UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`RFCYBER CORP.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2021-00979
`Patent 8,118,218 B2
`
`Before PATRICK R. SCANLON, KEVIN W. CHERRY, and
`KRISTI L. R. SAWERT, Administrative Patent Judges.
`SCANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`IPR2022-01240
`Apple EX1031 Page 1
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`RFCYBER CORP.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2021-00979
`Patent 8,118,218 B2
`
`Before PATRICK R. SCANLON, KEVIN W. CHERRY, and
`KRISTI L. R. SAWERT, Administrative Patent Judges.
`SCANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`IPR2022-01240
`Apple EX1031 Page 1
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co.,
`Ltd. (“Petitioner”) filed a petition to institute inter partes review of
`claims 1–18 of U.S. Patent No. 8,118,218 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’218 patent”).
`Paper 2 (“Pet.”). RFCyber Corp. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary
`Response (Paper 6, “Prelim. Resp.”). With our authorization, Petitioner
`filed a Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response. Paper 8 (“Reply”).
`Patent Owner filed a Sur-Reply. Paper 9 (“Sur-Reply”).
`We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes
`review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). To
`institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information
`presented in the Petition shows “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner
`would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the
`petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons set forth below, we determine
`that the information presented in the Petition does not establish a reasonable
`likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one challenged
`claim. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of the
`’218 patent.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`A. Real Parties in Interest
`Petitioner identifies its real parties in interest as Samsung Electronics
`America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Pet. 2. Patent Owner
`identifies RFCyber Corp. as its real party in interest. Paper 4, 1 (Patent
`Owner’s Mandatory Notices).
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01240
`Apple EX1031 Page 2
`
`
`
`B. Related Matters
`The parties identify the following proceeding as a related matter
`involving the ’218 patent: RFCyber Corp. v. Google LLC, No. 2:20-cv-
`00274 (EDTX); RFCyber Corp. v. LG Electronics, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-00336
`(EDTX); and RFCyber Corp. v. Samsung Electronics Co., 2:20-cv-00335
`(EDTX). Pet. 2–3; Paper 4, 2. The parties also identify the following Board
`proceedings involving petitioner Google LLC and related patents: IPR2021-
`00954 (U.S. Patent No. 8,448,855 B1); IPR2021-00955 (U.S. Patent
`No. 9,189,787 B1); IPR2021-00956 (U.S. Patent No. 9,240,009 B2);
`IPR2021-00957 (U.S. Patent No. 8,118,218 B2); PGR2021-00028 (U.S.
`Patent No. 10,600,046 B2); and PGR2021-00029 (U.S. Patent
`No. 10,600,046 B2). Pet. 3; Paper 4, 1. The parties also identify the
`following Board proceedings filed by Petitioner and involving related
`patents: IPR2021-00978 (U.S. Patent No. 8,448,855 B2); IPR2021-00980
`(U.S. Patent No. 9,189,787 B1); and IPR2021-00981 (U.S. Patent No.
`9,240,009 B2). Pet. 4; Paper 4, 1–2.
`C. The ’218 Patent
`The ’218 patent, titled “Method and Apparatus for Providing
`Electronic Purse,” issued February 21, 2012, with claims 1–18. Ex. 1001,
`codes (45), (54), 8:37–10:63. The ’218 patent “is related to a mechanism
`provided to devices, especially portable devices, functioning as an electronic
`purse (e-purse) to be able to conduct transactions over an open network with
`a payment server without compromising security.” Id. at 1:50–54.
`Figure 2 of the ’218 patent is reproduced below.
`
`IPR2022-01240
`Apple EX1031 Page 3
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2 illustrates shows an exemplary architecture diagram 200 according
`to one embodiment. Id. at 2:63–64, 4:57–59. The architecture includes
`cellphone 202 embedded with a smart card module. Id. at 4:59–60. The
`smart card module is pre-loaded with Mifare emulator 208 for storing
`values. Id. at 4:62–64.
`Cellphone 202 includes purse manager midlet 204, which, for m-
`commerce, can act as an agent to facilitate communications between e-purse
`applet 206 and one or more payment network and servers 210 to conduct
`transactions. Id. at 5:5–9. Purse manager midlet 204 is also configured to
`provide administrative functions such as changing a PIN, viewing a purse
`balance and a history log. Id. at 5:16–18. A card issuer provides security
`authentication module (“SAM”) 212 that is used to enable and authenticate
`transactions between a card and a payment server. Id. at 5:19–22.
