IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`AIRE TECHNOLOGY LTD.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:21-cv-01101
`
`DEFENDANT’S PRELIMINARY INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
`Aire Technology Ltd.
`Ex. 2009 - Page 1
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 
`
`RESERVATION OF RIGHTS AND OBJECTIONS......................................................... 2 
`
`PRIOR ART ........................................................................................................................ 8 
`A.
`Identification of Prior Art References ..................................................................... 8 
`B.
`Applicant Admitted Prior Art and Knowledge of a POSITA ................................. 8 
`1.
`contactlessly communicating data carriers ................................................. 9 
`2.
`communication-readiness signals ............................................................... 9 
`3.
`storage of applications on data portable data carrier ................................ 10 
`4.
`communication element, search signals .................................................... 11 
`5.
`switching apparatus, transmission oscillator, measuring device,
`control signal, communication apparatus, and coil ................................... 12 
`authentication methods ............................................................................. 13 
`6.
`Additional Prior Art Offered For Sale, and/or Publicly Used or Known, or
`That May Lead to Discovery of Additional Prior Art ........................................... 13 
`
`C.
`
`INVALIDITY UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103 ................................................................. 16 
`A.
`Anticipation and Obviousness of the ’360 Patent ................................................. 22 
`B.
`Anticipation and Obviousness of the ’249 Patent ................................................. 36 
`C.
`Anticipation and Obviousness of the ’706 Patent ................................................. 49 
`
`INVALIDITY UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 112 .......................................................................... 63 
`A.
`The ’360 Patent ..................................................................................................... 65 
`B.
`The ’249 Patent ..................................................................................................... 66 
`C.
`The ’706 Patent ..................................................................................................... 66 
`
`LACK OF PATENTABLE SUBJECT MATTER UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101 .................. 67 
`A.
`The ’360 Patent ..................................................................................................... 68 
`B.
`The ’249 Patent ..................................................................................................... 69 
`C.
`The ’706 Patent ..................................................................................................... 70 
`
`VII.
`
`IMPROPER INVENTORSHIP ......................................................................................... 70 
`
`VIII. DOCUMENT PRODUCTION ACCOMPANYING INVALIDITY
`CONTENTIONS............................................................................................................... 71 
`
`i
`
`Aire Technology Ltd.
`Ex. 2009 - Page 2
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s Scheduling Order (D.I. 23) and Standing Order Governing
`
`Proceedings – Patent Cases (“OGP”), Defendant Apple Inc. (“Defendant”) hereby discloses its
`
`Preliminary Invalidity Contentions. Defendant contends that each of the claims asserted by
`
`Plaintiff Aire Technology Ltd. (“Plaintiff” or “Aire”) is invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102,
`
`103, and/or 112, for at least the reasons set forth herein. In addition, based on its investigation to
`
`date, Defendant hereby produces the prior art references on which these Preliminary Invalidity
`
`Contentions are based, and technical documents sufficient to show the operation of the accused
`
`products.
`
`In Aire’s Preliminary Infringement Contentions, Aire asserts that Defendant infringes the
`
`following claims (“Asserted Claims”) of United States Patent Nos. 8,174,360 (“the ’360
`
`Patent”), 8,205,249 (the “’249 Patent”), 8,581,706 (the “’706 Patent”), (collectively, the
`
`“Patents-in-Suit” or the “Asserted Patents”):
`
`Patent Number
`
`Claims
`
`8,174,360
`
`8,205,249
`
`8,581,706
`
`1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 15
`
`1-12
`
`1, 2, 3, 11, 12, 16, 18, and 20
`
`With respect to each of the Asserted Claims and based on its investigation to date,
`
`Defendant hereby provides (1) charts setting forth where in the prior art references each element
`
`of the asserted claim(s) are found, (2) an identification of any limitations that are indefinite or
`
`lack written description under 35 U.S.C. § 112, and (3) an identification of any claims that are
`
`directed to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. These contentions are subject to the
`
`Defendant’s reservation of rights as set forth below.
`
`1
`
`Aire Technology Ltd.
`Ex. 2009 - Page 3
`
`

