`
`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. IPR2022-01093
`Patent No. 8,620,039
`______________________________________________________
`
`Before SCOTT A. DANIELS, AMBER L. HAGY and
`FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ REPLY TO
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE TO PETITION
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,620,039 (CLAIMS 1, 2, 13, 14, 19, AND 20)
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`
`B.
`
`B.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 5
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................................... 6
`A.
`PO’s proposed construction of “defining, dependent upon the received
`card information, a memory location…” is incorrect ............................................ 6
`“Method of enrolling” is not limiting .................................................................. 13
`B.
`HSU-SANFORD RENDERS ALL CHALLENGED CLAIMS OBVIOUS
`(GROUND 1) ................................................................................................................... 14
`A.
`Hsu-Sanford teaches Limitation 1[C]’s defining step under Petitioners’
`First Construction and the Board’s preliminary construction .............................. 14
`Hsu-Sanford teaches Limitation 1[C]’s defining step under PO’s
`construction .......................................................................................................... 16
`IV. HSU-SANFORD-TSUKAMURA RENDERS ALL CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`OBVIOUS (GROUND 2) ................................................................................................ 17
`A.
`Alleged deficiencies of Tsukamura are irrelevant ............................................... 17
`1.
`Petition does not rely on Tsukamura’s IC card 21 for disclosing
`“card information” ................................................................................... 17
`Tsukamura’s index-based system is materially the same as the ’039
`Patent’s pointer system ............................................................................ 18
`The differences between Tsukamura and the ’039 Patent are
`immaterial to unpatentability of the Challenged Claims ......................... 19
`A POSITA would have been motivated to combine Hsu-Sanford with
`Tsukamura............................................................................................................ 20
`1.
`The Challenged Claims do not require a particular type of data
`storage ...................................................................................................... 20
`The law does not require the combination be the best option.................. 22
`2.
`Tsukamura’s array is not undesirable ...................................................... 23
`3.
`THE PETITION IS NOT TIME BARRED AS THE BOARD HAS ALREADY
`CORRECTLY DETERMINED ....................................................................................... 25
`A.
`Apple is not a Real Party in Interest .................................................................... 25
`1.
`This Petition was not filed at Apple’s behest........................................... 25
`2.
`The business relationship does not support an RPI theory ...................... 26
`The Developer Agreement does not support Apple being an RPI ....................... 27
`
`V.
`
`B.
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`C.
`
`Sending products to Apple for routine compliance/certification does not
`make Apple an RPI .............................................................................................. 30
`CPC’s “clear beneficiary” argument is meritless................................................. 30
`D.
`VI. APPLE IS NOT IN PRIVITY WITH PETITIONERS .................................................... 31
`Factor 1: No agreement binds the Petitioners to the Apple action ...................... 32
`Factor 2: No privity in business relationship between Apple and
`Petitioners ................................................................................................ 32
`Factors 3-4: Petitioners have no control or representation in the Apple
`action ........................................................................................................ 32
`Factor 5: Petitioners are not acting as Apple’s proxy .......................................... 32
`Factor 6: No special statutory scheme foreclosing successive litigation ............. 32
