`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CPC PATENT TECHNOLOGIES PTY, LTD.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`CASE: IPR2022-00600
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,620,039
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. WILLIAM C. EASTTOM III
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`314479480.3
`
`
`
`CPC EXHIBIT 2001
`Apple Inc. v. CPC Patent Technologies PTY Ltd.
`IPR2022-00600
`
`Page 1 of 28
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00600
`U.S. Pat No. 8,620,039
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 2
`
`III. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS ............................................................. 6
`
`A. Obviousness ........................................................................................... 7
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Presumption of Validity ......................................................................10
`
`Claim Construction..............................................................................10
`
`IV. LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART .................................................................11
`
`V. OPINIONS REGARDING APPLE’S INVALIDITY GROUND ................12
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Preamble ..............................................................................................12
`
`Bradford (Ex. 1004) ............................................................................13
`
`Foss (Ex. 1005) ....................................................................................20
`
`D. Yamane (Ex. 1006)..............................................................................22
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Independent Claims 1 and 19 ..............................................................24
`
`Dependent Claims 2 and 20 ................................................................25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`314479480.3
`
`
`
`i
`
`Page 2 of 28
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00600
`U.S. Pat No. 8,620,039
`
`
`I, Dr. William C. Easttom III, do hereby declare and say:
`
`I.
`
`1.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`I am over the age of twenty-one (21) and competent to make this declaration.
`
`I am also qualified to give testimony under oath. The facts and opinions listed
`
`below are within my personal knowledge.
`
`2.
`
`I have been engaged in this matter to provide my independent analysis of
`
`certain issues I understand arise in connection with the above-mentioned Inter
`
`Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,620,039 (which I refer to as “the ʼ039
`
`Patent”) (Ex. 1001).
`
`3.
`
`I have considered the documents cited throughout this declaration, including
`
`the ʼ039 Patent (Ex. 1001), and have been asked to provide my opinions on
`
`how those skilled in the art (as defined herein) would understand those
`
`documents. I provide my conclusions regarding the disclosures of these
`
`documents below.
`
`4.
`
`I have also not formulated any opinions regarding patent validity in light of
`
`any prior art other than that cited by Petitioner Apple Inc. (“Petitioner” or
`
`“Apple”). For the cited prior art, I have examined that art in light of the
`
`arguments made by Apple, the opinions expressed by Dr. Andrew Sears (“Dr.
`
`Sears”), and the preliminary determination by the Patent Trial and Appeal
`
`Board (“Board”) in instituting this inter partes review.
`
`314479480.3
`
`
`
`1
`
`Page 3 of 28
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00600
`U.S. Pat No. 8,620,039
`
`I am not offering any conclusions as to the ultimate determinations that I
`
`5.
`
`understand the Board will make in this proceeding. I am simply providing my
`
`opinion on the technical aspects of the documents.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`6.
`
`I have 30 years of experience in the computer science industry including
`
`extensive experience with computer security, computer software, and
`
`computer networking. I have authored 37 computer science books, including
`
`textbooks used at over 60 universities around the world. I also have authored
`
`over 70 research papers and am an inventor with 25 patents, including patents
`
`related to computer networking.
`
`7.
`
`I hold a Doctor of Science (D.Sc.) degree in Cyber Security from Capitol
`
`Technology University (Dissertation Topic: “A Comparative Study of Lattice
`
`Based Algorithms for Post Quantum Computing”). I also hold a Doctor of
`
`Philosophy (Ph.D.) in Technology (focused on nanotechnology. Dissertation
`
`Topic: “The Effects of Complexity on Carbon Nanotube Failures”) from
`
`Capitol Technology University. I also have a Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) in
`
`Computer Science from the University of Portsmouth (Dissertation Topic:
`
`topic “A Systematic Framework for Network Forensics Using Graph
`
`Theory”). I also hold three master’s degrees (one in Applied Computer
`
`Science, one in Education, and one in Systems Engineering).
`
`314479480.3
`
`
`
`2
`
`Page 4 of 28
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00600
`U.S. Pat No. 8,620,039
`
`I am currently an Adjunct Lecturer for Georgetown teaching graduate courses
`
`8.
`
`in requirements engineering and cryptography. I am also an adjunct for
`
`Vanderbilt University
`
`teaching graduate computer science courses,
`
`specifically courses in quantum computing and digital forensics.
`
`9.
