McNair Decl., IPR2023-00425
`U.S. Patent 6,993,658
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`DYNAPASS IP HOLDINGS LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00425
`U.S. Patent 6,993,658
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF BRUCE MCNAIR
`
`
`
`
`Unified Ex. 1003 – IPR2023-00425, Page 1
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC
`
`

`

`McNair Decl., IPR2023-00425
`U.S. Patent 6,993,658
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`B.
`
`I.
`II.
`
`Background and Qualifications ...................................................................... 5
`Legal Framework ............................................................................................ 8
`A. Obviousness .......................................................................................... 8
`i. General Framework ....................................................................... 9
`ii. Analogous Art ............................................................................. 10
`iii. Combining Known Elements in the Art, Common Sense ........... 11
`iv. Teaching Away ............................................................................ 14
`v. Secondary Considerations ........................................................... 14
`Claim Construction ............................................................................. 16
`i.
`“Cell phone network” .................................................................. 17
`ii. “Not known to the user” .............................................................. 17
`iii. “a control module…configured to…”; “a communication
`module configured to…”; “an authentication module configured
`to…” ................................................................................................... 20
`i.
`“a control module…configured to” ............................................. 21
`ii. “a communication module configured to” .................................. 21
`iii. “an authentication module configured to” ................................... 21
`Summary of my Opinions ............................................................................. 22
`III.
`IV. Technical Background .................................................................................. 23
`A.
`Security services ................................................................................. 23
`B.
`Authentication techniques .................................................................. 26
`i. Passwords .................................................................................... 26
`ii. Challenge response ...................................................................... 27
`
`Unified Ex. 1003 – IPR2023-00425, Page 2
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC
`
`

`

`McNair Decl., IPR2023-00425
`U.S. Patent 6,993,658
`
`iii. One time passwords ..................................................................... 29
`iv. Multifactor authentication ........................................................... 30
`v. Smart cards .................................................................................. 31
`Time-bound access ............................................................................. 32
`C.
`Level of Skill of a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art ........................ 33
`V.
`VI. Overview of U.S. Patent No. 6,993,658 ....................................................... 34
`A.
`Prosecution History ............................................................................ 39
`VII. Grounds of Unpatentability .......................................................................... 41
`A. Ground 1: Claim 5 Is Obvious over Veneklase in view of Jonsson
`
`41
`i. Overview of Veneklase ............................................................... 41
`ii. Overview of Jonsson ................................................................... 43
`iii. Analogous Art ............................................................................. 45
`iv. Claim 5 ........................................................................................ 46
`Motivations to Combine Veneklase and Jonsson ............................... 60
`Ground 2: Claims 1 and 3-6 Are Obvious over Kew in view of
`B.
`Sormunen ...................................................................................................... 75
`i. Overview of Kew ........................................................................ 75
`ii. Overview of Sormunen ................................................................ 78
`iii. Analogous Art ............................................................................. 79
`iv. Claim 5 ........................................................................................ 80
`Motivations to Combine Kew and Sormunen ..................................... 89
`v. Claim 6 ...................................................................................... 104
`vi. Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 105
`vii. Claim 3 ...................................................................................... 109
`
`Unified Ex. 1003 – IPR2023-00425, Page 3
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC
`
`

`

`McNair Decl., IPR2023-00425
`U.S. Patent 6,993,658
`
`viii. Claim 4 ...................................................................................... 111
`VIII. Conclusion .................................................................................................. 112
`
`
`
`Unified Ex. 1003 – IPR2023-00425, Page 4
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC
`
`

`

`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`McNair Decl., IPR2023-00425
`U.S. Patent 6,993,658
`
`
`I.
`
`1. My name is Bruce McNair, and I am over 21 years old and otherwise
`
`competent to make this Declaration. I make this Declaration based on facts and
`
`matters within my own knowledge and on information provided to me by others,
`
`and, if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify to the matters set
`
`forth herein.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained as a technical expert witness in this matter by
`
`Counsel for the Petitioner, Unified Patents, LLC (“Petitioner”) to provide my
`
`independent opinions on certain issues requested by Counsel for Petitioner relating
`
`to the accompanying Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,993,658
`
`(“the ’658 Patent”), challenging Claims 1 and 3-6 (the “Challenged Claims”). My
`
`compensation in this matter is not based on the substance of my opinions or on the
`
`outcome of this matter. I have been informed that Dynapass IP Holdings LLC
`
`(“Patent Owner”) is the purported owner of the ’658 Patent. I note that I have no
`
`financial interest in Petitioner or Patent Owner, and I have no other interest in the
`
`outcome of this matter.
`
`3.
`
`I received my Bachelors of Engineering and Masters of Engineering -
`
`Electrical Engineering from the Stevens Institute of Technology in 1971 and 1974,
`
`respectively. I also completed qualifiers and course work for a Ph.D. in computer
`
`science.
`
`Unified Ex. 1003 – IPR2023-00425, Page 5
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC
`
`

