`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CPC PATENT TECHNOLOGIES PTY, LTD.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`CASE: IPR2022-00602
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,665,705
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. WILLIAM C. EASTTOM III
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CPC EXHIBIT 2013
`Apple Inc. v. CPC Patent Technologies PTY Ltd.
`IPR2022-00602
`
`Page 1 of 36
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00602
`U.S. Pat No. 9,665,705
`
`
`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. Accessibility Attribute .........................................................................15
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Series of Entries of the Biometric Signal, Said Series Being
`Characterised According to at Least One of the Number of Said
`Entries and a Duration of Each Said Entry .........................................22
`
`Populate the Data Base According to the Instruction .........................29
`
`Independent Claims 10, 11, and 14-17 ................................................33
`
`Dependent Claims 4, 6, and 12 ...........................................................33
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`Page 2 of 36
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00602
`U.S. Pat No. 9,665,705
`
`
`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. 9,665,705 (which I refer to as “the ʼ705
`
`Patent”) (Ex. 1001).
`
`3.
`
`I have considered the documents cited throughout this declaration, including
`
`the ʼ705 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.
`
`1
`
`Page 3 of 36
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00602
`U.S. Pat No. 9,665,705
`
`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).
`
`2
`
`Page 4 of 36
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00602
`U.S. Pat No. 9,665,705
`
`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
`
`3
`
`Page 5 of 36
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00602
`U.S. Pat No. 9,665,705
`
`
`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
`
`4
`
`Page 6 of 36
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00602
`U.S. Pat No. 9,665,705
`
`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.
`
`5
`
`Page 7 of 36
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00602
`U.S. Pat No. 9,665,705
`
`
`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 2014 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.
`
`2014).
`
`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
`
`6
`
`Page 8 of 36
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00602
`U.S. Pat No. 9,665,705
`
`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, 4, 6, 10-12,
`
`and 14-17 of the ʼ705 Patent over Mathiassen (Ex. 1004) in view of McKeeth
`
`(Ex. 1005) and Anderson (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
`
`7
`
`Page 9 of 36
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00602
`U.S. Pat No. 9,665,705
`
`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
`
`Page 10 of 36
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00602
`U.S. Pat No. 9,665,705
`
`(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
`
`9
`
`Page 11 of 36
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00602
`U.S. Pat No. 9,665,705
`
`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
`
`10
`
`Page 12 of 36
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00602
`U.S. Pat No. 9,665,705
`
`
`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 12-14. 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
`
`11
`
`Page 13 of 36
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00602
`U.S. Pat No. 9,665,705
`
`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 13,
`
`2003.
`
`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, 4, 6, 10-12, and 14-17 of the ʼ705 Patent are rendered
`
`obvious by Mathiasson in view of McKeeth and Anderson. I disagree.
`
`35. As an initial matter, authentication is divided into three types. Type I is
`
`something you know (i.e., a password, pin, etc.). Type II is something you
`
`have (i.e., a key, swipe card, etc.). Type III authentication is something you
`
`are (i.e., a biometric signal).1 Variations of these three types have been
`
`developed such as the use of tokens.
`
`36. Type III authentication, otherwise known as biometric authentication has the
`
`advantage of being directly tied to a specific user. The Department of
`
`
`1 https://www.cs.cornell.edu/courses/cs513/2005fa/NNLauthPeople.html
`
`12
`
`Page 14 of 36
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00602
`U.S. Pat No. 9,665,705
`
`Homeland Security states “Biometrics are unique physical characteristics,
`
`such as fingerprints, that can be used for automated recognition.”2
`
`37. While biometric authentication is not new, there are numerous divergent
`
`methods of accomplishing biometric authentication. A search for “biometric”
`
`in Google patents conducted on November 15, 2022, yielded over 135,000
`
`results. This demonstrates that simply having technology related to biometric
`
`authentication does not in any way anticipate the ʼ705 Patent. Rather, this
`
`demonstrates the diversity in approaches to biometric authentication.
`
`38.
`
`In his report Dr. Sear’s spends many paragraphs discussing rolling codes and
`
`Bluetooth technology. However, this is not relevant to the inventive aspects
`
`of the ʼ705 Patent. The ʼ705 Patent discloses rolling codes and encrypted
`
`Bluetooth, specifically stating “the secure access signal comprises one of at
`
`least a rolling code, an encrypted Bluetooth™ protocol, and a WiFi™
`
`protocol.” Ex. 1001, 2:39-41; 3:5-7. However, Dr. Sears does not point to is
`
`any prior technology that discloses “a secure access signal conveying
`
`information dependent upon said accessibility attribute, wherein the
`
`secure access signal comprises one of at least a rolling code, an encrypted
`
`Bluetooth™ protocol, and a WiFi™ protocol.” Id. (Emphasis added).