`

`Defendant’s invalidity contentions address only the claims asserted in Aire’s Preliminary
`
`Infringement Contentions. To the extent that Aire asserts additional claims against Defendant,
`
`Defendant reserves the right to disclose new or supplemental invalidity contentions regarding
`
`such claims.
`
`II.
`
`RESERVATION OF RIGHTS AND OBJECTIONS
`
`Consistent with the OGP and the Scheduling Order, Defendant reserves the right to
`
`amend these Preliminary Invalidity Contentions.
`
`Discovery in this case is ongoing and Defendant’s investigations are continuing. While
`
`Defendant has made diligent efforts, Defendant has not yet completed its search for and analysis
`
`of relevant prior art and other information, some of which may be in the possession of third
`
`parties, and some of which was unavailable to, or not yet known by, Defendant. Defendant bases
`
`these Preliminary Invalidity Contentions on its current knowledge and understanding of
`
`Plaintiff’s Infringement Contentions, the prior art, and other facts and information available as of
`
`the date of these contentions. Defendant further reserves the right to revise, amend, or
`
`supplement the information provided herein, including by identifying, charting, and relying on
`
`additional information, references, systems, and devices, should Defendant’s further search and
`
`analysis yield such additional information, references, systems, or devices, consistent with the
`
`Court’s Scheduling Order and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The OGP and Scheduling
`
`Order contemplate that these Preliminary Invalidity Contentions would be prepared and served in
`
`response to Plaintiff’s Preliminary Infringement Contentions. However, Plaintiff’s Preliminary
`
`Infringement Contentions are inadequate and fail to provide proper and complete disclosure of
`
`Plaintiff's infringement theories, and Plaintiff’s inadequate disclosure has prejudiced Defendant’s
`
`ability to prepare these Preliminary Invalidity Contentions. Due to Plaintiff’s failure to provide
`
`proper and complete disclosure of its Preliminary Infringement Contentions, Defendant reserves
`
`2
`
`Aire Technology Ltd.
`Ex. 2009 - Page 4
`
`

`

`the right to amend these Preliminary Invalidity Contentions should Plaintiff amend or
`
`supplement its Preliminary Infringement Contentions and/or its apparent claim constructions.
`
`Defendant also reserves the right to amend these Preliminary Invalidity Contentions in light of
`
`positions that Plaintiff and/or its expert witnesses may assert concerning claim construction,
`
`infringement, invalidity, and/or subject matter eligibility. In addition, Defendant reserves the
`
`right to supplement, amend, or alter the positions taken and information disclosed in these
`
`Preliminary Invalidity Contentions, including without limitation, the prior art and grounds of
`
`invalidity set forth herein under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103 or 112, to take into account
`
`information or defenses that may come to light as a result of Defendant’s discovery efforts;
`
`additional information obtained as to the priority date(s) of the asserted claim; testimony or
`
`documents produced by a party or non-party; and positions that Aire may take concerning
`
`infringement or invalidity issues. For example, Defendant may seek further discovery from third
`
`parties believed to have knowledge, documentation, or corroborating evidence concerning items
`
`of prior art, including prior art listed in the Exhibits hereto. Such third parties may include,
`
`without limitation, the authors, inventors, assignees, owners, or developers of the references and
`
`technologies listed in these disclosures. Defendant further reserves the right to amend these
`
`Preliminary Invalidity Contentions to incorporate information in Aire’s possession that Aire has
`
`not yet disclosed, including any claim charts, prior art references, invalidity theories, or other
`
`information related to invalidity received from any third parties in response to allegations of
`
`infringement of the Patents-in-Suit or related patents. Defendant may also rely upon
`
`corroborating documents, products, testimony, and other evidence, including materials obtained
`
`through further investigation and third-party discovery of the prior art identified herein, that
`
`describe the invalidating features identified in these Preliminary Invalidity Contentions; evidence
`
`3
`
`Aire Technology Ltd.
`Ex. 2009 - Page 5
`
`

