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.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`CPC Patent Technologies PTY LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`Case No. IPR2022-01045
`
`Patent No. 9,269,208
`
`_____________________________________________________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,269,208 (CLAIMS 1-9)
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................ 1
`III.
`IDENTIFICATION OF CLAIMS AND GROUNDS .................................... 3
`IV. CERTIFICATION AND FEES ...................................................................... 4
`V.
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................ 5
`A.
`The ’208 Patent .................................................................................... 5
`B.
`The Prior Art ........................................................................................ 7
`1.
`Bianco ........................................................................................ 7
`2. Mathiassen ................................................................................ 7
`3.
`Houvener ................................................................................... 8
`4.
`Richmond .................................................................................. 8
`VI. LEVEL OF SKILL ......................................................................................... 8
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................... 9
`A.
`Terms to be Construed ......................................................................... 9
`1.
`“signal for directing input” ..................................................... 9
`B. Means-Plus-Function Limitations ...................................................... 10
`C. Other Previously-Construed Terms .................................................... 10
`VIII. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................ 11
`A. GROUND_#1: Claims 1, 3-5, and 9 are rendered obvious by
`Bianco and Mathiassen. ...................................................................... 11
`1.
`Claim 1 .................................................................................... 11
`2.
`Claim 3 .................................................................................... 62
`3.
`Claim 4 .................................................................................... 67
`4.
`Claim 5 .................................................................................... 70
`5.
`Claim 9 .................................................................................... 71
`B. GROUND_#2: Claims 2 and 6-7 are Rendered Obvious by
`Bianco and Mathiassen in view of Houvener .................................... 72
`1.
`Claim 2 .................................................................................... 72
`
`i
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Claim 6 .................................................................................... 78
`2.
`Claim 7 .................................................................................... 84
`3.
`C. GROUND_#3: Claim 8 Is Rendered Obvious by Bianco,
`Mathiassen, Houvener, and Richmond .............................................. 89
`1.
`Claim 8 .................................................................................... 89
`IX. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 93
`
` ii
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`EXHIBITS FILED BY PETITIONERS
`
`EX-1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,665,705 (“Burke II”)
`
`EX-1002
`
`Patent Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 9,665,705
`
`EX-1003
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,256,737 to Bianco et al. (“Bianco”)
`
`EX-1004 World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Int. Pub. No.
`WO 2002028067A1 (02/28067) to Mathiassen (“Mathiassen”)
`
`EX-1005
`
`Declaration of S. Lipoff Regarding Invalidity of U.S. Patent No.
`9,269,208
`
`EX-1006
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Stuart Lipoff
`
`EX-1007
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,269,208 to Burke (“Burke I”)
`
`EX-1008
`
`EX-1009
`
`EX-1010
`
`Dawn Xiodong Song, David Wagner, and Xuqing Tian
`(University of California, Berkeley), “Timing Analysis of
`Keystrokes and Timing Attacks on SSH,” USENIX Security
`Symposium, vol. 2001 (2001), available at
`https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~daw/papers/ssh-use01.pdf.
`
`Claim Construction Order in CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd
`v. Apple Inc., WDTX-6-21-cv-00165-ADA, Dkt. No. 76
`(“Apple CC Order”)
`
`Claim Construction Order in CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd
`v. HMD Global Oy, WDTX-6-21-cv-00166-ADA, Dkt. No. 45
`(“HMD CC Order”)
`
`iii
`
`

`

`EX-1011
`
`R. Stockton Gaines, William Lisowski, S. James Press, and
`Normal Shapiro (Rand), Authentication by Keystroke Timing:
`Some Preliminary Results, R-2526-NSF, May 1980. (“Gaines”)
`
`EX-1012
`
`Patent Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 9,269,208
`
`EX-1013
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,790,674 to Robert C. Houvener and Ian P.
`Hoenisch (“Houvener”)
`
`EX-1014
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,856,237 to Thomas R. Richmond, Suzanne
`Richmond, and Patrick S. Kochie (“Richmond”)
`
`EX-1015
`
`Fabian Monrose, Michael K. Reiter, and Susanne Wetzel.