`
`IPR2022-01240
`Apple EX1031 Page 4
`
`
`
`For e-commerce, web agent 214 is responsible for interacting with
`RFID reader 216 and network server 210. Id. at 5:30–32. Web agent 214
`sends commands or receives responses through RFID reader 216 to or from
`e-purse applet 206 residing in cellphone 202. Id. at 5:32–35. Web agent
`214 also composes network requests (such as HTTP) and receives responses
`thereto from payment server 210. Id. at 5:35–37.
`D. Challenged Claims
`As noted above, Petitioner challenges claims 1–18 of the ’218 patent.
`Claims 1 and 11 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed
`subject matter and is reproduced below:
`1. A method for providing an e-purse, the method comprising:
`providing a portable device including or communicating with a
`smart card pre-loaded with an emulator configured to
`execute a request from an e-purse applet and provide a
`response the e-purse applet is configured to expect, the
`portable device including a memory space loaded with a
`midlet that is configured to facilitate communication
`between the e-purse applet and a payment server over a
`wireless network, wherein the e-purse applet is downloaded
`and installed in the smart card when the smart card is in
`communication with the payment server, the portable device
`further includes a contactless interface that facilitates
`communication between the e-purse applet in the smart card
`and the payment server over a wired network;
`personalizing the e-purse applet by reading off data from the
`smart card to generate in the smart card one or more
`operation keys that are subsequently used to establish a
`secured channel between the e-purse applet and an e-purse
`security authentication module (SAM) external to the smart
`card, wherein said personalizing the e-purse applet
`comprises:
`
`IPR2022-01240
`Apple EX1031 Page 5
`
`
`
`establishing an initial security channel between the smart
`card and the e-purse SAM to install and personalize the
`e-purse applet in the smart card, and
`creating a security channel on top of the initial security
`channel to protect subsequent operations of the smart
`card with the e-purse SAM, wherein any subsequent
`operation of the emulator is conducted over the security
`channel via the e-purse applet.
`Ex. 1001, 8:37–67.
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner contends that the challenged claims would have been
`unpatentable on the following grounds:1
`Claims Challenged
`35 U.S.C. §
`1–6, 10–14, 18
`103(a)
`7–9, 15–17
`103(a)
`
`Reference(s)/Basis
`Dua,2 GlobalPlatform,3 Philips4
`Dua, GlobalPlatform, Philips,
`Davis5
`Pet. 6. Petitioner supports its challenge with the Declaration of Gerald W.
`Smith (Ex. 1003).
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`In determining whether an invention would have been obvious at the
`time it was made, 35 U.S.C. § 103 requires us to resolve the level of
`
`1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011) (“AIA”), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. Because the ’218 patent has an
`effective filing date before the March 16, 2013, effective date of the
`applicable AIA amendments, we apply the pre-AIA version of 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103.
`2 US 2006/0160060 A1, published July 27, 2006 (Ex. 1004).
`3 GlobalPlatform Card Specification Version 2.1.1 (March 2003) (Ex. 1006).
`4 P5CT072 Secure Dual Interface PKI Smart Card Controller, Koninklijke
`Philips Electronics N.V., Rev. 1.3 (Oct. 4, 2004) (Ex. 1012).
`5 WO 98/49658 A1, published Nov. 5, 1998 (Ex. 1025).
`
`IPR2022-01240
`Apple EX1031 Page 6
`
`
`
`ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the time of the effective filing date of the
`claimed invention. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966). The
`person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person who is presumed
`to have known the relevant art. In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579
`(Fed. Cir. 1995). Factors that may be considered in determining the level of
`ordinary skill in the art include, but are not limited to, the types of problems
`encountered in the art, the sophistication of the technology, and educational
`level of active workers in the field. Id. In a given case, one or more factors
`may predominate. Id.
`Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art
`“would have been knowledgeable regarding mobile payment methods and
`systems pertinent to the ’218 patent.” Pet. 11. Petitioner also contends that
`an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in
`computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering or an
`equivalent, and one year of professional experience relating to mobile
`payment technology, which would have exposed them to concepts like
`GlobalPlatform and SmartMX” and that “[l]ack of professional experience
`can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” Id. at 11–12
`(citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 27–28). Patent Owner states that it “utilizes Petitioner’s
`proposed level of skill in the art,” but only for its Preliminary Response.