`

`of the state of the art in the relevant time period (regardless of whether such references
`
`themselves qualify as prior art to the Asserted Patent), including prior art listed on the face of the
`
`Patents-in-Suit and/or disclosed in the specifications or prosecution histories (“Admitted Prior
`
`Art”); and/or expert testimony to provide context to or aid in understanding the cited portions of
`
`the identified prior art. In particular, Defendant reserves the right to assert invalidity under 35
`
`U.S.C § 102(c), (d), (f), or (g) to the extent that discovery or further investigation yields
`
`information forming the basis for such grounds for invalidity. Defendant reserves the right to
`
`supplement these contentions based on such discovery and to introduce and use such materials at
`
`trial.
`
`The prior art cited in the claim charts is illustrative and not exhaustive. Further, the
`
`citations presented in the claim charts for a claim limitation are for exemplary purposes only and
`
`should not be deemed exhaustive. Other portions of the identified prior art may additionally,
`
`implicitly, expressly, or inherently, disclose one or more limitations of the Asserted Claims or
`
`render one or more limitations of the Asserted Claims obvious. Defendant thus reserves the right
`
`to rely on such uncited portions of the identified prior art to establish the invalidity of the
`
`Asserted Claims, and on other publications and expert testimony shedding light on cited portions
`
`of the identified prior art references, including as aids in understanding the cited portions and as
`
`providing context thereto and as additional evidence that the prior art discloses a claim
`
`limitation. Similarly, where Defendant cites to a patent figure in the charts, it incorporates the
`
`accompanying specification text describing that figure and vice-versa. Moreover, Defendant
`
`reserves the right to rely on uncited portions of the identified prior art, other prior art, or expert
`
`testimony to provide context to or to aid in understanding the identified prior art. Where
`
`Defendant cites to a patent in its preliminary invalidity contentions and exhibits, it incorporates
`
`4
`
`Aire Technology Ltd.
`Ex. 2009 - Page 6
`
`

`

`any related patent publications and vice versa. Where Defendant cites to a U.S. Patent or Patent
`
`Publication, it incorporates any related foreign patents or patent publications and vice versa. In
`
`the claim charts, claim elements have been numbered to be consistent with the infringement
`
`contentions only for convenience, and the numbering should not be understood to be an
`
`admission that an element is or is not limiting or part of the preamble of a claim.
`
`Defendant also reserves the right to modify, amend, or further supplement its Preliminary
`
`Invalidity Contentions to show the invalidity of any additional claims that the Court may allow
`
`Plaintiff to later assert.
`
`To the extent that these Preliminary Invalidity Contentions reflect or otherwise embody
`
`particular constructions of terms or phrases in the Asserted Claims, Defendant is not proposing
`
`any such constructions as proper constructions of those terms or phrases. Various positions set
`
`forth in these Preliminary Invalidity Contentions are predicated on Plaintiff’s incorrect and
`
`overbroad interpretation of its claims as evidenced by its Preliminary Infringement Contentions
`
`provided to Defendant. These Preliminary Invalidity Contentions are not intended to, and do not
`
`necessarily, reflect Defendant’s interpretation of the true and proper scope of the Asserted
`
`Claims. Defendant reserves the right to adopt claim construction positions that differ from or
`
`even conflict with positions put forth in these Preliminary Invalidity Contentions. Also,
`
`Defendant objects to any attempt to infer any claim constructions from any identification of
`
`potential prior art. In those instances where Defendant asserts that the Asserted Claims are
`
`invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (e.g., no written description, not enabled, and/or indefinite),
`
`Defendant has applied the prior art in accordance with its assumption that Plaintiff contends such
`
`Asserted Claims (1) are definite, (2) have written description support, and (3) are enabled, as
`
`evidenced by Plaintiff’s Preliminary Infringement Contentions. As such, Defendant’s
`
`5
`
`Aire Technology Ltd.
`Ex. 2009 - Page 7
`
`

