IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`CAROLYN HAFEMAN,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`
` Defendant.
`
`Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-696-ADA-DTG
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`REBUTTAL EXPERT REPORT OF DR. SCOTT SCHAEFER
`REGARDING VALIDITY
`
`Ex. 1045
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`IV.
`
`SCOPE OF ENGAGEMENT .......................................................................................... 1
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ................................................................. 2
`A.
`Education and Experience ................................................................................... 2
`B. Materials Considered............................................................................................ 4
`C.
`Compensation ........................................................................................................ 5
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS ............................................................................................ 5
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES ..................................................................................................... 6
`A.
`Validity Generally ................................................................................................. 6
`B.
`Priority Date .......................................................................................................... 7
`C.
`Anticipation ........................................................................................................... 7
`D.
`Obviousness ........................................................................................................... 8
`E.
`Validity Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 .......................................................................... 12
`F.
`Validity Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 .......................................................................... 14
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ....................................................... 14
`V.
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................................... 15
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE ASSERTED PATENTS .......................................................... 16
`1.
`Claims ....................................................................................................... 16
`VIII. OVERVIEW OF THE ASSERTED PRE-2004 REFERENCES................................ 21
`A.
`The BlackBerry System ...................................................................................... 21
`B. Windows 2000...................................................................................................... 23
`C.
`Cohen ................................................................................................................... 27
`D.
`Chiu ...................................................................................................................... 28
`E.
`Helle ...................................................................................................................... 29
`F.
`Yoneyama ............................................................................................................ 30
`G.
`Kagay ................................................................................................................... 31
`H.
`Struble .................................................................................................................. 32
`I.
`Bean ...................................................................................................................... 33
`J.
`Jenne..................................................................................................................... 34
`K.
`Angelo................................................................................................................... 35
`L.
`Hafeman ’298 ...................................................................................................... 36
`THE ASSERTED CLAIMS ARE ENTITLED TO A PRIORITY DATE OF
`SEPTEMBER 20, 2004. .................................................................................................. 37
`A.
`The ’332 Application Discloses Remotely Initiating Return or Recovery
`Information. ......................................................................................................... 37
`
`IX.
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`X.
`
`XI.
`
`The ’332 Application Discloses All Other Elements of the Asserted Claims. 40
`B.
`The Asserted Claims are Entitled to the Benefit of the ’332 Application ...... 79
`C.
`THE ASSERTED CLAIMS WERE NOT ANTICIPATED OR RENDERED
`OBVIOUS BY THE BLACKBERRY SYSTEM. ........................................................ 79
`THE ASSERTED CLAIMS WERE NOT ANTICIPATED OR RENDERED
`OBVIOUS BY WINDOWS 2000. .................................................................................. 85
`A. Windows 2000 Fails to Satisfy the Asserted Claims’ Purpose of Returning a
`Lost or Stolen Computer. ................................................................................... 86
`1.
`The Asserted Claims Were Directed to the Purpose of Recovering Lost or
`Stolen Computers. ..................................................................................... 86
`Windows 2000 And Windows 2000 Group Policy Were Not Directed to the
`Purpose of Recovering Lost or Stolen Computers. ................................... 90
`B. Windows 2000 Fails to Satisfy the Without Assistance By A User Limitations
`............................................................................................................................... 99