`
`
`2 https://www.dhs.gov/biometrics
`
`13
`
`Page 15 of 36
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00602
`U.S. Pat No. 9,665,705
`
`39. Bluetooth, WiFi, rolling codes, or other transmissions are just that,
`
`transmission mediums. These transmission mediums may communicate a
`
`wide range of different data. The ʼ705 Patent lists these protocols as possible
`
`transmission mediums for the secure access signal.
`
`40. Dr. Sears devotes an entire section of his report, beginning at paragraph 57 to
`
`discussion of a series of entries. Ex. 1003, ¶ 57-63. In that discussion, Dr.
`
`Sears discusses Morse code, Williams (Exhibit 1030 to Dr. Sears report), and
`
`similar technology. Dr. Sears examples are entirely irrelevant to the ʼ705
`
`Patent. The ʼ705 Patent discloses “receiving a series of entries of the biometric
`
`signal; determining at least one of the number of said entries and a duration
`
`of each said entry.” Ex. 1001, 3:38-40; Claims 1, 2, and 10.
`
`41. Morse code clearly is not a series of entries of a biometric signal. Williams
`
`discusses pushing a button either once or twice. Neither of these are even in
`
`the same field of technology as the ʼ705 Patent.
`
`42. The Petitioner argues that secure access signals were well known by 2003.
`
`Ex. 1003, ¶ 183. This is a misstatement of what is claimed in the ʼ705 Patent.
`
`Rather than simply claim a ‘secure access signal’, the ʼ705 Patent claims a “a
`
`secure access signal conveying information dependent upon said accessibility
`
`attribute.” Ex. 1001, Claims 1, 10, 11, 2:37-38, 3:18-20, 4:1-2. The Petitioner
`
`claims that Matthiassen teaches a secure access signal. A POSITA would first
`
`14
`
`Page 16 of 36
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00602
`U.S. Pat No. 9,665,705
`
`note that ‘secure access signal’ or even ‘access signal’ do not appear in
`
`Matthiassen.
`
`43. The term ‘signal’ does appear in Matthiassen. Signal is used in the following
`
`contexts: sensor signal (paragraphs 46, 49, and 192, and claim 7), output
`
`signal from the sensor (paragraph 49, claim 2, claim 8), interception of signals
`
`between the sensor and the biometrics processor (paragraph 47), signal to the
`
`wake-up block (paragraphs 66, 67, 130, and 177), output signal from the
`
`IC/Chip (paragraph 85, claim 17), control signal (paragraph 192), captured
`
`fingerprint signal (claim 10), control signal for controlling the stand alone
`
`appliance in response to the finger movement on the sensor (claim 20), and
`
`captured signal (claim 22). None of these even suggest “a secure access signal
`
`conveying information dependent upon said accessibility attribute.”
`
`A. Accessibility Attribute
`
`44. Claim 1 of the ‘705 Patent requires an output of an “accessibility attribute”
`
`based upon a biometric signal match, and emitting “a secure access signal
`
`conveying information dependent upon said accessibility attribute.” Ex.
`
`1001, 16:1-7.
`
`45. The Board has construed this limitation to mean an “attribute that establishes
`
`whether and under which conditions access to the controlled item should be
`
`granted” as the construction of “accessibility attribute,” and that is the
`
`15
`
`Page 17 of 36
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00602
`U.S. Pat No. 9,665,705
`
`construction that I have employed in rendering the opinions herein. I
`
`understand that this construction requires more than the binary determination
`
`of whether to grant access to a controlled item by virtue of the “under which
`
`conditions” language. In other words, there must be something else attendant
`
`to such access beyond either a grant or denial of such access.
`
`46.
`
`I agree with Dr. Sears’ opinion that Mathiassen teaches using biometric
`
`information with a portable control to determine whether or not to grant access
`
`to an automobile, i.e., a binary decision. Ex. 1003, ¶ 139. Specifically, such
`
`access is granted if there is a fingerprint match with a stored fingerprint, and
`
`the process is aborted if there is no match. See id. This constitutes only the
`
`binary determination of whether to grant access, and therefore does not teach
`
`the “under which conditions” portion of the Board’s construction of the
`
`“accessibility attribute” limitation.
