`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`ASSA ABLOY AB, ASSA ABLOY INC., ASSA ABLOY RESIDENTIAL
`GROUP, INC., AUGUST HOME, INC., HID GLOBAL CORPORATION,
`ASSA ABLOY GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`CPC PATENT TECHNOLOGIES PTY LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-01006
`Patent 9,665,705
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXPERT DECLARATION OF SAMUEL RUSS, PHD.
`
`
`
`CPC Ex. 2031 - Page 1
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technology Pty Ltd.
`IPR2002-01006
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE ..................................................... 2
`II.
`INFORMATION CONSIDERED ................................................................... 7
`III.
`IV. LEGAL STANDARDS ................................................................................... 7
`Legal Standards: Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art ......................... 8
`Legal Standards: Obviousness .............................................................. 9
`Legal Standards: Claim Construction .................................................11
`LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART .................................................................11
`V.
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ..........................................................................12
`VII. OPINIONS REGARDING PETITIONERS’ INVALIDITY
`GROUNDS ....................................................................................................21
`Series Of Entries Of The Biometric Signal, Said Series Being
`Characterized According To At Least One Of The Number Of
`Said Entries And A Duration Of Each Said Entry ..............................24
`1.
`Bianco (EX-1003) .....................................................................25
`2. Mathiassen (EX-1004) ..............................................................28
` Mathiassen Does Not Disclose A
`Number/Duration Of Biometric Entries To Issue
`An Instruction .................................................................28
` Mr. Lipoff’s Deposition Testimony ...............................32
` Mathiassen Teaches That The Single Touch-
`Sensitive Switch Does Not Biometrically Scan The
`Fingerprint While In A Navigation Mode ......................33
`A POSITA Familiar With The State Of The Art
`Would Have Understood That The Single Touch-
`Sensitive Switch Does Not Scan The Fingerprint
`
`
`
`CPC Ex. 2031 - Page 2
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technology Pty Ltd.
`IPR2002-01006
`
`
`
`
`
`While In A Navigation Mode .........................................36
` Mapping Said Series Of The Biometric Signal Into An
`Instruction ............................................................................................41
`Populate The Database Of Biometric Signatures According To
`The Instruction ....................................................................................42
` No Motivation To Combine Bianco And Mathiassen ........................44
`Independent Claims 10, 11, And 14-17 ..............................................49
`Dependent Claims ...............................................................................50
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CPC Ex. 2031 - Page 3
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technology Pty Ltd.
`IPR2002-01006
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I, Samuel Russ, submit this Declaration in support of Patent Owner
`1.
`
`CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd. (“CPC”) Patent Owner’s Response to the
`
`Petitioners’, ASSA ABLOY AB, ASSA ABLOY Inc., ASSA ABLOY Residential
`
`Group, Inc. (“Yale”), August Home, Inc. (“August”), HID Global Corporation
`
`(“HID”), ASSA ABLOY Global Solutions, Inc. (“Hospitality”) (collectively
`
`“Petitioners”) Petition for Inter Partes Review (“Petition” or “IPR”) against U.S.
`
`Patent No. 9,665,705 (the “’705 Patent”).
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to review the Petition, as well as the Declaration of
`
`Stuart Lipoff (EX-1005) and the transcript of his deposition (EX-2034), as
`
`submitted in the above-captioned IPR (and the exhibits cited in each) in which
`
`Petitioners and Mr. Lipoff have asserted and offered opinions that the claims of the
`
`’705 Patent are obvious.
`
`3.
`
`All of the opinions set forth in this Declaration are based on my own
`
`personal knowledge, professional experience, education, and judgment in
`
`consideration of the documents, materials and information referenced herein.
`
`4.
`
`I am being compensated for my services as an independent expert in
`
`these proceedings at an hourly rate of $450. I expect to be available to provide oral
`
`testimony should the need arise. My compensation is not in any way contingent
`
`CPC Ex. 2031 - Page 4
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technology Pty Ltd.