`1.
`Background Refreshes of Group Policy .................................................. 102
`2.
`Refreshes to Group Policy at Startup ..................................................... 103
`3.
`Dr. Chatterjee’s “Forced Reboot” Scenario .......................................... 104
`C. Windows 2000 Fails to Satisfy the Limitations for Return/Recovery
`Information Being “Maintained” and “Visible to Anyone Viewing the
`Display” .............................................................................................................. 106
`XII. THE ASSERTED CLAIMS WERE NOT RENDERED OBVIOUS BY THE
`WINDOWS 2000 COMBINATIONS. ......................................................................... 110
`A. Windows 2000 in view of Cohen, Chiu, Helle, Yoneyama, and/or Kagay ... 110
`B. Windows 2000 in view of the BlackBerry System .......................................... 118
`XIII. THE ASSERTED CLAIMS WERE NOT ANTICIPATED OR RENDERED
`OBVIOUS BY STRUBLE OR RENDERED OBVIOUS BY THE STRUBLE
`COMBINATION........................................................................................................... 119
`A.
`Struble ................................................................................................................ 120
`1.
`Struble Fails to Satisfy the Before or With a Security Prompt/Lock Screen
`Limitations. ............................................................................................. 120
`Struble Fails to Satisfy the Remotely Initiating or Changing
`Return/Recovery Information Limitations .............................................. 122
`Struble Fails to Satisfy the Interactive Program Limitations ................. 124
`3.
`Struble in view of Bean ..................................................................................... 126
`B.
`XIV. THE ASSERTED CLAIMS WERE NOT RENDERED OBVIOUS BY THE JENNE
`COMBINATION........................................................................................................... 127
`XV. THE ASSERTED CLAIMS WERE NOT RENDERED OBVIOUS BY THE
`ANGELO COMBINATION. ....................................................................................... 133
`
`2.
`
`2.
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`XVI. THE ASSERTED CLAIMS WERE NOT RENDERED OBVIOUS BY
`HAFEMAN ’298 IN VIEW OF CHIU AND/OR KAGAY ....................................... 135
`XVII. SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS OF NON-OBVIOUSNESS ........................... 139
`A.
`Long-Felt or Unresolved Needs, or Recognition of a Problem ..................... 140
`B.
`Commercial Success of the Invention ............................................................. 141
`C.
`Simultaneous Invention by Others .................................................................. 143
`XVIII. THE ASSERTED CLAIMS ARE VALID UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 112. ...................... 143
`A.
`The Asserted Claims Adequately Describe the Remote Initiating Element 143
`B.
`The Court’s Construction of Return/Recovery Information Is Not Indefinite.
`............................................................................................................................. 145
`XIX. THE ASSERTED CLAIMS ARE VALID UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101. ...................... 149
`A.
`The Asserted Claims Are Directed to Specific Enhancements in Computer
`and Network Security. ...................................................................................... 149
`The Asserted Claims Recite an Inventive Concept for Enhancing Computer
`and Network Security. ...................................................................................... 150
`XX. DR. CHATTERJEE DOES NOT SUPPORT HIS OPINION THAT ANY PRIOR
`ART REFERENCE IS A NON-INFRINGING ALTERNATIVE. .......................... 152
`
`B.
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`VIII. OVERVIEW OF THE ASSERTED PRE-2004 REFERENCES.
`
`56. As discussed below, in my opinion Hafeman is entitled to a priority date of
`
`September 20, 2004 based on her filing of the ’332 Application. Below, I provide
`
`a brief overview of the references asserted in Dr. Chatterjee’s Report that are
`
`alleged to precede this date.
`
`A.
`
`The BlackBerry System
`
`57. According to Dr. Chatterjee, the BlackBerry system comprises “the BlackBerry
`
`Enterprise Server (including its administration software), a wireless network, and
`
`BlackBerry handheld devices configured for use in an enterprise system.” 16
`
`Research in Motion (RIM) introduced the Blackberry device in 1999, which
`
`provided “the first complete, wireless email solution designed specifically for
`
`corporate environments using Microsoft Exchange.” 17 The BlackBerry
`
`incorporated “personal information management (PIM) functions that are common
`
`to other personal organizers” such as a “calendar, address book, [and] task list.”18
`
`This device would synchronize all email and PIM functions “with the desktop when
`
`the handheld is placed in its docking cradle.”19 RIM released several BlackBerry
`
`versions, including the BlackBerry 850/950 in 1999-2000,20 the BlackBerry 5810
`
`in 2002,21 the BlackBerry 6210 in 2003,22 and the BlackBerry 7210 in 2003.23
`
`
`16 Chatterjee Report at pp. 90–91, ¶ 3.
`17 LG_00098924 (“RIM 1999 Annual Report”) at LG_00098938.
`18 RIM 1999 Annual Report at LG_00098933.
`19 RIM 1999 Annual Report at LG_00098933.
`20 LG_00098960 (“RIM 2000 Annual Report”) at LG_00098968.
`21 LG_00095803 (“March 4, 2002 RIM Press Release”) at LG_00095803.
`22 LG_00090995 (“March 17, 2003 RIM Press Release”) at LG_00090996.
`23 LG_00095649 (“2003 BlackBerry Wireless Handheld User Guide”) at LG_00095650.
`21
`
`

