Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 46
`Entered: November 2, 2023
`
`
`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, and
`ASSA ABLOY GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CPC PATENT TECHNOLOGIES PTY, LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
` IPR2022-01006 (Patent 9,665,705 B2)
`IPR2022-01045 (Patent 9,269,208 B2)
`IPR2022-01089 (Patent 9,269,208 B2)
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: September 28, 2023
`____________
`
`Before SCOTT A. DANIELS, BARRY L. GROSSMAN, and AMBER L.
`HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01006 (Patent 9,665,705 B2)
`IPR2022-01045 (Patent 9,269,208 B2)
`IPR2022-01089 (Patent 9,269,208 B2)
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
` ANDREW DEVKAR, ESQUIRE
` DION BREGMAN, ESQUIRE
` JAMES KRITSAS, ESQUIRE
` Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP
`2049 Century Park East, Suite 700
` Los Angeles, California 90067-3109
`(310) 255-9070
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
` STEVEN COYLE, ESQUIRE
` ANDREW RYAN, ESQUIRE
` Cantor Colburn LLP
` 20 Church Street, 22nd Floor
` Hartford, Connecticut 06103
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday,
`September 28, 2023, commencing at 1:04 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01006 (Patent 9,665,705 B2)
`IPR2022-01045 (Patent 9,269,208 B2)
`IPR2022-01089 (Patent 9,269,208 B2)
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`- - - - -
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: Looks like we have all parties. Please
`
`remember to unmute your mic before speaking. Thank you.
`
` MR. DEVKAR: Morning, Your Honors.
`
` MR. COYLE: Good afternoon, Your Honors.
`
` JUDGE GROSSMAN: All right, now let's get started. And good
`
`afternoon to everybody. I apologize for what technical glitches we have.
`
`That's pretty unusual. This usually runs pretty smoothly. With me are
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`Judges Hagy and Daniels. This is -- I'm Judge Grossman. We're here for an
`
`11
`
`IP -- a hearing in three related cases, which are IPR 2022-01006, IPR 2022-
`
`12
`
`01045, and 01089. And before we go any further, though, what I'd like to do
`
`13
`
`is get the appearances of counsel. We'll start with the Petitioner, and if you
`
`14
`
`just identify yourself and spell your name for the court report, make sure we
`
`15
`
`get it correctly.
`
`16
`
` MR. BREGMAN: Thank you, Your Honor. For Petitioners,
`
`17
`
`you've got Dion Bregman, D-i-o-n, Bregman, B-r-e-g-m-a-n. With me is my
`
`18
`
`colleague Andrew Devkar. Andrew, as it's normally spelled Devkar, D-e-v-
`
`19
`
`k-a-r. With us also, actually, in this room are our client representatives from
`
`20
`
`Petitioner (inaudible) representatives Chris Kirby, K-i-r-b-y. And Yon
`
`21
`
`Sohn, Y-o-n, last name Son, S-o-h-n.
`
`22
`
` JUDGE GROSSMAN: Thank you, Mr. Bregman. Will you be
`
`23
`
`doing the presentation --
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01006 (Patent 9,665,705 B2)
`IPR2022-01045 (Patent 9,269,208 B2)
`IPR2022-01089 (Patent 9,269,208 B2)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
` MR. BREGMAN: Mr. Devkar will, Judge. And one thing just to
`
`note is I don't think the public feed is working. I don't know who's in charge
`
`of that on your side.
`
` THE CLERK: Yes, sir, it is working. I'm on it right now. So --
`
` MR. BREGMAN: Okay.
`
` THE CLERK: -- user needs to probably refresh their browser, and
`
`it will work.
`
` MR. BREGMAN: Okay. Thank you very much.
`
` JUDGE GROSSMAN: Thank you, Mr. Bregman. And for the
`
`10
`
`Patent Owner?
`
`11
`
` MR. COYLE: Thank you, Honor. Good afternoon. My name is
`
`12
`
`Steve Coyle, C-o-y-l-e, with Cantor Colburn. Also with me today here are
`
`13
`
`my colleagues, Andrew Ryan, last name Ryan, R-y-a-n. And Nicholas
`
`14
`
`Geiger, G-e-i-g-e-r.