`“Password Hardening Based on Keystroke Dynamics,”
`Proceedings of the 6th ACM Conference on Computer and
`Communications Security, November 1999. (“Monrose”)
`
`EX-1017
`
`Excerpts from Longman, Dictionary of American English, 3rd
`Edition (2004)
`
`EX-1018
`
`Excerpts from Bloomsbury English Dictionary, 2nd Edition
`(2004)
`
`EX-1019 WIPO Patent Pub. No. WO2008113110A1 to Christopher John
`Burke (“Burke III”).
`
`EX-1020
`
`CPC Infringement Allegations re U.S. Patent No. 9,269,208
`
`EX-1021
`
`CPC Infringement Allegations re U.S. Patent No. 9,665,705
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2022-01045
`Patent No. 9,269,208
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioners request Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of claims 1-9 (the
`
`“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,269,208 (“ʼ208 Patent,” EX-1007),
`
`purportedly owned by CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd. (“Patent Owner”).
`
`This petition in IPR2022-01045 is being filed concurrently with IPR2022-
`
`01089, together challenging all claims of the ’208 Patent. These two petitions
`
`(IPR2022-01045/01089) are being filed shortly after a petition in IPR2022-01006,
`
`which challenges the claims of the related continuation patent, U.S. 9,665,705
`
`(“the ’705 Patent”). Petitioners request that the schedule, discovery, and hearing of
`
`these three IPRs be combined. The claims in the two patents are similar, but unlike
`
`the claims in the ’705 Patent, the claims in the ’208 Patent include numerous
`
`“means for” terms. Petitioners, therefore, recommend that the Board review
`
`IPR2022-01006 first.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`Real Party-in-Interest: The real parties-in-interest are related entities ASSA
`
`ABLOY AB, and ASSA ABLOY Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiaries ASSA
`
`ABLOY Residential Group, Inc., August Home, Inc., HID Global
`
`Corporation, and ASSA ABLOY Global Solutions, Inc. ASSA ABLOY AB is
`
`the ultimate parent of all parties-in-interest. None of the entities mentioned in the
`
`Related Matters section below were involved in or offered any assistance to the
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2022-01045
`Patent No. 9,269,208
`
`Real-Parties-in-Interest for this IPR.
`
`Related Matters: The ʼ208 Patent has not been asserted against Petitioners in
`
`litigation. Petitioners have filed a declaratory judgment action against Patent
`
`Owner and Charter Pacific Corporation Ltd. regarding non-infringement of the
`
`’208 Patent, the ’705 Patent, and U.S. Patent No. 8,620,039 in ASSA ABLOY AB, et
`
`al. v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd., et al., No. 3-22-cv-00694 (D. Ct.).1 Both
`
`the ’208 Patent and ’705 Patent were asserted against Apple, Inc. in CPC Patent
`
`Technologies Pty Ltd v. Apple Inc., No. 5:22-cv-02553-NC (N.D. Cal., San Jose
`
`Division) (“Case One”), and against HMD Global in CPC Patent Technologies Pty
`
`Ltd v. HMD Global Oy, WDTX-6-21-cv-00166-ADA (“Case Two”).2 Both of
`
`those suits were filed on February 23, 2021. Petitioners understand that Patent
`
`Owner dropped its assertions of the ’208 Patent against both Apple and HMD
`
`Global while In re Apple was pending before the Federal Circuit, but did so
`
`without prejudice. To the best of Petitioners’ knowledge, the ’208 Patent has not
`
`been asserted against other parties.
`
`The ’705 Patent was challenged in IPR2022-00602, filed by Apple Inc. on
`
`February 23, 2022. The ’208 Patent was challenged in IPR2022-00601, also filed
`
`1 See also EX-1020 and EX-1021.
`
`2 HID Global and HMD Global have no relation to one another.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2022-01045
`Patent No. 9,269,208
`
`by Apple Inc., on February 23, 2022. Both IPRs are pending pre-institution.
`
`Lead Counsel: Dion Bregman (Reg. No. 45,645); Back-up Counsel: Andrew
`
`Devkar (Reg. No. 76,671) and James J. Kritsas (Reg. No. 71,714).