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Catalina Mktg. Int'l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc.,
`289 F.3d 801 (Fed. Cir. 2002)..................................................................................................13
`
`Freedman Seating Co. v. Am. Seating Co.,
`420 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................19
`
`Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc.,
`21 F.4th 784 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ..................................................................................................22
`
`Pacing Techs., LLC v. Garmin Int'l, Inc.,
`778 F.3d 1021 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................13
`
`Rexnord Corp. v. Laitram Corp.,
`274 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2001)................................................................................................10
`
`Soverain Software LLC v. Newegg Inc.,
`705 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2013)................................................................................................19
`
`Taylor v. Sturgell,
`553 U.S. 880 (2008) .................................................................................................................31
`
`Valve Corp. v. Ironburg Inventions Ltd.,
`IPR2017-00136, Paper 12, 9-10 (P.T.A.B. May 4, 2017) .......................................................14
`
`Ventex Co., Ltd., v. Columbia Sportswear North America, Inc.,
`IPR2017-00651 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2019) ....................................................................................28
`
`WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp.,
`889 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..........................................................................................31, 32
`
`Wi-Fi One v. Broadcom Corp., LLC,
`887 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2018)................................................................................................27
`
`Worlds, Inc. v. Bungie, Inc.,
`903 F.3d 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..........................................................................................27, 28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01093
`U.S. Patent No. 8,620,039
`PETITIONERS’ EXHIBIT LIST (New Exhibits in Italics)
`
`Description
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`EX-1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,620,039 (“’039 Patent”)
`
`EX-1002 Patent Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 8,620,039
`
`EX-1003 European Patent Pub. No. EP 0924655A2 to Hsu et al. (“Hsu”)
`
`EX-1004 World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Int. Pub. No. WO
`2003077077A2 (03/077077) to Kirk Sanford (“Sanford”)
`
`EX-1005 U.S. Patent No. 6,963,660 to Yoshihiro Tsukamura and Takeshi
`Funahashi (“Tsukamura”)
`
`EX-1006 Declaration of Stuart Lipoff Regarding Invalidity of U.S. Patent No.
`8,620,039
`
`EX-1007 Curriculum Vitae of Stuart Lipoff
`
`EX-1008 European Patent Pub. No. EP 0881608A1 to Walter Leu (“Leu
`Original”)
`
`EX-1009 Certified English Translation of European Patent Pub. No. EP
`0881608A1 to Walter Leu (“Leu”)
`
`EX-1010 U.S. Patent No. 5,790,674 to Robert C. Houvener and Ian P.
`Hoenisch (“Houvener”)
`
`EX-1011 U.S. Patent No. 5,956,415 to McCalley et al. (“McCalley”)
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01093
`U.S. Patent No. 8,620,039
`
`EX-1012
`
`Claim Construction Order in CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd v.
`Apple Inc., WDTX-6-21-cv-00165-ADA, Dkt. No. 76
`(“Apple CC Order”)
`
`EX-1013
`
`Joint Claim Construction Statement in CPC Patent Technologies Pty
`Ltd v. Apple Inc., WDTX-6-21-cv-00165-ADA, Dkt. No. 57 (“Apple
`Joint CC Statement”)
`
`EX-1014 Excerpts from Bloomsbury English Dictionary, 2nd Edition (2004)
`
`EX-1015 Excerpts from The Chambers Dictionary, 4th Edition (2003)
`
`EX-1016 CPC Publicly Filed Infringement Allegations Against Apple
`regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,620,039
`
`EX-1017 World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Int. Pub. No. WO
`2001022351A1 (01/022351) to Gerald R. Black (“Black”)
`
`EX-1018
`
`World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Int. Pub. No. WO
`2004055738A1 (04/055738) to Svein Mathiassen and Ivar
`Mathiassen (“Mathiassen”)
`
`EX-1019 Excerpts from Algorithms + Data Structures = Programs, Niklaus
`Wirth (1976) (“Wirth”)
`
`EX-1020
`
`Excerpts from The Art Of Computer Programming (Second Edition),
