`
`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. IPR2022-01094
`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 3-12 AND 15-18)
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`B.
`
`B.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 5
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................................... 6
`A.
`PO’s proposed construction of “memory location defined by the provided
`card information” is incorrect ................................................................................ 6
`SANFORD-HSU RENDERS CLAIMS 3, 4, 6-11, 15, 16, AND 18 OBVIOUS
`(GROUND 1) ................................................................................................................... 12
`A.
`Sanford-Hsu teaches Limitation 3[D(1)]’s “defined by…” under
`Petitioners’ First Construction and the Board’s preliminary construction .......... 12
`Sanford-Hsu teaches Limitation 3[D(1)]’s “defined by…” under PO’s
`construction .......................................................................................................... 14
`SANFORD-HSU-TSUKAMURA RENDERS CLAIMS 3, 4, 6-11, 15, 16, AND
`18 OBVIOUS (GROUND 2) ........................................................................................... 15
`A.
`Alleged deficiencies of Tsukamura are irrelevant ............................................... 15
`1.
`Petition does not rely on Tsukamura’s IC card 21 for disclosing
`“card information” ................................................................................... 15
`Tsukamura’s index-based system is materially the same as the ’039
`Patent’s pointer system ............................................................................ 16
`The differences between Tsukamura and the ’039 Patent are
`immaterial to unpatentability of the Challenged Claims ......................... 17
`A POSITA would have been motivated to combine Sanford-Hsu with
`Tsukamura............................................................................................................ 18
`1.
`The Challenged Claims do not require a particular type of data
`storage ...................................................................................................... 18
`The law does not require the combination be the best option.................. 20
`2.
`Tsukamura’s array is not undesirable ...................................................... 21
`3.
`THE PETITION IS NOT TIME BARRED AS THE BOARD HAS ALREADY
`CORRECTLY DETERMINED ....................................................................................... 23
`A.
`Apple is not a Real Party in Interest .................................................................... 24
`1.
`This Petition was not filed at Apple’s behest........................................... 24
`2.
`The business relationship does not support an RPI theory ...................... 24
`The Developer Agreement does not support Apple being an RPI ....................... 25
`Sending products to Apple for routine compliance/certification does not
`make Apple an RPI .............................................................................................. 28
`
`B.
`C.
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`CPC’s “clear beneficiary” argument is meritless................................................. 28
`D.
`VI. APPLE IS NOT IN PRIVITY WITH PETITIONERS .................................................... 29
`Factor 1: No agreement binds the Petitioners to the Apple action ...................... 30
`Factor 2: No privity in business relationship between Apple and
`Petitioners. ............................................................................................... 30
`Factors 3-4: Petitioners have no control or representation in the Apple
`action ........................................................................................................ 30
`Factor 5: Petitioners are not acting as Apple’s proxy .......................................... 30
`Factor 6: No special statutory scheme foreclosing successive litigation ............. 31
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Freedman Seating Co. v. Am. Seating Co.,
`420 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................17
`
`Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc.,
`21 F.4th 784 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ..................................................................................................20
`
`Soverain Software LLC v. Newegg Inc.,
`705 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2013)................................................................................................17
`
`Taylor v. Sturgell,
`553 U.S. 880 (2008) .................................................................................................................29
`
`Ventex Co., Ltd., v. Columbia Sportswear North America, Inc.,
`IPR2017-00651 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2019) ..............................................................................25, 26
`
`WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp.,
`889 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2018)....................................................................................28, 29, 30
`
`Wi-Fi One v. Broadcom Corp., LLC,
`887 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2018)................................................................................................25
`
`Worlds, Inc. v. Bungie, Inc.,
`903 F.3d 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2018)................................................................................................25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-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
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01094
`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
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01094
`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
`
`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
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01094
`U.S. Patent No. 8,620,039
`
`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
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01094
`U.S. Patent No. 8,620,039
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Patent Owner’s primary argument is based on an erroneous interpretation of
`
`the “defined by…” limitation, which departs from the Board’s preliminary
`
`construction and both of the Petition’s alternative interpretations. 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 “defined by…” 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.