`
`Service: Service of any documents may be made on Morgan, Lewis &
`
`Bockius LLP, 1400 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA, 94304 (Telephone:
`
`650.843.4000; Fax: 650.843.4001). Petitioners consent to e-mail service at: HID-
`
`IPRs@morganlewis.com
`
`III.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CLAIMS AND GROUNDS
`ʼ208 Patent: This patent was filed on August 10, 2012, and has an earliest
`
`possible priority date of August 13, 2003. It is subject to the pre-AIA provisions of
`
`35 U.S.C. §102.
`
`Bianco: U.S. Patent No. 6,256,737 titled “System, method and computer
`
`program product for allowing access to enterprise resources using biometric
`
`devices” to Peter Garrett Bianco, et al. (“Bianco,” EX-1003), filed March 9, 1999
`
`and granted July 3, 2001, is prior art under §102(b).
`
`Mathiassen: WIPO Pub. No. 2002028067 titled “Method and system for
`
`inputting characters” to Camilla Mathiassen (“Mathiassen,” EX-1004), filed
`
`September 20, 2001 and published April 4, 2002, is prior art under §102(b).
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2022-01045
`Patent No. 9,269,208
`
`Houvener: U.S. Patent No. 5,790,674 titled “System, method and computer
`
`program product for allowing access to enterprise resources using biometric
`
`devices” to Robert C. Houvener, et al. (“Houvener,” EX-1013), filed July 19, 1996
`
`and granted August 4, 1998, is prior art under §102(b).
`
`Richmond: U.S. Patent No. 6,856,237 titled “Method and apparatus for
`
`radio frequency security system with automatic learning” to Thomas R. Richmond,
`
`et al. (“Richmond,” EX-1014), filed June 26, 2000 and granted February 15, 2005,
`
`is prior art under §102(e).
`
`Petitioners request that the Board find each of the Challenged Claims invalid
`
`on the following grounds:
`
`Ground
`
`Prior Art
`
`Statutory Basis
`
`Claims
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`Bianco and Mathiassen
`
`Bianco, Mathiassen, and Houvener
`
`Bianco, Mathiassen, Houvener, and
`Richmond
`
`§103
`
`§103
`
`§103
`
`1, 3-5, and 9
`
`2 and 6-7
`
`8
`
`IV. CERTIFICATION AND FEES
`Petitioners certify that the ’208 Patent is available for IPR and that
`
`Petitioners are not barred or estopped from requesting this IPR on the grounds
`
`identified herein.
`
`Any additional fees for this IPR may be charged to Deposit Account No. 50-
`
`4
`
`

`

`0310 (Order No. 117139-0008).
`
`Case No. IPR2022-01045
`Patent No. 9,269,208
`
`V.
`
`BACKGROUND
`A.
`The ’208 Patent
`The ʼ208 Patent describes authenticating users using biometrics to gain
`
`“access to a controlled item,” such as a locked door or electronic computing
`
`device. EX-1007 Abstract.
`
`Figure 10 of the ʼ208 Patent
`
`is reproduced to the right. EX-
`
`1007 Fig.10.3 The patent
`
`discloses granting access to a
`
`controlled item (blue) by reading a
`
`biometric (e.g., a fingerprint)
`
`using a “sensor” (red). A
`
`controller (pink) compares that
`
`input biometric (called a
`
`“biometric signature”) with a
`
`previously-captured reference
`
`3 Unless otherwise specified, all emphasis/coloring is added throughout.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2022-01045
`Patent No. 9,269,208
`
`signature stored in a database (yellow). The specification discloses that the
`
`database (yellow) can be in the transmission subsystem (green), receiver subsystem
`
`(purple), or neither, and may be in “memory.” If a match is found, the input
`
`biometric is associated with a user ID associated with the stored biometric and the
`
`user is authenticated. If not, as recited in dependent claims 3 and 5, the access
`
`attempt is denied and an “alert” may be sounded.