`
`47. Dr. Sears opines that “Mathiassen in combination with McKeeth teaches
`
`outputting two or more accessibility attributes,” i.e., it is non-binary. See Ex.
`
`1003, ¶ 143. The teaching from McKeeth to which Dr. Sears refers as
`
`contributing to the combination is a “geometric pattern” that is input
`
`“concurrently with, or after a predetermined duration from, scanning his/her
`
`fingerprint.” Ex. 1003, ¶ 145. In other words, the teaching from McKeeth
`
`allows for a duress signal when a second input is provided in addition to the
`
`16
`
`Page 18 of 36
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00602
`U.S. Pat No. 9,665,705
`
`fingerprint recognition or biometric authentication. Id. This “geometric
`
`pattern” input is one of several knowledge-based inputs described in McKeeth.
`
`For example, McKeeth describes a password input, an input of a series of
`
`clicks using a mouse, or this geometric pattern input by moving a “peripheral
`
`device 200 on a flat surface.” Ex. 1006, 2:65-3:4, 5:34-38.
`
`48.
`
`I understand that, in order to form a legitimate combination of prior art
`
`references forming the basis of an obviousness challenge, there can be no
`
`hindsight reconstruction involved in forming that combination. In other
`
`words, one cannot use a challenged claim as a blueprint for forming a prior
`
`art combination.
`
`49.
`
`I understand Dr. Sears to opine that there would have been a motivation to
`
`combine the binary biometric security measures (access or no) with the
`
`security measures of McKeeth because increased security is always beneficial.
`
`Ex. 1003, ¶ 106.
`
`50. The combination of Mathiassen and McKeeth,
`
`to avoid hindsight
`
`reconstruction, presupposes that one would have thought, without the benefit
`
`of the challenged claims, to look beyond Mathiassen to add a duress signal to
`
`the existing fingerprint security thereof.
`
`51. As Dr. Sears notes, Mathiassen already teaches finger movement that can
`
`provide for additional security. Ex. 1003, ¶ 86 (“Mathiassen teaches
`
`17
`
`Page 19 of 36
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00602
`U.S. Pat No. 9,665,705
`
`commands other than ‘open door’ may be implemented in the secure access
`
`control system by a user providing certain finger movements”). In his
`
`deposition, Dr. Sears confirmed that one such command could be to send a
`
`distress signal. Ex. 2010, 51:6-10. Because of this, it is my opinion that there
`
`would have been no reason to look to McKeeth to modify Mathiassen in the
`
`fashion that Dr. Sears describes, and I disagree with his opinion that one
`
`would have been motivated to combine these references to arrive at the claims
`
`invention.
`
`52.
`
`I also note that, even if Mathiassen were modified to add a distress signal
`
`resulting from finger movements, such modification would not involve a
`
`biometric signal for generating the distress signal. In particular, there is a
`
`difference between the fingerprint sensor for capturing a biometric signal of
`
`Mathiassen, which is described in ¶ [0048] and claimed in Claim 18, and the
`
`translation means “for analyzing and categorizing the omni-directional finger
`
`movements across the fingerprint sensor” which is described in ¶ [0192] and
`
`claimed in Claim 20 (which depends from Claim 18). See Ex. 1004 at 28.
`
`53.
`
`I agree with Dr. Sear’ opinion that there is a distinction between knowledge-
`
`based and biometric information. See Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 37-38. To one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art, the finger movements suggested in Mathiassen, as distinct from
`
`fingerprints themselves, are not biometric signals, as something more than the
`
`18
`
`Page 20 of 36
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00602
`U.S. Pat No. 9,665,705
`
`fingerprint sensor is required to track them, and one can “learn” finger
`
`movements. Fingerprints are unique to a specific individual; finger
`
`movements are not. Anyone can duplicate particular set of finger movements.
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that, in the context of
`
`tracking “omni-directional finger movements,” the fingerprint sensor, in
`
`conjunction with the translation means hardware or software, is not acting like
`
`a fingerprint sensor.
`
`54. Thus, my opinion is that, even if one would have combined Mathiassen and
`
`McKeeth, one would still not have an accessibility attribute that determines
`
`whether and under which conditions access to a controlled item is granted
`
`based upon a biometric signal match, as both Mathiassen and McKeeth teach
`
`only using knowledge-based functions, separate from biometric matching, to
`
`establish “under which conditions” access is granted.