`

`
`
`58. The BlackBerry devices allowed the user to set various settings on the device by
`
`scrolling to the OPTIONS icon and clicking to provide a menu of settings, which
`
`included information about the OWNER, though doing so required an unlocked
`
`device and the user operating the device to perform the setting:24
`
`
`
`59. The BlackBerry Enterprise Server Software is a mobile email solution that consists
`
`of the handheld, docking/charging cradle, and desktop software on a wireless
`
`network. The server software monitors the user’s mailbox for new mail, applies
`
`filters to new message to determine if and how the BlackBerry services relays
`
`messages to the user’s handheld, compresses and encrypts new messages, and
`
`receives messages composed on the handheld that it decrypts and decompresses
`
`and places in the user’s Outbox for the Microsoft Exchange Service.25
`
`
`24 LG_00025979 (“2001 BlackBerry Handheld User Guide”) at LG_00026097.
`25 LG_00043344 (“BES Version 3.5 Administration Guide”) at LG_00043361.
`22
`
`

`

`
`
`60. The BlackBerry Enterprise Server can be administered by the BlackBerry
`
`Enterprise Server Management software, which administers users at the server level
`
`and mailbox level.26 In addition the BlackBerry User Administration Software
`
`enables users to remotely add, delete or list users for a specific BlackBerry
`
`Enterprise Server.27
`
`B. Windows 2000
`
`61. Windows 2000 replaced the prior version of windows, Windows NT 4.0, with four
`
`different versions: Windows 2000 Professional, Windows 2000 Server, Windows
`
`2000 Advanced Server, and Windows 2000 Datacenter Server. Windows 2000
`
`Professional was “intended to serve as the standard corporate operating system for
`
`desktop and mobile users.”28
`
`62. Windows 2000 contained a number of mechanisms to administer networked
`
`computers. Domains constituted an administrative and security boundary within
`
`the Windows 2000 network. Each domain had its own security policies and settings
`
`including administrative and user rights. Windows 2000 improved upon the size
`
`limitation for domains in Windows NT 4.0.29
`
`63. Windows 2000 also contained Group Policy Objects, which represent system and
`
`application settings for groups of users and computers. These settings include[d]
`
`software policies, scripts (computer startup and show down and user logon and
`
`logoff), user documents and settings, application deployment, and security
`
`
`26 BES Version 3.5 Administration Guide at LG_00043362–LG_00043363.
`27 BES Version 3.5 Administration Guide at LG_00043363.
`28 LG_00026131 (“Windows 2000 Security Technical Reference”) at LG_00026147.
`29 Windows 2000 Security Technical Reference at LG_00026150.
`23
`
`

`

`
`
`settings. 30 As the name implies, “Group Policy Objects” were designed to be
`
`propagated to multiple computers attached to the network at the same time. As
`
`Microsoft’s corporate representative explained, “Group Policy is a centralized way
`
`to manage a set of devices and users.”31 While it may have been theoretically
`
`possible to create a “group” policy for a single computer, this was extremely
`
`cumbersome at best. Essentially, an administrator would need to create a special
`
`group that consisted of only a single computer, 32 but documentation regarding
`
`Group Policy Objects does not explain how that would be done. Further, I am not
`
`aware of any information suggesting the Group Policy Objects were designed to
`
`assist with returning a lost or stolen computer or were ever used for that purpose.
`
`64. These Group Policies are configured at a server and propagated to clients in several
`
`ways. One way is by periodically processing the policy to the clients, which is
`
`performed every 90 minutes with a randomized offset of up to 30 minutes. 33
`
`Sending data to clients every 1-2 hours would not constitute an “interactive
`
`program,” because such a system would not produce immediate results to the client
`
`devices.34 Indeed, the specification of the Asserted Patents states that the owner
`
`has an “on the fly” ability to change recovery information through the interactive
`
`program, and that this can be done “at any time.”35
`
`
`30 Windows 2000 Security Technical Reference at LG_00026156.
`31 Flo Tr. at 11:8–9.
`32 Flo Tr. at 15:2–23.
`33 http://www.nectica.com.ar/grouppolwp.doc (“Windows 2000 Group Policy White Paper”) at p. 37.
`34 See, e.g., “Interactive” (defining interactive in the context of a “computer program or system” to mean
`“interacting with a human user, often in a conversational way, to obtain data or commands and to give immediate
`results or updated information”), https://www.dictionary.com/browse/interactive.
`35 See, e.g., ’287 Patent at 6:9, 8:34–36.
`
`24
`
`