`

`McNair Decl., IPR2023-00425
`U.S. Patent 6,993,658
`
`I have over 55 years of industry experience in the areas of electronic
`
`4.
`
`circuits, including substantial time spent working with voice-input technology.
`
`Starting in 1963, I worked as an amateur radio operator in 1963. My experience
`
`includes seven years as a GS-0855 Electronic Engineer working for the US Army
`
`Electronics Command, 24 years as a Member of Technical Staff at AT&T/Bell
`
`Laboratories and 15 years as a full-time faculty member of the Electrical and
`
`Computer Engineering Department at Stevens Institute of Technology.
`
`5. While I was working for the US Army Electronics Command at Fort
`
`Monmouth, NJ, I was responsible for support of TSEC/KG-27 bulk encryptor, a
`
`classified encryption device used by the Army for protecting multi-channel digital
`
`voice communications lines. Also, while I was at Fort Monmouth, my
`
`responsibilities included research and development for the cryptographic aspects of
`
`SINCGARS, the Single Channel Ground/Airborne Radio System.
`
`6.
`
`During my employment at AT&T/Bell Labs, in the early 1980s, I
`
`worked closely with the Acoustics and Speech Processing Research Department and
`
`used their research to implement low-bit rate speech coding for a secure voice
`
`terminal. Later, in the mid-1980s, I managed a group that designed speech
`
`processing for speaker verification and natural language speech recognition As part
`
`of this work, I used the AT&T 3450 cellular telephone which employed voice
`
`dialing. I also initiated and led an IR&D (independent research and development)
`
`Unified Ex. 1003 – IPR2023-00425, Page 6
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC
`
`

`

`McNair Decl., IPR2023-00425
`U.S. Patent 6,993,658
`
`project to investigate and prototype a secure voice terminal based on newly evolving
`
`AT&T high-speed digital services.
`
`7.
`
`From 1987 until 1994, I led the AT&T Bell Labs Security and System
`
`Reliability Architecture Group. In the course of this activity, I investigated security
`
`in all aspects of AT&T products and services. I also led efforts to employ the newly
`
`developed AT&T Smart Card as a personal authenticator for use in the AT&T
`
`networks operations centers.
`
`8.
`
`I am named on multiple domestic and international patents related to
`
`encryption devices, voice-based security systems, and network security.
`
`9.
`
`As part of my work in forming my opinions in connection with this
`
`proceeding, I have reviewed the following materials, which I believe those in the
`
`field would reasonably rely upon in forming opinions regarding the subject matter
`
`of this proceeding:
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`1001
`U.S. Patent 6,993,658
`1002
`Prosecution History File of Application 09/519,829
`
`1005
`
`1006
`1007
`1008
`
`to Veneklase
`
`European Patent Application No. 084451
`(“Veneklase”)
`PCT Patent Publication No. WO 96/00485 to Jonsson (“Jonsson”)
`PCT Patent Publication No. WO 95/19593 to Kew (“Kew”)
`PCT Patent Publication No. WO 97/31306
`to Sormunen
`
`Unified Ex. 1003 – IPR2023-00425, Page 7
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC
`
`

