
`Limitation [1e]/[11e]: Mobile Commerce Against
`the Fund Stored in the Emulator (cont.)
`(cid:1) Board correctly found at institution that the combination
`renders obvious making purchases
`
`. . .
`
`ID, 24-25.
`
`Petitioner’s DX-31
`
`IPR2022-00413
`Apple EX1054 Page 31
`
`
`
`Limitation [1e]/[11e]: Mobile Commerce Against
`the Fund Stored in the Emulator (cont.)
`(cid:1) Reply, 21-22: Intrinsic record supports broader read—against the
`fund should capture loading value
`
`(cid:1) PO abandons this argument on Sur-Reply
`(cid:1) New argument in Sur-Reply at 17-18 should be deemed waived
`
`Petitioner’s DX-32
`
`IPR2022-00413
`Apple EX1054 Page 32
`
`
`
`Claims 6 and 16: SAM External to Smart
`Card Module
`(cid:1) [6a] . . . an initial security channel between the smart card module and a
`security authentication module (SAM) external to the smart card
`module to install and personalize the e-purse applet
`(cid:1) [16a] (similar language)
`
`(cid:1) Single dispute: Can Apple map WCM to both SAM and network server?
`(cid:1) “Apple’s identification of the same [WCM] server in Dua for two
`separate claim elements in the ‘787 Patent is inconsistent” POR, 34.
`(cid:1) “Apple relies on Dua’s discussion of a WCM for the ‘security
`authentication module (SAM) external to the smart card module.’” POR,
`33.
`(cid:1) “But Apple already relies on Dua’s ‘WCM server’ for purported
`disclosure of a ‘network server’ with which ‘the e-purse applet is
`configured to conduct a transaction … over a second security channel.’”
`POR, 33-34.
`
`Petitioner’s DX-33
`
`IPR2022-00413
`Apple EX1054 Page 33
`
`
`
`Claims 6 and 16: SAM External to Smart
`Card Module (cont.)
`(cid:1) Reply, 23:
`
`(cid:1) Petitioner’s expert testimony is consistent (Reply, 24):
`(cid:1) “‘e-purse SAMs plug in typically to a payment server. So one is a component of
`the other, typically”
`(cid:1) “I see the SAM as a component – a box inside or part of the capability of a
`payment server.’”
`(cid:1) Ex. 2009 (Smith Depo. Trans.), 74:6-15, 79:13-80:7
`
`Petitioner’s DX-34
`
`IPR2022-00413
`Apple EX1054 Page 34
`
`
`
`IPR 2022-00413 (’009 Patent) Grounds
`(cid:1) Ground 1: Claims 1-6, 13-17
`(cid:1) Dua (Ex. 1004) in view of GlobalPlatform (Ex. 1006)
`
`(cid:1) Ground 2: Claims 7-10
`(cid:1) Dua (Ex. 1004) in view of GlobalPlatform (Ex. 1006) and Smart
`Card Handbook (Ex. 1008)
`
`(cid:1) Ground 3: Claims 11-12
`(cid:1) Dua (Ex. 1004) in view of GlobalPlatform (Ex. 1006), Smart
`Card Handbook (Ex. 1008), and Thibadeau (Ex. 1041)
`
`Petition, 6 (identifying challenged claims)
`
`Petitioner’s DX-35
`
`IPR2022-00413
`Apple EX1054 Page 35
`
`
`
`Remaining Disputes
`(cid:1) Level of Skill in the Art
`(cid:1) (same as ‘787)
`(cid:1) Motivation to Combine Dua with GlobalPlatform
`(cid:1) (same as ‘787)
`(cid:1) Three Unique Substantive Disputes:
`(cid:1) Claims 1 & 14: “secure element”
`(cid:1) Claims 1 & 14: “wherein the server is configured to prepare
`data…”
`(cid:1) Claim 16: “each of the modules is configured to show another
`user interface…”
`
`Petitioner’s DX-36
`
`IPR2022-00413
`Apple EX1054 Page 36
`
`
`
`Limitation [1b]/[14b]: Secure Element
`(cid:1) [1b] an interface to receive a secure element;
`
`(cid:1) Institution Decision, 20:
`
`Petitioner’s DX-37
`
`IPR2022-00413
`Apple EX1054 Page 37
`
`
`
`Limitation [1b]/[14b]: Secure Element
`(cont.)
`
`(cid:1) POR: Smart cards can be “secure elements” if secured, e.g.,
`tamper resistant
`
`(cid:1) “Patent Owner does not disagree that a smart card may be a secure
`element.”
`
`(cid:1) “In particular, a smart card may be a secure element if it ‘is a tamper
`proof Smart Card chip capable to embed Smart card-grade
`applications (e.g., payment, transport ...) with the required level of
`security and features.’ ’009 Patent, 6:62-64.”
