`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`———————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`———————
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`AIRE TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,
`Patent Owner.
`———————
`
`IPR2022-01137
`U.S. Patent No. 8,581,706
`_____________________
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. JOSHUA PHINNEY,
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR
`INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 1 of 104
`
`

`

`Phinney Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,581,706
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 4
`I.
`Qualifications and Professional Experience .................................................... 6
`II.
`III. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................... 9
`IV. Relevant Legal Standards .............................................................................. 11
`V.
`Background .................................................................................................... 12
`VI. Overview of the ’706 Patent .......................................................................... 13
`VII. Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 17
`VIII. Identification of how the Claims are Unpatentable ....................................... 18
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-3 and 11-12 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §
`103 over Guthery and Nozawa. ........................................................... 18
`1.
`Summary of Guthery ..................................................... 19
`2.
`Summary of Nozawa ..................................................... 25
`3.
`Reasons to Combine Guthery and Nozawa ................... 26
`4.
`Claim 1 ........................................................................... 32
`5.
`Claim 2 ........................................................................... 51
`6.
`Claim 3 ........................................................................... 54
`7.
`Claim 11 ......................................................................... 57
`8.
`Claim 12 ......................................................................... 70
`Ground 2: Claim 16 is obvious over Guthery, Nozawa, and the
`RFID Handbook. ................................................................................. 70
`1.
`Summary of the RFID Handbook .................................. 70
`2.
`Reasons to Combine the RFID Handbook with Guthery
`and Nozawa .................................................................... 74
`
`B.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 2 of 104
`
`

`

`Phinney Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,581,706
`
`
`
`C.
`
`Claim 16 ......................................................................... 79
`3.
`Ground 3: Claim 18 is obvious over Guthery and the Smart
`Card Handbook. ................................................................................... 83
`1.
`Summary of the Smart Card Handbook ........................ 83
`2.
`Reasons to Combine the Smart Card Handbook with
`Guthery .......................................................................... 87
`Claim 18 ......................................................................... 91
`3.
`D. Ground 4: Claim 20 is obvious over Guthery and the RFID
`Handbook. ........................................................................................... 97
`1.
`Claim 20 ......................................................................... 97
`IX. Conclusion ................................................................................................... 104
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 3 of 104
`
`

`

`Phinney Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,581,706
`
`I, Dr. Joshua Phinney, do hereby declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I am making this declaration at the request of Apple Inc. in the matter
`
`of the Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,581,706 (“the ’706 patent”) to
`
`Finkenzeller et al.
`
`
`
`2.
`
`I am also being reimbursed for reasonable and customary expenses
`
`associated with my work and testimony in this investigation. My compensation is
`
`not contingent on the outcome of this matter or the specifics of my testimony, and I
`
`have no other interest in this case or the parties thereto.
`
`3.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding whether claims 1-
`
`3, 11-12, 16, 18, and 20 (“the Challenged Claims”) of the ’706 patent are
`
`unpatentable as they would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in
`
`the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the alleged invention, in light of the prior art. It
`
`is my opinion that all of the limitations of the challenged claims would have been
`
`obvious to a POSITA.
`
`In the preparation of this declaration, I have studied:
`
`the ’706 patent, Ex.1001;
`
`the prosecution history of the ’706 patent (“’706 File History”),
`
`4.
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Ex.1002;
`
`c.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,824,064 to Guthery et al. (“Guthery”), Ex.1005; and
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 4 of 104
`
`

`

`Phinney Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,581,706
`
`d.
`
`JP 2000/163539A to Nozawa et al. (“Nozawa”) – Certified English
`
`Translation, Ex.1006;
`
`e.
`
`RFID Handbook: Radio Frequency Identification Fundamentals and
`
`Applications, Klaus Finkenzeller (1999) (“RFID Handbook”), Ex.1007;
`
`f.
`
`Smart Card Handbook: Third Edition, Wolfgang Rankl (3rd ed. 2003)
`
`(“Smart Card Handbook”), Ex.1008;
`
`g.
`
`Internet Archive capture of “Wiley::Smart Card Handbook, 3rd
`
`Edition,”
`
`https://web.archive.org/web/20041026102425/http://www.wiley.com:80/WileyCD
`
`A/WileyTitle/productCd-0470856688.html (archived October 26, 2004); Ex.1017;
`
`5.
`
`In forming the opinions expressed below, I have considered:
`
`the documents listed above;
`
`the relevant legal standards, including the standard for obviousness,
`
`and any additional authoritative documents as cited in the body of this
`
`declaration; and
`
`my own knowledge and experience based upon my work in the field
`
`of networking as described below, as well as the following materials.
`
`6.
`
`Unless otherwise noted, all emphasis in any quoted material has been
`
`added.
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 5 of 104
`
`