`

`
`
`65. An administrator could also set the value to zero, which would cause “the refresh
`
`rate to be set to seven seconds.”36 However, the reference warns against doing so.
`
`“Setting a short refresh interval in a production environment is not recommended;
`
`however this can be useful in test or demonstration scenarios. This is because a
`
`policy refresh causes the Windows shell to be refreshed, which in turn causes all
`
`open context menus to close, a brief flicker of the screen, and so on.”37 In addition,
`
`“[s]uch updates may interfere with users’ work and increase network traffic;
`
`therefore, very short update intervals are not appropriate in most cases.”38 Hence,
`
`reducing the refresh time was discouraged and the usability as well as performance
`
`of the system was compromised if the administrator did so. In addition, this
`
`background processing of group policies only applied while the user was logged
`
`on,39 which requires the assistance of the user with the computer.
`
`66. In addition to this periodic processing, Group Policy for computers is applied at
`
`computer startup before the CTRL+ALT+DEL dialog box is presented.40 However,
`
`this procedure applied when the computer and domain controller were connected
`
`to the same network meaning that the computer was not lost. For remotely accessed
`
`machines, the procedure is different because “normally computer policy would
`
`have been processed before the logon screen, but since no network connection is
`
`available until logon, the application of computer policy is done as background
`
`
`36 Windows 2000 Group Policy White Paper at p. 37.
`37 Windows 2000 Group Policy White Paper at p. 37.
`38 Windows 2000 Group Policy White Paper at p. 56.
`39 Windows 2000 Security Technical Reference at LG_00026234.
`40 Windows 2000 Group Policy White Paper at p. 36.
`
`25
`
`

`

`
`
`refresh at the time of logon.”41 Furthermore, when “the logon is done with cached
`
`credentials, and then a remote access connection is established, Group Policy is not
`
`applied.”42 Therefore, in the setting where a user was traveling and lost their device,
`
`no remote changing/initiating could occur until after the user had logged in, which
`
`would require assistance by the user.
`
`67. Group Policy allowed for a number of configuration settings to be applied to
`
`different types of computers. One such setting is the Logon banner, which includes
`
`message text/title for users attempting to logon.43 But the intended use for this
`
`feature and examples given are not directed towards the recovery of lost or stolen
`
`devices. Instead, the explained use was “to warn people that efforts to log on by
`
`unauthorized users are illegal. Windows lets you place that warning right up front
`
`in a dialog box that appears before the Log On To Windows dialog box is
`
`displayed.”44 Furthermore, it is “useful to display a message that warns users about
`
`the consequences of misusing company information or notifies them that their
`
`actions might be monitored. (You might also use this feature to offer a friendly
`
`welcome message!)”45 An example of the intended use of the feature is shown
`
`below.46
`
`
`41 Windows 2000 Group Policy White Paper at pp. 40–41.
`42 Windows 2000 Group Policy White Paper at p. 41.
`43 Windows 2000 Group Policy White Paper at p. 116.
`44 LG_00026253 (“Windows Security Inside Out”) at LG_00026280.
`45 Windows Security Inside Out at LG_00026280.
`46 Windows Security Inside Out at LG_00026281.
`
`26
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`Cohen
`
`68. Cohen discloses a method where the owner enters “a textual indicia of personal
`
`ownership” “during set-up or during a configuration change.” 47 In this set-up
`
`processor for the device, the device will “prompt[] the user to enter personal
`
`ownership indicia, such as name and address data.”48 After set-up, when the device
`
`is powered on, the device will display this information “utilizing video display
`
`device” and then “prompt[] the user for a password.”49
`
`69. However, Cohen does not disclose anything about remotely changing
`
`return/recovery information. Instead, the setting of “a textual indicia of personal
`
`ownership” happens locally during set-up when the device is being configured upon
`
`
`
`47 Cohen at 2:31–35.
`48 Cohen at 4:29–34.
`49 Cohen at 5:21–29.
`
`27
`
`