`IPR2002-01006
`
`
`
`upon the outcome of any Inter Partes review. I have no financial or personal
`
`interest in the outcome of these proceedings, or of any related litigation.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE
`5. My experience and education are detailed in my curriculum vitae
`
`(“CV”), which I understand has been submitted into the record of this proceeding
`
`as EX-2032. My CV also lists publications on which I am a named author and
`
`identifies parties on behalf of whom I have previously provided expert testimony.
`
`6.
`
`I have experience in a number of areas, and have particular expertise
`
`in electronics, security systems, including biometric security systems, device
`
`access security, payment terminals, and their related technologies, such as in debit-
`
`capable payment terminals and digital set-top boxes, which include design,
`
`physical security, system layout, and cryptography schemes. This expertise is
`
`directly applicable to the technical area of the ’705 Patent, which relates to a
`
`system for providing secure access to a controlled item, such as physical locking
`
`mechanism or an electronic key circuit, using physical biometric attributes.
`
`7.
`
`I received my bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering from
`
`Georgia Institute of Technology in 1986. I then received my Ph.D. in electrical
`
`engineering from Georgia Institute of Technology in 1991.
`
`8.
`
`From 2007 to the present, I have been a member of the faculty of the
`
`University of South Alabama as an Assistant and Associate Professor in the
`
`CPC Ex. 2031 - Page 5
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technology Pty Ltd.
`IPR2002-01006
`
`
`
`Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering. During that time, I have won
`
`awards for excellent teaching and have actively published research in home
`
`networking and digital video recording (DVR) technologies. I am active in the
`
`Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) and am a Distinguished
`
`Lecturer for the IEEE Consumer Electronics Society. As an example of the type of
`
`research I perform, I helped to manage the development of a fully functional
`
`“CubeSat” satellite that was successfully launched into space in September 2022
`
`and sent back data. I teach a graduate-level class in cryptographic methods, as well
`
`as courses in embedded system design and signal integrity. The graduate-level
`
`cryptographic methods course covers the techniques needed to create secure
`
`systems, such as biometric systems, and preserve confidentiality and data integrity.
`
`The embedded-system design course covers the design of practical computer-based
`
`embedded computing systems, such as those found in alarm systems and secure
`
`payment terminals. The course specifically includes topics such as security,
`
`privacy, networking, and computer system design, all of which are needed for
`
`biometric systems. The signal integrity course covers the circuit design techniques
`
`to minimize crosstalk and electromagnetic susceptibility. To go with the course, I
`
`also authored a textbook on the subject of signal integrity, now in its second
`
`edition. The textbook covers the techniques needed to develop secure computer
`
`CPC Ex. 2031 - Page 6
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technology Pty Ltd.
`IPR2002-01006
`
`
`
`systems, such as systems that do not emit unwanted signals and are not susceptible
`
`to outside interference.
`
`9.
`
`From 2000 to 2007, I worked for Scientific-Atlanta (now Cisco’s
`
`Service Provider Video Tech. Group), where I managed a cable set-top box (STB)
`
`design group that designed four STB models, including the Explorer 4200 (non-
`
`DVR) and 8300 (DVR) models. Both models sold several million units. As design-
`
`group manager, I was responsible for managing the design and prototyping
`
`activities of the group, for interfacing with other groups (especially integrated-
`
`circuit design, procurement, software developers, the factory where prototypes
`
`were built, and product managers), and for maintaining the hardware and
`
`mechanical development schedule. The hardware, software, and system design of
`
`cable set-top boxes included security at a variety of levels, including conditional
`
`access, broadcast encryption, key management, and service authorization.
`
`Additionally, designing for the manufacturing process required design and
`
`implementation physical access security measures to restrict physical access to the
`
`secure elements of a set-top box, including flash memory, the secure
`
`microcontroller, and the smart-card reader. I am a named inventor on fifty-one (51)
`
`patent applications that were filed while I was at Scientific-Atlanta, twenty-nine
`
`(29) of which have issued as U.S. patents as of the writing of this declaration.
`
`CPC Ex. 2031 - Page 7
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technology Pty Ltd.
`IPR2002-01006
`
`
`
`10. From 1999 to 2000, I was a Staff Electrical Engineer and then Matrix
`
`Manager at IVI Checkmate (now Ingenico), where I managed the hardware design
`
`team that completed the design of the eN-Touch 1000 payment terminal. This
`
`terminal was in widespread use, for example, at the self-checkout at Home Depot.