`

`Phinney Declaration
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
`7. My complete qualifications and professional experience are described
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,581,706
`
`in my Curriculum Vitae, a copy of which can be found in Exhibit 1004. The
`
`following is a brief summary of my relevant qualifications and professional
`
`experience.
`
`8.
`
`I am a Principal Engineer in the Electrical Engineering and Computer
`
`Science practice at Exponent, an engineering and scientific consulting firm
`
`headquartered at 149 Commonwealth Drive, Menlo Park, California 94025. I
`
`received a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of
`
`Technology (“MIT”) in 2005. I also earned S.M. and B.S. degrees in Electrical
`
`Engineering from MIT and the University of Illinois, Chicago (“UIC”),
`
`respectively.
`
`9. My master’s thesis at MIT focused on the miniaturization of power
`
`converters, by reducing the energy storage and improving the performance of
`
`inductors. As part of this work, I designed, tested, and constructed ferrite, iron-
`
`powder, and air-core inductors, while minimizing magnetic losses. During this
`
`time, I invented with my advisor, Dr. David Perreault, an electrical component
`
`with a capacitive impedance and an inductance-cancellation feature provided by
`
`magnetically coupled windings. A filter having a capacitor with inductance
`
`cancellation provides enhanced performance over frequency compared with
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 6 of 104
`
`

`

`Phinney Declaration
`
`conventional capacitors. This work was later extended to a second patent, with
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,581,706
`
`magnetically coupled windings used to improve EMI filters and common-mode
`
`chokes.
`
`10. My doctoral work at MIT centered on miniaturization of power
`
`converters and magnetics. As part of my doctoral work, I constructed and modeled
`
`planar magnetic systems, including magnetically coupled, printed magnetic coils.
`
`By incorporating such compact, magnetic structures into power converters, the
`
`resulting converter enjoyed multiple benefits, including waveform-shaping and
`
`reduction of switch stresses. Through the modeling associated with this
`
`dissertation, I become proficient in methods for analyzing the inductances of
`
`packages and interconnects, especially planar or filamentous systems of
`
`conductors.
`
`11.
`
` For my publications related to both my Master’s and Ph.D. thesis, I
`
`received the William M. Portnoy Prize Paper Award (2003) and the IEEE Power
`
`Electronics Society Transactions Prize Paper Award (2004).
`
`12. After earning my Ph.D., I joined Exponent and have led technical
`
`investigations to portable electronic devices, microcomputers, as well as industrial
`
`and consumer devices with embedded controllers. My job functions include
`
`analyzing hardware and software of these devices to understand their modes of
`
`failure, and testifying regarding these devices in legal matters involving patents
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 7 of 104
`
`

`

`Phinney Declaration
`
`and trade secrets.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,581,706
`
`13. As part of my employment at Exponent, I have performed design,
`
`design reviews, and failure analysis for wireless charging and communication
`
`systems. The focus of this work has been (1) coupling between transmitter and
`
`receiver coils from the standpoint of efficiency and magnetic-field exposure to
`
`users, in particular for the Power Matters Alliance; (2) coupling of interrogators
`
`and transponder coils in printed magnetic cards; and (3) integrated-circuit and coil
`
`failures due to wear, dimensional changes, and triboelectric charging. In addition
`
`to testifying regarding resonant and inductive wireless-power transfer, I have
`
`consulted for industry regarding coil design, RFID and near-field communication
`
`(NFC) integrated circuits, modulation methods, and on-metal RFID tags.
`
`14. Circa 2006, I performed evaluations of ISO/IEC 14443-compliant
`
`card readers (“proximity coupling devices”) and cards (“proximity integrated
`
`circuit cards”). At the time, there was high incidence of cards conducting current
`
`across them, via the human body model and other charge models, such that they
`
`were causing problems at specific card reader installations, mostly notably point-
`
`of-sale terminals, and notably causing terminals such as ATMs to freeze up and or
`
`require reboot. One aspect of the evaluation was whether the external charging
`
`and discharge could affect the normal protocol exchange of the smartcard.
`
`15.
`
`In the context of a patent evaluation for Microsoft Corp., I have
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 8 of 104
`
`