`Volume 1 Fundamental Algorithms (1973) (“Knuth
`Vol. 1”)
`
`EX-1021 Excerpts from The Art Of Computer Programming, Volume 3
`Sorting and Searching (1973) (“Knuth Vol. 3”)
`
`EX-1022 Perfect Hashing Functions: A Single Probe Retrieving Method for
`Static Sets, Renzo Sprugnoli (1977) (“Sprugnoli”)
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01093
`U.S. Patent No. 8,620,039
`
`EX-1023 Petitioners’ Responses to Patent Owner’s Interrogatories
`
`EX-1024 Webpage printout - Developing for the app store at
`https://www.apple.com/app-store/developing-for-the-app-store/
`
`EX-1025 Webpage printout - Apple MFi Authorized Manufacturers at
`https://mfi.apple.com/account/authorized-manufacturers
`
`EX-1026 Screenshot from Apple 2022 WWDC Apple Partners at
`https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5D55G7Ejs8 (20:27)
`
`EX-1027 Apple 2022 WWDC Video Excerpt at
`https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5D55G7Ejs8
`
`EX-1028
`
`Webpage printout - HID Global - Android Apps on Google Play at
`https://play.google.com/store/search?q=HID%20global&c=apps&hl
`=en_US&gl=US
`
`EX-1029 Complaint in CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd v. HID Global
`Corporation, WDTX-6-22-cv-01170-ADA, Dkt. No. 1
`
`EX-1030 CPC Infringement Allegations re U.S. Patent No. 8,620,039
`
`EX-1031 Deposition Transcript of Dr. Samuel Russ
`
`EX-1032 Second Declaration of S. Lipoff Regarding Invalidity of U.S. Patent
`No. 8,620,039
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01093
`U.S. Patent No. 8,620,039
`
`Ex. 1033 European Patent No. EP 0918300B1 to Hsu et al. (“Evans”)
`
`Ex. 1034 Webpage printout - NFIQ 2 at https://www.nist.gov/services-
`resources/software/nfiq-2
`
`Ex. 1035 Webpage printout – Biometric template explainer at
`https://www.biometricupdate.com/202205/biometric-template-
`explainer
`
`Ex. 1036
`
`J. J. Engelsma, K. Cao and A. K. Jain, “Learning a Fixed-Length
`Fingerprint Representation,” in IEEE Transactions on Pattern
`Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 43, no. 6, pp. 1981-1997, 1
`June 2021, doi: 10.1109/TPAMI.2019.2961349.
`
`Ex. 1037 A. K. Jain, S. Prabhakar, L. Hong, and S. Pankanti, “Fingercode: A
`Filterbank for Fingerprint Representation and Matching,” in
`Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 1999. IEEE Computer
`Society Conference on., vol. 2, pp. 187–193, IEEE, 1999. 4.
`
`Ex. 1038 A. K. Jain, S. Prabhakar, L. Hong, and S. Pankanti, “Filterbank-
`based Fingerprint Matching,” IEEE Transactions on Image
`Processing, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 846–859, 2000.
`
`Ex. 1039 Wayback printout - MySQL Manual _ 3.3.2 Creating a Table at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20040614222509/http://dev.mysql.com/
`doc/mysql/en/Creating_tables.html
`
`Ex. 1040 Wayback printout - MySQL Manual _ 12.4.2 The BLOB and TEXT
`Types at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20040615104527/http://dev.mysql.com/
`doc/mysql/en/BLOB.html
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01093
`U.S. Patent No. 8,620,039
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Patent Owner’s primary argument is based on an erroneous interpretation of
`
`the “defining…” limitation. PO’s proposed construction that the “card
`
`information” sets or establishes the memory location the first time it is received,
`
`during enrollment, is inconsistent with the intrinsic evidence and PO’s expert
`
`testimony. PO’s expert repeatedly admitted that this “card information” defines
`
`the memory location even before a user’s card information is ever received, for
`
`enrollment or verification.
`
`The ambiguity regarding the “defining…” limitation is whether (1) the
`
`system is allowed to look up in a database or otherwise determine the specific
`
`memory location from the card information (“First Construction” offered by
`
`Petitioners), or (2) the card information itself must specify the physical memory
`
`address of the memory location, without looking up the memory address in a
`
`database or other data structure (“Second Construction”). The Petition
`
`demonstrated that the claims are unpatentable under either interpretation.
`
`Hsu-Sanford (Ground 1) renders the claims unpatentable under the Board’s
`
`preliminary construction, Petitioners’ First Construction, and PO’s proposed
`
`construction. Hsu-Sanford-Tsukamura (Ground 2) renders the claims unpatentable
`
`under the Board’s preliminary construction, Petitioners’ Second Construction, and
`
`PO’s proposed construction.