`
`I am a Senior member and Distinguished Speaker for the Association of
`
`Computing Machinery (ACM) and a Senior Member and Distinguished
`
`Visitor of the Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineering (IEEE). The
`
`IEEE is the world’s largest and preeminent engineering organization. Among
`
`other activities, the IEEE creates industry standards for a wide range of
`
`engineering disciplines, including software development standards. I am also
`
`a Distinguished Visitor of the IEEE. I have been involved in IEEE standards
`
`creation for several years:
`
`a. I worked on the DevOps 2675 standards group from 2017 to 2019.
`
`b. I am also currently the Vice Chair of the IEEE p23026 Standards Group
`
`“Systems and Software Engineering -- Engineering and Management
`
`of Websites for Systems, Software, and Services Information.”
`
`c. I am the Chair of IEEE P3123 Standard for Artificial Intelligence and
`
`Machine Learning (AI/ML) Terminology and Data Formats.
`
`d. I am a member of IEEE P2995 - Trial-Use Standard for a Quantum
`
`Algorithm Design and Development Standards Group from 2021 to
`
`314479480.3
`
`
`
`3
`
`Page 5 of 28
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00600
`U.S. Pat No. 8,620,039
`
`
`present.
`
`e. I am a member of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology
`
`Standards Committee. Standard for a Unified Terminology for Brain-
`
`Computer Interfaces P2731 from 2020 to present.
`
`f. I am also a member of the IEEE P3120 Working Group Quantum
`
`Computing Architecture.
`
`10.
`
`I have extensive experience with mobile devices including mobile device
`
`security. I have worked with mobile devices for the last decade, including
`
`training law enforcement and DoD personnel in mobile device forensics.
`
`Several of the textbooks and research papers I have authored deal with mobile
`
`device operating systems:
`
`a. Easttom, C. (2013). System Forensics, Investigation, and Response,
`
`2nd Edition. Burlington Massachusetts: Jones & Bartlett.
`
`b. Easttom, C. (2017). System Forensics, Investigation, and Response, 3rd
`
`Edition. Burlington Massachusetts: Jones & Bartlett.
`
`c. Easttom, C. (2021). Digital Forensics, Investigation, and Response, 4th
`
`Edition. Burlington Massachusetts: Jones & Bartlett
`
`d. Easttom, C. (2021). An In-Depth Guide to Mobile Device Forensics.
`
`CRC Press.
`
`e. Easttom, C., Sanders, W. (2019). On the Efficacy of Using Android
`
`314479480.3
`
`
`
`4
`
`Page 6 of 28
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00600
`U.S. Pat No. 8,620,039
`
`Debugging Bridge for Android Device Forensics. IEEE 10th Annual
`
`Computing and Communication Conference UEMCON.
`
`11.
`
`I am also very experienced with authentication including biometrics. Several
`
`of my published textbooks cover biometrics, including:
`
`a. Easttom, C. (2005). Introduction to Computer Security. New York City,
`
`New York: Pearson Press
`
`b. Easttom, C. (2011). Introduction to Computer Security, 2nd Edition.
`
`New York City, New York: Pearson Press.
`
`c. Easttom, C. & Dulaney, E. (2015). CompTIA Security+ Study Guide:
`
`SY0-401. Hoboken, New Jersey: Sybex Press.
`
`d. Easttom, C. (2015). Modern Cryptography: Applied Mathematics for
`
`Encryption and Information Security. New York City, New York:
`
`McGraw-Hill Publishing.
`
`e. Easttom, C. (2016). Computer Security Fundamentals, 3rd Edition.
`
`New York City, New York: Pearson Press.
`
`f. Easttom, C., & Christy, R. (2017). CompTIA Security+ Review Guide:
`
`SY0-501. Hoboken, New Jersey: Sybex Press.
`
`g. Easttom, C. & Roberts, R. (2018). Networking Fundamentals, 3rd
`
`Edition. Goodheart-Wilcox Publishing.
`
`h. Easttom, C. (2019). Computer Security Fundamentals, 4th Edition.
`
`314479480.3
`
`
`
`5
`
`Page 7 of 28
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00600
`U.S. Pat No. 8,620,039
`
`
`New York City, New York: Pearson Press.
`
`i. Easttom, C.
`
`(2022). Networking Fundamentals, 4th Edition.