`
`15
`
` JUDGE GROSSMAN: Thank you, Mr. Coyle. And will you be
`
`16
`
`doing the presentation this afternoon on behalf of Patent Owners?
`
`17
`
` MR. COYLE: Actually, Your Honor, with the board's permission,
`
`18
`
`I will be handling the portions of the issues related to patentability. My
`
`19
`
`colleague, Andrew Ryan, will be handling issues related to the real party and
`
`20
`
`interest, if that's okay.
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
` JUDGE GROSSMAN: Fine with us. Thank you.
`
` MR. COYLE: Thank you.
`
` JUDGE GROSSMAN: The hearing order in this case set out the
`
`24
`
`basic ground rules, which I'm sure all of you are familiar. I'll just mention a
`
`25
`
`couple of particular things. We've allocated 90 minutes for each party. You
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01006 (Patent 9,665,705 B2)
`IPR2022-01045 (Patent 9,269,208 B2)
`IPR2022-01089 (Patent 9,269,208 B2)
`
`can use your 90 minutes any way you wish. Talk about all three cases
`
`together, talk about them individually. But we're going to have a single
`
`transcript for all three. So whatever you say, we're going to understand as
`
`applying to all three cases unless you state otherwise and make that clear to
`
`us for the record.
`
`Petitioner has the burden of proof and will go first. Each party can
`
`reserve up to half of its allotted time for a rebuttal. And when you step up to
`
`the podium or the virtual podium to make your presentation, I'll ask each
`
`side to tell me whether they want to reserve any time and how much. A few
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`things that are unique to our video hearings and just to remind you of how
`
`11
`
`they'll work.
`
`12
`
`One is, when you're not speaking, I'd like everyone else to mute their
`
`13
`
`microphones just so we don't get any background noise. And if at any time
`
`14
`
`during the hearing you get some technical difficulties, you can't hear us, or
`
`15
`
`you think we can't hear you, or any other technical difficulties, do whatever
`
`16
`
`you need to do to let us know. Raise your hand, hold up a sign or do
`
`17
`
`something so that we make sure that we understand that you're having some
`
`18
`
`audio or video problems. We want to make sure that you have a full and fair
`
`19
`
`opportunity to represent your clients.
`
`20
`
`We have the entire transcript or the entire proceedings electronically,
`
`21
`
`all the papers, all the exhibits, what we -- and on your demonstratives as
`
`22
`
`you're going through them, though it will be helpful to the transcript for you
`
`23
`
`to identify them. We have them electronically on our screens, but the
`
`24
`
`transcript won't know what you have on your screen unless you identify it.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01006 (Patent 9,665,705 B2)
`IPR2022-01045 (Patent 9,269,208 B2)
`IPR2022-01089 (Patent 9,269,208 B2)
`
`So just tell us what slide you're on. If you're using slides or if you're
`
`referring to exhibits, make sure you refer to the exhibit numbers.
`
`We have a joint motion for protective order in the case that is pending.
`
`I don't think we have not ruled on that yet, but I don't think there's anything
`
`that has been filed that's confidential. All of the papers, at least in our
`
`system, show that they're all available to the public. There have been no
`
`redactions or anything. But if you do feel the need to get into anything that's
`
`confidential while this protective order issue is pending, please be aware that
`
`there's a public access to the proceeding. There's a public line. And before
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`we talk about anything confidential, make sure you let me know that that's
`
`11
`
`what you want to do, and we'll take the steps we need to take to go on a
`
`12
`
`confidential record.
`
`13
`
`The last thing I'll just mention is with our virtual hearings, I end up
`
`14
`
`being the timekeeper. We don't have the benefit of the green, yellow, and
`
`15
`
`red lights on the bench that we have in the courtroom. But I will do my best
`
`16
`
`to let you know when you're getting to the end of your allotted time. But I'm
`
`17
`
`spending most of my efforts listening to your argument and looking at the
`
`18
`
`documents and not always looking at my clock. So if you want to have a
`
`19
`
`colleague perhaps in the room, keep track of your time who could also give
`
`20
`
`you a signal when you're getting close to the end of your allotted time, but
`
`21
`
`I'll do my best to remind you.