`
`PO also misdirects the Board by focusing on the differences in the memory
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01093
`U.S. Patent No. 8,620,039
`configurations of Tsukamura and the ’039 Patent. But none of these differences
`
`(such as the ability to store data of variable sizes) are relevant to the Challenged
`
`Claims.
`
`PO’s arguments opposing the motivation to combine Hsu-Sanford with
`
`Tsukamura are similarly incorrect. The Challenged Claims do not require any
`
`particular type of memory configuration, and Tsukamura offers more efficient
`
`memory access by skipping database searching (a “possible disadvantage” of
`
`Hsu’s database, as admitted by PO (POR, 27)).
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`PO’s proposed construction of “defining, dependent upon the
`A.
`received card information, a memory location…” is incorrect
`Petitioners, the Board, and PO have proposed different constructions for the
`
`term “defining, dependent upon the received card information, a memory
`
`location…” (Limitation 1[C]) recited in claims 1, 13, and 19:1
`
`Petitioners’ First Construction
`
`“a memory location is somehow determined
`from (or is dependent on) the card
`information…[such that] the system can look
`up or otherwise determine a specific memory
`location from a user’s card information.” Pet.,
`11-12.
`
`
`1 Dependent claims 2, 14, and 20 recite “memory location…defined by the
`
`subsequently presented card information,” where similar analysis applies. EX-
`
`1032, ¶6.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petitioners’ Second
`Construction
`
`Board’s preliminary
`construction
`
`PO’s construction
`
`IPR2022-01093
`U.S. Patent No. 8,620,039
`
`“memory location is specified by the card
`information itself…[such that] the card
`information itself must specify the physical
`memory address where the user’s biometric
`signature is stored, without the need to look up
`the memory address in a database or other data
`structure.” Pet., 12.
`
`“the user’s card information itself specifies the
`physical memory address (such as by acting as
`a pointer) for the user’s biometric signature.”
`Paper 20, 38.
`
`“the system sets or establishes a memory
`location in a local memory external to the
`card, said location being contingent upon or
`determined by the received card information.”
`POR, 11.
`
`The Board’s preliminary construction is similar in scope to Petitioners’ First
`
`Construction, where the card information can be used as a pointer to the memory
`
`location but looking up the memory location in a database is not excluded. Paper
`
`20, 36-38; EX-1032, ¶7.
`
`PO’s construction was not discussed in its Preliminary Response and is
`
`incorrect for multiple reasons. EX-1032, ¶8.
`
`First, PO contends that “a POSITA would interpret the word ‘defining,’… to
`
`mean ‘setting’ or ‘establishing.’” POR, 12. This proposed construction lacks any
`
`intrinsic support—none of PO’s cited disclosures use the term “set” or “establish.”
`
`See id. EX-1032, ¶9.
`
`Second, PO contends that “defining” requires “setting or establishing” (POR,
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01093
`U.S. Patent No. 8,620,039
`12) the memory location for the first time, which contradicts both claim 1 and the
`
`specification. See POR, 13 (“Limitation 1[C] cannot be construed to cover…
`
`identifying a memory location that has already been defined.”); EX-1031, 20:18-
`
`14. EX-1032, ¶10.
`
`PO’s construction contradicts claim 1 itself because if Limitation 1[C]’s
`
`defining step sets/establishes for the first time the memory location, it would be
`
`illogical to determine whether the memory location is occupied or not (Limitation
`
`1[D]), since such newly set/established memory location would already be known
`
`to be unoccupied. EX-1032, ¶11.
`
`Moreover, according to the ’039 Patent, enrollment and verification have
`
`common steps. See, e.g., EX-1001, claim 3 (limitations (a)-(c)); 3:41-43.
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01093
`U.S. Patent No. 8,620,039
`
`
`
`EX-1001, Fig. 5 (at least steps 201-204 are common); EX-1031, 105:17-22 (Dr.
