`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`ASSA ABLOY AB, ASSA ABLOY INC.,
`HID Global Corporation, ASSA ABLOY Global Solutions, Inc.,
`and Master Lock Company, LLC
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CPC PATENT TECHNOLOGIES PTY LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-01045
`Patent 9,269,208
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S SUPPLEMENTAL
`BRIEF AFTER REMAND
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The Board’s inclusion of “provides secure access to a controlled item” as
`
`part of the construction of “biometric signal” was appropriate. “The construction
`
`that stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns with the patent’s
`
`description of the invention will be, in the end, the correct construction.” Paper 42
`
`at p. 70, quoting Renishaw PLC v Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243,
`
`1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Here, the Board properly concluded that “provides secure
`
`access to a controlled item” was appropriate because it stays true to the claim
`
`language and most naturally aligns with the ‘208 Patent’s description of the
`
`invention. Id. at 70. Under the Board’s construction none of Petitioner’s prior art
`
`discloses elements 1[D(1)-D(3)]1 of the ‘208 Patent. Nor is any aspect of the
`
`Board’s FWD inconsistent with the Apple Final Written Decision (“Apple FWD”).
`
`I.
`
`Inclusion of “Provides Secure Access” Is Proper
`
`A. The Board’s Analysis Was Sound
`
`The Board’s inclusion of “provides secure access” was proper.2 As noted in
`
`the FWD, the express objective of the claimed invention is a “system for providing
`
`
`1 This claim element numbering was used in the briefing and in the FWD. See e.g.,
`Paper 42 at p. 82.
`2 Patent Owner argued that “biometric signal” should be limited to a physical
`attribute of a user. The Board disagreed and concluded that “biometric signal”
`includes both physical and behavioral attributes. Patent Owner maintains, for the
`reasons stated in Patent Owner’s Response and Sur-Reply, that the construction of
`“biometric signal” should be limited to physical attributes of the user. See e.g.,
`Paper 26, pp. 8-15; Paper 36, pp. 7-9.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`secure access to a controlled item.” Paper 42, p. 62; see also Ex. 1007, e.g.,
`
`Claims 1, 2, 6, 9, 10. The specification is replete with discussion of the invention
`
`being designed to provide “secure access.” See e.g., Ex. 1007, Abstract, 1:14-16,
`
`2:26-28, 2:35-39, 2:44-53, 2:57-65, 5:51-52, 7:16-20, 11:47-53, 14:11-35.3 For the
`
`claimed system to achieve this object, it is the “biometric signal” that must be an
`
`input capable of providing secure access; it must uniquely identify the user. The
`
`first step in the claimed enrollment is the entry of the biometric signal. Ex. 1007,
`
`Figs 6 and 8 and 12:39-54.4 If the biometric signal did not uniquely identify the
`
`user then it could not grant secure access, as Petitioner’s expert agreed. See Ex.
`
`2040, 175:12-15 (“When a biometric system is used for the purpose of providing
`
`access, then it would need to be capable of uniquely identifying the user.”); Ex.
`
`1029, ¶ 14 (“So long as the biometric sensor can output a biometric signal capable
`
`of uniquely identifying a user, the claims and reported invention would be
`
`viable.”). This point is further recognized in the definition of a “fingerprint” cited
`
`the Board (“the pattern of curved lines on the end of a finger that is different in
`
`every person…”, Paper 42, p. 64) (emphasis added), and also in Petitioner’s cited
`
`prior art. See Ex. 1004, 3:14-24 (defining biometrics as the “mathematical
`
`
`3 The ‘208 Patent specification uses the phrase “secure access” 73 times.
`4 As in the FWD, citations to the ‘208 Patent are in Column;Line format.
`5 This is the exhibit page number of the Lipoff transcript, not the deposition page
`number.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`description of characteristic elements of the owner’s body…which describe him
`
`uniquely”) (emphasis added); Ex. 1003, Abstract (“Biometric devices…identify a
`
`user based on compared measurements of unique personal characteristics.”)