`
`22
`
`So with that, Mr. Bregman, will let you start. And first thing I'd like
`
`23
`
`to know is whether you want to reserve any time for rebuttal, and if so, how
`
`24
`
`much?
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01006 (Patent 9,665,705 B2)
`IPR2022-01045 (Patent 9,269,208 B2)
`IPR2022-01089 (Patent 9,269,208 B2)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
` MR. DEVKAR: Yes, Your Honor. And just to clarify, this is
`
`Andrew Devkar, Petitioner. Thank you. And I would like to reserve 30
`
`minutes for rebuttal, please.
`
` JUDGE GROSSMAN: Give me just a second to set it on my
`
`official timer. So you will have 60 minutes and you can -- for your initial
`
`presentation, and you can begin whenever you're ready, Mr. Devkar.
`
` MR. DEVKAR: Thank you. Good afternoon, Your Honors. May
`
`it please the board. We are here to discuss three IPRs which address the
`
`claims of two patents, the '705 patent and the '208 patent. The '705 and '208
`
`10
`
`patents share a specification and the same disputed issues are presented for
`
`11
`
`all of the challenged claims. Because these IPRs have been consolidated and
`
`12
`
`have the same disputed issues as noted earlier, Your Honor, I intend for all
`
`13
`
`of the points I make today to apply to all of the claims in all three IPRs
`
`14
`
`unless otherwise stated.
`
`15
`
`Further, Your Honors, because the same disputed issues apply to all
`
`16
`
`claims in these IPRs, we believe that all of the challenged claims rise or fall
`
`17
`
`together on a very narrow set of issues. Now, Your Honors, we are aware
`
`18
`
`that the panel issued final written decisions yesterday in different IPRs on
`
`19
`
`these same patents. We were very pleased when we read those decisions.
`
`20
`
`Now, I'm cognizant that those decisions are in different proceedings and not
`
`21
`
`entered here. However, I want to note that the board's determinations
`
`22
`
`regarding claim construction for a key term at issue today include some of
`
`23
`
`the same points I already intended to make here today. We believe the
`
`24
`
`board's correct reasoning in those areas will be largely decisive as to the
`
`25
`
`disputed issues in these IPRs as well.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01006 (Patent 9,665,705 B2)
`IPR2022-01045 (Patent 9,269,208 B2)
`IPR2022-01089 (Patent 9,269,208 B2)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Now, I'd like to refer to a slide that provides the representative claims.
`
`And I just had one question for Your Honors. I was told when I joined that I
`
`could share the slides on the screen, but I also heard you have them in front
`
`of you. Do you have a preference as to whether I share them on the screen
`
`or not?
`
` JUDGE GROSSMAN: I have no strong preference. I find it
`
`somewhat more convenient to share because then I can use some of my
`
`screen real estate for some other things and keeping other documents up
`
`there.
`
`10
`
` MR. DEVKAR: Very well, Your Honor. I'm sharing it now. All
`
`11
`
`right. Petitioners demonstrative should be shared on the screen. Are you
`
`12
`
`seeing them now?
`
`13
`
`14
`
` JUDGE GROSSMAN: I can see them. Yep.
`
` MR. DEVKAR: Great. Thank you, Your Honors. I'm going to
`
`15
`
`refer to Petitioner slides 10 and 11, but I'll be referring primarily to slide 10,
`
`16
`
`which shows representative claim 1 from the '705 patent. Now, if we look at
`
`17
`
`claim 1, I'd like to point out a couple of the limitations that Your Honors are
`
`18
`
`likely familiar with already.