`
`Russ admitting the same), 81:12-21. Up until claim 1’s determining step, the
`
`current process may be either an enrollment or verification process. EX-1001,
`
`claim 1. In other words, contrary to what Dr. Russ contends (EX-1031, 42:20-21),
`
`the defining step in Limitation 1[C] is performed during both enrollment and
`
`verification. EX-1031, 56:4-8 (Dr. Russ admitting that “[i]n both cases [i.e.,
`
`enrollment and verification in claim 3] the provided card information defines the
`
`memory location.”). The result of the determining step does not have to be that
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01093
`U.S. Patent No. 8,620,039
`the memory location is “unoccupied.” Even when the memory location is
`
`“unoccupied,” it does not necessarily mean that the memory location has not
`
`previously been set or established based on the card information—it could mean
`
`that the fingerprint data was deleted, as contemplated by the ’039 Patent itself.
`
`See EX-1001, 9:33-37. This is the only embodiment in the ’039 Patent and a
`
`“patent claim construction that excludes the preferred embodiment is rarely, if
`
`ever, correct.” Rexnord Corp. v. Laitram Corp., 274 F.3d 1336, 1342 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2001) (internal citation omitted). EX-1032, ¶12.
`
`When discussing the only graphical representation of the relationship
`
`between the card information and the memory location, i.e., Figure 4 below (EX-
`
`1031, 66:2-21), the ’039 Patent states that “[t]he card data 604 defines the location
`
`607 in the memory 124 where their unique biometric signature is stored” (EX-
`
`1001, 7:47-49), but never mentions that such association is set/established for the
`
`first time during enrollment, e.g., a user may store his/her fingerprint at a
`
`previously reserved/established memory location.
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01093
`U.S. Patent No. 8,620,039
`
`
`
`EX-1001, Fig. 4. A POSITA would have understood that to have the card data
`
`point to a memory address (without a memory lookup table), the association
`
`between the card data 604 and the memory address 607 must be predetermined
`
`before the user scans his/her card and before fingerprint enrollment even starts,
`
`which Dr. Russ agreed to multiple times during deposition. EX-1031, 70:20-71:1,
`
`71:13-22, 77:15-24, 78:2-9, 90:5-9, 94:20-25 (Q…. If the card data 604 in figure 4
`
`is a pointer to a specific memory address in database 124, then the memory address
`
`has already been defined prior to the user scanning his or her card at the system,
`
`correct? A. Correct.”). EX-1032, ¶13.
`
`Third, without identifying any supporting evidence in the ’039 Patent, PO
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01093
`U.S. Patent No. 8,620,039
`contends that “‘[d]efining,’… does not (and cannot) mean merely looking up or
`
`identifying something that has already been defined.” POR, 11. As the Board
`
`reasoned, there is nothing in the ’039 Patent excluding the use of searching to
`
`determine a memory location. Paper 20, 36-38. EX-1032, ¶14.
`
`Dr. Russ is wrong to contend that “looking up” necessarily indicates
`
`“verification.” EX-1031, 19:5-7. Consistent with the ’039 Patent, Petitioners’ and
`
`the Board’s constructions allow for the user’s card information to determine the
`
`memory location where the user’s fingerprint is to be stored (during enrollment)
`
`or has been stored (during verification). For example, given a database that
`
`includes a record for a user prior to enrollment, the system necessarily looks up the
`
`user first before storing the user’s fingerprint during enrollment. See Section,
`
`III.B; EX-1032, ¶¶15-20.
`
`Fourth, PO appears to agree with Petitioners’ Second Construction and the
`
`Board’s preliminary construction “so long as it is understood that the claimed
`
`‘defining’ step does not include a process that occurs after enrollment has already
`
`occurred.” POR, 13 (emphasis original). However, nothing in claim 1 requires the
`
`recited steps be performed before enrollment has occurred. PO’s argument relies
`
`on claim 1’s preamble being limiting, which is incorrect. See Section II.B.