`
`Goodheart-Wilcox Publishing. (Writing is complete as is editing, it will
`
`be published later this year).
`
`j. Easttom, C. (2022). Modern Cryptography: Applied Mathematics for
`
`Encryption and Information Security 3rd Edition. New York City, New
`
`York: Springer Press.
`
`12.
`
`In addition to the summary, I have provided here, I describe my qualifications,
`
`issued patents, publications, and experience as an expert witness in greater
`
`detail in my curriculum vitae (“CV”) which is Exhibit 2012 to this proceeding.
`
`13.
`
`In the past five years I have testified on 45 occasions in hearings, trials and
`
`depositions. My entire record of testifying is in my curriculum vitae (Ex.
`
`2012).
`
`14.
`
`I am being compensated at my usual rate of $400/hour. No part of my
`
`compensation is contingent upon the outcome of this case nor upon my
`
`opinions.
`
`15. The materials I have considered in rendering the opinions set forth herein are
`
`identified in this Declaration.
`
`III. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`16.
`
`I am not a lawyer, and have relied upon counsel to explain the relevant legal
`
`314479480.3
`
`
`
`6
`
`Page 8 of 28
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00600
`U.S. Pat No. 8,620,039
`
`tests. I express no opinion regarding whether counsel’s explanation was
`
`correct. For purposes of forming my opinions, I have assumed that such
`
`explanation was correct.
`
`17.
`
`I understand that Apple is challenging the validity of claims 1-2 and 19-20 of
`
`the ʼ039 Patent over Bradford (Ex. 1004) in view of Foss (Ex. 1005) and
`
`Yamane (Ex. 1006). Paper No. 1 at 5. The basis for this challenge is the alleged
`
`obviousness of those claims.
`
`A. Obviousness
`
`18.
`
`I understand that for a patent claim to be found obvious, it must be shown that
`
`the claim would have been obvious to a POSITA at the time of the invention.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that obviousness may be shown by considering one or more
`
`pieces of prior art and/or the knowledge of a POSITA.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that the following factors should be evaluated to determine
`
`whether the claimed subject matter is obvious: (1) the scope and content of
`
`the prior art; (2) the difference or differences, if any, between each claim of
`
`the patent and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`the patent was filed; and (4) the objective evidence of non-obviousness,
`
`sometimes called “secondary considerations.”
`
`21.
`
`I understand that obviousness requires a reason to combine the teaching of the
`
`prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the POSITA
`
`314479480.3
`
`
`
`7
`
`Page 9 of 28
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00600
`U.S. Pat No. 8,620,039
`
`must have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Thus, it is my
`
`understanding that simply showing that each of several claimed elements was
`
`independently known in the prior art is not enough.
`
`22. Additionally, I understand that when the prior art teaches away from
`
`combining certain known elements, discovery of a successful means of
`
`combining them is more likely to be non-obvious.
`
`23.
`
`I further understand that in determining whether a claimed invention would
`
`have been obvious to a POSITA, it is necessary to avoid distortion caused by
`
`hindsight bias, which is likely to be present where the asserted motivation to
`
`combine does not provide a sufficient reason, supported by rational
`
`underpinnings, for combining the references in the claimed manner. I
`
`understand that the determination of obviousness cannot be based on the
`
`hindsight combination of components selectively culled from the prior art to
`
`fit the parameters of the patented invention. Rather, I understand that there
`
`must be a teaching or suggestion within the prior art, or within the general
`
`knowledge of a POSITA in the field of the invention, to look to particular
`
`sources of information, to select particular elements, and to combine them in
`
`the way they were combined by the inventor.
`
`24.
`
`I have been informed that relevant considerations for combining references
`
`include at least the following:
`
`8
`
`314479480.3
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 28
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00600
`U.S. Pat No. 8,620,039
`
`(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to
`
`yield predictable results;
`
`(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
`
`predictable results;
`
`(C) Use of known techniques to improve similar devices, methods,
`
`or products in the same way;
`
`(D) Applying a known technique to a known device, method, or
`
`product ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
`
`(E) “Obvious to try” - choosing from a finite number of identified,
`
`predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success;
`
`(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of
`
`it for use in either the same field or a different one based on
`
`design incentives or other market forces if the variations are
`
`predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; and
`
`(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that
`
`would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art
`
`reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at
`
`the claimed invention.
`
`25.
`
`I was asked to assess combinability without using “hindsight” reasoning.