`
`Sanford-Hsu (Ground 1) renders the claims unpatentable under the Board’s
`
`preliminary construction, Petitioners’ First Construction, and PO’s proposed
`
`construction. Sanford-Hsu-Tsukamura (Ground 2) renders the claims unpatentable
`
`under the Board’s preliminary construction, Petitioners’ Second Construction, and
`
`PO’s proposed construction.
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01094
`U.S. Patent No. 8,620,039
`PO also misdirects the Board by focusing on the differences in the memory
`
`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 Sanford-Hsu 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 “memory location defined by the
`A.
`provided card information” is incorrect
`Petitioners, the Board, and PO have proposed different constructions for the
`
`term “memory location defined by the provided card information” recited in claims
`
`3, 15, and 18:
`
`Petitioners’ First Construction
`
`Petitioners’ Second
`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.,
`9.
`
`“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
`6
`
`

`

`Board’s preliminary
`construction
`
`PO’s construction
`
`IPR2022-01094
`U.S. Patent No. 8,620,039
`
`the memory address in a database or other data
`structure.” Pet., 9.
`
`“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 19, 39.
`
`“the system sets or establishes a memory
`location in a memory, said location being
`contingent upon or determined by the received
`card information.” POR, 8.
`
`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
`
`19, 37-39; EX-1032, ¶6.
`
`PO’s construction was not discussed in its Preliminary Response and is
`
`incorrect for multiple reasons. EX-1032, ¶7.
`
`First, PO contends that “a POSITA would interpret the word ‘defined,’… to
`
`mean ‘setting’ or ‘establishing.’” POR, 8. This proposed construction lacks any
`
`intrinsic support—none of PO’s cited disclosures use the term “set” or “establish.”
`
`Id. EX-1032, ¶8.
`
`Second, PO contends that “defined” requires “setting or establishing” (POR,
`
`8) the memory location for the first time, which is not required by claim 3 or
`
`discussed anywhere in the specification. See POR, 9 (“Limitation 3[D[1)] cannot
`
`be construed to cover… identifying a memory location that has already been
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01094
`U.S. Patent No. 8,620,039
`
`defined.”); EX-1031, 20:18-14. EX-1032, ¶9.
`
`Unlike claim 1, claim 3 does not even recite any “defining” step. C.f. EX-
`
`1001, claim 1, Limitation 1[C]. Limitation 3[D(1)] merely requires “storing the
`
`inputted biometric signature in a memory at a memory location defined by the
`
`provided card information,” and does not require when the defining of the memory
`
`location happens. EX-1032, ¶10.
`
`According to the ’039 Patent and claim 3, enrollment and verification have
`
`common steps. See, e.g., EX-1001, claim 3 (limitations (a)-(c)); 3:41-43.
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01094
`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 Limitation 3[C], the current process
`
`may be either an enrollment or verification process. EX-1001, claim 3. As Dr.
`
`Russ admits, claim 3 requires that the memory location is defined by the card
`
`information 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.”). As Dr. Russ also
`
`admits, the “memory location defined by the provided card information” in both
`
`Limitations 3[D(1)] and 3[E(1)] should be interpreted in the same way, i.e., the
`
`card information defines the memory location during both enrollment and
`
`verification. Id., 81:12-21; 54:1-3 (“however the connection, in whatever sense the
`
`defining step occurs in 3[D(1)], the same defining step occurs in 3[E(1)].”); 54:17-
`
`21. Therefore, PO is wrong to interpret Limitation 3[D(1)] differently from
`
`Limitation 3[E(1)] such that Limitation 3[D(1)]’s “defined by…” requires
`
`setting/establishing for the first time the memory location for storing the
`
`fingerprint data while Limitation 3[E(1)] does not. EX-1032, ¶11.
`
`PO does not cite any evidence in the ’039 Patent specification that describes
`
`setting or establishing for the first time the memory location for storing the
`
`fingerprint data during enrollment. When discussing the only graphical
`
`representation of the relationship between the card information and the memory
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01094
`U.S. Patent No. 8,620,039
`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.
