Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,620,039
`
`Oral Argument, July 18, 2023
`
`Apple Inc. v. CPC Patent Technologies PTY, LTD.
`Case No. IPR2022-00600
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits – Not Evidence
`
`Petitioner’s DX-1
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,620,039
`
`Oral Argument, July 18, 2023
`
`Apple Inc. v. CPC Patent Technologies PTY, LTD.
`Case No. IPR2022-00600
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits – Not Evidence
`
`Petitioner’s DX-1
`
`
`
`Ground for Rejection
`
`} Ground 1: Claims 1-2 and 19-20
`} Bradford (Ex. 1004) in view of Foss (Ex. 1005) and Yamane (Ex. 1006)
`
`} Summary of Modifications to Bradford
`} Bradford alone teaches:
`} a player ID card storing a user ID
`} enrolling a new player
`} storing biometric information in local memory
`} later, comparing a user’s fingerprint to the enrolled biometric
`} located using the player ID card
`
`} Bradford modified by Foss to clarify that card data is received during
`enrollment
`
`} Bradford modified by Yamane
`to utilize a
`presence/absence of a fingerprint stored in memory
`
`flag
`
`indicating
`
`the
`
`Pet. (Paper 1), 1-3; Pet. Reply (Paper 13), 1, 23
`
`Petitioner’s DX-2
`
`
`
`’039 Patent, Claim 1
`
`’039 Patent (Ex. 1001), Claim 1, Fig. 5
`
`Petitioner’s DX-3
`
`
`
`Comparison of Parties’ Constructions Regarding “defining,
`dependent upon the received card information”
`
`} Apple’s Construction:
`} The card data (i.e., Bradford’s first authenticator data) “acts as a
`memory reference that points to a memory location” in a database
`
`} CPC’s Construction:
`} “Setting…” or “Establishing…” a memory location
`
`Pet., 18-19, 23-24; Pet. Reply, 3, 7-8
`
`Pet. Reply, 3, 6-8, 10-12
`
`POR, 7-8
`
`Petitioner’s DX-4
`
`
`
`Petition’s Mapping for “defining, dependent
`upon the received card information”
`
`Ø Petition’s Mapping Identified Bradford’s Teachings of “pointing to” a Memory Location:
`
`Pet., 23-24; Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 80-83, 87, 89
`
`Pet., 23-24
`
`Petitioner’s DX-5
`
`
`
`Board Already Agreed with Apple’s Mapping
`
`Institution Decision (Paper 8), 34
`
`Institution Decision, 34; Pet. Reply, 6
`
`Petitioner’s DX-6
`
`
`
`Intrinsic Evidence Supports Apple’s
`Construction
`} “Pointing to…a memory location” is the only understanding of “defining…a
`memory location” supported by the Specification
`
`Specifications vs. claims
`
`Pet. Reply, 4-5
`
`’039 Patent, 7:31-35
`
`Pet., 18-19, 23-25 citing Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 80-83, 87, 89; Pet. Reply, 4-5, 8-9
`
`’039 Patent, 8:24-31
`Petitioner’s DX-7
`
`
`
`CPC’s Construction
`CPC’s Construction
`
`Petitioner repeatedly characterizes “defining, dependent upon the recetved
`
`card information” term with respect to Bradford as “to find” or “identifying.” See
`
`therefore fail to teach this claim limitation. /d., 9942-43.
`
`Pet., 19, 21. Defining, however, is not finding or identifying something that has
`
`already been defined. Ex. 2001, 941. Indeed, a POSITA would consider the word
`
`“defining,” especially in the context of enrollment,
`
`to mean “setting” or
`
`“establishing.” Jd.
`
`In other words, in the context of the claim language, a memory
`
`locationis set or established. Petitioner’s reliance on the verbs “find” and “identify”
`
`> Pet. Reply, 6-7
`
`POR, 7-8
`
`Petitioner’s DX-8
`Petitioner's DX-8
`
`
`
`CPC’s Alleged Support for Its Construction
`
`} Dr. Easttom’s Support for CPC’s Construction
`
`Easttom Dec.