`
`The system may be allocated in two “subsystems,” a “transmitter sub-
`
`system” (green) and “receiver sub-system” (purple), connected through a
`
`communication network (orange). However, the “sub-systems” can be “collocated
`
`in” a single device, such as the “electronic computing device” containing the
`
`data/applications being protected, in which case the “network 1020” is “a…link”
`
`connecting the subsystems “directly.” EX-1007 14:50-54. Claim 1 requires
`
`“populating the data base according to the instruction,” which is typically referred
`
`as user enrollment. EX-1007 Cl. 1; EX-1005 ¶28.
`
`There are two features that the Applicant considered novel:
`
`1.
`
`Providing “conditional access,” such as by sounding a silent alarm but still
`
`granting access. E.g., EX-1007 2:42-43, 8:15-37.
`
`2.
`
`Using a series of entries of a biometric signal in a duration/number pattern
`
`(like Morse-code) to provide an instruction to update the database of
`
`biometric signatures (e.g., fingerprints/eyeprints/voiceprints). EX-1012,
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2022-01045
`Patent No. 9,269,208
`
`pp300-305.
`
`Additionally, after a call with the Examiner, the claims were allowed with
`
`the additional requirement that the lock be limited to either locks on physical
`
`locations (such as door lock) or locks on computer resources (e.g., applications or
`
`data). EX-1012 317-318. Limiting the claims to physical or electronic locks
`
`appears to be what the Examiner determined was novel. EX-1005 ¶¶29-32.
`
`B.
`
`The Prior Art
`1.
`Bianco
`The Examiner was not aware of Bianco (EX-1003) during prosecution. Like
`
`the ’208 Patent, Bianco discloses an access control system that uses biometrics.
`
`EX-1003 Abstract; EX-1005 ¶33.
`
`Regarding the purportedly novel aspects of the ’208 Patent, Bianco discloses
`
`“conditional access,” such that even if a user is authenticated, an alert may be
`
`raised (e.g., a user under duress provides a different fingerprint to send a covert
`
`indication of a robbery while a silent alarm is sounded). EX-1005 ¶¶34-36.
`
`2. Mathiassen
`The Examiner was not aware of Mathiassen (EX-1004) during prosecution.
`
`Mathiassen teaches using a single biometric (fingerprint) sensor for the dual
`
`purposes of (i) reading fingerprints for access control and (ii) for issuing
`
`instructions through a series of finger “taps” of varying durations. EX-1004
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2022-01045
`Patent No. 9,269,208
`
`Abstract; EX-1005 ¶37.
`
`Houvener
`3.
`The Examiner was not aware of Houvener (EX-1013) during prosecution.
`
`Houvener teaches the well-known concept of logging and creating audit trails of
`
`biometric transactions (claim 2). It also teaches a control panel (claims 6-7). EX-
`
`1005 ¶38.
`
`Richmond
`4.
`The Examiner was not aware of Richmond (EX-1014) during prosecution.
`
`Richmond teaches a method for converting rolling code transmissions into the
`
`protocol for legacy Weigand controllers, as required by dependent claim 8. EX-
`
`1005 ¶39.
`
`VI. LEVEL OF SKILL
`A person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the
`
`alleged invention would have had at least an undergraduate degree in electrical
`
`engineering, or equivalent education, and at least two years of work experience in
`
`the field of security and access-control. EX-1005 ¶26.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2022-01045
`Patent No. 9,269,208
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A.
`Terms to be Construed
`Petitioners propose the following terms for construction:
`
`“signal for directing input”
`1.
`Dependent claim 2 claims a “signal for directing input.” This phrase is
`
`absent from the specification. As its name implies, this “signal” is a
`
`communication sent from the system “directing” the user to provide his/her
`
`biometric “input.” EX-1005 ¶41.
`
`The patent teaches the “entry module 103 also incorporates at least one
`
`mechanism
`
`for
`
`providing
`
`feedback to the user 101.”
`
`EX-1007 6:20-21. The patent
`
`explains this can “take the form
`
`or [sic-of]…visual feedback,
`
`depicted by an arrow 123
`
`[purple]…or…an audio signal
`
`[red],” as shown to the right.