`
`Instead, I was asked to consider the feasibility and combinability of the
`
`314479480.3
`
`
`
`9
`
`Page 11 of 28
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00600
`U.S. Pat No. 8,620,039
`
`asserted prior art references through the eyes of a POSITA as of August 13,
`
`2003.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that “secondary considerations” are also to be considered when
`
`assessing obviousness,
`
`including commercial success;
`
`long-felt but
`
`unresolved need; failure of others to solve the problem; unexpected results;
`
`copying of the invention by others; and industry praise. I also understand there
`
`must be a nexus between the secondary considerations and the claimed subject
`
`matter.
`
`27.
`
`I have kept these considerations in mind when offering the opinions below
`
`regarding combinability.
`
`B. Presumption of Validity
`
`28.
`
`I understand that an issued patent is presumed to be valid. Each claim of a
`
`patent shall be presumed valid independently of the validity of other claims.
`
`Dependent claims shall be presumed valid even if dependent upon an invalid
`
`claim. I understand that the presumption of validity requires a Petitioner to
`
`prove invalidity based on a preponderance of the evidence.
`
`C. Claim Construction
`
`29.
`
`I have been informed that the challenged claims are generally given their
`
`“plain and ordinary” meaning, which is the meaning they would have to a
`
`POSITA at the time of the invention, in light of the claims, specification, and
`
`314479480.3
`
`
`
`10
`
`Page 12 of 28
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00600
`U.S. Pat No. 8,620,039
`
`
`prosecution history.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that many sources can be used to ascertain the meaning of claims,
`
`including “intrinsic” evidence—claims, specification, prosecution history;
`
`and “extrinsic” evidence—expert testimony, dictionary definitions, and other
`
`evidence external to the patent itself.
`
`31.
`
`I have been instructed to use the claim constructions on which the Board relied
`
`in Paper No. 11 at 10. To the extent I have applied a construction in addition
`
`to the Board’s constructions, I have provided the basis for my understanding
`
`of that particular claim term in the relevant section.
`
`IV. LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART
`
`32.
`
`I have been informed that a POSITA, in the context of a patent validity
`
`challenge, refers to a hypothetical person who is presumed to have known the
`
`relevant art at the time of the invention. I understand that many factors may
`
`be considered in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art. Those
`
`factors include: (1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems
`
`encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity
`
`with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and
`
`(6) educational level of active workers in the field. I understand that a POSITA
`
`is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.
`
`33. Apple has proposed that one of ordinary skill in the art at that time “would
`
`314479480.3
`
`
`
`11
`
`Page 13 of 28
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00600
`U.S. Pat No. 8,620,039
`
`have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer engineering, computer
`
`science, electrical engineering, or a related field, with at least one year
`
`experience in the field of human-machine interfaces and device access
`
`security,” and “[a]dditional education or experience may substitute for the
`
`above requirements.” Paper No. 1 at 4. I have no basis for disagreeing with
`
`that characterization, but note that I satisfied those criteria on August 12,
`
`2005.
`
`V. OPINIONS REGARDING APPLE’S INVALIDITY GROUND
`
`34. As part of my work in this proceeding, I assessed Apple’s and Dr. Sear’s
`
`opinions that Claims 1-2, and 19-20 of the ʼ039 Patent are rendered obvious
`
`by Bradford in view of Foss and Yamane. I disagree.
`
`A. Preamble
`
`35. The claim is drafted in a way that each limitation builds on those before it.
`
`First, the claim requires (1) receiving card information and (2) receiving a
`
`biometric signature. Next, the (1) received card information is used to (3)
`
`define a memory location in memory external to the card. Third, the claimed
`
`method (4) determines whether that (3) defined memory location is
`
`unoccupied. If it is (4) determined that the memory location is unoccupied,
`
`the method culminates in (5) storing the (2) biometric signature at the (3)
`
`defined memory location. In other words, the fifth step in this method requires
`
`314479480.3
`
`
`
`12
`
`Page 14 of 28
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00600
`U.S. Pat No. 8,620,039
`
`the second step, and third step (which requires the first step), and the fourth
`
`step in order to be completed.
`
`36.
`
`I understand Dr. Sears has also agreed that the claims describe a method in
`
`terms of a series of steps which much occur in a particular order. Ex. 2003,
`
`15:21-16:6. In this respect, I agree with Dr. Sears.