`Prelim. Resp. 8.
`Based on our review of the record before us, we find that Petitioner’s
`stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it is consistent
`with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art. Accordingly,
`for the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition.
`
`IPR2022-01240
`Apple EX1031 Page 7
`
`
`
`B. Claim Construction
`In inter partes reviews, the Board interprets claim language using the
`district-court-type standard, as described in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
`1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2020). Under
`that standard, we generally give claim terms their ordinary and customary
`meaning, as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at
`the time of the invention, in light of the language of the claims, the
`specification, and the prosecution history. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at
`1313–14. Although extrinsic evidence, when available, may also be useful
`when construing claim terms under this standard, extrinsic evidence should
`be considered in the context of the intrinsic evidence. See id. at 1317–19.
`Petitioner contends that the claim terms “emulator” and “midlet” are
`defined in the Specification of the ’218 patent, and those definitions should
`be controlling in this proceeding. Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:36–39, 5:9–11;
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Entertainment Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365–66
`(Fed. Cir. 2012)). For all other terms, Petitioner indicates it applies “the
`plain and ordinary meaning to the claims as no specific constructions are
`required.” Id. Patent Owner argues that “claim construction is not required
`to resolve any issues” at this point in the proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 8.
`On the present record, we do not discern a need to construe explicitly
`any claim language because doing so would have no effect on our analysis
`below of Petitioner’s asserted grounds and will not assist in resolving the
`present controversy between the parties. See Nidec Motor Corp. v.
`Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`(stating that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only
`to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs.,
`Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).
`
`IPR2022-01240
`Apple EX1031 Page 8
`
`
`
`C. Asserted Obviousness Based on Dua, GlobalPlatform, and Philips
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1–6, 10–14, and 18 of the ’218 patent are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Dua, GlobalPlatform, and
`Philips. Pet. 17–60. Patent Owner provides arguments addressing this
`asserted ground of unpatentability. Prelim. Resp. 8–19. We first summarize
`the references and then address the parties’ contentions.
`1. Dua
`Dua is a published U.S. patent application entitled “Method and
`Apparatus for Managing Credentials through a Wireless Network.”
`Ex. 1004, code (54). Dua discloses a “system and methodology for
`conducting financial and other transactions using a wireless device.” Id. at
`Abstract. Dua’s wireless device includes a “wallet application” that
`receives, stores, manages, and transmits multiple payment, identification,
`and other confidential information electronically. Id. ¶ 41. Card issuers like
`banks or merchants can develop custom “extensions” which are installed in
`the wallet application and stored in an embedded smart card. Id. ¶¶ 289,
`295. One example of an extension is a stored-value card extension for
`paying subway fare. Id. ¶¶ 290, 293. The stored value card extension
`“need[s] to be programmed” to support “over-the-air reload,” i.e., wireless
`funding of the e-purse. Id. ¶ 293.
`2. GlobalPlatform
`GlobalPlatform Card Specification version 2.1.1 describes the
`“[s]pecifications that shall be implemented on GlobalPlatform smart cards.”
`Ex. 1006, 16. GlobalPlatform describes its own security architecture and
`commands for use in installing and personalizing applications on
`GlobalPlatform cards. Ex. 1006, 65–67, 88–90. GlobalPlatform is a
`“hardware-neutral,” “vendor-neutral,” and “Application independent” “chip
`
`IPR2022-01240
`Apple EX1031 Page 9
`
`
`
`card standard” which “provides a common security and card management
`architecture.” Ex. 1006, 16; Ex. 1008, 290.6 “GlobalPlatform is intended to
`run on top of any secure, multi-application card runtime environment”
`including Java Card. Ex. 1006, 16 (§1), 29 (§3.1). GlobalPlatform specifies
`the card architecture, security architecture, Life Cycle models for smart
`cards and their Applications, the Card Manager, Security Domains for key
`management and establishing Secure Channels. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 51–63.
`GlobalPlatform describes sequences of commands for installing,
`personalizing, and deleting applications on multi-application smart cards.
`Ex. 1006, 65–67, 88–90.