`
`Id. Fig.2 (excerpted/annotated),
`
`6:22-26. These “feedback signalling [sic] mechanisms…are used…to direct the
`
`administration process.” Id. 11:3-8; EX-1005 ¶42.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2022-01045
`Patent No. 9,269,208
`
`Thus, “signal for directing input” and “feedback signal adapted to direct
`
`provision of…the biometric signal” should be construed as “a communication sent
`
`from the system to direct the user to provide his/her biometric input.” EX-1005
`
`¶43.
`
`B. Means-Plus-Function Limitations
`Judge Albright (WDTX) construed seven means-plus-function limitations
`
`from the Challenged Claims, which Petitioners propose here. Petitioners also
`
`propose constructions for the remaining means-plus-function limitations that Judge
`
`Albright did not construe due to his procedural limitations, which appear in their
`
`respective Argument sections below.
`
`Other Previously-Construed Terms
`C.
`Judge Albright also construed the following terms, which are not material to
`
`the unpatentability of the Challenged Claims, so need not be construed (and which
`
`Petitioners do not necessarily agree with).
`
`Term
`
`“accessibility attribute”
`
`“biometric signature”
`
`“[map|mapping] said series into an
`instruction”
`
`Construction
`“attribute that establishes whether and
`under which conditions access to the
`controlled item should be granted to a
`user.” EX-1010, p1; EX-1009, p2.
`
`“plain and ordinary meaning.” EX-1009,
`p2; EX-1010, p1.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2022-01045
`Patent No. 9,269,208
`
`The term “‘at least’ modifies ‘one of the
`number of said entries.’ The claim
`additionally requires ‘a duration of each
`said entry.’” EX-1009, p2 (emphasis
`added).
`
`“series”
`“being characterized [according
`to|determining|determine]”
`
`“at least one of the number of said
`entries and a duration of each said
`entry”
`
`Ex. 1009, p.2; Ex. 1010, p.1.
`
`VIII. ARGUMENT
`A.
`GROUND_#1: Claims 1, 3-5, and 9 are rendered obvious by
`Bianco and Mathiassen.
`1.
`Claim 14
`
`Preamble 1[P]
`
`If limiting, Bianco discloses “a system for providing secure access to a
`
`controlled item.” EX-1005 ¶64-68. Bianco is titled “[s]ystem, method and
`
`computer program product for allowing access to enterprise resources using
`
`biometric devices.” EX-1003 Title; 1:8-12. That the “access” is only permitted
`
`after a biometrics match, confirms that the access is “secure.” EX-1005 ¶¶64-65.
`
`As explained for limitation 1(E), a “controlled item” as described in the ’208
`
`4 A full claim listing can be found in the Appendix.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2022-01045
`Patent No. 9,269,208
`
`Patent includes at least (1) physical resources, such as door locks, or (2) electronic
`
`resources such as applications, data, or computer access. See EX-1007 6:13-16,
`
`16:1-3. Both are disclosed by Bianco. For example, Bianco’s system “can be
`
`attached to the entry of each physical location…that authentication is required for
`
`entry” and Bianco’s “[e]nterprise resources include computers, applications and
`
`data.” EX-1003 1:15-16, 57:32-34; EX-1005 ¶¶66-68, ¶¶209-213.
`
`Limitation_1[A]
`
`Bianco discloses the limitation: “a database [e.g., biometric server 104
`
`configured as a database] of biometric signatures [e.g., biometric templates
`
`502].” EX-1005 ¶¶69-86.5
`
`Bianco teaches that “data stored in biometric server 104 can be
`
`configured…through the use of a database.” EX-1003 16:40-42. “The…data
`
`include[s] biometric templates.” Id. 2:58-60. A POSITA would have known that
`
`biometric templates are stored biometric signatures. EX-1005 ¶¶70-71.
`
`5 For brevity, citations to the expert declaration often appear at the end of each
`
`paragraph and apply to the full paragraph in which they are cited.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2022-01045
`Patent No. 9,269,208
`
`This is illustrated in Figure
`
`5 (right). EX-1003 Fig.5. A
`
`POSITA would have understood
`
`that biometric templates 502 are
`
`stored on biometric server 104,
`
`which can be configured as a
`
`database. EX-1005 ¶72-86.
`
`Limitation_1[B(P)]
`
`Bianco discloses “a transmitter sub-system [comprising].” EX-1005 ¶87-
`
`100.