`
`Moreover, Limitation 1[D] requires “determining if the defined memory location is
`
`unoccupied”—a process that could be part of enrollment (if the memory location is
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01093
`U.S. Patent No. 8,620,039
`determined unoccupied) or part of verification (if occupied). Thus, Limitations
`
`1[A-D] in claim 1 may be performed before and after enrollment has occurred.
`
`EX-1032, ¶21.
`
`“Method of enrolling” is not limiting
`B.
`Although not critical to the issues in dispute, PO incorrectly contends that
`
`“‘method of enrolling’ in the preamble is a limiting term.” POR, 6-7. “[A]
`
`preamble is not limiting ‘where a patentee defines a structurally complete
`
`invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or
`
`intended use for the invention.’” Catalina Mktg. Int'l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com,
`
`Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (internal citations omitted). Claim 1 both
`
`(i) defines a structurally complete invention by starting with “receiving card
`
`information/biometric signature” and concluding with “storing… the biometric
`
`signature” (PO’s purported “the natural end result of an enrollment process” (POR,
`
`8)) and (ii) its preamble of a “method of enrolling” is nothing more than a non-
`
`limiting intended use.
`
`PO contends that “the ‘method of enrollment’ in the preamble of Claim 1
`
`provides antecedent basis for ‘the enrolment method’ in the body of dependent
`
`Claim 2.” POR, 6 (citing Pacing Techs., LLC v. Garmin Int'l, Inc., 778 F.3d 1021,
`
`1024 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). However, in finding Pacing Technologies’s preamble of
`
`claim 25 limiting, the court found the preamble serving as antecedent basis for not
`
`only the dependent claim 28, but also for the body of claim 25 itself. Pacing
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01093
`U.S. Patent No. 8,620,039
`Techs., LLC, 778 F.3d 1024. Here, the body of claim 1 of the ’039 Patent does not
`
`recite the “method of enrollment.” “[I]n PacingTechnologies two terms in the
`
`preamble were necessary to understand positive limitations in the body of the
`
`claim,” Valve Corp. v. Ironburg Inventions Ltd., IPR2017-00136, Paper 12, 9-10
`
`(P.T.A.B. May 4, 2017), but that is not true for the preamble of clam 1 of the ’039
`
`Patent.2
`
`Even if the phrase is limiting, Hsu, Sanford, and Tsukamura each disclose an
`
`enrollment process. Pet., 20, 36-37, 78.
`
`III. HSU-SANFORD RENDERS ALL CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`OBVIOUS (GROUND 1)
`PO’s arguments fail to rebut the unpatentability showings under Ground 1.
`
`EX-1032, ¶25.
`
`A. Hsu-Sanford teaches Limitation 1[C]’s defining step under
`Petitioners’ First Construction and the Board’s preliminary
`construction
`PO does not dispute that Hsu-Sanford teaches Limitation 1[C]’s defining
`
`step under Petitioners’ First Construction and the Board’s preliminary
`
`construction.3 EX-1032, ¶26.
`
`
`2 Similar arguments apply to claims 13 and 19.
`
`3 PO does not dispute that a POSITA would have been motivated to combine Hsu
`
`with Sanford. EX-1032, ¶31.
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01093
`U.S. Patent No. 8,620,039
`PO does not dispute that Hsu’s fingerprint data is stored at a unique memory
`
`location associated with the specific user/account/employee number (ACC. No.)
`
`received from a card. POR, 18; Pet., 31; EX-1003, ¶26.
`
`
`
`Id., Fig. 4. EX-1032, ¶27.
`
`PO contends: “Hsu expressly discloses that, during enrollment, the user’s
`
`fingerprint data and account number… are presented together, simultaneously…”
`
`POR, 16. However, nowhere does Hsu mention presenting card information and
`
`fingerprint data “simultaneously.” A POSITA would have understood Hsu’s “at
`
`the same time” to mean contemporaneously or in the same time period or session.
`
`Because presenting a card and providing a fingerprint each require use of a hand, a
`
`POSITA would have found it unpractical to do both simultaneously and would not
`
`have understood Hsu to disclose doing so. EX-1032, ¶28.