`
`3. Philips
`Philips is a short form specification describing a Secure PKI Smart
`Card Controller for the SmartMX (Memory eXtension) multiple interface
`option platform. Ex. 1012, 1. The Smart Card Controller can be used as
`data memory and program memory. Id. According to Philips, “[t]he
`interface technology is well established in all products of the MIFARE®
`interface platform.” Id. at 2. “Compatibility with existing MIFARE®
`reader infrastructure and the optional free of charge emulation modes of
`MIFARE® 1K and MIFARE® 4K enable fast system integration and
`backward compatibility of standard MIFARE® and ProX family based
`cards.” Id.
`
`4. Independent Claim 1
`Petitioner argues that Dua discloses a system and method for
`conducting financial transactions in which a wireless device includes a
`
`6 We follow Petitioner’s convention of citing to the actual page numbers of
`Exhibit 1008. See Pet. 1 n.2.
`
`IPR2022-01240
`Apple EX1031 Page 10
`
`
`
`wallet application “capable of receiving, storing, managing and transmitting
`multiple payment, identification, and other confidential information
`electronically.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 26, 41, 309). Petitioner also
`argues that Dua’s device has an embedded smart card, but Dua does not
`describe conventional smart card details. Id. at 17–18 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 7,
`215, 295). According to Petitioner, however,
`Dua does refer to credit card organizations “working jointly
`over the last few years to develop specifications that define a
`set of requirements for security and interoperability between
`chip cards and terminals on a global basis, regardless of the
`manufacturer, financial institution, or where the card was used,”
`which a [person having ordinary skill in the art] would
`recognize as including GlobalPlatform.
`Id. at 18 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 14; Ex. 1006, 16; Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 122–124;
`Ex. 1008, 290–91; Ex. 1022, 33).
`In addition, Petitioner asserts that GlobalPlatform discloses a smart
`card management specification or standard useable with Dua’s wallet
`application. Id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 525; Ex. 1006, 16, 32; Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 122–
`124). Petitioner also asserts that both Dua and GlobalPlatform use the Java
`Card operating system, and GlobalPlatform facilitates loading and installing
`issuer specific applications, such as Dua’s extensions. Id. at 18–19 (citing
`Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 195, 216, 498–500; Ex. 1006, 24, 27, 29; Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 124–127;
`Ex. 1008, 290; Ex. 1022, 33). Thus, in Petitioner’s view, one of ordinary
`skill in the art would have been motivated and would have found it obvious
`to have used GlobalPlatform with Dua’s smart cards, wallet application, and
`extensions. Id. at 19 (citing Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 122–128).
`Furthermore, Petitioner argues that Philips Semiconductor SmartMX
`smart cards were well-known dual interface cards designed to work with
`Java Card. Id. (citing Exs. 1010–1013; Ex. 1028 ¶¶ 10, 23; Ex. 1030, 43–
`
`IPR2022-01240
`Apple EX1031 Page 11
`
`
`
`44; Ex. 1031, 32:23–36; Ex. 1032 ¶ 11). Thus, Petitioner argues that one of
`ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated and would have found it
`obvious to have used a Philips smart card in Dua’s wireless device. Id. at 20
`(citing Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 132–133).
`Petitioner next provides analysis purporting to show where each
`limitation recited in independent claim 1 is disclosed by the combination of
`Dua, GlobalPlatform, and Philips. Id. at 20–51. Notably, Petitioner maps
`Dua’s wireless devices to the portable device of claim 1, Dua’s wallet
`application to the midlet, Dua’s secure value card extension (“SVCE”) to the
`e-purse applet, Dua’s Wireless Credential Manager (“WCM”) to the e-purse
`SAM, and Philips’s MIFARE® emulator to the claimed emulator. Id. at 20–
`21. Petitioner also contends that Dua’s issuer card management system
`(“ICMS”) corresponds to the payment server of claim 1. Id. at 25, 28–29
`(citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 40, 43–44, 57, 107, 253–256, 398, 422, Figs. 1, 3, 8;
`Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 160–162).
`Regarding the limitation “wherein the e-purse applet is downloaded
`and installed in the smart card when the smart card is in communication with
`the payment server,” Petitioner notes that Dua’s SVCEs (the e-purse applets)
`are distributed via Dua’s WCM and concedes that “Dua does not specifically
`disclose that its extensions are installed ‘when the smart card is in
`communication with the payment server’ [(i.e., Dua’s ICMS)] because Dua’s
`WCM (e-purse SAM) delivers SIP payload.”7 Id. at 29 (citing Ex. 1004
`¶¶ 215–216, 289, 295; Ex. 1003 ¶ 165).