`
`This terminal contained the cryptographic systems and physical security needed to
`
`conduct debit transactions, including the use of ATM cards, debit cards, and PIN
`
`numbers. Debit-capable terminals require a great deal of physical and
`
`communications security and key management because of their direct connection
`
`to the financial and banking community. As a result, I developed and enhanced my
`
`expertise in device access security, considering physical protection, software
`
`protection, encryption, and communications. The eN-Touch 1000 could capture
`
`human signatures (and transmit them for storage) and was the first widely sold
`
`payment terminal to use capacitive touch-screen technology, which has biometric
`
`security applications. Capacitive touch screens have several advantages over their
`
`predecessor (resistive touch screens). One major advantage is that they operate off
`
`of the presence or absence of a conductive medium (such as a user’s finger) and so
`
`can function as a fingerprint scanning technology because they can work at a finer
`
`resolution than resistive touch. I directly managed the development of the
`
`capacitive touch screen of the eN-Touch 1000, and I am an expert in how
`
`CPC Ex. 2031 - Page 8
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technology Pty Ltd.
`IPR2002-01006
`
`
`
`capacitive touch technology works, including with respect to biometric security
`
`applications.
`
`11. From 1992 to 1994, I was Director of Manufacturing at Dickerson
`
`Vision Technologies (now Cognex) where I oversaw the development and
`
`implementation of a manufacturing plan for the company. My responsibilities
`
`included the development of human-machine interfaces for machine-vision
`
`systems.
`
`12.
`
`I have also authored over 30 journal articles and conference papers. A
`
`conference paper on digital video recording won second place in a “Best Paper”
`
`competition at the 2011 International Conference on Consumer Electronics in Las
`
`Vegas, NV.
`
`13. Through my research and work, I have been a joint inventor on 29
`
`issued U.S. patents related to, among other things, client devices, including device
`
`access security, multimedia systems, and interactive programming. Additionally, I
`
`have been a joint inventor on nine issued European patents.
`
`14. Therefore, based on my education, professional experience of 35
`
`years, and my writing of scholarly books and publications, I am an expert in the
`
`relevant field of the ’705 Patent and have been an expert in this field since well
`
`before August 13, 2003, which I understand is one year before the date to which
`
`the ’705 Patent claims priority. I am intimately familiar with how a person having
`
`CPC Ex. 2031 - Page 9
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technology Pty Ltd.
`IPR2002-01006
`
`
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood and used the terminology found in
`
`the ’705 Patent as of that date.
`
`III.
`
`INFORMATION CONSIDERED
`15. All of the opinions included herein are based on my personal
`
`knowledge, my education, and my professional experience and judgment in
`
`consideration of the documents submitted in this IPR proceeding, the papers and
`
`exhibits submitted by both parties, the documents discussed in the body of this
`
`Declaration, including the Declaration of Petitioner’s expert witness Stuart Lipoff
`
`and the documents referenced therein, and Mr. Lipoff’s deposition transcript. I
`
`have also reviewed certain documents filed in connection with the ongoing IPRs
`
`filed by Apple concerning the ’705 Patent and the related U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,269,208 (“the ’208 patent”), namely IPR2022-00602 and IPR2022-00601. A
`
`complete list of the documents and information I have considered in forming my
`
`opinions is attached as Appendix A.
`
`IV. LEGAL STANDARDS
`16. The paragraphs in this section present an overview of some legal
`
`principles that counsel has explained to me, and which I have applied in arriving at
`
`my conclusions. I am not an attorney or a legal expert, and I offer no opinions on
`
`the law.
`
`CPC Ex. 2031 - Page 10
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technology Pty Ltd.
`IPR2002-01006
`
`
`
`17.
`
`I understand that for an invention claimed in a patent to be found
`
`patentable, it must be, among other things, new and not obvious in light of what
`
`came before it. Patents and publications which predated the invention are
`
`generally referred to as “prior art.”
`
`18.
`
`I understand that in this proceeding the burden is on the party
`
`asserting unpatentability to prove it by a preponderance of the evidence. I
`
`understand that “a preponderance of the evidence” is evidence sufficient to show
`
`that a fact is more likely than not.