`
`The “transmitter sub-system” is a portion of the overall system that
`
`determines whether access to a controlled item is granted and transmits the access
`
`signal. As addressed in its following three sub-limitations (B)(1-3), the
`
`“transmitter sub-system” comprises (1) “a biometric sensor”; (2) “means for
`
`matching match the biometric signal” measured “against [stored]…signatures”;
`
`and (3) “means for emitting a…signal” indicating whether access was granted.
`
`EX-1007 Cl. 1; EX-1005 ¶88.
`
`Both the ’208 Patent and Bianco make clear that their respective transmitter
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2022-01045
`Patent No. 9,269,208
`
`and receiver sub-systems can be collocated in a single system or reside in separate
`
`distributed components. EX-1007 e.g., 14:45-54; 7:9-20. Claim 1 of the ’208
`
`Patent reads on either configuration. Notably, the ’705 Patent, a continuation of
`
`the ’208 Patent sharing a common specification, confirms that the collocated
`
`configuration is contemplated by limiting its dependent claim 9 to that
`
`configuration: “the transmitter sub-system and the receiver sub-system [are]
`
`collocated in the…computing device”. EX-1001 Cl. 9. Similarly, Bianco teaches
`
`that “[o]bviously, more than one of these functional components could be
`
`implemented on a single computer 302.” EX-1003 14:29-31; EX-1005 ¶89.
`
`Both references also teach that their respective systems can be split into
`
`separate physical devices, e.g., with wireless/radio links between the transmission
`
`and receiver subsystems. Dependent claim 6 of the ’208 Patent recites “a
`
`transmitter for transmitting information…using a secure wireless signal.” EX-
`
`1007 Cl. 6. Similarly, Bianco teaches that “various functional components of [its]
`
`biometric system 102 can be physically located at one or more [different]
`
`locations,” and can be connected “by…radio waves.” EX-1003 11:61-63, 52:23-
`
`26; see also 11:63-65 (providing examples); EX-1005 ¶90.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2022-01045
`Patent No. 9,269,208
`
`In one embodiment, Bianco’s
`
`transmission sub-system is
`
`contained in a computer, just like
`
`the electronic lock embodiment in
`
`the ’208 Patent.6 The biometric
`
`sensor is one of the input devices
`
`(green). EX-1003 12:16-18
`
`(“[U]ser computer 208
`
`[3027]…has…biometric devices
`
`attached to it.”). EX-1003 Fig.3.
`
`Processor 304 is the claimed
`
`“controller,” and processor 304 transmitting over bus 306 is the “transmitter.” Just
`
`like the ’208 Patent, the processor/controller (e.g., 304) may also be the
`
`transmitter. Cf. EX-1007 Fig.2; EX-1005 ¶91.
`
`Bianco discloses a transmitter sub-system that transmits information/data
`
`(whether internally within a device, or externally to a remote receiver subsystem).
`
`Some of the components of an embodiment of Bianco’s transmitter sub-system are
`
`6 This is explained for limitation 1(E), which recites “an electronic lock.”
`
`7 Computer 208 (Figure 2) is called “computer 302” in Figure 3. EX-1005 ¶91.
`
`15
`
`

`

`shown in red below:
`
`Case No. IPR2022-01045
`Patent No. 9,269,208
`
`EX-1003 Fig.2; EX-1005 ¶¶92-97.
`
`Additionally, Bianco teaches “communication” between its sub-systems’
`
`components and confirms that “each computer in the network
`
`[can]…communicat[e] with any other computer in the network.” EX-1003 Figures
`
`4A-4I and 7; 3:63-67, 22:34-49; 15:57-16:19. Communication between Bianco’s
`
`sub-systems/components necessarily requires both transmission and reception.
`
`EX-1005 ¶¶98-100.
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2022-01045
`Patent No. 9,269,208
`
`Limitation_1[B(1)]
`
`Bianco discloses the limitation: “a biometric sensor [e.g., Bianco’s
`
`biometric device, or Bianco’s fingerprint device] for receiving [e.g., Bianco’s
`
`reading] a biometric signal [e.g., Bianco’s biometric data, characteristics, or
`
`measurements, e.g., a fingerprint].” EX-1005 ¶¶101-104.