`
`7 “SIP” refers to “Session Initiation Protocol.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 42. Dua discloses
`that SIP payload is delivered “between the WCM and the wallet application
`on the wireless device,” and may include “software extensions the issuer
`wants to register with the wallet application.” Id. ¶ 215.
`
`IPR2022-01240
`Apple EX1031 Page 12
`
`
`
`Petitioner makes two arguments asserting that installing the
`extensions when the smart card is in communication with the payment server
`would have been obvious. First, Petitioner contends that it is a mere design
`choice as to whether to use Dua’s WCM or ICMS to deliver the SCVE, and
`it would have been obvious to install Dua’s extensions from the ICMS via
`the WCM. Id. at 29–30 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 166). Petitioner further contends
`that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art “to
`complete the installation of the SVCE while the smart card was in
`communication with the ICMS so that the issuer could verify that the
`download and installation was successful to authorize use of the SVCE.” Id.
`at 30 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 167; Ex. 1008, 435, 651). Second, Petitioner
`contends that this limitation would have been obvious to one of ordinary
`skill in the art over the combination of Dua and GlobalPlatform. Id. at 30–
`32.
`
`a) Design Choice
`In response to Petitioner’s first argument, Patent Owner argues that
`Dua does not disclose that its smart card is in communication with a
`payment server while an extension is being downloaded and installed, and
`one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify Dua
`to do so. Prelim. Resp. 11–12. We agree with Patent Owner for the
`following reasons.
`To support its first argument, Petitioner argues that: (1) Dua’s ICMS
`already issues requests to the WCM; (2) the WCM receives files from the
`ICMS and interprets and acts on the information; (3) the WCM can
`communicate with different issuer systems (e.g., the ICMS) in real-time or
`batch mode; and (4) Dua discloses making sure the appropriate software is
`downloaded and on the mobile device. Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 57, 199,
`
`IPR2022-01240
`Apple EX1031 Page 13
`
`
`
`216, 221, 253, 285, 447). Although these disclosures establish that Dua’s
`WCM and ICMS communicate with one another, neither the Petition nor
`Mr. Smith explains sufficiently why these disclosures would have caused
`one of ordinary skill in the art to use Dua’s ICMS to install extensions via
`the WCM. See Pet. 29–30; Ex. 1003 ¶ 166. At best, the cited disclosures
`suggest that one of ordinary skill in the art could make the proposed
`modification, not that they would make the modification. See Belden Inc. v.
`Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[O]bviousness
`concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have
`been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to
`arrive at the claimed invention.”).
`As for the assertion that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
`completed installation of the extension while the smart card was in
`communication with the ICMS so that the issuer could verify installation,
`both the Petition and Mr. Smith rely solely on Exhibit 10088 to support the
`assertion. See Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 167; Ex. 1008, 435, 651); Ex. 1003
`¶ 167 (citing Ex. 1008, 435, 651). The two cited passages of Exhibit 1008
`are:
`
`Communications procedures between a terminal and a smart
`card are always based on the master–slave principle. This
`means that the terminal, acting as the master, sends a command
`to the card, which as the slave immediately processes the
`command, generates a response and returns its response to the
`terminal,
`
`and
`
`In principle, the entire administrative process must be
`performed in an atomic manner by the card management
`
`8 Smart Card Handbook Third Edition, by Wolfgang Rankl and Wolfgang
`Effing (2003).
`
`IPR2022-01240
`Apple EX1031 Page 14
`
`
`
`system, since if it is somehow possible to prevent
`administration operations from being fully completed by means
`of some sort of interruption to the process, it must be possible
`to restore the original state.
`Ex. 1008, 435, 651. The first passage broadly describes communications
`between a smart card and a terminal; this passage does not appear to teach or
`suggest establishing communication with a smart card to verify an
`installation to the smart card. The second passage discusses preventing an
`interruption to administrative operations. As an example, Exhibit 1008
`describes the operation of “downloading a Java applet into a SIM,”9 but
`describes avoiding any technical consequences for the SIM functionality in
`the event of a broken connection, such as a coverage gap in a tunnel. Id. at
`651. Thus, this passage does not appear to teach or suggest verifying an
`installation to a smart card. Furthermore, neither the Petition nor Mr. Smith
`explains sufficiently how either of these passages would have caused one of
`ordinary skill in the art to reconfigure Dua to relocate the download
`functionality from the WCM to the ICMS and also consider establishing
`communication between Dua’s ICMS and the smart card while Dua’s
`extension was being downloaded for the purpose of verifying installation.