`

`Preliminary Invalidity Contentions do not represent its agreement or view as to the meaning,
`
`definiteness, written description support for, or enablement of any Asserted Claim. These
`
`Preliminary Invalidity Contentions and accompanying documents are not intended to reflect
`
`Defendant’s claim construction contentions, which will be disclosed in accordance with the
`
`Court’s schedule.
`
`Claim construction proceedings for this action have not yet occurred. Accordingly,
`
`Defendant reserves the right to modify, amend, or supplement its Preliminary Invalidity
`
`Contentions following claim construction rulings from this Court. Defendant also reserves the
`
`right to modify, amend, or supplement its Preliminary Invalidity Contentions upon Aire’s
`
`modification of its asserted claim constructions, including as adopted by Aire in its Infringement
`
`Contentions. Unless otherwise stated herein, Defendant takes no position on any matter of claim
`
`construction in these Invalidity Contentions. Defendant reserves the right to propose any claim
`
`construction it considers appropriate and to contest any claim construction it considers
`
`inappropriate.
`
`In its Preliminary Infringement Contentions, Plaintiff alleges that each asserted claim of
`
`the ’360 Patent is entitled to “at least” a priority date of July 30, 2003, that each asserted claim of
`
`the ’249 Patent is entitled to “at least” a priority date of October 24, 2002, and that each asserted
`
`claim of the ’706 Patent is entitled to “at least” a priority date of June 12, 2006. Specifying the
`
`alleged priority dates using the “at least” qualifier fails to comply with the OGP, which requires
`
`that Plaintiff “identify the priority date (i.e. the earliest date of invention) for each asserted
`
`claim.” Accordingly Plaintiff can only assert–and is understood to only have asserted–a priority
`
`date of July 30, 2003, for the asserted claims of the ’360 Patent, a priority date of October 24,
`
`2002, for the asserted claims of the ’249 Patent, and a priority date of June 12, 2006, for the
`
`6
`
`Aire Technology Ltd.
`Ex. 2009 - Page 8
`
`

`

`asserted claims of the ’706 Patent. To the extent that Plaintiff is later permitted to identify a
`
`different alleged priority date, and in fact identifies in any manner, a different alleged priority
`
`date for any of the Asserted Claims, Defendant reserves the right to respond to and challenge any
`
`such date(s). Defendant further reserves the right to amend and/or supplement these Preliminary
`
`Invalidity Contentions in response to any identification of a different alleged priority date for any
`
`of the Asserted Claims. Defendant further disputes that the Asserted Claims are entitled to the
`
`identified alleged priority dates for reasons including that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that
`
`any of the Asserted Claims is entitled to claim priority to any foreign patent application.
`
`Defendant’s contentions may change depending on the Court’s construction of the
`
`Asserted Claims, any findings as to the priority dates of the Asserted Claims, and/or positions
`
`that Plaintiff or its experts may take concerning claim construction, infringement, and/or
`
`invalidity issues. Prior art not included in these Preliminary Invalidity Contentions, whether
`
`known or unknown to Defendant, may become relevant. In particular, Defendant is currently
`
`unaware of the extent, if any, to which Plaintiff will contend that limitations of the Asserted
`
`Claims are not disclosed in the prior art identified by Defendant, or will contend that any of the
`
`identified references do not qualify as prior art. To the extent that such an issue arises,
`
`Defendant reserves the right to identify other references that, inter alia, would have made the
`
`addition of any allegedly missing limitation(s) to the disclosed device or method obvious.
`
`Because of the uncertainty of claim construction, Defendant reserves the right to further
`
`supplement or modify the positions and information in these Preliminary Invalidity Contentions,
`
`including without limitation, the prior art and grounds of invalidity set forth herein, after the
`
`Asserted Claims have been construed.
`
`7
`
`Aire Technology Ltd.
`Ex. 2009 - Page 9
`
`