`
`19
`
`Highlighted in green, we have the limitation that a biometric sensor is
`
`20
`
`configured to receive a biometric signal. So in other words, we have a
`
`21
`
`biometric sensor such as a fingerprint sensor, that receives a biometric
`
`22
`
`signal, such as a finger press on the surface of the sensor. And that
`
`23
`
`biometric sensor then provides an electrical representation of what it sensed
`
`24
`
`on its surface. So in the case of fingerprint sensor, the fingerprint sensor
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01006 (Patent 9,665,705 B2)
`IPR2022-01045 (Patent 9,269,208 B2)
`IPR2022-01089 (Patent 9,269,208 B2)
`
`would output an electrical representation of the fingerprint that it scanned or
`
`sensed on its surface.
`
`Now, there are two things that can be done with the biometric signal
`
`as relate to these claims. The first is the first highlighted portion that you
`
`see that refers to a transmitter subsidy system controller configured to match
`
`the biometric signal against members of the database. So here we have what
`
`you would expect traditionally done with fingerprint authentication or
`
`biometric signal authentication, that you are performing an authentication,
`
`you're checking the signal that the sensor sent against members of the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`database. In other words, you're checking to see if the biometric signal
`
`11
`
`represented an authenticated user.
`
`12
`
`There's nothing new about that. Patent Owner, I think would agree
`
`13
`
`that is well known in the art. That is not where the disputes in these
`
`14
`
`proceedings lie. Second, you will see the second yellow highlighted portion
`
`15
`
`that refers to receiving a series of entries of the biometric signal, said series
`
`16
`
`being characterized according to at least one of the number of said entries
`
`17
`
`and a duration of each said entry. Now today I'll likely refer to that
`
`18
`
`limitation, as we did in Petitioner's briefs, as the series duration limitation.
`
`19
`
`It's where most of the action will be today.
`
`20
`
` JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Devkar, that's Judge Grossman. In that
`
`21
`
`series limitation where it says, "characterized according to at least one of the
`
`22
`
`number and duration." Is it your position that it can be just one of those
`
`23
`
`elements, a number, or a duration, or does it require that it be both number
`
`24
`
`and duration?
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01006 (Patent 9,665,705 B2)
`IPR2022-01045 (Patent 9,269,208 B2)
`IPR2022-01089 (Patent 9,269,208 B2)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
` MR. DEVKAR: Yes, our understanding is that it needs to be both.
`
`And that's consistent with the construction that was reached in the district
`
`court, which I believe we presented in the petition. In other words, that there
`
`needs to be more than one entries, more than one biometric signals, each of
`
`which is characterized by a duration, each of which has an independent
`
`duration. So the way to think about this, Your Honor, is the system is
`
`recognizing a Morse code-like entry of series of entries on the signal such
`
`that each has an independent duration.
`
`The sole example in the patent that's in columns 10 and 11 is dit, dit,
`
`10
`
`dit, dah. So where the patent defines dits as presses -- finger presses of one
`
`11
`
`second duration and dah as a press of two seconds duration. So that's what's
`
`12
`
`going on here, Your Honor. It needs to be a series meaning more than one
`
`13
`
`entry of the biometric signal. What is captured on the biometric sensor and
`
`14
`
`each of those needs to have a duration. Does that make sense, Your Honor?
`
`15
`
` JUDGE GROSSMAN: It does. How does that square with the
`
`16
`
`specification, which is at column 10, at line 60, about 63 of the patent where
`
`17
`
`it says before it identifies the dits and the dahs. And for the court reporter,
`
`18
`
`the technical term that we're talking about is dit, d-i-t, and dah is d-a-h. But
`
`19
`
`in column 10, line 63, the specification refers to that this control information
`
`20
`
`is encoded by either or both of A and B. Yes --
`
`21
`
`22
`
` MR. DEVKAR: Your Honor --
`
` JUDGE GROSSMAN: Does either or both mean that I can only
`
`23
`
`have -- if I have a series of three dots or dips. That's a good enough signal.