`In view of the above discussion, we do not find Petitioner’s first
`argument persuasive on the record before us.
`
`9 “SIM” refers to a type of smart card referred to as the “subscriber identity
`module” used in telecommunications. Ex, 1008. 13.
`
`IPR2022-01240
`Apple EX1031 Page 15
`
`
`
`b) Obviousness over Dua and GlobalPlatform
`For its second argument, Petitioner argues that GlobalPlatform
`discloses using APDU10 commands between a Host and an Issuer Security
`Domain (“ISD”) to install an application. Pet. 30–31 (citing Ex. 1006, 66,
`Fig. 6-3). In particular, Petitioner contends that GlobalPlatform’s Host
`sends an “INSTALL [for load]” command to the ISD. Id. at 31–32.
`According to Petitioner, the Host is defined as “the back end systems that
`support the GlobalPlatform system,” and one of ordinary skill in the art
`“knew that such ‘back end systems’ included off-card entities, such as
`payment servers like those of Dua’s ICMSs.” Id. at 31 n.15 (citing Ex. 1003
`¶ 182; Ex. 1006, 27, Fig. 2-1). Petitioner then contends that
`[t]hese exchange[s] of APDU commands, which are required by
`GlobalPlatform’s Security Domains, show that Dua’s SVCEs
`(e-purse applets) are “downloaded and installed in the smart
`card when the smart card is in communication with” Dua’s
`ICMS (payment server) at least because INSTALL [for install]
`[sic] APDU commands are communicated between the Host
`and ISD.
`Id. at 32 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 71–78, 170–172; Ex. 1006, 30, 39, 102).
`In response, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner does not support its
`assertion that GlobalPlatform’s Host equates to Dua’s ICMS. Prelim.
`Resp. 13 (citing Pet. 31 n.15).
`We agree again with Patent Owner. As noted above, Petitioner relies
`on paragraph 182 of Mr. Smith’s declaration and GlobalPlatform’s Figure
`2-1 to support its assertion. The cited testimony, however, states that
`GlobalPlatform uses the term “Host” “for any entity not on the card, such as
`
`10 In GlobalPlatform, “APDU” refers to Application Protocol Data Unit and
`is defined as a “[s]tandard communication messaging protocol between a
`card accepting device and a smart card.” Ex. 1006, 18.
`
`IPR2022-01240
`Apple EX1031 Page 16
`
`
`
`a POS terminal, server, [or] other external off-card management system.”
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 182. Although this is a broad statement that does not necessarily
`preclude the Host from being a payment server, it fails to state explicitly that
`the Host is a payment server, such as Dua’s ICMS, or suggest relocating the
`download functionality of Dua’s WCM to Dua’s ICMS. Id. As such, this
`testimony fails to provide evidentiary support for Petitioner’s position. Mr.
`Smith also cites GlobalPlatform’s Figure 2-1 as illustrating various off-card
`entities. Id. Figure 2-1, reproduced below, shows the GlobalPlatform
`architecture.
`
`
`Figure 2-1 shows the GlobalPlatform architecture, which “is designed to
`provide Card Issuers with the system management architecture for managing
`. . . smart cards.” Ex. 1006, 27. Figure 2-1 depicts the GlobalPlatform
`
`IPR2022-01240
`Apple EX1031 Page 17
`
`
`
`architecture as interacting with various entities, such as “Key Management
`Systems,” “Card Management Systems,” “Personalization Systems,”
`“Applications Servers,” and “Terminal Management Systems,” but does not
`specifically identify a payment server. Neither the Petition nor Mr. Smith
`explains sufficiently why Dua’s ICMS fits into any of the particular off-card
`entities shown in Figure 2-1 or why a person of ordinary skill would be
`motivated, based on this disclosure, to relocate the particular download
`functionality (the download of Dua’s SCVE’s) from Dua’s WCM to Dua’s
`ICMS. At best, this evidence shows that the functionality could be relocated
`to the ICMS, but provides an insufficient explanation why a person of
`ordinary skill would have relocated it. See Belden Inc., 805 F.3d at 1073.