`
`37. While I do not express an opinion as to whether the preamble is limiting,
`
`which I understand is a question of legal significance, my opinion is that the
`
`claims are directed towards the ultimate goal of storing biometric information
`
`at a defined memory location within the context of enrollment.
`
`B. Bradford (Ex. 1004)
`
`38.
`
`I have been asked to use the construction of “dependent upon” adopted by the
`
`Board for the purposes of institution, which is the “plain and ordinary
`
`meaning, defined as ‘contingent on or determined by.’” Decision at 10.
`
`39.
`
`In light of this construction, a POSITA would understand this claim to require
`
`that received card information be the basis for the definition of a memory
`
`location external to the card.
`
`40. This comports with the text of the ʼ039 Patent itself as well. For example, col.
`
`2, lines 64-67 states “[t]he biometric signature is stored at a memory address
`
`defined by the card as read by the (‘unique’) card information on the user’s
`
`card as read by the card reader of the verification station.” ʼ039 Patent, 2:64-
`
`314479480.3
`
`
`
`13
`
`Page 15 of 28
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00600
`U.S. Pat No. 8,620,039
`
`67 (emphasis added); see also id. 7:47-49 (“The card data 604 defines the
`
`location 607 in the memory 124 where the unique biometric signature is
`
`stored.”). The ʼ039 Patent repeatedly refers to the memory address as
`
`“defined by the card [information/data],” confirming the received card
`
`information is the basis for the definition of a memory location. See, e.g., id.
`
`at Abstract, 3:4-11, 7:53-56, 9:23-25, 9:62-67.
`
`41.
`
`“Defining” a memory location is not the same as finding or identifying a
`
`memory location, as Dr. Sears suggests. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 80, 90. To “find” or
`
`“identify” a memory location requires that the memory location already be
`
`defined. The claimed method, however, requires defining a memory location
`
`from the received card information. In the context of the claims, a POSITA
`
`would understand defining a memory location as “setting” or “establishing” a
`
`memory location. This is not the same as “finding” or “identifying” a memory
`
`location, which must already be set or established prior to being found or
`
`identified. The ʼ039 Patent confirms this understanding. See, e.g., ʼ039 Patent
`
`at 2:64-67, 7:47-49.
`
`42. The claim further requires defining a memory location dependent on received
`
`card information. ʼ039 Patent at claims 1, 19. In order to be dependent on (or
`
`as the Board has construed, in order to be contingent on or determined by)
`
`received card information, the card information must be received before
`
`314479480.3
`
`
`
`14
`
`Page 16 of 28
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00600
`U.S. Pat No. 8,620,039
`
`defining a memory location can occur. On this point, Dr. Sears appears to
`
`agree; in his deposition he also stated that “you need to have the card
`
`information” and that “the card information allows you to define the location
`
`where the information either is or will be stored.” Ex. 2003 at 15:12-16:6; see
`
`also Ex. 2003 at 14:22-15:11.
`
`43. Dr. Sears relies heavily on non-enrollment features described in Bradford. See
`
`Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 79-84. This includes reliance on the embodiments that “find”
`
`rather than “define” a memory location. Id. at ¶ 80. As described above,
`
`“finding” an existing memory location is not the same as “defining” a memory
`
`location. In this regard, I disagree with Dr. Sears that Bradford’s non-
`
`enrollment teachings would render the “defining” claim limitation obvious.
`
`44. Bradford does, however, depicts enrollment of new players in Figure 6, which
`
`is described as “a flow diagram for creating an initial database entry to be used
`
`with biometrically augmented authentication in accordance with the present
`
`invention.” Bradford at 4:32-34. This involves new players first approaching
`
`a customer service desk and asking for an account. Id. at 14:21-25. The
`
`attendant or “authorized person” then creates a database entry for that player
`
`and inputs initial data from the player into the database. Id. at 14:25-28,
`
`14:42-61. Next, the attendant “may provide the player with the player’s first
`
`authenticator” which, according to the preferred embodiment will be a
`
`314479480.3
`
`
`
`15
`
`Page 17 of 28
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00600
`U.S. Pat No. 8,620,039
`
`tangible card. Id. at 15:16-23. Then, the attendant may either enter the
`
`player’s biometric measurement directly into the system (id. at 16:26-32) or
`
`accompany the player to a gaming machine for “training,” which includes
`
`entering the player’s biometric measurements (id. at 15:42-58).