`
`24
`
`I don't need any dah, I don't need any of the specific duration that's a longer
`
`25
`
`one. Or tell me what your understanding is or what you think we should --
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01006 (Patent 9,665,705 B2)
`IPR2022-01045 (Patent 9,269,208 B2)
`IPR2022-01089 (Patent 9,269,208 B2)
`
`how we should understand that statement in the specification about either or
`
`both.
`
` MR. DEVKAR: Yeah, Your Honor, I'll confess that is confusing
`
`language. Our interpretation is that for this to make sense, you need to have
`
`a series of entries, each of which has a duration. So in other words, if you
`
`had only a duration without a series, you know, you would have just one
`
`press. And if you had a press without a duration, you wouldn't been able to
`
`distinguish between presses. And so, I think this is exactly what the parties
`
`in the Texas District Court briefed and struggled with. And the court in that
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`proceeding construed the claims to require both. You needed a series of
`
`11
`
`entries, each of which has a duration.
`
`12
`
`That's the way that we believe it is correctly understood because the
`
`13
`
`whole point here is to recognize a Morse code-like entry of entries and you
`
`14
`
`would need both in order to do that.
`
`15
`
`16
`
` JUDGE GROSSMAN: Thank you.
`
` MR. DEVKAR: So, I'm sorry, there's -- just fixing the screen issue
`
`17
`
`here. Okay. Thank you. So, Your Honors, the inventors on the '705 and
`
`18
`
`'208 patents never claimed to invent biometric authentication, nor did the
`
`19
`
`patents have claim to biometric sensors themselves. I think Patent Owner
`
`20
`
`would agree with these points. These concepts were well known in the art,
`
`21
`
`including fingerprint sensors and sensors for receiving many other types of
`
`22
`
`biometric signals. The purported point of novelty that we'll be discussing in
`
`23
`
`the '705 and '208 patents was using the same biometric sensor for two
`
`24
`
`purposes.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01006 (Patent 9,665,705 B2)
`IPR2022-01045 (Patent 9,269,208 B2)
`IPR2022-01089 (Patent 9,269,208 B2)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`In the first limitation on the screen highlighted in yellow, you would
`
`be using it for purposes of authentication. As you would expect, that was
`
`the traditional use of fingerprint sensors was to authenticate the detected or
`
`sensed finger image on the surface of the fingerprint sensor. But second, the
`
`sensor could be used to receive a series of entries of biometric signals in
`
`Morse code-like fashion, where each fingerprint -- each finger press on the
`
`sensor has a duration, and using this to provide an instruction or command to
`
`the system.
`
`So you could use the same fingerprint sensor or other type of
`
`10
`
`biometric sensor for this purpose of issuing commands that can be mapped
`
`11
`
`in the system. So the example that we discussed earlier dit, dit, dit, dah was
`
`12
`
`mapped to the instruction of enroll an ordinary user. That was the purported
`
`13
`
`point of novelty for the claims at issue. Now, Petitioner's primary ground in
`
`14
`
`each of the IPRs is the same. It is Bianco in view of Mathiassen. It is
`
`15
`
`undisputed, Your Honors, that Bianco has embodiments using fingerprint
`
`16
`
`sensors. That's what's set forth in our petition and that Bianco discloses
`
`17
`
`most of the elements of the claims except for this disputed limitation that
`
`18
`
`we've been talking about. The series of duration limitation whereby you
`
`19
`
`receive a series of entries on the sensor, such as a fingerprint sensor, and
`
`20
`
`then maps them into an instruction or command the system.
`
`21
`
`Petitioner's combination is modifying Bianco's biometric sensor or
`
`22
`
`fingerprint sensor with the fingerprint sensor of Mathiassen, which teaches
`
`23
`
`that the fingerprint sensor could be used not only for authentication, but also
`
`24
`
`for the purpose of entering a series of finger presses to the sensor that are
`
`25
`
`mapped into an instruction or command. The prior art reference that you'll
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01006 (Patent 9,665,705 B2)
`IPR2022-01045 (Patent 9,269,208 B2)
`IPR2022-01089 (Patent 9,269,208 B2)
`
`hear most about today, the Mathiassen reference, discloses exactly this use
`
`of the same biometric fingerprint sensor for the same two purposes, both for
`
`authentication and for receiving a series of entries on the fingerprint sensor
`
`to issue commands.