`
`
`
`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,
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01094
`U.S. Patent No. 8,620,039
`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, ¶12.
`
`Third, without identifying any supporting evidence in the ’039 Patent, PO
`
`contends that “‘[d]efined,’… does not (and cannot) mean merely looking up or
`
`identifying something that has already been defined.” POR, 8. As the Board
`
`reasoned, there is nothing in the ’039 Patent excluding the use of searching to
`
`determine a memory location. Paper 19, 37-39. EX-1032, ¶13.
`
`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, ¶¶14-19.
`
`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
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01094
`U.S. Patent No. 8,620,039
`occurred.” POR, 9 (emphasis original). However, as mentioned above, unlike
`
`claim 1, claim 3 does not even recite any “defining” step. C.f. EX-1001, claim 1,
`
`Limitation 1[C]. Nor does claim 3 require when such unclaimed “defining” step is
`
`to be performed. EX-1032, ¶20.
`
`III. SANFORD-HSU RENDERS CLAIMS 3, 4, 6-11, 15, 16, AND 18
`OBVIOUS (GROUND 1)
`PO’s arguments fail to rebut the unpatentability showings under Ground 1.
`
`EX-1032, ¶24.
`
`A.
`
`Sanford-Hsu teaches Limitation 3[D(1)]’s “defined by…” under
`Petitioners’ First Construction and the Board’s preliminary
`construction
`PO does not dispute that Sanford-Hsu teaches Limitation 3[D(1)]’s “defined
`
`by…” under Petitioners’ First Construction and the Board’s preliminary
`
`construction.1 EX-1032, ¶25.
`
`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, 13; Pet., 28; EX-1003, ¶26.
`
`
`1 PO does not dispute that a POSITA would have been motivated to combine
`
`Sanford with Hsu. EX-1032, ¶30.
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01094
`U.S. Patent No. 8,620,039
`
`
`
`Id., Fig. 4. EX-1032, ¶26.
`
`PO contends: “Hsu expressly discloses that, during enrollment, the user’s
`
`fingerprint data and account number… are presented together, simultaneously…”
`
`POR, 11. 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, ¶27.
`
`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, 12.
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01094
`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 card information has not been previously provided) or retrieves a stored
`
`fingerprint (if previously provided).2 Pet., 24-28, 31-33; EX-1006, ¶¶93, 99, 293,
`
`313. EX-1032, ¶28.
`
`By storing a user’s fingerprint at a unique memory location determined by
`
`the card information, Sanford-Hsu discloses Limitation 3[D(1)]’s “storing” step
`
`under Petitioners’ First Construction and the Board’s preliminary construction.
`
`EX-1032, ¶29.
`
`B.
`
`Sanford-Hsu teaches Limitation 3[D(1)]’s “defined by…” 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
`
`
`2 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, 3; EX-1032, ¶28.
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01094
`U.S. Patent No. 8,620,039
`database records. One option is to store all the user numbers in Hsu’s database and
`
`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 3[D(1)]’s “defined by…” under Petitioners’
`
`First Construction and the Board’s construction. See Section III.A. EX-1032,
`
`¶¶31-32.
`
`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 3[D(1)]’s “defined by…” 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, 23. EX-1032, ¶33.
`
`IV. SANFORD-HSU-TSUKAMURA RENDERS CLAIMS 3, 4, 6-11, 15, 16,
`AND 18 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”
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01094
`U.S. Patent No. 8,620,039
`PO’s only purported deficiency regarding Tsukamura is that its memory
`
`location is not defined by its IC card 21. POR, 16-17. 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., 67-69. As
`
`explained in the Petition, it would have been obvious to assign Tsukamura’s index
`
`number as the user/account/employee number in the Sanford-Hsu system. Pet., 17-
`
`18, 38-39, 75. 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, ¶¶35-36.
`
`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, 18. Not so. EX-1032, ¶37.
`
`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
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01094
`U.S. Patent No. 8,620,039
`discloses a pointer system. EX-1031, 76:18-24; EX-1032, ¶38.