`
`45.
`
`Importantly, as described in the preceding paragraph, the database entry
`
`taught by Bradford is created before entering player information. Id. at 14:25-
`
`28, 15:16-23. Because the database entry (the memory location) is created
`
`first, the first authenticator or received card information does not define a
`
`memory location. Dr. Sears appears to agree in his deposition, agreeing that
`
`nothing in Bradford teaches creating a player ID card first then uses it to create
`
`the player ID entry. Ex. 2003 at 31:12-32:22, 34:16-36:5 (“Q: So the entry
`
`would have to exist first before data could be stored there, correct? A:
`
`Correct.”). On that point, I agree with Dr. Sears; the database entry of
`
`Bradford precedes the issuance of a first authenticator ID card.
`
`46.
`
`In addition, Dr. Sears testified, and I agree, that the database entry must be
`
`created first because “you cannot store something in memory until you know
`
`the location where you’re going to be storing it…” Ex. 2003 at 14:16-21. I
`
`also agree with Dr. Sears that associating the first and second authenticators
`
`of Bradford occurs “when the [database] entry is created.” Id. at 25:22-26:20.
`
`Dr. Sears testified, and I agree, that the “one of the pieces of [the] entry [in
`
`314479480.3
`
`
`
`16
`
`Page 18 of 28
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00600
`U.S. Pat No. 8,620,039
`
`the database] is the first authenticator data.” Id. at 33:1-8. Put differently,
`
`this database entry “has multiple items.” Id. at 33:10-13. To associate the
`
`first and second authenticators, which make up some of the “multiple items,”
`
`the database “entry would have to exist first before data could be stored there.”
`
`Id. at 34:16-36:5.
`
`47. Dr. Sears elaborated on this later in his deposition, when he described how
`
`“there will be two different memory locations in Bradford’s database entries,”
`
`and more specifically that “first authenticator area [sic “data”] is stored in one
`
`specific memory that is part of a record and the second authenticator data,
`
`which is biometric data, has to be stored in a different memory location
`
`because you can’t store two things in the same location within the same
`
`record.” Ex. 2003, 47:20-48:9. I once again agree with Dr. Sears that “those
`
`fields are arranged at the time the database structure is implemented.” Id.
`
`48:10-49:3. This further confirms what a POSITA would know, in a database
`
`arranged as in Bradford, the database entry must be created first to specify the
`
`memory location of the fields which make up the first and second
`
`authenticators. The received card information, therefore, does not define the
`
`memory location as the definition of that memory location occurs when the
`
`database entry is created.
`
`48. Bradford also does not teach creating multi-user accounts as Dr. Sears appears
`
`314479480.3
`
`
`
`17
`
`Page 19 of 28
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00600
`U.S. Pat No. 8,620,039
`
`to suggest by combining Bradford with Foss. Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 93-94, 98. Due to
`
`heightened security concerns in casinos, the casino would almost certainly not
`
`allow for multiple users to share an account. Indeed, Bradford teaches away
`
`from multiple users being able to access the same account, as it expressly
`
`describes concern for “substitutions,” where the person who showed their ID
`
`to the casino attendant is not the same as the person who is playing. Bradford
`
`at 33:5-14. Furthermore, each account is required to have a biometric
`
`identifier, which as Dr. Sears states “can be used to uniquely identify an
`
`individual.” Ex. 2003, 12:19-22. The player accounts in Bradford are
`
`therefore limited to single-user accounts, whereas Foss (as described below)
`
`is directed towards multi-user accounts. A POSITA would understand that
`
`these are contradictory and would be very difficult to combine.
`
`49. Bradford is also quite clear that during any player training, the casino
`
`attendant’s identifier card is to remain in the machine. Bradford, 16:10-20
`
`(“the casino attendant’s ID card (or other physical device) must be left in the
`
`machine”), 24:1-13. This is to prevent players from accessing the privileged
`
`screens used by the casino attendants. Id. Because the attendant’s card is in
`
`the gaming machine, Bradford notably does not teach the player’s card also
`
`be entered into the machine in order to pull up that user’s partially-created
`
`account.