`
`Now, I'd like to refer to a demonstrative here Petitioner's slide 25.
`
`And here we show just the striking similarity between what the patent
`
`teaches and what Mathiassen teaches. So on slide 25, Petitioner's slide 25,
`
`we see the excerpt we were discussing earlier, which is the sole example in
`
`the patent of interpreting the series and duration. And as we discussed
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`earlier, dit, dit, dit, dah, where dit is a fingerprint of one seconds duration
`
`11
`
`and dah is a finger press of two seconds duration that's used to map to a
`
`12
`
`command.
`
`13
`
`Now, in Mathiassen, it's the exact same concept that's disclosed. The
`
`14
`
`invention, and I'm reading from the Mathiassen reference, which is Exhibit
`
`15
`
`1004 at column, excuse me, page 21, lines 15 through 17. "The invention
`
`16
`
`thus uses a fingerprint sensor as the touch sensitive switch, one that has the
`
`17
`
`ability to register finger connections on the sensor and the duration of such
`
`18
`
`touches." To the right of that quote on slide 25, we see an excerpt from table
`
`19
`
`2, which is an exemplary command marked N characters left, and that would
`
`20
`
`be depicted by a long tap plus N short taps on the sensor or fingerprint
`
`21
`
`sensor of Mathiassen. Now, referring to slide --
`
`22
`
` JUDGE GROSSMAN: Before we leave that, Mr. Devkar, this is
`
`23
`
`Judge Grossman again. My understanding of Patent Owner's criticism of the
`
`24
`
`reference is that Mathiassen reference, it's touch sensitive, but it doesn't
`
`25
`
`biometrically scan the fingerprint when it's in this, what the Patent Owner
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01006 (Patent 9,665,705 B2)
`IPR2022-01045 (Patent 9,269,208 B2)
`IPR2022-01089 (Patent 9,269,208 B2)
`
`referred to as a navigation mode or a mode where it would detect the dits
`
`and the dahs.
`
`And that not only does -- is it Patent Owner's position, is my
`
`understanding of it that Mathiassen doesn't disclose the biometric scanning,
`
`but that a person of ordinary skill in the art wouldn't understand that the
`
`touch sensitive -- the single touch sensitive switch doesn't scan a fingerprint
`
`while it's in this touch sensitive mode. Tell me how Mathiassen does both of
`
`those. Does Mathiassen do both or does it have two separate and distinct
`
`modes? Does it have a touch sensitive mode where it only records the dots
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`and dashes? Or does it also have a fingerprint mode with biometrically scan
`
`11
`
`the fingerprint?
`
`12
`
` MR. DEVKAR: Great question, Your Honor. And you are indeed
`
`13
`
`correct that Patent Owner's original position in its Patent Owner response
`
`14
`
`was that Mathiassen is not capturing fingerprint data when it is receiving and
`
`15
`
`interpreting commands. In fact, Patent Owner characterized that by saying,
`
`16
`
`and this is from Patent Owner response, page 22, "they are merely touching
`
`17
`
`a touch sensitive pad during which no biometric measurement is taken at
`
`18
`
`all." So Patent Owner indeed believed that in Mathiassen, fingerprint data is
`
`19
`
`only read during authentication, but not read when you are receiving
`
`20
`
`commands on the fingerprint sensor.
`
`21
`
`Now, it turned out that Patent Owner was incorrect about that. I'm
`
`22
`
`going to refer to slide 32 where it became evident to Patent Owner after their
`
`23
`
`Patent Owner response that that position was incorrect. On slide 32,
`
`24
`
`Petitioner slide 32, that is, we see an excerpt from Mathiassen that reads,
`
`25
`
`"The fingerprint sensors scan the fingerprint and in order to be able to
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01006 (Patent 9,665,705 B2)
`IPR2022-01045 (Patent 9,269,208 B2)
`IPR2022-01089 (Patent 9,269,208 B2)
`
`analyze the fingerprint, is able to detect the finger movement across the
`
`sensor in one dimension."