`

`Phinney Declaration
`
`testified regarding the data-framing and communication characteristics of contact
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,581,706
`
`smart cards. This evaluation centered around Linux-based mobile phones from
`
`circa 2004, which used contact smart-card technology to add functionality of the
`
`mobile phone.
`
`16.
`
`I have testified regarding the software-defined features, internal
`
`circuitry, and physical embodiments of electronic equipment. Regarding software,
`
`I have reviewed C++, Java, Visual Basic, and machine language code for purposes
`
`of patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation claims. In particular, I
`
`have testified regarding ARM Linux and its peripheral drivers; microcomputer
`
`software for instrument control; and embedded software for the control of
`
`machines and consumer products. In addition, I have acted as a consulting and
`
`testifying expert regarding wireless communication in embedded systems, e.g., for
`
`computer peripherals, door operators, telemetry, and remote tracking.
`
`17.
`
`In addition to the forgoing, I perform electromagnetic assessment of
`
`utility and communication infrastructure. These issues include permitting,
`
`interference, and environmental impact of radar, AC and HVDC transmission
`
`lines, substations, photovoltaic installations, generators, broadcast antennas, and
`
`electrified mass transit systems.
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`18.
`
`I understand there are multiple factors relevant to determining the
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 9 of 104
`
`

`

`Phinney Declaration
`
`level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, including (1) the levels of education and
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,581,706
`
`
`
`experience of persons working in the field at the time of the invention; (2) the
`
`sophistication of the technology; (3) the types of problems encountered in the field;
`
`and (4) the prior art solutions to those problems.
`
`19.
`
` It is my understanding that the earliest possible priority date for the
`
`’706 patent is June 12, 2006. A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) in
`
`the field of the ’706 patent, as of June 12, 2006, would have been someone
`
`knowledgeable and familiar with the smart card and Radio Frequency Identifier
`
`(RFID) arts that are pertinent to the ’706 patent. That person would have a
`
`bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer
`
`science, or equivalent training, and approximately two years of experience working
`
`in the electrical engineering field. Lack of work experience can be remedied by
`
`additional education, and vice versa.
`
`20. For purposes of this Declaration, in general, and unless otherwise
`
`noted, my statements and opinions, such as those regarding my experience and the
`
`understanding of a POSITA generally (and specifically related to the references I
`
`consulted herein), reflect the knowledge that existed in the field as of the alleged
`
`priority date of the ’706 patent (i.e., June 12, 2006). Unless otherwise stated, when
`
`I provide my understanding and analysis below, it is consistent with the level of a
`
`POSITA as of the alleged priority date of the ’706 patent.
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 10 of 104
`
`

`

`Phinney Declaration
`
`IV. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
`21.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,581,706
`
`
`
`I am not an attorney. In preparing and expressing my opinions and
`
`considering the subject matter of the ’706 patent, I am relying on certain basic
`
`legal principles that counsel have explained to me. These principles are discussed
`
`below.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that prior art to the ’706 patent includes patents and
`
`printed publications in the relevant art that predate the priority date of the alleged
`
`invention recited in the ’706 patent.
`
`23.
`
`I have been informed that a claimed invention is unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the invention and the prior art are such
`
`that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject
`
`matter pertains. I have also been informed by counsel that the obviousness analysis
`
`takes into account factual inquiries including the level of ordinary skill in the art,
`
`the scope and content of the prior art, and the differences between the prior art and
`
`the claimed subject matter.
`
`24.
`
`I have been informed by counsel that the Supreme Court has
`
`recognized several rationales for combining references or modifying a reference to
`
`show obviousness of claimed subject matter. Some of these rationales include the
`
`following: (a) combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 11 of 104
`
`

`

`Phinney Declaration
`
`predictable results; (b) simple substitution of one known element for another to
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,581,706
`
`
`
`obtain predictable results; (c) use of a known technique to improve a similar device
`
`(method, or product) in the same way; (d) applying a known technique to a known
`
`device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (e)
`
`choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a
`
`reasonable expectation of success; and (f) some teaching, suggestion, or motivation
`
`in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art
`
`reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed
`
`invention.
`
`V. BACKGROUND
`25. The ’706 patent relates to contactless portable data carriers. ’706
`
`patent, abstract. Portable data carriers are sometimes referred to as smart cards,
`
`which are “small, tamper resistant plastic cards that contain in them a central
`
`processing unit (CPU) and supporting hardware. They can be used, for example, as
`
`smart credit cards, or employee badges, or for thousands of other uses, by having
`
`different application programs on board.” Guthery, 1:7-10. Smart cards may
`
`communicate wirelessly (i.e., contactlessly) with a smart card reader using Radio
`
`Frequency Identification (RFID) technology. See RFID Handbook, 1.
`
`26. A contactless smart card receives power wirelessly from a reader
`
`through magnetic or electromagnetic fields. See RFID Handbook, 6. Once the
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 12 of 104
`
`