`

`McNair Decl., IPR2023-00425
`U.S. Patent 6,993,658
`
`
`(“Sormunen”)
`Li Gong, “Optimal Authentication Protocols Resistant to Password
`Guessing Attacks," Proceedings The Eighth IEEE Computer
`Security Foundations Workshop, 1995, pp. 24-29, doi:
`10.1109/CSFW.1995.518549.
`U.S. Patent 3,938,091
`IETF RFC2289, “A One-Time Password System,” February 1989,
`available at https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2289.html
`U.S. Patent 5,276,444
`S.A. Sherman, R. Skibo, R.S. Murray, “Secure Network Access
`Using Multiple Applications of AT&T’s Smart Card,” AT&T
`Technical Journal, September/October 1994
`Lt. Gen. Charles R. Myers, “Vietnam Studies: Division-Level
`Communications, 1962-1973”, US Department of the Army, 1982,
`Ch. 8, retrieved from https://history.army.mil/catalog/pubs/90/90-
`11.html December 13, 2022.
`
`Z. J. Haas and S. Paul, "Limited-lifetime shared-access in mobile
`systems," Proceedings
`IEEE
`International Conference on
`Communications ICC
`'95, 1995, pp. 1404-1408 vol.3, doi:
`10.1109/ICC.1995.524434
`Mobivity, A Brief History of Text Messaging, Sept. 27, 2012,
`available
`at
`https://www.mobivity.com/mobivity-blog/a-brief-
`history-of-text-messaging
`
`1009
`
`1010
`1011
`
`1012
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`
`
`II. LEGAL FRAMEWORK
`
`A. Obviousness
`
`10.
`
`I am a technical expert and do not offer any legal opinions. However, I
`
`have been informed about certain legal principles regarding patentability and related
`
`matters under United States patent law, which I have applied in performing my
`
`Unified Ex. 1003 – IPR2023-00425, Page 8
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC
`
`

`

`analysis and arriving at my technical opinions in this matter.
`
`McNair Decl., IPR2023-00425
`U.S. Patent 6,993,658
`
`
`i.
`
`General Framework
`
`11.
`
`I am informed that a person cannot obtain a patent on an invention if
`
`the differences between the invention and the prior art are such that the subject
`
`matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`art obvious at the time of the invention. I am informed that a conclusion of
`
`obviousness may be founded upon more than a single item of prior art. I am also
`
`informed that obviousness is determined by evaluating the following factors: (1) the
`
`scope and content of the prior art, (2) the differences between the prior art and the
`
`claim at issue, (3) the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, and (4) secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness. In addition, the obviousness inquiry should not
`
`be done in hindsight. Instead, the obviousness inquiry should be done through the
`
`eyes of a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`12.
`
`In considering whether certain prior art renders a particular patent claim
`
`obvious, I am informed that one must consider the scope and content of the prior art,
`
`examples of which include disclosures in patents, trade publications, journal articles,
`
`conference papers, industry standards, product literature and documentation, texts
`
`describing competitive technologies, requests for comment published by standard
`
`setting organizations, and materials from industry conferences.
`
`13.
`
`I am informed that for a patent claim to be found obvious, the proper
`
`Unified Ex. 1003 – IPR2023-00425, Page 9
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC
`
`

`

`McNair Decl., IPR2023-00425
`U.S. Patent 6,993,658
`
`perspective to consider is that of a person having ordinary skill in the art (often
`
`referred to as a “PHOSITA,” “POSITA,” or “POSA”) at the time of the alleged
`
`invention. I am informed that the factors to consider in determining the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art include (1) the educational level and experience of people
`
`working in the field at the time the invention was made, (2) the types of problems
`
`faced in the art and the solutions found to those problems, and (3) the sophistication
`
`of the technology in the field.
`
`ii.
`
`Analogous Art
`
`14.
`
`I am informed that for a prior art reference to be proper for use in an
`
`obviousness analysis, the reference must be “analogous art” to the claimed
`
`invention. I am informed that a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention
`
`if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even
`
`if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the
`
`problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the
`
`claimed invention). In order for a reference to be “reasonably pertinent” to the
`
`problem, it must logically have commended itself to an inventor's attention in
`
`considering his problem. In determining whether a reference is reasonably pertinent,
`
`one should consider the problem(s) faced by the inventor, as reflected either
`
`explicitly or implicitly, in the specification. Such problems are not limited to those
`
`solved by the purported invention, but the general problem(s) that confronted the
`
`Unified Ex. 1003 – IPR2023-00425, Page 10
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC
`
`

`

`McNair Decl., IPR2023-00425
`U.S. Patent 6,993,658
`
`inventor before the invention was made. I believe that all of the references I
`
`considered in forming my opinions in this IPR are well within the range of references
`
`a person having ordinary skill in the art would have consulted by the time of the
`
`invention to address the type of problems described in the Challenged Claims.
`
`iii. Combining Known Elements in the Art, Common Sense
`
`15.
`
`I am informed that, in order to establish that a claimed invention was
`
`obvious based on a combination of prior art elements, a clear articulation of the
`
`reason(s) why a claimed invention would have been obvious must be provided.
`
`Specifically, I am informed that, under the U.S. Supreme Court’s KSR decision, a
`
`combination of multiple items of prior art renders a patent claim obvious when there
`
`was an apparent reason for a person having ordinary skill at the time of the invention
`
`to combine or modify the prior art. I am informed that such reason may include, but
`
`is not limited to, one or more of the following rationales: (A) combining prior art
`
`methods according to known methods to yield predictable results; (B) substituting
`
`one known element for another to obtain predictable results; (C) using a known
`
`technique to improve a similar device in the same way; (D) applying a known
`
`technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (E)
`
`trying a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions, with a reasonable
`
`expectation of success; (F) identifying that known work in one field of endeavor
`
`may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based
`
`Unified Ex. 1003 – IPR2023-00425, Page 11
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC
`
`