`
`(cid:1) “a smart card may be a secure element only if it provides the
`necessary security, such as by being tamper-resistant.”
`
`POR, 19
`
`Petitioner’s DX-38
`
`IPR2022-00413
`Apple EX1054 Page 38
`
`
`
`Limitation [1b]/[14b]: Secure Element
`(cont.)
`
`(cid:1) The ’009 Patent explains that key-based security makes a
`smart card “tamper-resistant”
`
`(cid:1) SE 102 can be “installed with a set of default keys (e.g., an
`Issuer Security Domain (ISD) key set by the SE manufacturer)”
`and that “the SE 102 may be in the form of a smart card.” Ex.
`1001, 6:55-64.
`
`(cid:1) Ex. 1045 (Gomez Tr.), 57:7-11 (confirming “heightened
`security…through software such as a key-based encryption
`scheme” can satisfy “the claimed secure element”), 57:20-58:2.
`
`Reply, 14-15.
`
`Petitioner’s DX-39
`
`IPR2022-00413
`Apple EX1054 Page 39
`
`
`
`Limitation [1b]/[14b]: Secure Element
`(cont.)
`(cid:1) Smart cards secured with keys is precisely what Petitioner
`presented:
`
`(cid:1) “‘GlobalPlatform’s Issuer Security Domain’ ‘key set’ installed on the
`smart card for secure channel establishment” Petition, 24.
`
`(cid:1) “it would have been obvious to implement Dua’s smart card as a
`‘secure element’ using GlobalPlatform to secure the ‘embedded smart
`card.’” Petition, 17.
`
`(cid:1) Mr. Smith reiterated that a GlobalPlatform-secured smart card is a
`secure element even under PO’s interpretation that requires tamper
`resistance.
`(cid:1) Ex. 1046, ¶¶ 28-37.
`
`Petitioner’s DX-40
`
`IPR2022-00413
`Apple EX1054 Page 40
`
`
`
`Limitation [1b]/[14b]: Secure Element
`(cont.)
`(cid:1) Post-institution, PO has advanced contradicting positions
`(cid:1) POR argued that some smart cards can be a secure element. POR, 19.
`(cid:1) Sur-Reply argues that smart cards cannot be secure elements.
`
`Sur-Reply, 15.
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s DX-41P titi ’ DX 41
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00413
`Apple EX1054 Page 41
`
`
`
`Limitation [1div]/[14div]: Server Prepares
`Data
`(cid:1) [1div] wherein the server is configured to prepare data
`necessary for the application to function as designed on
`the mobile device;
`(cid:1) In Samsung POPR, argued that forwarding keys is not
`“preparing data”
`(cid:1) Board rejected this:
`
`IPR2021-00981, Paper 6 (POPR) at 8-11; ID at 20
`
`Petitioner’s DX-42
`
`IPR2022-00413
`Apple EX1054 Page 42
`
`
`
`Limitation [1div]/[14div]: Server Prepares
`Data
`(cid:1) Did not raise in Apple POPR, but POR advances same
`criticism that forwarding keys is insufficient
`(cid:1) Argues the server must “generate” keys. POR at 20-21
`
`(cid:1) Petition advances two theories – both involve the WCM
`sending keys that are necessary for app to function:
`(cid:1) First way: Dua’s WCM obtains keys and sends to mobile in
`“personalization file”
`(cid:1) Second way: Dua’s WCM sends GlobalPlatform INSTALL
`command
`(cid:1) Installation is necessary to function
`(cid:1) After installation, application gets keys from WCM
`
`Petition, 26-27
`
`Petitioner’s DX-43
`
`IPR2022-00413
`Apple EX1054 Page 43
`
`
`
`Limitation [1div]/[14div]: Server Prepares
`Data (cont.)
`(cid:1) First Way - Dua Alone
`(cid:1) “‘Dua’s WCM prepares personalization data . . .
`including the ‘credentials’ and ‘encryption keys’[.]”
`(cid:1) Petition, 26; Reply 16-17.
`
`(cid:1) POR, 20-21: “Apple does not identify any disclosure that
`the Personalization File is ‘prepared by’ the WCM; the
`WCM merely receives the file and forwards it to the
`user’s device”
`(cid:1) Relies on Mr. Gomez:
`
`Petitioner’s DX-44
`
`IPR2022-00413
`Apple EX1054 Page 44
`
`
`
`Limitation [1div]/[14div]: Server Prepares
`Data (cont.)
`(cid:1) PO points to two examples to support its position that
`“preparing data” requires actively generating keys.
`(cid:1) Reply, 21 (citing Ex. 1001, 13:25-34).
`
`(cid:1) In the first example, the TSM server does not generate keys
`
`Reply, 18
`
`Ex. 1001, 13:25-31
`
`Petitioner’s DX-45
`
`IPR2022-00413
`Apple EX1054 Page 45
`
`
`
`Limitation [1div]/[14div]: Server Prepares
`Data (cont.)