`
`55.
`
`I also note that, even if one were motivated to look beyond Mathiassen’s
`
`teachings to provide for additional security, there were simpler mechanisms
`
`for providing that security. Looking at other prior art references discussed by
`
`Dr. Sears, several such references teach simple, non-biometric security
`
`measures. For example, the remote keyless entry system of Williams (Ex.
`
`1030) “included a button on the fob that performed different functions when
`
`pushed once or twice.” Ex. 1003, ¶ 58, citing Ex. 1030, 14:5-31. This one-
`
`19
`
`Page 21 of 36
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00602
`U.S. Pat No. 9,665,705
`
`
`press, two-press system is not biometric. Ex. 2010 at 37:18-38:11.
`
`56. Similarly, Araki “discloses invoking certain commands based on user input
`
`but does so via a touch sensor without sensing a user’s fingerprint.” Ex. 1003,
`
`¶ 62, citing Ex. 1034, 5:28-33. As such, Araki teaches a knowledge-based
`
`security system.
`
`57. Finally, the key fob described in K-9 Car Alarm Owner’s Guide and
`
`Installation Instructions (“K-9”) has a “panic mode” security measure. Ex.
`
`1003, ¶ 69, citing Ex. 1041 at 7. The panic mode is activated by a push button
`
`transmitter. Ex. 1041 at 7. This reference does not teach biometric sensing,
`
`either. Ex. 2010 at 73:17-74:10.
`
`58.
`
`I agree with Dr. Sears that “creating a quickly, easily, and most importantly,
`
`natural-functioning entry system is vital in portable electronics using input
`
`devices was also desirable, and their making user manipulation of such
`
`devices easy was a key feature.” Ex. 1003, ¶ 229.
`
`59. Furthermore, I agree with Dr. Sears that push buttons on key fobs or similar
`
`devices were well known in the prior art. Ex. 2010 at 62:5-8. Mathiassen could
`
`have been modified by adding a well-known physical push button to generate
`
`a duress signal. Ex. 2010 at 59:9-21. In addition, Dr. Sears suggests if a fob is
`
`in a user’s pocket or in a bag, “it would be simpler and more efficient for the
`
`user to simply press the fingerprint interface at varying durations rather than
`
`20
`
`Page 22 of 36
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00602
`U.S. Pat No. 9,665,705
`
`moving the finger directionally to enter commands.” Ex. 1003, ¶ 222. This
`
`simplicity consideration would be a key feature in determining how one might
`
`modify an existing system, such as that described in Mathiassen. Ex. 2010 at
`
`71:18-22. It is my opinion that a POSITA would not have looked to McKeeth,
`
`which teaches complex password, passcode, or geometric pattern inputs, in
`
`order to modify the teachings of Mathiassen because the POSITA would have
`
`looked to simpler, well-known solutions of adding this functionality, such as
`
`the solutions taught by the number of other references on which Dr. Sears and
`
`Apple rely.
`
`60.
`
`In my opinion, Dr. Sears provides no rationale for a preference to combine
`
`two fingerprint recognition references (Mathiassen and McKeeth), especially
`
`considering the complicated programming that would associated therewith,
`
`over combining Mathiassen’s fingerprint sensor with the simpler push button
`
`feature taught in one of the references discussed above.
`
`61. The fingerprint sensor in this combination provides for biometric security in
`
`the first instance. And, according to the references discussed by Dr. Sears, a
`
`push button can provide additional security, such as initiating a distress signal.
`
`Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 58, 62, 69. A push button is a simple mechanical feature, and is
`
`easy to install in a device such as a key fob, which explains why push buttons
`
`of the type contained in Williams, Araki, and K-9 were as prevalent in the prior
`
`21
`
`Page 23 of 36
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00602
`U.S. Pat No. 9,665,705
`
`art as Dr. Sears describes. See id. Further, as Dr. Sears notes, the push button
`
`on a key fob located in a pocket or purse would be easy to operate in the event
`
`of a duress situation. Id., ¶ 222.
`
`62.
`
`In my opinion, therefore, neither Apple nor Dr. Sears have established that a
`
`POSITA would have looked to combine two fingerprint recognition
`
`references when what Dr. Sears describes as simpler, easier-to-operate
`
`solutions were well-known.
`
`B. Series of Entries of the Biometric Signal, Said Series Being
`Characterised According to at Least One of the Number of Said
`Entries and a Duration of
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