`(Ex. 2001),
`¶ 41
`
`Petitioner’s DX-9
`
`
`
`CPC’s Construction Is Unsupported
`
`} CPC’s Citations to the ’039 Patent Provide No
`Explanation of the Meaning of “defining”
`
`’039 Patent, 2:62-67
`
`’039 Patent, 7:47-49
`
`Petitioner’s DX-10
`
`Easttom Dec. (Ex. 2001), ¶ 41
`
`
`
`CPC’s Construction Explained
`
`} CPC’s construction of “defining” requires new creation
`of the memory location
`
`PO Sur-Reply (Paper 15), 2
`
`POR, 7-8; PO Sur-Reply, 2
`
`Petitioner’s DX-11
`
`
`
`CPC’s Construction Creates Illogical and
`Inconsistent Claim Language
`
`’039 Patent, Claims 1 and 2
`
`Pet. Reply, 4, 10-11
`
`Petitioner’s DX-12
`
`
`
`Federal Circuit Caselaw Prohibits
`CPC’s Construction
`
`} Claims are construed to cover at least one embodiment:
`
`Pet. Reply, 10
`
`Pet. Reply, 10
`
`Petitioner’s DX-13
`
`
`
`Bradford, Fig. 6
`
`Pet., 9-11; Pet. Reply, 16
`
`Bradford, Fig. 3
`
`Bradford, Fig. 6
`
`Petitioner’s DX-14
`
`
`
`CPC’s “Privileged Screens” Theory
`
`} CPC’s Argument: “no local memory is defined dependent upon received
`card information”
`
`POR, 17; PO Sur-Reply , 7-8
`
`Pet. Reply, 16-19
`
`Petitioner’s DX-15
`
`
`
`CPC’s “Privileged Screens” Theory
`
`} Bradford’s Player Record Exists and Is Cached Before It Is
`Fully Enabled:
`
`Bradford, 16:1-7
`
`Bradford, Fig. 6 (excerpt)
`
`POR, 16-17; Pet. Reply, 17; PO Sur-Reply, 8-10
`
`Petitioner’s DX-16
`
`
`
`CPC’s “Attendant’s Card” Argument
`
`CCPC’PC’s XPX’aArgument:
`CPC’s Argument:
`
`POR, 12, 18;
`PO Sur-Reply, 10-11
`
`AApple’s Response: :
`
`Bradford expressly
`envisions
`embodiments not
`requiring the
`attendant card be
`inserted to open the
`privilege screen
`
`CPC admits
`
`Pet., 26-27, citing Ex. 1003, ¶ 86; Pet. Reply, 19-21
`
`Bradford, 14:31-37
`
`PO Sur-Reply, 11
`
`Petitioner’s DX-17
`
`
`
`CPC’s Sundry Arguments Regarding the
`Combination with Foss
`
`Foss used to
`teach receiving
`card information
`during enrollment
`
`Benefits of Modification:
`(1) Simple, fast, accurate, and logical method to retrieve a
`partially completed player ID entry
`(2) Used a technique very well-known prior to the ’039
`Patent
`(3) Consistent with Bradford’s training process
`
`Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 95-96
`
`CPC’s Response
`
`Pet., 1, 17, 25-30, citing Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 95-97; Pet. Reply, 21-24; POR 11-
`13, 15; PO Sur-Reply, 8-10
`
`Petitioner’s DX-18
`
`
`
`CPC’s Arguments Regarding the
`Combination with Yamane
`
`Yamane used to
`teach a flag
`indicating
`memory is
`unoccupied
`
`Benefits of Modification:
`(1) Determine if entry is “complete, valid, or enables”
`(2) Used a technique of setting flags that is very well-
`known prior to the ’039 Patent
`(3) Consistent with Bradford’s training process
`
`CPC’s Response
`
`Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 95-96
`
`Pet., 29-30, citing Ex. 1003, ¶ 97; Pet. Reply, 21-24; POR, 20, 23-24
`
`Petitioner’s DX-19
`
`
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