`

`Defendant also reserves the right to challenge the patentability of the Asserted Claims
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(f) in the event Defendant obtains evidence that the named inventors of the
`
`Patents-in-Suit did not invent the subject matter claimed therein. Should Defendant obtain such
`
`evidence, it will provide the name of the person(s) from whom and the circumstances under
`
`which the invention or any part of it was derived. Defendant further reserves the right to assert
`
`that the Patents-in-Suit are unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.
`
`III.
`
`PRIOR ART
`A.
`
`Identification of Prior Art References
`
`Each of the Asserted Claims is anticipated and/or rendered obvious by prior art. Pursuant
`
`to the Court’s Scheduling Order, Defendant identifies the prior art references that anticipate
`
`and/or render obvious each of the Asserted Claims below and in Exhibits A-01 to A-12, B-01 to
`
`B-13, and C-01 to C-11, which are hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
`
`B.
`
`Applicant Admitted Prior Art and Knowledge of a POSITA
`
`Each of the references identified in Section IV below may be used in combination with
`
`admissions in the specification regarding the prior art to render obvious the Asserted Claims.
`
`More particularly, public admissions by Aire and/or the named inventors, as well as admissions
`
`about the prior art in the specifications of the Asserted Patents and the corresponding prosecution
`
`histories, are binding, and can be used when determining whether a claim is obvious.
`
`Pharmastem Therapeutics, Inc. v. Viacell, Inc., 491 F.3d 1342, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
`
`(“Admissions in the specification regarding the prior art are binding on the patentee for purposes
`
`of a later inquiry into obviousness.”); Constant v. Advanced Micro–Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560,
`
`1570 (Fed.Cir.1988) (“A statement in the patent that something is in the prior art is binding on
`
`the applicant and patentee for determinations of anticipation and obviousness.”). For example,
`
`the specifications identify numerous features of the claims that were known and in-use prior to
`
`8
`
`Aire Technology Ltd.
`Ex. 2009 - Page 10
`
`

`

`the alleged invention of the Asserted Patents, non-limiting examples of which are identified
`
`below. Collectively, these admissions are referred herein, and in the supporting exhibits, as
`
`“Admitted Prior Art” or “APA.”
`
`1.
`
`contactlessly communicating data carriers
`
`Contactlessly communicating data carriers, including portable data carriers, were known
`
`and considered prior art to one or more of the Asserted Patents. E.g.:
`
`
`
`
`
`’706 Patent, 1:22-32 (“In the prior art (egg. Finkenzeller, Klaus: RFID-Handbuch,
`Munich, 2002) there are described various contactlessly communicating data carriers, for
`example chip cards and RFID transponders (radio frequency identification transponders),
`e.g. according to the standard ISO/IEC 14443. These are so-called proximity coupling
`chip cards, which are frequently used in the application field of ticketing, that is, as
`public transport tickets for example, The energy supply to the data carrier is normally
`effected here by the magnetic alternating field of a reading device. The range of such a
`data carrier is approx, 7 to 15 cm.”);
`
`’360 Patent, 1:12-26 (“A concept for automatically setting up a data connection between
`intelligent devices is known from the specification ECMA/TC32/TG19/2003/12 under
`the name of “Near Field Communication” (NFC). The purpose of the concept is to make
`the set-up of a data connection between intelligent devices as simple as possible. The
`concept provides for two intelligent devise [sic] both designed for carrying out an NFC
`protocol automatically setting up a data connection when they come together at a distance
`of typically less than 0.2 meters. In search mode one of the intelligent devices, the
`initiator, sends a search query which is answered by the second intelligent device, the
`target. In an immediately following data exchange the two intelligent devices agree on a
`data transmission mode according to which a data exchange is then effected between the
`data processing components of the intelligent devices involved.”);
`
`
`
`’249 patent, 3:3-4 (“The portable data carrier 20 is for example a chip card as likewise
`described in detail in the "Chip card manual".”).
`
`2.
`
`communication-readiness signals
`
`Communication-readiness signals were known and considered prior art to one or more of
`
`the Asserted Patents. E.g.:
`
`
`
`’706 Patent, 1:22-48 (“In the prior art (egg. Finkenzeller, Klaus: RFID-Handbuch,
`Munich, 2002) there are described various contactlessly communicating data carriers, for
`example chip cards and RFID transponders (radio frequency identification transponders),
`e.g. according to the standard ISO/TEC 14443. … When such a data carrier is brought
`into the response field of a reading device, thereby commencing its energy supply and
`
`9
`
`Aire Technology Ltd.
`Ex. 2009 - Page 11
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`putting it in an operational mode, it can receive a search signal emitted cyclically by the
`reading device and indicate its communication readiness to the reading device by means
`of a first response signal. As soon as the reading device has received the signal it starts a
`selection process using a so-called anti-collision method in order to specifically select
`one data carrier for further communication when a plurality of communication-ready data
`carriers are located in the response field of the reading device at the same time.”);
`
`’706 Patent, 1:52-2:4 (“The selection of a data carrier is effected in the case of 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,
`PICC=proximity ICC, ICC integrated circuit card) or the like. For data carriers according
`to ISO/IEC 14443 it further holds that a data carrier selected for communication is
`addressable during communication via a unique session number (session-ID, CID)
`allocated dynamically by the reading device. In this state such a data carrier no longer
`responds to the aforementioned search signals still emitted by the reading device. In this
`way the reading device can select further data carriers located in the response field via
`their unique identification numbers and also assign them unique session numbers in turn.
`According to ISO/IEC 14443, up to 16 data carriers can in this way be selected for
`communication at the same time and addressed accordingly via 16 different session
`numbers. A command emitted by the reading device and addressed by means of the
`session number is then always processed only by the data carrier to which said session
`number was assigned.”);
`
`’360 Patent, 1:12-26 (“A concept for automatically setting up a data connection between
`intelligent devices is known from the specification ECMA/TC32/TG19/2003/12 under
`the name of “Near Field Communication” (NFC). The purpose of the concept is to make
`the set-up of a data connection between intelligent devices as simple as possible. The
`concept provides for two intelligent devise [sic] both designed for carrying out an NFC
`protocol automatically setting up a data connection when they come together at a distance
`of typically less than 0.2 meters. In search mode one of the intelligent devices, the
`initiator, sends a search query which is answered by the second intelligent device, the
`target. In an immediately following data exchange the two intelligent devices agree on a
`data transmission mode according to which a data exchange is then effected between the
`data processing components of the intelligent devices involved.”).
`3.
`
`storage of applications on data portable data carrier
`
`Storage of applications on portable data carriers was well known and considered prior art
`
`to one or more of the Asserted Patents. E.g.:
`
`
`
`’706 Patent, 2:5-9 (“Further, it is known that a plurality of applications can be located on
`a portable data carrier at the same time and that the corresponding application processes
`can be executed concurrently when an operating system providing the necessary
`mechanisms is set up on the data carrier.”).
`
`10
`
`Aire Technology Ltd.
`Ex. 2009 - Page 12
`
`