`
`Moreover, contrary to PO’s argument, storing card information and
`
`fingerprint data in association with each other does not mean that “the memory
`
`location of Hsu is not ‘defined by’… the card information.” POR, 17.
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01093
`U.S. Patent No. 8,620,039
`
`
`
`EX-1003, Fig. 4. Hsu uses the card information as a pointer to locate the
`
`associated specific memory location where it either stores the user’s fingerprint (if
`
`the memory location is unoccupied) or retrieves a stored fingerprint (if occupied).4
`
`Pet., 31, 34-35; EX-1006, ¶¶93, 99, 293, 313; EX-1032, ¶29.
`
`By using the card information to determine the unique memory location of
`
`the associated fingerprint data, Hsu-Sanford discloses Limitation 1[C]’s defining
`
`step under Petitioners’ First Construction and the Board’s preliminary
`
`construction. EX-1032, ¶30.
`
`B. Hsu-Sanford teaches Limitation 1[C]’s defining step under PO’s
`construction
`Although Hsu is silent on how a new user record is created, it would have
`
`been obvious for a POSITA to try using simple, known options for creating
`
`database records. One option is to store all the user numbers in Hsu’s database and
`
`
`4 For this reason, PO is wrong that Hsu fails to disclose “before the fingerprint data
`
`can be stored, the card information… must be read.” POR, 2; EX-1032, ¶29.
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01093
`U.S. Patent No. 8,620,039
`reserve/pre-establish memory locations for associated fingerprint data. Upon a
`
`user enrolling by providing a user number, the system looks up the user number
`
`and determines the corresponding memory location for storing the user’s
`
`fingerprint, which discloses Limitation 1[C]’s “defining” step under Petitioners’
`
`First Construction and the Board’s construction. See Section III.A. EX-1032,
`
`¶¶32-33.
`
`Another option is to create a new user record on enrollment. See EX-1003,
`
`¶26 (“If the user does not have such a number, one is assigned at this stage.”); EX-
`
`1031, 107:15-19, 111:8-12. Upon a user enrolling, she would provide a previously
`
`unseen card/user number, and the system would then create a new record for the
`
`user, including setting/establishing for the first time the memory location for
`
`storing the user’s fingerprint. This simple and obvious option would satisfy
`
`Limitation 1[C]’s “defining” step under PO’s Second Construction. PO admits
`
`that this option would be a preferred implementation because creating data entries
`
`only upon enrollment helps minimize “[e]mpty space in a computer database…
`
`[which] is both wasteful and generally undesirable.” POR, 28. EX-1032, ¶34.
`
`IV. HSU-SANFORD-TSUKAMURA RENDERS ALL CHALLENGED
`CLAIMS OBVIOUS (GROUND 2)
`A. Alleged deficiencies of Tsukamura are irrelevant
`Petition does not rely on Tsukamura’s IC card 21 for
`1.
`disclosing “card information”
`PO’s only purported deficiency regarding Tsukamura is that its memory
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01093
`U.S. Patent No. 8,620,039
`location is not defined by its IC card 21. POR, 21-22. This, however, has no
`
`bearing on the unpatentability analysis because the Petition does not rely on
`
`Tsukamura’s IC card 21 for disclosing the claimed “card information.” Tsukamura
`
`is relied on under Ground 2 solely for its memory configuration. Pet., 74-76. As
`
`explained in the Petition, it would have been obvious to assign Tsukamura’s index
`
`number as the user/account/employee number in the Hsu-Sanford system. Pet., 23-
`
`26, 83-84. Tsukamura teaches one of the simplest and most efficient memory
`
`configurations for enabling high speed storage and retrieval of a user’s biometric
`
`signature. EX-1032, ¶¶36-37.
`
`2.
`
`Tsukamura’s index-based system is materially the same as
`the ’039 Patent’s pointer system
`PO contends that “the index-based numbering system of Tsukamura is
`
`fundamentally different than the pointer-based system disclosed in the ’039
`
`Patent.” POR, 23. Not so. EX-1032, ¶38.