`

`
`
`an alteration of the subsystems of that device or in response to an initial utilization
`
`of the device.50
`
`D.
`
`Chiu
`
`70. Chiu is a BlackBerry patent that discloses a system for remote control of mobile
`
`communication devices. The mobile device is associated with an event driven
`
`redirection computer program operating at a host (desktop) computer that redirects
`
`data items from the host system to the mobile device upon sensing a particular user-
`
`defined event has occurred. 51 Chiu indicates that data items such as e-mail
`
`messages, calendar events, meeting notifications, address entries, journal entries,
`
`and personal reminders may be stored at the host system and pushed to the mobile
`
`device in response to a triggering event at the host system.52 These events might be
`
`external such as sensing the user is no longer in the vicinity of the host system or
`
`internal such as a calendar alarm, screen saver activation, keyboard timeout, or
`
`programmable timer.53
`
`71. Chiu also discloses that an owner “may wish to exercise some controls over the use
`
`of devices 24 and redirection of other device surfaces” to “control access to both
`
`the information stored on its devices and the functions supported by the devices.”54
`
`Chiu indicates that different control messages could disable a device to render it
`
`totally or partially inoperable to a user, resetting an existing device password,
`
`
`
`50 Cohen at 4:12–16.
`51 Chiu ¶ 2.
`52 Chiu ¶¶ 23, 25.
`53 Chiu ¶ 25.
`54 Chiu ¶ 92.
`
`28
`
`

`

`
`
`setting a new device password, or locking a device.55 Chiu indicates that a message
`
`to completely disable the device would destroy all data on the device and disable
`
`all functionality on the device with a predetermined or administrator composed text
`
`message to be displayed on the screen of a disabled device.56
`
`72. While Chiu is not primarily about recovering lost devices, one sentence mentions
`
`that a “display message as described above may also indicate that the device is lost
`
`and to whom or where it should be returned.” 57 However, the display of the
`
`message is displayed in the context of a remote disable command, which destroys
`
`the data on a device or renders the device inoperable.58 There is no indication that
`
`the display of the message is before/with a lock screen or that a lock screen even
`
`exists since the device is disabled and potentially has had all data wiped.
`
`E.
`
`Helle
`
`73. Helle discloses a method and apparatus for controlling a mobile device when it has
`
`been lost, stolen or misused. 59 The controlling of the mobile device may be
`
`performed via SMS to display contact information of the owner “when the mobile
`
`phone does not start up normally, for example, due to an incorrect security code
`
`entry,” setting the phone into a secure mode where it can only be used to call one
`
`number, and commanding the phone to send information about its location and
`
`usage.60
`
`
`
`55 Chiu ¶ 93.
`56 Chiu ¶ 101.
`57 Chiu ¶ 102.
`58 Chiu ¶ 101.
`59 Helle at 1:41–46.
`60 Helle at 1:46–58
`
`29
`
`