`Accordingly, we are not persuaded on this record that one of ordinary skill
`in the art would have known that GlobalPlatform’s Host includes a payment
`server.
`Accordingly, we do not find Petitioner’s second argument persuasive
`on the record before us.
`
`c) Summary
`For the above reasons, we are not persuaded that the combination of
`Dua, GlobalPlatform, and Philips discloses “wherein the e-purse applet is
`downloaded and installed in the smart card when the smart card is in
`communication with the payment server” recited in claim 1. Accordingly,
`we determine Petitioner has not met its burden to show a reasonable
`likelihood it would prevail with respect to the contention that claim 1 is
`unpatentable over the combination of Dua, GlobalPlatform, and Philips.
`5. Independent Claim 11
`Independent claim 11 recites “[a] system for providing an e-purse”
`that recites limitation substantially similar to the limitations of claim 1,
`
`IPR2022-01240
`Apple EX1031 Page 18
`
`
`
`including the limitation “wherein the e-purse applet is downloaded from the
`payment server when the smart card is in communication with the payment
`server.” Ex. 1001, 9:51–10:19. Petitioner largely relies on the same
`analysis made in connection with claim 1 for showing where each limitation
`recited in independent claim 11 would have been obvious in view of the
`combination of Dua, GlobalPlatform, and Philips. Pet. 51–54. Thus,
`Petitioner’s challenge to claim 11 is based on the same deficient assertions
`as to the combination of Dua, GlobalPlatform, and Philips as discussed
`above in the analysis of the challenge to independent claim 1. For these
`same reasons, we find that Petitioner has not met its burden to show a
`reasonable likelihood that claim 11 is unpatentable over the combination of
`Dua, GlobalPlatform, and Philips.
`6. Claims 2–10 and 12–18
`Claims 2–10 depend from claim 1 and, thus, contain all the limitations
`of claim 1, and claims 12–18 depend from claim 11 and, thus, contain all the
`limitations of claim 11. Petitioner’s challenges to dependent claims 2–10
`and 12–18 do not overcome the deficiencies discussed above with respect to
`the challenge to independent claims 1 and 11. See Pet. 55‒60. Accordingly,
`for the same reasons discussed above in connection with claims 1 and 11, we
`find Petitioner has not met its burden to show a reasonable likelihood that
`claims 2–10 and 12–18 are unpatentable over the combination of Dua,
`GlobalPlatform, and Philips.
`D. Asserted Obviousness Based on Dua, GlobalPlatform,
`Philips, and Davis
`Petitioner challenges claims 7–9 and 15–17 as obvious under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Dua, GlobalPlatform, Philips, and Davis. Pet. 61–
`74. Each of these claims depends from either independent claim 1 or
`
`IPR2022-01240
`Apple EX1031 Page 19
`
`
`
`independent claim 11 and, thus, contains all the limitations thereof. Thus,
`Petitioner relies in part on the same assertions presented in the challenge of
`independent claims 1 and 11 based on Dua, GlobalPlatform, and Philips,
`discussed above, in support of its contentions that claims 7–9 and 15–17
`would have been obvious over Dua, GlobalPlatform, Philips, and Davis. Id.
`at 61.
`Accordingly, each of these additional grounds suffers from the same
`deficiencies noted above (see supra § III.C.4) with respect to the proposed
`combination of Dua, GlobalPlatform, and Philips. Therefore, for the same
`reasons discussed above, we determine that the information presented in the
`Petition fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would
`prevail in showing that claims 7–9 and 15–17 are unpatentable.
`E. Discretion Under 35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a)
`Patent Owner argues that we should exercise our discretion to deny
`institution under § 314(a). Prelim. Resp. 19–27; Sur-Reply. Petitioner
`argues that discretionary denial is not appropriate in this case. Pet. 8–11;
`Reply. Because we are not persuaded the Petition demonstrates sufficiently
`a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least
`one challenged claim (see supra §§ III.C., III.D.), we need not reach Patent
`Owner’s arguments regarding discretionary denial under § 314(a).
`IV. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, we do not institute inter partes review.
`V. ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that the Petition is denied as to all challenged claims of
`the ’218 patent; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that no inter partes review is instituted.
`
`IP
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