`
`Both Tsukamura and the ’039 Patent describe a memory configuration for
`
`storing fingerprint data. EX-1001, 2:64-67; EX-1005, Fig. 3. In both, the memory
`
`location for storing a user’s fingerprint data is defined by a unique number
`
`associated with the user. Id. Just like the ’039 Patent’s card information,
`
`Tsukamura’s index number acts as a pointer to a specific memory location for
`
`storing the fingerprint, and a POSITA would have understood that Tsukamura
`
`discloses a pointer system. EX-1031, 76:18-24; EX-1032, ¶39.
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01093
`U.S. Patent No. 8,620,039
`PO uses a pointer example attempting to differentiate the ’039 Patent from
`
`Tsukamura. POR, 28. In doing so, PO admits that the memory location calculated
`
`in its pointer example is still an “offset,” just like Tsukamura. Id. (“if… a record is
`
`found at an offset of 25,000 bytes in the file, one may use the pointer value
`
`‘25,000’ to locate the record.”); c.f. id., 23 (“Tsukamura expressly
`
`teaches…calculat[ing] an offset...”). Thus, PO’s pointer example supports
`
`Petitioners’ position that Tsukamura discloses a pointer system. EX-1032, ¶40.
`
`3.
`
`The differences between Tsukamura and the ’039 Patent
`are immaterial to unpatentability of the Challenged Claims
`Even though Tsukamura’s index-based system and the ’039 Patent’s pointer
`
`system are not identical, the purported differences are immaterial. See Soverain
`
`Software LLC v. Newegg Inc., 705 F.3d 1333, 1339−41, (Fed. Cir. 2013) (rejecting
`
`patentee’s nonobviousness argument that is based on an unclaimed characteristic);
`
`Freedman Seating Co. v. Am. Seating Co., 420 F.3d 1350, 1363, (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`
`(finding that the claims had to be “indistinguishable” from the prior art to be found
`
`obvious is a wrong standard). PO contends that “the pointer system of the ’039
`
`Patent is more flexible and permits database records of varying sizes.” POR, 23.
`
`But, as Dr. Russ admits, none of the Challenged Claims require flexibility of
`
`storing records of varying sizes. EX-1031, 123:17-22, 124:16-21. Nor do any of
`
`the Challenged Claims preclude “impos[ing] a strict upper limit on the amount of
`
`space each record could occupy” or “not us[ing] all of the storage space at their
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01093
`U.S. Patent No. 8,620,039
`respective memory locations,” as PO contends. POR, 25. PO’s arguments
`
`regarding unclaimed differences should be given no weight. EX-1032, ¶41.
`
`B. A POSITA would have been motivated to combine Hsu-Sanford
`with Tsukamura
`PO does not present any other arguments that Hsu-Sanford-Tsukamura fails
`
`to disclose other limitations of claim 1 under any of Petitioners’, the Board’s, or
`
`PO’s constructions. Rather, PO focuses on a purported lack of motivation to
`
`combine due to purported undesirability of Tsukamura’s indexing system
`
`compared to Hsu’s database. POR, 26. This is wrong for the following reasons.
`
`EX-1032, ¶42.
`
`1.
`
`The Challenged Claims do not require a particular type of
`data storage
`Without support, PO identifies “[t]hree extremely common solutions to data
`
`storage”:
`
`(1) Hsu’s purported “searchable database of records” (Type 1)
`
`(2) Tsukamura’s purported “array of records of fixed size” (Type 2)
`
`and
`
`(3) ’039 Patent’s purported “unstructured collection of data and track
`
`records by having one pointer to each record” (Type 3).
`
`POR, 26-28; EX-1031, 64:10-65:3, 122:23-123:11. But both Hsu and the ’039
`
`Patent use the term “database” (Type 1) to describe their memory configurations.
`
`EX-1001, 6:35 (“local database 124”); EX-1003, ¶26 (“fingerprint database 44”).