`
`So this is talking about movements or gestures or taps on the sensor
`
`when it is in navigation mode. This is separate from authentication. As
`
`Patent Owner, I think, would agree. And here's Patent Owner's expert Dr.
`
`Russ, who concedes, and I quote, "part of the fingerprint is being imaged in
`
`connection with gestures. If it's a cap, then a very tiny part, just the part that
`
`sits over the sensor, whatever part of the fingerprint passes over the sensor in
`
`the course of doing the gesture."
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`So Patent Owner expert agrees that the sensor is always, always
`
`11
`
`capturing fingerprint data. And that, Your Honors, I think that that was a
`
`12
`
`very astute point in your final written decision yesterday, where you were
`
`13
`
`talking about, in the context of the '705 and '208 patents, that a fingerprint
`
`14
`
`sensor's ability to recognize a fingerprint is not turned off when a succession
`
`15
`
`of fingerprint message is applied to the fingerprint sensor. That's exactly the
`
`16
`
`point.
`
`17
`
`A fingerprint sensor is just a sensor. It is taking presses on top of it
`
`18
`
`and it is outputting what it reads. It's always outputting a biometric signal,
`
`19
`
`Your Honor. It's always outputting the finger -- the area of the finger that's
`
`20
`
`on the sensor and it is outputting what it sees. That is explicit in Mathiassen.
`
`21
`
`So when Patent Owner realized that Mathiassen actually has an explicit
`
`22
`
`disclosure of reading fingerprint data, in all cases, whether it's authentication
`
`23
`
`or for the purposes of issuing commands to the center, Patent Owner realized
`
`24
`
`it had a problem and it needed to pivot its position.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01006 (Patent 9,665,705 B2)
`IPR2022-01045 (Patent 9,269,208 B2)
`IPR2022-01089 (Patent 9,269,208 B2)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`So when you look at Patent Owner's surreply brief, they are now
`
`saying that Mathiassen doesn't satisfy the construction because it doesn't
`
`capture what they deem to be an entire fingerprint. Or they use several
`
`words for it, an entire fingerprint, a whole fingerprint, a complete
`
`fingerprint. But what they're saying is, okay, we understand that Mathiassen
`
`actually does read fingerprint data in all cases, but it doesn't read the entire
`
`fingerprint.
`
`Now, I'm going to get to a little later why that's an untenable position.
`
`It's nowhere in the intrinsic record for the '705 and '208 patents as to what an
`
`10
`
`entire fingerprint is. And there's a lot of common sense examples as to why
`
`11
`
`you can't read in a limitation of an entire fingerprint into this proposed
`
`12
`
`construction of Patent Owners.
`
`13
`
`So, Your Honor, looping back to your original question. It is indeed
`
`14
`
`the case that Mathiassen is reading fingerprint data in all cases, and that's
`
`15
`
`exactly what you would expect consistent with Your Honor's final written
`
`16
`
`decision yesterday, where you made the astute observation that a fingerprint
`
`17
`
`sensor is recognizing a fingerprint. And that is not turned off when the
`
`18
`
`succession of presses or gestures is applied to the fingerprint sensor, the
`
`19
`
`sensor is always capturing fingerprint data. That's what it's designed to do.
`
`20
`
`Your Honor, does that answer your question?
`
`21
`
` JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes, yes. It does. One short follow-up
`
`22
`
`question. Is there anything in the patent, the '705 patent, talks about the dots
`
`23
`
`and dashes, dits and dahs as a one second or two seconds? Is there anything
`
`24
`
`in the record that establishes that a typical fingerprint sensor, if you hold
`
`25
`
`your thumb on there for two seconds, it's going to get a pretty good read of
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01006 (Patent 9,665,705 B2)
`IPR2022-01045 (Patent 9,269,208 B2)
`IPR2022-01089 (Patent 9,269,208 B2)
`
`the entire fingerprint, or even if you hold it on there for one second, it'll be a
`
`pretty good read?