`
`19.
`
`I have been informed that the terms in a claim subject to Inter Partes
`
`Review are given the meaning they would have had to a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art at the time of the invention. After being construed in this manner, the
`
`claims are compared with the prior art.
`
` Legal Standards: Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art
`I understand from counsel that patents are written to be
`20.
`
`understandable to a person having ordinary skill in the appropriate art. I
`
`understand that factors that may be considered in determining the ordinary level of
`
`skill in the art include: 1) the types of problems encountered in the art, 2) the prior
`
`art solutions to those problems, 3) the rapidity with which innovations are made, 4)
`
`the sophistication of the technology, and 5) the educational level of active workers
`
`in the field.
`
`CPC Ex. 2031 - Page 11
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technology Pty Ltd.
`IPR2002-01006
`
`
`
`21.
`
`In determining the characteristics of a hypothetical person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art of the patents-at-issue at the time of the claimed inventions, I
`
`considered these factors. It is my understanding that not all such factors may be
`
`present in every case, and one or more of them may predominate.
`
`
`22.
`
`Legal Standards: Obviousness
`I understand that determining whether a claimed invention is obvious
`
`requires one to determine the scope and content of the prior art, identify the
`
`differences between the asserted claims and the prior art, determine the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the time the invention was made, and then
`
`decide whether each claim as a whole would have been obvious to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the pertinent art when viewing the prior art.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that a prior art combination is able to render a patent
`
`claim as obvious only if each and every claim limitation is taught or suggested by
`
`the prior art combination.
`
`24. Moreover, even if the prior art teaches each and every element in the
`
`claims at issue, I understand that fact alone would not prove obviousness. Most, if
`
`not all, inventions rely on building blocks of prior art. I understand that it is
`
`necessary to determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the
`
`known elements in the fashion claimed by the patents-at-issue.
`
`CPC Ex. 2031 - Page 12
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technology Pty Ltd.
`IPR2002-01006
`
`
`
`25. Thus, in evaluating whether a claimed invention is obvious, one must
`
`consider whether there was a reason that would have prompted a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art to combine the known elements in a way that the claimed
`
`invention does, taking into account factors such as (1) whether the claimed
`
`invention was merely the predictable result of using prior art elements according to
`
`their known function, (2) whether the claimed invention provides an obvious
`
`solution to a known problem in the relevant field, (3) whether the prior art teaches
`
`or suggests the desirability of combining elements claimed in the invention, (4)
`
`whether the prior art teaches away from combining elements in the claimed
`
`invention, (5) whether it would have been obvious to try the combinations of
`
`elements (such as when there is a design need or market pressure to solve a
`
`problem, and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions), and (6)
`
`whether the change resulted more from design incentives or other market forces.
`
`26.
`
`In addition, to find that the prior art rendered the invention obvious,
`
`one must find that it provided a reasonable expectation of success, one must
`
`consider each claim separately, and one cannot use hindsight – i.e., one can
`
`consider only what was known at the time of the invention. I understand that
`
`hindsight bias 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.
`
`CPC Ex. 2031 - Page 13
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technology Pty Ltd.
`IPR2002-01006
`
`
`
` Legal Standards: Claim Construction
`I have been informed that the terms of the patents-at-issue should be
`27.
`
`construed under the same claim construction standard that would be used to
`
`construe the claim in a civil action. I have also been informed that the meaning of
`
`a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims,
`
`the specification, drawings and prior art.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that extrinsic evidence may be consulted for the meaning
`
`of a claim term as long as it is not used to contradict claim meaning that is
`
`unambiguous in light of the patent’s intrinsic evidence.
`
`V. LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART
`I understand that the Board adopted the following level of ordinary
`29.
`
`skill in the art in the ongoing IPR concerning the ’705 Patent that was filed by
`
`Apple: “a person of ordinary skill in the art would 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.” See IPR2022-00602, Paper 11 at 12.
`
`Further, “[a]dditional education or experience may substitute for the above
`
`requirements.” Id. For purposes of my analysis, I have applied this definition of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art. I also note that I satisfied these criteria as of
`
`August 13, 2003.