`
`(emphasis added); see also Paper 36, pp. 8-9.
`
`The Board correctly noted that the claims require that the “biometric signal”
`
`must be able to be “matched to a database.” Paper 42, p. 64. “Matching” is
`
`required for granting secure access. It is the user’s unique biometric signal that
`
`allows the system to “match” (or not) and therefore determine secure access. A
`
`POSITA would readily understand that it is the ability of the biometric signal to
`
`distinguish the user that is needed to accomplish the claimed invention’s object of
`
`granting secure access. Thus, inclusion of “provides secure access to a controlled
`
`item” as part of the construction of “biometric signal” is reasonable.
`
`B. Petitioner’s Remand Arguments Are Not Persuasive
`
`Petitioner first argues that inclusion of “secure access” is wrong because
`
`other components besides the biometric signal also play a role in providing secure
`
`access. Paper 54, pp. 2-3. But this argument ignores that it is the biometric signal,
`
`not the other components, that includes the unique information that allows the
`
`grant of secure access. Ex. 2040, 17:12-15; Ex. 2029, ¶ 14. Enrollment and
`
`verification each begin with the input of a biometric signal that a POSITA would
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`understand must be capable of granting secure access. See e.g., Ex. 1007, Figs 6,
`
`7, and 8.
`
`Nor does inclusion of “secure access” in the construction read the “secure
`
`access signal” element out of the claims. Paper 54, p. 3. Again, it is the biometric
`
`signal that contains the unique information that permits secure access. Ex. 2040,
`
`17:12-15; Ex. 2029, ¶ 14; see also Ex. 1007, 8:6-10 (“The step 202 compares the
`
`received biometric signal 102 with information in the biometric signature database
`
`105 in order to ensure that the biometric signal received 102 is that of the rightful
`
`user…”). Construing the biometric signal to be an attribute that provides secure
`
`access does not render meaningless the other claimed components; each still plays
`
`its role. Rather, including “secure access” in the “biometric signal” construction
`
`appropriately recognizes that a biometric signal is not merely any input to the
`
`system, but instead is an attribute of the user that can provide secure access.
`
`Particularly in the context of the specification’s repeated references to the goal of
`
`“secure access,” a POSITA would interpret “biometric signal” as an input that must
`
`be capable of providing secure access.
`
`Second, Petitioner’s contention that inclusion of “secure access” “narrows
`
`the claims by ignoring the role the biometric signal plays in enrolling new users”
`
`(Paper 54, p. 4) misses the mark. The Board’s construction in no way precludes
`
`the biometric signal from also playing an administrative role; it simply requires
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`that the biometric signal that is input when doing so can also provide secure access.
`
`The Board’s construction is consistent with the ‘208 Patent’s specification, which
`
`expressly discloses that if the Administrator’s “dit dit dit dah” fingerprint entries
`
`are not performed properly for enrolling a new user, then the system interprets
`
`them “to be presses intended to provide access to the controlled item.” Ex. 1007,
`
`10:64-67. This disclosure confirms that even during an administrative process the
`
`biometric signal must be capable of providing secure access.
`
`Next, Petitioner’s contention that the Board’s construction ignores disclosed
`
`administrative embodiments (Paper 54, pp. 4-5) is unavailing for the reasons
`
`explained above. As noted, the specification makes clear that even when
`
`performing administrative functions the biometric signal must still be an input that
`
`can provide secure access. Ex. 1007, 10:64-67.