`

`Phinney Declaration
`
`smart card is powered by the reader, it can then communicate with the reader. See
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,581,706
`
`
`
`Id. The data communicated between the smart card and the reader may relate to
`
`one of several applications stored on the smart card. For example, a payment
`
`application may communicate account information to the reader for purposes of
`
`processing a financial transaction.
`
`27. Smart cards may be used in a variety of ways. For example, a smart
`
`card may be used as an independent device that communicates directly with a
`
`reader. See Guthery, 6:42-43. A smart card can also be used as a Subscriber
`
`Identity Module (SIM) card within a mobile phone. See Guthery, 6:37-41. In such
`
`a scenario, the SIM card is considered “a mandatory security module that is present
`
`in mobile telephones in an exchangeable form.” Smart Card Handbook, 13.
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ’706 PATENT
`28. The ’706 patent relates to smart cards, and in particular, “a method for
`
`contactless communication of at least two applications stored on a common
`
`portable data carrier.” ’706 patent, 1:8-11. The background of the ’706 patent
`
`explains that by the time of the ’706 patent application was filed, smart cards were
`
`already well known and used in commercial applications such as “public
`
`transport.” ’706 patent, 1:22-29. It was further already “known that a plurality of
`
`applications can be located on a portable data carrier at the same time.” ’706
`
`patent, 2:5-9. And, reading devices could already “address [the] plurality of
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 13 of 104
`
`

`

`Phinney Declaration
`
`different concurrent applications” on a smart card through the use of “logical
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,581,706
`
`
`
`channels.” ’706 patent, 2:19-21. Moreover, ISO/IEC 14443 provided a solution for
`
`environments with multiple data carriers seeking to communicate with a
`
`terminal—“an anti-collision method on the basis of a unique identification number
`
`of the data carrier, for example a UID (unique identifier), a PUPI (pseudo-unique
`
`PICC identifier).” Ex.1001, 1:53-56. The ’706 patent alleges, however, that the use
`
`of logical channels for multiple applications within a single data carrier causes
`
`various problems, and thus proposes a method whereby a reading device
`
`selectively communicates with the smart card using the application identifier,
`
`similar to the anti-collision protocol’s use of the UID/PUPI in the ISO/IEC 14443
`
`standard. ’706 patent, 2:28-60. (“The reading device can thus address one
`
`application of a plurality of applications located on a data carrier selectively and
`
`independently of the data carrier via the identification number.”). As shown in this
`
`petition, however, this alleged “improvement” in the well-developed field of smart
`
`cards was already described in the prior art.
`
`29. The claims of the ’706 patent recite known concepts related to smart
`
`cards, including (1) the use of a communication-readiness signal, (2) storing
`
`information that indicates which of the plurality of applications on the smart card
`
`was selected by a reader most recently, and (3) the reader using an application
`
`identification number to select one of the applications for further communication.
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 14 of 104
`
`

`

`Phinney Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,581,706
`
`30.
`
`In more detail, the portable data carrier (i.e., smart card) of the ’706
`
`patent utilizes communication-readiness signals for each of the applications. For
`
`example, “a first communication-readiness signal to the reading device is
`
`generated for a first of the at least two applications … indicating to the reading
`
`device the communication readiness of said first application.” ’706 patent, 3:8-13.
`
`Additionally, “a second communication-readiness signal to the reading device is
`
`generated for a second of the at least two applications … and indicates to the
`
`reading device the communication readiness of said second application.” ’706
`
`patent, 3:13-20. The communication-readiness signals include an application
`
`identification number assigned to the corresponding application. See ’706 patent,
`
`3:5-20.
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 15 of 104
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,581,706
`
`Phinney Declaration
`
`
`applications
`
`portable data
`carrier
`
`application
`identification
`number
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`reading
`device
`
`’706 patent, Fig. 1 (annotated).
`
`31. The smart card of the ’706 patent also keeps a record of which
`
`applications have been recently used: “According to the invention, the
`
`communication device 70 of the data carrier 100 can be set up to store in a
`
`nonvolatile memory of the data carrier 100 information about which of the
`
`applications 10, 20, 30 last communicated with the reading device 200.” ’706
`
`patent, 9:5-9. This record may then be used to select the application that was most
`
`recently used: “It is also possible, however, to first generate a communication-
`
`readiness signal for that application 10, 20, 30 with which the reading device 200
`
`actively communicated last, in order for example to bring to an end a data
`
`communication that was commenced but not completed.” ’706 patent, 9:18-23. In
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 16 of 104
`
`