`

`
`
`74. Helle does not disclose displaying return/recovery information before a lock screen.
`
`Rather the display happens “due to an incorrect security code entry”61 or due to a
`
`cancelled PIN query62 indicating the display is performed after the lock screen.
`
`F.
`
`Yoneyama
`
`75. Yoneyama discloses a method of switching modes in cellular phones without
`
`establishing a line connection to display a predetermined message such as contact
`
`information to help return a lost phone to an owner.63 In particular, Yoneyama
`
`describes a mode switch process using counters and termination criteria without a
`
`connection to the device, or password or pin.64 In the case of a lost or stolen device,
`
`and audible signal at the highest level is performed for 20 seconds followed by the
`
`display of a message or contact information and, finally, limiting the calling
`
`capability of the phone or locking the keys of the phone.65
`
`76. Yoneyama does not provide the remote initiating or changing of return information
`
`given that the point is to perform a mode switch without connection. Moreover,
`
`the contact information is predetermined and set “via the operation unit 3 such as a
`
`key pad and other buttons on the cellular phone.”66 Hence, the user is setting the
`
`display message and is not done without assistance of the user. Even so, Yoneyama
`
`does not indicate that any display is done before/with the lock screen, and even
`
`indicates that the keys on the phone are disabled once the message is displayed.67
`
`
`
`61 Helle at 1:49–52, 4:17–20.
`62 Helle at 3:10–14, 3:20–24.
`63 Yoneyama at Abstract.
`64 Yoneyama at 4:1–49.
`65 Yoneyama at 4:38–45.
`66 Yoneyama at 5:14–17.
`67 Yoneyama at 4:42–45.
`
`30
`
`

`

`
`
`G.
`
`Kagay
`
`77. Kagay discloses an apparatus and method of operating a lost mobile communication
`
`device by receiving a lost mobile communication device message.68 This approach
`
`allows a user to remotely active a suspend mode such as an SMS message, a page,
`
`a telephone call, a telephone call including a DTMF signal, or any other
`
`communication when the user realizes the device is lost.69 The suspend module can
`
`then lock out of use personal features such as a phonebook, a datebook, or a web
`
`browser. 70 In addition, “the security module 120 can display lost mobile
`
`communication device status information on the display 140” that can include “a
`
`banner informing a finder of a lost mobile communication device that the device is
`
`lost” and can also include “a callback number for the finder to dial to contact the
`
`owner of a lost mobile communication device.”71
`
`78. While Kagay discusses displaying information related to the device being lost and
`
`the number of the owner, Kagay does not indicate when such a message is displayed.
`
`Indeed, the suspend mode of Kagay only restricts certain functions such as
`
`accessing a phonebook, calendar, web browser, or numbers that are possible to call.
`
`There is no mention of a lock screen except for a code that is needed to turn off an
`
`audio alert.72 But it is not clear that this code prevents access to the device (the
`
`described use is to turn off an audio alert) or when it is prompted in relationship to
`
`any return/recovery information being displayed.
`
`
`
`68 Kagay at 1:40–43.
`69 Kagay at 2:50–59.
`70 Kagay at 3:1–5.
`71 Kagay at 3:7–13.
`72 Kagay at 3:35–53.
`
`31
`
`

`

`
`
`H.
`
`Struble
`
`79. Struble discloses a system and method for facilitating locating lost or stolen items
`
`such as automobiles, laptop computers, cell phones, cameras, camcorders, or other
`
`portable electronic devices. 73 In Struble, a security server maintains a list of
`
`identification information for lost or stolen articles. 74 To locate such items,
`
`detectors are located at various locations such as shopping malls, merchant
`
`establishments, gas stations, airports, or toll booths.75 These detectors transmit a
`
`request for article identification to the articles that are within range of the
`
`transmission.76 Once the articles, identify themselves, the detectors transmit the
`
`information to a security server to determine if the item has been reported lost or
`
`stolen.77 If so, the detectors transmit a command to the article to cause the article
`
`to become disabled, trigger an alarm on the article, or display a message on the
`
`article.78
`
`80. Though Struble is directed at the return of lost or stolen devices, Struble is not
`
`concerned with protecting the information on the device versus returning the device.
`
`To that end, Struble does not mention a lock screen to protect the device. Struble
`
`does describe the use of a “secret code” to allow the device to power up.79 However,
`
`this code is used in the context of enabling a disabled device, which prevents the
`
`device from powering on and cannot perform the required displaying steps from
`
`
`
`73 Struble at 3:43–47.
`74 Struble at 2:1–2.
`75 Struble at 2:5–8.
`76 Struble at 2:8–10.
`77 Struble at 2:18–21.
`78 Struble at 2:21–25.
`79 Struble at 11:20–24.
`
`32
`
`