`
`CPC Ex. 2031 - Page 14
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technology Pty Ltd.
`IPR2002-01006
`
`
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`I understand that the Board adopted certain claim constructions in the
`30.
`
`ongoing IPR concerning the ’705 Patent filed by Apple, which are set forth in the
`
`table below.
`
`Claim Term
`“database”
`
`Construction
`“organized structure of data”
`
`“conditional access”
`
`“access based on accessibility attribute”
`
`“biometric signal”
`
`“physical attribute of the user (i.e., fingerprint,
`facial pattern, iris, retina, voice, etc.)”
`“accessibility attribute” “attribute that establishes whether and under
`which conditions access to the controlled item
`should be granted to a user”
`
`
`See IPR2022-00602, Paper No. 1 at 6; Paper No. 11 at 13.
`
`31.
`
`In my analysis, I have applied these constructions. In addition, I have
`
`applied the plain and ordinary meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(“POSITA”) at the time of invention to any other claim terms.
`
`32.
`
`In his deposition, Mr. Lipoff testified that he did not apply the above
`
`construction of “biometric signal” adopted by the Board in the Apple IPR, but that
`
`he does not “necessarily agree or disagree” with it. EX-2034 at 30:6 – 33:3. To the
`
`extent there is any dispute regarding construction of “biometric signal” as it is used
`
`in the claims of the ’705 Patent, for the reasons discussed below it is my opinion
`
`that the construction adopted by the Board in the Apple IPR is the correct
`
`construction and it should be applied is this proceeding as well.
`
`CPC Ex. 2031 - Page 15
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technology Pty Ltd.
`IPR2002-01006
`
`
`
`33. The ’705 Patent itself defines “biometric signal” as a “physical
`
`attribute[].” EX-1001 at 1:29-33. More particularly, the ’705 Patent states the
`
`following:
`
`One example of a biometric signal is a fingerprint. Other physical
`attributes that can be used to provide biometric signals include voice,
`retinal or iris pattern, face pattern, palm configuration and so on.
`
`Id. (emphasis added). Thus, the ’705 Patent expressly describes a biometric signal
`
`as a physical attribute, and then provides a list of examples of physical attributes
`
`that a POSITA would understand to be the recited biometric signals. Fingerprints,
`
`retinal and iris patterns, face pattern, and palm configuration are all physical
`
`attributes. See, e.g., EX1003 at 7:57-65; EX2035 at 1; EX2036 at 4. As discussed
`
`further below, voice authentication is (and was at the time of the invention)
`
`understood to be both a physical and a behavioral attribute. A POSITA would have
`
`understood from the overall context of the ’705 Patent that inclusion of “voice” in
`
`the list of otherwise exclusively physical attributes does not expand the scope of
`
`biometric signals to include behavioral attributes. None of the examples of
`
`biometric signals supplied in the ’705 Patent are examples of purely behavioral
`
`biometric attributes.
`
`34. At the time of the invention of the ’705 Patent, i.e., August 2003, a
`
`POSITA would have understood that there were two categories of biometric
`
`CPC Ex. 2031 - Page 16
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technology Pty Ltd.
`IPR2002-01006
`
`
`
`measurements, namely, measurements of (i) physical attributes and (ii) behavioral
`
`attributes. For example, this distinction is explained in Bianco, as follows:
`
`Biometric identification mechanisms include two basic categories of
`biometric measurements. The first category involves measuring a
`unique characteristic found on a user's body. This may include, but is
`not limited to, finger and hand geometry, retina and facial images,
`weight, DNA data and breath. The second category involves
`measuring a user's behavioral characteristics. This may include, but
`is not limited to, voice, typing stroke and signature.
`
`EX-1003 at 7:57-65 (emphasis added).
`
`35. Thus, Bianco establishes that at the time of the invention the two basic
`
`categories of biometric measurements included measurements of the unique
`
`characteristics of a user’s body – i.e., physical attributes – and measurements of a
`
`user’s behavioral characteristics.