`

`Phinney Declaration
`
`some cases, however, however, the application that was not the most recently used
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,581,706
`
`
`
`is selected: “[I]t is then possible e.g. to generate a communication-readiness signal
`
`first for an application 10, 20, 30 that did not communicate with the reading device
`
`200 last, in order e.g. to prevent the same application 10, 20, 30 from always being
`
`served first and other applications 10, 20, 30 from possibly having to put up with
`
`long waiting periods or not being executed at all.” ’706 patent, 9:12-18.
`
`32.
`
`It is my understanding that the patent examiner allowed the ’706
`
`patent because of the following limitation:1 “the reading device selects for further
`
`communication one or more of the at least two applications via the identification
`
`numbers assigned to the applications.” ’706 patent, claim 1; see also ’706 patent
`
`3:25-28 (“The reading device can thus address one application of a plurality of
`
`applications located on a data carrier selectively and independently of the data
`
`carrier via the identification number”). However, as I explain below, the concept of
`
`selecting an application for communications using an application identifier was
`
`already well known in the art at the time the ’706 patent was filed.
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`33.
`
`It is my understanding that in order to properly evaluate the ’706
`
`patent, the terms of the claims must first be interpreted. It is my understanding that
`
`
`1 ’706 patent File History, 18-21, 37.
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 17 of 104
`
`

`

`Phinney Declaration
`
`for the purposes of this inter partes review, the claims are to be construed under
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,581,706
`
`
`
`the so-called Phillips standard, under which claim terms are given their ordinary
`
`and customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`in light of the specification and prosecution history, unless the inventor has set
`
`forth a special meaning for a term. For the purposes of my analysis below, I do not
`
`believe any claim terms require explicit construction.
`
`VIII. IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`34.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinion as to whether the Challenged
`
`Claims of the ’706 patent would have been obvious in view of the prior art. The
`
`discussion below provides a detailed analysis of how the prior art references
`
`identified below teach the limitations of the Challenged Claims of the ’706 patent.
`
`35. As part of my analysis, I have considered the scope and content of the
`
`prior art and any differences between the alleged invention and the prior art. I
`
`describe in detail below the scope and content of the prior art, as well as any
`
`differences between the alleged invention and the prior art, on an element-by-
`
`element basis for each Challenged Claims of the ’706 patent.
`
`36. As described in detail below, the alleged invention of the Challenged
`
`Claims would have been obvious in view of the teachings of the identified prior art
`
`references as well as the knowledge of a POSITA.
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-3 and 11-12 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 18 of 104
`
`

`

`Phinney Declaration
`
`
`103 over Guthery and Nozawa.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,581,706
`
`
`
`Summary of Guthery
`
`1.
`37. Like the ’706 patent, Guthery relates to a “multi-application integrated
`
`circuit card (‘smart card’) [that] contains a plurality of application programs.”
`
`Guthery, 2:42-43. Guthery notes that its smart card can be used in various
`
`manners, including as a SIM card in a mobile phone: “Another application of smart
`
`cards is within various appliances, including mobile telephones 4, in which a smart
`
`card serves as a subscriber identity module (SIM).” Guthery, 6:37-40. Guthery also
`
`describes how a “smart card 10 can be presented to a smart card reader 8.”
`
`Guthery, 6:42-43. In such case, “the reader might read the smart card through
`
`electrical contacts or through some other, wireless means.” Guthery, 6:43-47.
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 19 of 104
`
`

`

`Phinney Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,581,706
`
`mobile phone
`
`smart card
`
`reader
`
`Guthery, Fig. 1 (annotated)
`
`38. Guthery interchangeably refers to the reader—i.e., the device
`
`communicating with the smart card—as a “host” or “terminal”: The “terms ‘host’
`
`and ‘terminal’ are used herein interchangeably and are meant to represent devices
`
`that connect to a smart card, including but not limited to kiosks, ATMs, mobile
`
`telephones, appliances and computers.” Guthery, 6:47-51.
`
`39. Guthery’s smart card further includes various hardware components
`
`including non-volatile memory including a “non-volatile memory 18 such as
`
`electronically erasable programmable read-only memory (EEPROM).” Guthery,
`
`6:64-66. Guthery’s smart card also includes an I/O port that “is used to connect to
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 20 of 104
`
`