`

`
`
`data stored within its memory since displaying happens after the item is disabled.80
`
`Rather, Struble discloses an embodiment where the security apparatus is coupled
`
`to an article rather than being the article itself.81 In this embodiment, the lost device
`
`is not performing the receiving, displaying, initiating/changing steps as required.
`
`Even in the case where the article is performing the steps, the article cannot disable
`
`itself and continue to perform subsequent steps. Even if the device displays the
`
`message (and hence is not disabled), the secret code does not constitute a lock
`
`screen to protect the device as it is only used to “stop the display of the message on
`
`the article.”82
`
`I.
`
`Bean
`
`81. Bean discloses a method for return-to-owner security lockout for an electronic
`
`device.83 When the device is turned ‘ON’ or possibly at other times, the user is
`
`prompted for a valid security bypass which could consist of a password, a personal
`
`identification number (PIN), a coded radio frequency (RF) or infrared (IR) Signal,
`
`a bar code Scan, a retinal Scan, a fingerprint Scan, or a key.84 If a valid security
`
`bypass is received, the device operates normally. However, if an invalid security
`
`bypass is received, the device is disabled and the user interface of the device is used
`
`to display owner information.85
`
`
`
`80 Struble at Figure 7.
`81 Struble at 3:1–10.
`82 Struble at 12:27–40.
`83 Bean ¶ 10.
`84 Bean ¶ 29.
`85 Bean ¶ 11.
`
`33
`
`

`

`
`
`82. While Bean displays return/recovery information, Bean does not do so before a lock
`
`screen. In fact, the prompt for a security bypass happens before any such
`
`displaying.86 “At some point during start-up, the device halts the start-up process
`
`and waits for a lockout bypass.”87 If the user inputs a valid security bypass, no
`
`displaying of any return/recovery information is performed and the device
`
`“operates normally.”88 Only if the user inputs an invalid security bypass is any
`
`displaying performed.89 Bean only performs such display after the user inputs an
`
`invalid security bypass.90
`
`83. Additionally, Bean does not disclose any remote initiating or changing of
`
`return/recovery information with or without assistance by the user. Instead, “the
`
`owner can update the owner information when the device is not disabled,” 91
`
`indicating that the user needs physical access to an unlocked device to modify the
`
`ownership information.
`
`J.
`
`Jenne
`
`84. Jenne discloses a system for displaying commercial messages (advertisements)
`
`during “a user wait time” with examples such as during booting, waking up from
`
`sleep mode, virus scanning, screen savers, long file downloads, software
`
`installation, or disk scanning.92 Jenne states that users may face unavoidable wait
`
`
`
`86 Bean ¶¶ 11, 14.
`87 Bean ¶ 37.
`88 Bean ¶¶ 11, 37.
`89 Bean ¶¶ 11, 14.
`90 Bean ¶¶ 11, 14.
`91 Bean ¶ 27.
`92 Jenne ¶¶ 13, 21.
`
`34
`
`

`

`
`
`periods during these events and would be a captive audience.93 Jenne indicates that
`
`that those unavoidable wait period could be monetized to “generate an
`
`advertisement revenue stream from every computer sold with this feature.”94
`
`85. Jenne proposes to do so using a system where computer manufacturers can update
`
`advertisements in the “memory 520” on the computer through the Internet.95 These
`
`advertisements are then displayed during the wait times when the use is a captive
`
`audience.96
`
`86. Jenne does not provide any disclosure related to device security or recovery. There
`
`are no password screens that prevent unauthorized users from accessing the device
`
`nor does remotely changing return/recovery information by the owner appear. In
`
`one sentence, Jenne states that “other information could be displayed such as
`
`announcements, useful productivity tips, utility enhancements and computer
`
`upgrades.”97 However, there is no mention of return/recovery information as a
`
`speculation, nor does it make sense in the context of computer manufacturers
`
`monetizing captive users through advertisements.
`
`K.
`
`Angelo
`
`87. Angelo discloses a system that allows an owner to report a device as missing to a
`
`security station. That security station would then transmit a command to cause a
`
`destructive security action to occur.98 Angelo describes such destructive actions
`
`
`
`93 Jenne ¶ 21.
`94 Jenne ¶ 21.
`95 Jenne ¶ 25.
`96 Jenne ¶¶ 25–27.
`97 Jenne ¶ 22.
`98 Ang