`

`4.
`
`communication element, search signals
`
`Search signals and communication elements that emit search signals were well known
`
`and considered prior art to one or more of the Asserted Patents. E.g.:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`’360 Patent, 1:12-36 (“A concept for automatically setting up a data connection between
`intelligent devices is known from the specification ECMA/TC32/TG19/2003/12 under
`the name of "Near Field Communication" (NFC). The purpose of the concept is to make
`the set-up of a data connection between intelligent devices as simple as possible. The
`concept provides for two intelligent devices both designed for carrying out an NFC
`protocol automatically setting up a data connection when they come together at a distance
`of typically less than 0.2 meters. In a search mode one of the intelligent devices, the
`initiator, sends a search query which is answered by the second intelligent device, the
`target. … Detection of whether another intelligent device is located within the response
`range of the NFC protocol is done in the search mode by cyclically emitting search
`queries. The parameters provided for the search queries are a transmitting frequency of
`13.56 MHz and a magnetic field strength of at least 1.5 A/m up to a maximum of 7.5
`A/m. the provided minimum field strength causes a relatively high constant power
`consumption in intelligent devices ready to carry out an NFC protocol.”);
`
`’360 Patent, 1:45-52 (“The standards ISO/IEC 14443 and ISO/IEC 15693 describe a
`method in which a reading device tries to produce a data connection with another
`intelligent device ( contactless chip card/RFID transponder). For this purpose, the reading
`device emits a search signal-REQUEST-periodically with high field strength (e.g. 1.5-7.5
`Alm according to ISO/IEC 14443) until an intelligent device comes into the response
`range of the reading device.”);
`
`’360 Patent, 3:55-4:2 (“The function of the communication element 12, 22 is to ascertain
`the presence of another device 10, 20, 30 within the response range of the coil 13, 23, 33.
`The communication element 12, 22 has means for executing software program routines
`and can be formed as an independent assembly. When another device 10, 20, 30 has been
`detected, the communication element 12, 22 further automatically sets up a data
`connection thereto and produces the data transmission mode for a subsequent data
`exchange between the particular data-processing components 11, 21, 31. In a particularly
`expedient embodiment, the communication element 12, 22 is designed to execute an NFC
`protocol as described in the stated publication ECMA/TC32-TG19/2003/12, or a
`contactless transmission protocol as described e.g. in the standards ISO/IEC 14443,
`ISO/IEC 15699 and ISO/IEC 18000-3.”).
`
`11
`
`Aire Technology Ltd.
`Ex. 2009 - Page 13
`
`