`

`Phinney Declaration
`
`an external device such as a terminal” in the case where the smart card interfaces
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,581,706
`
`
`
`directly with a reader or “a mobile telephone handset” in the case where the smart
`
`card acts as a SIM within the mobile phone. Guthery, 6:66-7:1.
`
`40. The software of Guthery’s smart card includes a card manager 34 that
`
`“maintains a directory 44 of all of the applications 32 on the smart card and is able
`
`to place any of these applications into execution.” Guthery, 7:17-19. “The card
`
`manager also controls all communication into and out of the smart card. When data
`
`is sent from outside the smart card to an application on the smart card, the data is
`
`first received, through an I/O driver 38, by the card manager 34 and later passed to
`
`the target application 32.” Guthery, 7:24-28.
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 21 of 104
`
`

`

`Phinney Declaration
`
`
`smart card 10
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,581,706
`
`plurality of
`applications
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Guthery, Fig. 2 (annotated)
`
`41.
`
`In Guthery’s system, “[w]hen a smart card is electrically activated, for
`
`example at the start of a usage session or when a mobile telephone is switched on,
`
`the card manager 34 sends to the host computer an application-identification
`
`packet 60 for each application 32 on the smart card that identifies the
`
`application” with an “application index.” Guthery, 8:32-36. The host (e.g., reader)
`
`is then aware of each application on the smart card and can then select for further
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 22 of 104
`
`

`

`Phinney Declaration
`
`communication the desired application: “At the end of the initialization and
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,581,706
`
`application identification phase, the entities wishing to communicate with
`
`applications on the card know what applications are available and have one-byte
`
`application indexes to uniquely and efficiently identify the applications on the
`
`particular smart card at hand.” Guthery, 8:60-64.
`
`42. To select an application with which to communicate, the host/reader
`
`sends a “Request-to-Send” packet to the smart card that identifies the application
`
`by its application index: “A Request-to-Send packet 70 is sent from the host
`
`computer to the card and addressed to the card manager 34.” Guthery, 8:66-9:1.
`
`Then, like the ’706 patent (which uses a “communication-readiness signal”)
`
`Guthery’s “host then expects to receive a permission-to-send packet … when the
`
`application is ready to receive this data.” Guthery, 9:10-11; see also Guthery, 3:43-
`
`48 (“When the application is notified that its memory requirements have been
`
`satisfied, it sends to the host a permission packet such as a permission-to-send
`
`packet, at which time the application is ready to receive the information from the
`
`host”). The permission-to-send packet “contains the application index 82 of the
`
`application sending the packet 80.” Guthery, 9:14-16. This process flow is shown
`
`in Fig. 14A below
`
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 23 of 104
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,581,706
`
`Phinney Declaration
`
`
`host sends
`request-to-send
`packet identifying
`application M
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`card sends
`permission-to-send
`packet indicating
`application M is ready Guthery, Fig. 14A (annotated)
`
`43. As illustrated in Fig. 14A, the smart card performs a series of steps
`
`after receiving the Request-to-Send packet and before transmitting the Permission-
`
`to-Send packet. These steps include receiving the Request-to-Send packet in a
`
`buffer (204), activating application M (206), having application M ask for buffers
`
`(208), monitoring buffer availability (210), providing buffers (212), and having
`
`application M output the permission-to-send packet to the card manager. See
`
`Guthery, 12:23-36; Fig. 14A.
`
`44. Accordingly, Guthery illustrates that it was known for smart cards to
`
`indicate the readiness of a particular application to a smart card reader. Guthery
`
`also illustrates that it was known for a reader to select an application for
`
`communication based on an application identifier.
`
`
`
`
`24
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 24 of 104
`
`

`

`Phinney Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,581,706
`
`
`
`Summary of Nozawa
`
`2.
`45. Like Guthery and the ’706 patent, Nozawa “relates to IC cards, and
`
`particularly to an IC card having a CPU and a memory, and in which a plurality of
`
`application programs stored in the memory can be selectively executed by the
`
`CPU.” Nozawa, [0001]. Nozawa explains that when an external apparatus (i.e., a
`
`reader) wishes to communicate with an application on a smart card, it typically
`
`issues an application-selection command:
`
`Normally, this selection operation is implemented by giving an
`application-selection command from the external apparatus. For
`example, in a case in which an IC card storing three types of application
`programs,