`
`314479480.3
`
`
`
`18
`
`Page 20 of 28
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00600
`U.S. Pat No. 8,620,039
`
`50. Dr. Sears suggests players, when using their card, could be trained. Ex. 1003,
`
`¶ 102. Bradford describes training as occurring within “a special set of
`
`screens” which “allow the attendant to … show any special screen or choice
`
`sequences to the user as part of the training (i.e., allow a ‘fake’ transaction so
`
`the player sees the sequence of actions to take).” Bradford at 15:42-58.
`
`51.
`
`In addition, requiring a player to insert a player card (as required by the
`
`combination with Foss) overcomplicates the registration process taught by
`
`Bradford. Specifically, Bradford describes a player approaching the customer
`
`service counter, beginning enrollment there (and potentially finishing it there),
`
`and then going to a nearby game to finish enrollment. At most, there would
`
`be a handful of new registrations occurring at once (Bradford at 14:28-31 (“In
`
`a preferred embodiment there will be selected, small subset of trusted
`
`employees who will make entries into the player ID database”)), so forcing
`
`the player or attendant to swipe the player’s ID card would unnecessarily
`
`complicate this process and would discourage a POSITA from utilizing this
`
`enrollment process. Furthermore, this “selected, small subset of trusted
`
`employees” utilizes a privileged screen for enrollment at the gaming machine,
`
`which would presumably be connected to the privileged screen used for
`
`enrollment at the customer service counter which would allow continuity
`
`between the first and second enrollment steps. Bradford at 14:21-41, 15:42-
`
`314479480.3
`
`
`
`19
`
`Page 21 of 28
`
`
`
`58.
`
`52. Dr. Sears also relies on Bradford’s Figure 3 embodiment of a local cache
`
`IPR2022-00600
`U.S. Pat No. 8,620,039
`
`
`which stores information of the last 10 player for faster authentication. Ex.
`
`1003 at ¶ 99-102. I disagree that this embodiment teaches caching the new
`
`player’s information as part of enrollment because there is no indication the
`
`player uses the gaming machine until after the attendant has completed
`
`enrollment. As discussed above, training takes place in “a special set of
`
`screens.” Bradford at 15:42-58. Bradford continues and describes that the
`
`gaming machine is not “ready to be used in a normal manner” until after the
`
`attendant exits the privileged screen and training mode. Id. at 16:8-10, 16:21-
`
`25. There is, therefore, no indication that the biometric signature is stored at
`
`a defined location in local memory.
`
`C. Foss (Ex. 1005)
`
`53. Foss is directed primarily toward transferring funds between multiple users in
`
`a stored value card system. Foss at ¶¶ [0008]-[0011]. Foss does describe
`
`enrolling secondary users into an existing stored value card account (610) by
`
`selecting the menu option associated with enrolling a new user (button 1004)
`
`and then swiping their existing card (508) associated with the existing account
`
`314479480.3
`
`
`
`20
`
`Page 22 of 28
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00600
`U.S. Pat No. 8,620,039
`
`(610). Id. at ¶ [0088].1 Foss does not, however, describe enrolling a new
`
`individual into a stored value card account.
`
`54. Foss is also indifferent to biometrics. The only mention of biometrics in Foss
`
`is a passing reference in paragraph [0034]:
`
`“The data interface 120 may be any type of interface capable of
`extracting and/or writing to a data source 110. The data interface
`120 may incorporate the hardware necessary to read/write to the
`data source 110 or may simply be an interface to a hardware
`device such as a bar code reader/ writer, a magnetic reader/writer,
`a scanner, a templated scanner, a printer, a bio-metric
`identification device, a pass through inlet/outlet, etc.”
`
`This passing identification of a “bio-metric identification device” is merely
`
`one item in a rather long list of possible hardware devices that read/write to a
`
`data interface.
`
`55.
`
`It is worth noting that Foss does teach a button for enrolling “an individual
`
`card (button 106).” Id. There is no additional information anywhere in Foss
`
`regarding how enrollment happens when this button is selected. It is also
`
`worth noting that the same enrollment process described above could not
`
`occur for a new user because it expressly requires “existing customer 610 [to]
`
`swipe[] existing stored value card 508 to further continue the enrollment
`
`
`1 Dr. Sears and Apple rely only on Foss at ¶¶ [0086], [0088], Figs. 7-8. Ex. 1003,
`¶¶ 93-94
`
`314479480.3
`
`
`
`21
`
`Page 23 of 28
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00600
`U.S. Pat No. 8,620,039
`
`process.” Id. Because a new u
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