`
`PO uses a pointer example attempting to differentiate the ’039 Patent from
`
`Tsukamura. POR, 23. 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., 18 (“Tsukamura expressly
`
`teaches…calculat[ing] an offset...”). Thus, PO’s pointer example supports
`
`Petitioners’ position that Tsukamura discloses a pointer system. EX-1032, ¶39.
`
`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, 18.
`
`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
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01094
`U.S. Patent No. 8,620,039
`space each record could occupy” or “not us[ing] all of the storage space at their
`
`respective memory locations,” as PO contends. POR, 20. PO’s arguments
`
`regarding unclaimed differences should be given no weight. EX-1032, ¶40.
`
`B. A POSITA would have been motivated to combine Sanford-Hsu
`with Tsukamura
`PO does not present any other arguments that Sanford-Hsu-Tsukamura fails
`
`to disclose other limitations of claim 3 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, 21. This is wrong for the following reasons.
`
`EX-1032, ¶41.
`
`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, 21-23; 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.
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01094
`U.S. Patent No. 8,620,039
`EX-1001, 6:35 (“local database 124”); EX-1003, ¶26 (“fingerprint database 44”).
`
`As shown below, while Tsukamura’s indices point to memory locations that are
`
`512 bytes apart, records stored at these memory locations need not be “of identical
`
`size” (POR, 22)—any record no greater than 512 bytes can be stored.
`
`EX-1005, Fig. 3. Nor does PO point to anywhere in the ’039 Patent describing an
`
`“unstructured collection of data and track records.” POR, 22. EX-1032, ¶42.
`
`Regardless, the Challenged Claims do not require any particular type of
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01094
`U.S. Patent No. 8,620,039
`memory configuration,3 and these purported differences are immaterial as Sanford-
`
`Hsu-Tsukamura discloses all of the claim 3 limitations. Pet., 67-76 (Ground 2).
`
`EX-1032, ¶43.
`
`The law does not require the combination be the best option
`2.
`“It’s not necessary to show that a combination is ‘the best option, only that it
`
`be a suitable option.’” Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 800 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2021) (emphasis original) (internal citation omitted).
`
`Even assuming that Sanford-Hsu-Tsukamura does not provide the most
`
`optimal memory configuration (which Petitioners disagree with), a POSITA would
`
`have understood it to be a suitable option to replace Hsu’s database with
`
`Tsukamura’s memory configuration, which, as PO and Dr. Russ repeatedly
`
`acknowledge, was well-known at the time of the ’039 Patent. See, e.g., POR, 21-
`
`22 (“A POSITA at the time of the invention of the ’039 Patent would have also
`
`been well-aware… [of] [t]hree extremely common solutions to data storage…”);
`
`EX-1031, 12:25-13:8, 16:13-20. In fact, a POSITA would have found it obvious to
`
`try implementing Sanford-Hsu’s memory configuration using any of these “three
`
`extremely common solutions,” and would have been motivated to use
`
`Tsukamura’s memory configuration to further increase the access-speed of
`
`
`3 Neither do the Challenged Claims require a flash memory (POR, 23-24). EX-
`
`1032, ¶43.
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01094
`U.S. Patent No. 8,620,039
`Sanford-Hsu’s memory given Tsukamura’s advantages explained in Section
`
`IV.B.3. EX-1032, ¶45.
`
`Therefore, a POSITA would have found it a suitable option to modify Hsu-
`
`Sanford based on Tsukamura and would not have had any difficulty making this
`
`modification, which PO does not dispute. EX-1032, ¶¶46-47.
`
`Tsukamura’s array is not undesirable
`3.
`PO argues that Tsukamura’s “arrays are often undesirable because they do
`
`not handle data of variable size in an efficient manner.” POR, 22-23. “[M]aking
`
`the size of each array element large enough to hold the largest data… [results in]
`
`many or most array entries compris[ing] largely empty space.” Id., 23. However,
`
`none of the Challenged Claims require the fingerprint data be of “variable size”;
`
`nor do the claims exclude having “empty space” in array entries. EX-1032, ¶¶48-
`
`49.
`
`Contrary to PO’s contentions, the fingerprint data for different individuals
`
`are often of the same size, espe