`

`5.
`
`switching apparatus, transmission oscillator, measuring device,
`control signal, communication apparatus, and coil
`
`Switching apparatuses, transmission oscillators, measuring devices, control signals,
`
`communication apparatuses, and coils were well known and considered prior art to the Asserted
`
`Patents. E.g.:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`’360 Patent, 1:53-2:2 (“German patent application DE 102 06 676 discloses a switching
`apparatus to be actuated with a transponder, which can be operated almost non-
`dissipatively as long as no switching process is triggered. The device to be switched has
`for this purpose a coil which is part of an oscillating circuit which is operated as a
`substantially unloaded pure oscillating circuit in the detection mode. The resonant
`frequency tuned in the oscillating circuit is monitored by a frequency observer. When a
`transponder with a transponder coil is brought close to the detection coil, the resonant
`frequency of the oscillating circuit changes. This is detected by the frequency observer,
`which thereupon produces a switching signal which switches on the device to be
`switched. The proposed solution focuses on the direct change from detection mode to
`data transmission mode, i.e. on the direct, single-stage switch-on of an intelligent device
`by means of a coil support which serves primarily as a switching component.”);
`
`’360 Patent, 4:3-11 (“The coil 13, 23, 33 is of the usual design and serves in the way
`known in the art to carry out a contactless data exchange with a corresponding device 10,
`20, 30. As a rule, it is an integrated part of the device 10, 20, 30, as indicated in the
`execution as a chip card 30. Within the communication apparatus 1, 2, 3 the coil 13, 23,
`33 is part of a transmission oscillator 50 with a defined, characteristic resonant frequency
`which can depend on the operating state of the device 10, 20, 30.”);
`
`’360 Patent, 6:5-9 (“After the data connection is set up, the data processing component
`11, 21, 31 conducts a data exchange via the coil 13, 23, 33 in the known way with the
`corresponding data processing component 11, 21, 31 of the device 10, 20, 30 present,
`step 110.”);
`
`’360 Patent, 8:26-36 (“Thus, oscillator circuits are known, e.g. Colpitts, in which a
`connection of the coil 13, 23 can be grounded (on the alternating voltage side). In this
`case, the switch 47 can be executed so that only one connection of the coil must be
`switched over to the measuring unit 46, as shown in FIG. 2 for example.
`In another embodiment of the oscillator circuit 60, it can also be required that a second
`connection of the coil is connected not to ground but to the supply voltage ( e.g. Colpitts
`circuit variant). In this case, a second switch 47b (not shown) may be necessary.”);
`
`
`
`’360 Patent, 8:37-39 (“Likewise, oscillator circuits are known in which two connections
`of the coil must be connected to the oscillator circuit 60.”).
`
`12
`
`Aire Technology Ltd.
`Ex. 2009 - Page 14
`
`

`

`6.
`
`authentication methods
`
`Authentication methods were well known and considered prior art to the Asserted
`
`Patents. E.g.:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`’249 Patent, 1:11-23 (“This invention starts out from a method exemplified, for example,
`by the method according to ‘Handbuch der Chipkarten’ (herein-after "Chip card
`manual"), W. Rank!, W. Effing, 3rd edition, 1999,