`(cid:1) Second Way: Dua + GlobalPlatform
`
`(cid:1) (1) Dua’s WCM prepares an GlobalPlatform INSTALL
`command to install the application.
`
`(cid:1) (2) Dua’s WCM prepares personalization data (e.g., keys
`and cardholder-specific data) per GlobalPlatform specs.
`
`Petition, 27.
`
`Petitioner’s DX-46
`
`IPR2022-00413
`Apple EX1054 Page 46
`
`
`
`Limitation [1div]/[14div]: Server Prepares
`Data (cont.)
`Re INSTALL command
`(cid:1) POR, 22: Preparing data different from preparing
`commands
`(cid:1) “the ’009 Patent’s specification describes issuing commands differently
`from ‘preparing data.’ Compare ’009 Patent 13:10-21 (‘prepare
`customized application data’ such as personalized transaction keys)
`with 9:11-14 (describing a command as ‘prepar[ing] a mechanism’).”
`
`(cid:1) Reply, 18-21: PO does not dispute that INSTALL
`command includes data necessary for appl to function
`(cid:1) Preparing the INSTALL command is “data necessary for the
`application to function.” Ex. 1003, ¶148 (citing Ex. 1004, [0215]; Ex.
`1006, 44, 65-66, 88, 102).
`
`Petitioner’s DX-47
`
`IPR2022-00413
`Apple EX1054 Page 47
`
`
`
`Limitation [1div]/[14div]: Server Prepares
`Data (cont.)
`Re WCM preparing keys per GP
`(cid:1) POR, 22-24: Does not dispute that keys are generated
`
`(cid:1) Petition, 24: WCM mapped as “host” for app downloading
`and data downloading
`
`Petitioner’s DX-48
`
`IPR2022-00413
`Apple EX1054 Page 48
`
`
`
`Claim 16: Another User Interface
`(cid:1) [Claim 16] The mobile device as recited claim 14, wherein
`the mobile device includes a display configured to display
`a user interface showing some of the modules that are
`still provisioned and active, each of the modules is
`configured to show another user interface particularly
`designed for the display of the mobile device when the
`each of the modules is activated by a user.
`
`(cid:1) Dispute: Obvious for Dua’s credential tree to display
`second level detail when a credential is selected?
`
`Petition, 48.
`
`Petitioner’s DX-49
`
`IPR2022-00413
`Apple EX1054 Page 49
`
`
`
`Claim 16: Another User Interface (cont.)
`(cid:1) Credential Tree:
`
`POR, 25; Reply, 23.
`
`Petitioner’s DX-50
`
`IPR2022-00413
`Apple EX1054 Page 50
`
`
`
`Claim 16: Another User Interface (cont.)
`(cid:1) Petition, 48-50:
`
`(cid:1) “Dua describes a ‘credential tree’ that ‘may be used to visually
`present information in the wallet application’ including
`credentials for extensions stored therein.”
`
`(cid:1) “Dua discloses or renders obvious that each of the modules
`(extension/credentials) are configured to show another user
`interface…because Dua teaches ‘[i]ndividual credential
`records’ that are accessible via the ‘Credential Selector’ to
`‘provide visual information about the credentials to aid a user
`in the selection of specific credentials’"
`
`Petitioner’s DX-51
`
`IPR2022-00413
`Apple EX1054 Page 51
`
`
`
`Claim 16: Another User Interface (cont.)
`(cid:1) POR, 24-26:
`(cid:1) PO argues the selection process does not alter the user interface.
`
`(cid:1) Reply, 23-24: Many details described, but not depicted in Dua’s
`first level credential tree
`(cid:1) When the credential selector accesses the individual credential
`records, additional information is displayed, including:
`(cid:1) Name of credential (e.g. United Airline Mileage Plus Card);
`(cid:1) Name and/or logo of credential issuer; Name(s) and/or logo(s) of
`association or network(s) (e.g. in the case of bank cards);
`(cid:1) Account number (e.g. could be full account number, partially masked
`account number, or fully masked account number);
`(cid:1) Indicator showing if the credential has a “reader key” associated with it;
`(cid:1) Indicator showing if the credential has been flagged for use without the
`wallet PIN.
`
`Dua, [0371]-[0377]; see also id., [0298]-[0307]).
`
`Petitioner’s DX-52
`
`IPR2022-00413
`Apple EX1054 Page 52
`
`
`
`Claim 16: Another User Interface (cont.)
`(cid:1) Reply, 24:
`
`(cid:1) Sur-Reply does not address this obviousness position.
`
`Petitioner’s DX-53
`
`IPR2022-00413
`Apple EX1054 Page 53
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