`
`36. This clear distinction between biometric identification via physical
`
`attributes versus via behavioral attributes drawn by Bianco is consistent with the
`
`other teachings in the art at the time of the invention of the ’705 Patent. For
`
`example, Liu, published in 20011, teaches as follows:
`
`Biometrics measure individuals’ unique physical or behavioral
`characteristics to recognize or authenticate their identity. Common
`physical biometrics include fingerprints; hand or palm geometry; and
`
`1 S. Liu and M. Silverman, “A practical guide to biometric security technology,” in
`
`IT Professional, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 27-32, Jan.-Feb. 2001. doi:10.1109/6294.899930.
`
`EX-2035.
`
`CPC Ex. 2031 - Page 17
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technology Pty Ltd.
`IPR2002-01006
`
`
`
`retina, iris, or facial characteristics. Behavioral characters include
`signature, voice (which also has a physical component), keystroke
`pattern, and gait.
`
`EX-2035 at 1 (emphasis added).
`
`37. Similarly, Currie, published in 20032, teaches that “Biometric
`
`characteristics fall into two broad categories”, as follows:
`
`• Physiological Biometrics are concerned with the unique physical traits
`of the individual, for example retinal scans, fingerprints and face
`geometries.
`
`• Behavioural Biometrics are concerned with the unique way individuals
`perform certain actions, for example conventional pen signatures and
`key stroke detection.
`EX-2036 at 4.
`
`38. Thus, it was well known in the art that the measurement of physical
`
`attributes are a distinct category of biometric measurement as compared to
`
`measurement of behavioral attributes. Examining the three references together
`
`(i.e., Bianco, Liu, and Currie), one can readily appreciate how such biometric
`
`attributes would have been understood by a POSITA at the time of the invention
`
`and, further, can compare them to the definition in the ’705 Patent and the
`
`construction adopted in the Apple IPR, summarized in the table below.
`
`
`
`2 D. Currie, “Shedding some light on Voice Authentication”, Global Information
`
`Assurance Certification Paper (2003). EX-2036.
`
`CPC Ex. 2031 - Page 18
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technology Pty Ltd.
`IPR2002-01006
`
`
`
`Behavioral biometric
`• voice
`• typing stroke
`• signature
`
`• signature,
`• voice (“which also
`has a physical
`component”)
`• keystroke pattern
`• gait
`• voice
`• pen signatures
`• key stroke
`detection
`
`Reference
`Bianco [EX-1003]
`
`Liu [EX-2035]
`
`Currie [EX-2036]
`
`’705 Patent and
`the Board’s
`construction in the
`Apple IPR
`
`Physical biometric
`• finger and hand
`geometry
`• retina and facial
`images
`• weight
`• DNA data
`• breath
`• fingerprints
`• hand or palm
`geometry
`• retina, iris, or
`facial
`characteristics
`
`• voice
`• retinal scans
`• fingerprint
`• face geometries
`• fingerprint
`• voice
`• retinal or iris
`pattern
`• face pattern
`• palm configuration
`
`
`
`
`
`39. The only form of biometric that appears in both categories is voice.
`
`Liu acknowledges the dual nature of voice in the context of biometric
`
`measurements, explaining that voice “has a physical component.” EX-2035 at 1.
`
`Currie further explains why voice straddles the two categories of physical
`
`attributes and behavioral attributes: “In the case of voice authentication, there is
`
`both a Physiological biometric component (for example, voice tone and pitch) and
`
`CPC Ex. 2031 - Page 19
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technology Pty Ltd.
`IPR2002-01006
`
`
`
`a behavioral component (for example, accent).” EX-2036 at 4. In other words,
`
`voice contains both a fundamental physiological component, based on a speaker’s
`
`tone and pitch (that are, in turn, a function of the speaker’s body), and a behavioral
`
`one, such as one’s accent.
`
`40. A POSITA at the time of the invention of the ’705 Patent,
`
`knowledgeable of the relevant prior art literature such as those cited above, would
`
`understand that there are physical biometrics, such as fingerprints, and behavioral
`
`biometrics, such as signature, and voice is regarded as fitting into either or both
`
`categories. Some references treat voice as a physical biometric, some treat it as a
`
`behavioral biometric, and some treat it as both physical and behavioral. This
`
`taxonomy is relevant because the ’705 Patent is expressly drawn to physical
`
`biometrics exclusively, and the reference to “voice” amongst the list of examples
`
`of biometric signals is consistent with physical attributes. As noted above, the
`
`teaching is clear (see EX1001 at 1:29-33) and the Board adopted a construction
`
`accordingly in the Apple IPR (defining “biometric signal” as a “physical attribute
`
`of the user (i.e., fingerprint, facial pattern, iris, retina, voice, etc.)” (emphasis
`
`added).