`
`Those are the two examples that the patent uses. And I don't know, I
`
`didn't see anybody citing anything about exactly how fingerprint sensors
`
`work. But a one-second duration seems like a lot of time to be able to record
`
`a complete fingerprint.
`
` MR. DEVKAR: Your Honor, I completely agree with you, but I
`
`think the answer to your question is there's nothing in the intrinsic record
`
`that speaks to that. I -- I think you're absolutely right that even short
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`duration presses on a fingerprint sensor are sufficient to read fingerprint
`
`11
`
`data. How much is enough is completely absent from the intrinsic record.
`
`12
`
`And that's not surprising, Your Honor, because in the -- in the
`
`13
`
`circumstance where you're reading the dit, dit, dit, dah, which is the sole
`
`14
`
`example, you're not actually doing anything with the biometric data. At
`
`15
`
`least there's no suggestion that you are. You are recognizing a Morse code-
`
`16
`
`like entry. For a pre-authenticated user, which is an administrator in the
`
`17
`
`example given at columns 10 and 11 of the '705 patent. But what happens is
`
`18
`
`the administrator, who's an authenticated administrator, is now issuing a
`
`19
`
`command to the system with a Morse code-like entry of finger presses on the
`
`20
`
`sensor. There's no reason that you would be analyzing the fingerprint data.
`
`21
`
`You're not looking at that anymore for authentication purposes. You're
`
`22
`
`looking at it for the purposes of interpreting a command.
`
`23
`
`That doesn't mean that the data is not still there. The data is still there.
`
`24
`
`The biometric data is still there. That's what the biometric sensor does. And
`
`25
`
`I think that's what was very pleasing to read in your final written decision
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01006 (Patent 9,665,705 B2)
`IPR2022-01045 (Patent 9,269,208 B2)
`IPR2022-01089 (Patent 9,269,208 B2)
`
`yesterday on these same patents in different IPRs. The sensor is just a
`
`sensor. It outputs biometric data. That's what it does in all cases. And it's
`
`the same in Mathiassen, that's the same in Bianco, that's the same in the '705
`
`and '208 patents. But there is nothing in the record that describes the time
`
`intervals or which time intervals are sufficient or insufficient. That's
`
`completely absent from the record, Your Honor.
`
` JUDGE GROSSMAN: Thank you. One related thing. I don't want
`
`to take up all your time with questions, but related to that same point is, if
`
`the -- if the biometric -- is the claims in the '705 refer to a biometric signal as
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`being an input and the -- when they're using it to detect the number or
`
`11
`
`duration of the fingerprint process, in the example, they give one second.
`
`12
`
`Unless that sensor is able to read a thinker print in one second, then that
`
`13
`
`wouldn't be a biometric signal. If all it's doing is detecting that it's a dot or a
`
`14
`
`dash. Is there anything in the records that suggests or that just a one-second
`
`15
`
`press is sufficient to read that fingerprint?
`
`16
`
` MR. DEVKAR: There's nothing in the record, Your Honor,
`
`17
`
`although I think you have the right intuition that you would expect a
`
`18
`
`fingerprint sensor, even in intervals less than one second. It can still output
`
`19
`
`biometric data. That's what it does. I think those readings happen very
`
`20
`
`quickly, but there is nothing in the record that specifies time intervals.
`
`21
`
`In Mathiassen, however, there are some disclosure ignizing presses of
`
`22
`
`varying durations of less than even one second. And I'd like to show you
`
`23
`
`those, Your Honor, if you are interested. That is at slide 26. Petitioner slide
`
`24
`
`26, we see on the left-hand side a longer articulation of the types of Morse
`
`25
`
`code-like entries that you could have with combinations of long taps and
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01006 (Patent 9,665,705 B2)
`IPR2022-01045 (Patent 9,269,208 B2)
`IPR2022-01089 (Patent 9,269,208 B2)
`
`short taps or double taps and the like on the fingerprint sensor. But on the
`
`right, in table 1 of Mathiassen, which is Exhibit 1004, you see