`
`Finally, Petitioner’s argument that the Board’s construction is inconsistent
`
`with the Apple FWD (Paper 54, p. 5) is incorrect. First, the Board did not construe
`
`“biometric signal” in the Apple IPR. Paper 42, pp. 59-60, fn. 30. There is,
`
`therefore, no construction with which to be inconsistent. Second, Petitioner takes
`
`the Apple Board out of context in asserting that it found that a biometric signal is
`
`“the input to a biometric sensor.” Paper 54, p. 5. The Apple Board made this
`
`statement as part of a larger response to Patent Owner’s argument distinguishing
`
`“knowledge based” security features from a biometric signal. Ultimately, the
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Apple Board simply concluded that in the ‘705 Patent the series of entries
`
`characterized by a number and duration are entries of a biometric signal (Apple
`
`FWD, p. 31), a point that is not in dispute in the present IPR. But the Apple Board
`
`did not reach a construction of “biometric signal” that conflicts with the inclusion
`
`of “provide secure access” in the present matter. As the Board here aptly
`
`explained, “[t]he ‘602 Apple IPR…involved a different petitioner, different
`
`evidence, and different arguments than what was asserted in the proceeding before
`
`us.” Paper 42, pp. 59-60, fn. 30.
`
`II.
`
`Petitioner’s Prior Art Does Not Disclose Each Of The “Biometric
`Signal” 1[D(1)-D(3)] Elements
`
`A. Mathiassen-067 Does Not Disclose A Series Of Entries Of A
`Biometric Signal Characterized By A Number and Duration
`Petitioner first argues that the finding that Mathiassen-067 fails to meet the
`
`“number and duration” requirement because its command function entries are not
`
`biometric signals is inconsistent with the Apple FWD. Paper 54, p. 6. This is
`
`incorrect. Petitioner relies in part on the same statements made by the Apple Board
`
`described above (found at p. 31 of the Apple FWD). As already explained,
`
`however, Petitioner takes those statements out of context, and they are not
`
`inconsistent with the findings in the present case. See Section I.B, above.
`
`Petitioner also relies upon the Apple Board’s statement that “[b]ecause
`
`Mathiassen, like the ‘208 patent, uses a biometric sensor as the input device, it will
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`detect the biometric part of the input signal, while also sensing the number and
`
`duration of inputs.” Paper 54, p. 7, citing Apple FWD, p. 52. But here the Apple
`
`Board was discussing entirely different prior art. The Board was discussing the
`
`disclosure of the Mathiassen-113 reference, not the Mathiassen-067 reference at
`
`issue here. Petitioner has presented no evidence that the sensor of Mathiassen-113
`
`is the same as the sensor of Mathiassen-067. The Board’s factual finding about
`
`different prior art has no bearing upon the Board’s factual finding about the prior
`
`art here. In the present case, the Board evaluated the teachings of Mathiassen-067
`
`and the evidence of record and properly concluded that “there is a substantive
`
`distinction between the finger press command entry function and the fingerprint
`
`user authentication function in Mathiassen-067.” Paper 42, p. 89 (emphasis in
`
`original). This finding is not inconsistent with the Apple FWD.
`
`Petitioner next argues that the Mathiassen-067 fingerprint sensor “continues
`
`to act as a fingerprint sensor in control mode, such that the finger presses provide
`
`secure access.” Paper 54, p. 7. But this contention rests on factual assertions
`
`already raised and rejected. As the Board correctly found based on the weight of
`
`the evidence, “when Mathiassen-067 switches to text input or cursor control mode,
`
`it exits access control mode and is no longer functioning as a fingerprint sensor.”
`
`Paper 42, p. 91 (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`This conclusion is supported by the admission of Petitioner’s own expert
`
`that Mathiassen-067 includes “no disclosure one way or the other as to whether
`
`[the sensor] is also reading the fingerprint.” Paper 42, p. 90, citing Ex. 2034 at
`
`65:2-24. Petitioner’s attempts to relitigate this finding should be rejected. The
`
`contention that the Board misunderstood this testimony and that other parts of Mr.