`
`The ’208 Patent does not define a “biometric sensor” other than to provide a
`
`single example: “[F]or example, if the biometric sensor…is a fingerprint
`
`sensor…the [biometric] request…typically takes the form of a thumb press on a
`
`sensor panel (not shown) on the…module.” EX-1007 5:56-59. Similarly, Bianco
`
`describes “[b]iometric devices” that “identify a user based on compared
`
`measurements of unique personal characteristics” called “biometric
`
`measurements.” EX-1003 12:51-61. A “biometric device” measuring/reading
`
`biometric characteristics is a biometric sensor. EX-1005 ¶102. Bianco discloses
`
`the same examples of a biometric device/sensor as the ’208 Patent, e.g.,
`
`fingerprint, eye-scan, and voiceprint devices. EX-1003 3:2-6; cf. EX-1007 1:30-
`
`32. Bianco even includes the same example of “a typical fingerprint device” that
`
`senses by touching “the user’s left index finger” on the device. EX-1003 8:26,
`
`34:61-65; EX-1005 ¶102.
`
`The “biometric signal” is the measurement of a biometric attribute, such as a
`
`fingerprint or voiceprint. EX-1005 ¶103. Bianco confirms that its “biometric
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2022-01045
`Patent No. 9,269,208
`
`devices” receive biometric signals. For example, as illustrated in Fig.11 below (in
`
`red), Bianco’s “fingerprint device measures the geometry of a fingerprint” and “a
`
`number of characteristics or measurements are identified.” EX-1003 8:26-30.
`
`EX-1003 Fig.11; id. 26:15-17 (“In step 1106, biometric device object 1006 causes
`
`a biometric device to read the…biometric data.”). This is elaborated upon with
`
`respect to Figure 9:
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2022-01045
`Patent No. 9,269,208
`
`EX-1003 Fig.9. As confirmed by “YES” (circled red), Bianco receives the
`
`biometric signal that is read. EX-1005 ¶103-104.
`
`Limitation_1[B(2)]
`
`The claim requires “means for matching the biometric signal against
`
`members of the database of biometric signatures to thereby output an
`
`accessibility attribute,” which is disclosed by Bianco. EX-1005 ¶¶105-119.
`
`19
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2022-01045
`Patent No. 9,269,208
`
`This term was construed in District Court as follows:
`
`Function: matching the biometric signal against members of the
`database of biometric signatures to thereby output an accessibility
`attribute.
`Structure corresponding to the claimed means is a computer
`program product having a computer readable medium having a
`computer program recorded therein, with code for matching the
`biometric signal against members of the database of biometric
`signatures, to thereby output an accessibility attribute. ’208
`Patent, 4:8-13, 15-17, 40-45 & 47-49; 5:50-67; 6:56-7:2; 7:65-8:10;
`8:67-9:5; 14:10-42 see also Figure 2, items 103, 1058; figure 3, item
`202[.]
`
`EX-1010, p.2.9
`
`Additionally, as discussed in §VII.C, the “accessibility attribute” was
`
`8 This appears to be a typographical error, meant to recite “Database 113” (i.e., the
`
`database discussed in limitation 1(A)), rather than unrelated “user ID Database
`
`105.” Regardless, as explained below, Bianco discloses comparisons using a
`
`biometric signature database, and, as explained for claim 2, also discloses a user ID
`
`database. EX-1005 ¶106 (footnote).
`
`9 A substantially identical construction for this term was issued by the same Court
`
`in a related case. See EX-1009, p.4.
`
`20
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2022-01045
`Patent No. 9,269,208
`
`construed in district court to mean an “attribute that establishes whether and
`
`under which conditions access to the controlled item should be granted to a
`
`user.” EX-1010, p1; EX-1009, p2. The ’208 Patent provides (and claims) multiple
`
`examples of accessibility attributes. For example, dependent claim 3 recites “the
`
`accessibility attribute…comprising…an access attribute…a duress
`
`attribute…and…an alert attribute.” EX-1007 Cl. 3. Bianco discloses
`
`determining both “whether” and “under which conditions” a user is granted access
`
`to its controlled item, and specifically discloses each of the claimed examples of
`
`accessibility attributes. EX-1005 ¶107.