`
`41. Mr. Lipoff refers to Bianco’s hand-written signature as a biometric
`
`signal, but he does not go a step further to identify whether the hand-written
`
`signature in Bianco is a physical or a behavioral biometric signal. Indeed, Bianco
`
`CPC Ex. 2031 - Page 20
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technology Pty Ltd.
`IPR2002-01006
`
`
`
`expressly characterizes hand-written signatures solely as a behavioral (not
`
`physical) biometric attribute. EX-1005, ¶ 162; EX-1003 7:57-65. This is
`
`significant because, in my opinion, Bianco’s teachings with regard to hand-written
`
`signatures are inapplicable to and do not disclose the teachings of the ’705 Patent.
`
`Hand-written signatures are exclusively a behavioral attribute, whereas the claims
`
`of the ’705 Patent are addressed solely to physical attribute biometric signals.
`
`42. Mr. Lipoff appears to contend that the reference to voice in dependent
`
`claim 4 of the ’705 Patent suggests that the claims of the ’705 Patent cover both
`
`physical and behavioral biometric signals. See EX-1005, ¶ 83. I disagree. Mr.
`
`Lipoff relies on Bianco in asserting that voice is only a behavioral biometric
`
`attribute. From this, Mr. Lipoff apparently concludes that because the ’705 Patent
`
`includes reference to voice measurement, it must therefore cover both physical and
`
`behavioral biometric attributes. But Mr. Lipoff’s logic fails because he ignores the
`
`contrary teaching of the prior art that voice can be either a behavioral or a physical
`
`biometric measurement. EX-2035 at 1; EX-2036 at 4. It is my opinion that a
`
`POSITA reading the ’705 Patent in proper context, and with knowledge of the
`
`relevant prior art, would readily understand that the ’705 Patent was directed to,
`
`and only claimed, biometric signals based on physical (not behavioral) attributes.
`
`Indeed, as noted above, the ’705 Patent defines “biometric signal” as a physical
`
`attribute. EX-1001 at 1:29-33. The ’705 Patent then provides a list of biometric
`
`CPC Ex. 2031 - Page 21
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technology Pty Ltd.
`IPR2002-01006
`
`
`
`signals that consists of physical attributes, namely fingerprints, retinal and iris
`
`patterns, face pattern, palm configuration, and voice. Id. The ’705 Patent includes
`
`no disclosure of any purely behavioral biometric attribute. Thus, while voice is
`
`treated in the art as having both physical and behavioral aspects, a POSITA would
`
`have understood the ’705 Patent to be classifying voice solely as a physical
`
`attribute at least because of the express definition of “biometric signal” as a
`
`physical attribute, and because it is included in a listing of other attributes that are
`
`all exclusively physical.
`
`43.
`
`In sum, the “biometric signals” claimed in the ’705 Patent are physical
`
`biometric attributes only; the claims do not include behavioral biometric attributes.
`
`A POSITA would have understood that attributes that are clearly behavioral
`
`attributes, such as hand-written signatures, typing stroke, and gait, did not fall
`
`within the scope of the claimed “biometric signal” as properly construed.
`
`44.
`
`In his deposition, Mr. Lipoff testified that the “finger presses”
`
`disclosed in columns 10 & 11 of the ’705 Patent are “the equivalent of a typing
`
`stroke”, which is known in the art to be a behavioral attribute. EX-2034 at 41:4-17.
`
`But the “finger presses” of the ’705 Patent are not the equivalent of - and indeed
`
`are very different from - a typing stroke. In my view, as explained below, this
`
`testimony from Mr. Lipoff indicates a substantial misunderstanding of the
`
`disclosure of the ’705 Patent and typing stroke biometrics.
`
`CPC Ex. 2031 - Page 22
`ASSA AB
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