`
`Lipoff’s testimony “also supports finding that fingerprint sensor continues to read
`
`fingerprint data when in control mode…” (Paper 54, p. 8) is contrary to the weight
`
`of the evidence and does not negate the force of Mr. Lipoff’s admission. Paper 42,
`
`p. 90; see also, Paper 26, pp. 25-38; Ex 2031, ¶¶ 62-83.
`
`B. Bianco Does Not Disclose Limitations 1[D(1) or D(2)]
`
`Petitioner contends that Bianco alone discloses the number/duration
`
`limitation (i.e., 1[D(1)], relying upon its use of hand-written signatures. Paper 54,
`
`p. 9. But hand-written signatures are behavioral biometric signals. Ex. 1003, 7:57-
`
`65. For the reasons described in Patent Owner’s prior papers (see Paper 26, p. 8-
`
`19; Paper 36, p. 7-9), as used in the ‘705 Patent the “biometric signal” should be
`
`limited to a physical attribute of a user. Under a construction that includes only
`
`physical attributes, Bianco does not disclose limitation 1[D(1)].
`
`Under either the Board’s or Patent Owner’s construction, however, Bianco
`
`fails to disclose the “mapping” limitation of 1[D(2)]. Indeed, the Petition never
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`relied on Bianco for this limitation. Paper 3, p. 45 (“Bianco discloses reading
`
`multiple types of biometric signatures…where each has a duration. However,
`
`Bianco is silent on how administrators control signals…Mapping the series of
`
`biometric entries into an instruction is expressly taught by Mathiassen[-067].”)
`
`(emphasis added). Petitioner now contends that Bianco renders the mapping step
`
`obvious because “it’s system’s administration and enrollment actions can be
`
`combined into one device.” Paper 54, p. 10, citing Paper 3, p. 40-41, 44-45. But
`
`Bianco’s disclosure of sending enrollment and control signals from the same
`
`device does not also disclose or render obvious the step of “mapping [biometric
`
`signals] into an instruction” and Petitioner has provided no evidence otherwise.
`
`Petitioner’s prior art does not disclose the use of biometric signals to map into an
`
`instruction. Further, there is nothing about the Board’s inclusion of “secure
`
`access” in the biometric signal construction that somehow makes Bianco more
`
`pertinent to limitation 1[D(2)] now than it was in the Petition.
`
`III. Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction
`
`If the Board concludes that inclusion of “secure access” was error (which it
`
`should not), then it should construe “biometric signal” to be a “physical attribute of
`
`the user (i.e., fingerprint, facial pattern, iris, retina, voice, etc.)” for the reasons
`
`stated in Paper 26, pp. 8-19, and Paper 36, pp. 7-9. This construction is supported
`
`by the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence and is consistent with the meaning of
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`“biometric signal” that was employed (even if not formally construed) by the
`
`Apple Board. Under this construction, Petitioner has failed to prove that
`
`Mathiassen meets element 1[D(1)] or that Bianco meets element 1[D(2)]. Under
`
`this construction Petitioner has failed to prove unpatentability.
`
`IV. Conclusion
`
`The Board should again find that Petitioner has failed to meet its burden of
`
`proving the challenged claims unpatentable.
`
`
`
`
`Dated: May 16, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
` /Michael J. Rye/
` Michael J. Rye (Reg. No. 34,422)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on May 16, 2024, I caused a true and correct copy of the
`
`foregoing to be served on the following counsel of record for Petitioner by
`
`electronic mail to the following addresses:
`
`Dion Bregman
`Andrew Devkar
`James J. Kritsas
`Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
`1400 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`HID-IPRs@morganlewis.com
`
`Lionel M. Lavenue
`Kara Specht
`Benjamin Saidman
`Safiya Aguilar
`Sydney Kestle
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett, & Dunner LLP
`1875 Explorer Street, Suite 800
`Reston, VA 20190-602
`AA-CPC-IPRs@finnegan.com
`
`Dated: May 16, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`/Michael J. Rye/
`Michael J. Rye
`Reg. No. 34,422
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`