`
`Bianco discloses this construed limitation. EX-1005 ¶108.
`
`First, Bianco discloses the recited function. For example, Bianco teaches
`
`“[w]hen the user wants to gain access to a resource that is protected by the
`
`biometric device, the user is prompted for live biometric data. The live biometric
`
`data is matched with the stored biometric data.” EX-1003 8:14-17. As
`
`illustrated in Fig.11 below (purple/green), “[i]f the output from the ‘live’ process
`
`matches the stored biometric data within a certain predetermined tolerance, the
`
`user is considered to be authenticated”:
`
`21
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2022-01045
`Patent No. 9,269,208
`
`EX-1003 Fig.11, 8:36-40; see id. 26:31-37 (“In step 1112, an attempt is made to
`
`match the ‘live’ biometric data with biometric data stored in a biometric
`
`template 502 (FIG. 5).… In step 1114, if a match was successful…the user ID
`
`510…that belongs to the matching biometric template…is determined.”). As
`
`discussed for Limitation 1(A), above, the biometric template 502 shown in Figure
`
`5 is in the form of a database, just as in the ’208 Patent. A POSITA would have
`
`known that the signal to “proceed” (blue) after determining that “yes,” “a match
`
`[was] successful” (e.g., providing access but under duress), included an
`
`22
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2022-01045
`Patent No. 9,269,208
`
`“accessibility attribute” in the signal. EX-1005 ¶¶109-110.
`
`As shown in Fig.9, when the “user passes” the check (blue), Bianco’s
`
`accessibility attribute is an access (i.e., success/pass) attribute.
`
`EX-1003 Fig.9; EX-1005 ¶111.
`
`The ’208 Patent’s “accessibility attribute” may include a successful,
`
`unsuccessful, or “duress” authentication. EX-1007 8:17-28; §VII.C; EX-1005
`
`23
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2022-01045
`Patent No. 9,269,208
`
`¶112; see EX-1007 Cls. 3, 5 (requiring that “accessibility attribute” be one of “an
`
`access attribute,” “an alert [denial] attribute,” or “a duress attribute,” thus
`
`confirming that any of these are encompassed by claim 1’s “accessibility
`
`attribute”).
`
`Likewise, for “access attribute,” Bianco teaches that an “authenticated” user
`
`whose biometrics match may “gain[] access to which ever resource the fingerprint
`
`device is protecting.” EX-1003 8:34-40, 49:60-62; EX-1005 ¶113. Bianco
`
`summarizes the concept by reciting “determining whether the user is
`
`authenticated by executing said biometric policy; and…allowing the user access
`
`to the enterprise resources if the user passes said biometric policy, otherwise
`
`denying access to the user to the enterprise resources.” EX-1003 Cl. 49; see also
`
`EX-1007 8:19-25 (“the accessibility attribute may comprise …an alert attribute
`
`(sounding a chime indicating that an unauthorised, but not necessarily hostile,
`
`person is seeking access[)]”); EX-1005 ¶113.
`
`For “duress,” Bianco teaches that “under emergency conditions,” users can
`
`enter “an alarm biometric measurement,” resulting in receiving access but
`
`sounding an alarm “to silently signal police…during a robbery.” EX-1003 58:19-
`
`28. This can be triggered, e.g., if “the left index finger is used for authentication to
`
`[an] ATM machine.” Id. In other words, the accessibility attribute in this example
`
`is a duress attribute, e.g., providing access but under duress (i.e., establishing
`
`24
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2022-01045
`Patent No. 9,269,208
`
`whether and under which conditions access to the controlled item should be
`
`granted to the user). EX-1005 ¶114.
`
`Second, Bianco discloses the same or equivalent structure. For example,
`
`Fig.3 #202, cited in the district court construction, recites “[c]ompare to
`
`signatures.” EX-1007 Fig.3. As discussed above, Bianco’s comparison of the
`
`measured biometric to the stored biometric