`

`McNair Decl., IPR2023-00425
`U.S. Patent 6,993,658
`
`on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art; or (G) identifying an explicit teaching, suggestion, or
`
`motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the
`
`prior art reference or to combine the prior art references to arrive at the claimed
`
`invention.
`
`16.
`
`I am informed that the test for obviousness is not whether the features
`
`of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
`
`reference, but rather whether one of skill would have been motivated to combine the
`
`teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention. Nevertheless,
`
`I am informed that an invention that is a combination of prior art must do more than
`
`yield predictable results to be non-obvious and that, even where one or more
`
`motivations to combine exist, claims are not necessarily obvious unless a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success
`
`in implementing or applying the proposed combination at the time of the invention.
`
`17.
`
`I also am informed that in conducting an obviousness analysis, a precise
`
`teaching directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim need not be
`
`sought out because it is appropriate to take account of the inferences and creative
`
`steps that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would
`
`employ. In other words, the prior art need not be directed towards solving the same
`
`specific problem as the problem addressed by the patent. Further, the individual prior
`
`Unified Ex. 1003 – IPR2023-00425, Page 12
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC
`
`

`

`McNair Decl., IPR2023-00425
`U.S. Patent 6,993,658
`
`art references themselves need not all be directed towards solving the same problem.
`
`The prior art considered can be directed to any need or problem known in the field
`
`of endeavor at the time of invention and can provide a reason for combining the
`
`elements of the prior art in the manner claimed. Common sense teaches that familiar
`
`items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art will often have been able to fit the teachings of multiple prior
`
`art references like pieces of a puzzle. I am informed that, under the KSR standard,
`
`common sense is important and should be considered in assessing obviousness.
`
`18.
`
`I also am informed that the fact that a particular combination of prior
`
`art elements was “obvious to try” may indicate that the combination was obvious
`
`even if no one attempted the combination. If the combination was obvious to try
`
`(regardless of whether it was actually tried) or leads to anticipated success, then it is
`
`likely the result of ordinary skill and common sense rather than innovation. I am
`
`further informed that in many fields it may be that there is little discussion of obvious
`
`techniques or combinations, and it often may be the case that market demand, rather
`
`than scientific literature or knowledge, will drive the design of an innovation. When
`
`there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite
`
`number of identified, predictable solutions, a person having ordinary skill in the art
`
`has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this
`
`leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation, but of
`
`Unified Ex. 1003 – IPR2023-00425, Page 13
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC
`
`

`

`ordinary skill and common sense.
`
`iv.
`
`Teaching Away
`
`McNair Decl., IPR2023-00425
`U.S. Patent 6,993,658
`
`
`19.
`
`I am informed that it is improper to combine references where the
`
`references teach away from their combination. I am informed that a reference may
`
`be said to teach away when a person of skill, upon reading the reference, would be
`
`discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a
`
`direction divergent from the path that was taken by the patent applicant. In general,
`
`a reference will teach away if it suggests that the line of development flowing from
`
`the reference’s disclosure is unlikely to be productive of the result sought by the
`
`patentee. I am informed that a reference teaches away, for example, if (1) the
`
`combination would produce a seemingly inoperative device, or (2) the references
`
`leave the impression that the product would not have the property sought by the
`
`patentee. However, I am informed that a reference does not teach away if it merely
`
`expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not criticize,
`
`discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation into the invention claimed. Further,
`
`a person of skill will often appreciate that different courses of action often have
`
`simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and I am informed the existence of such
`
`does not necessarily obviate a motivation to combine.
`
`v.
`
`Secondary Considerations
`
`20.
`
`I am informed that even if a prima facie case of obviousness is
`
`Unified Ex. 1003 – IPR2023-00425, Page 14
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC
`
`

`

`McNair Decl., IPR2023-00425
`U.S. Patent 6,993,658
`
`established, the final determination of obviousness must also consider “secondary
`
`considerations” if presented. I am informed that in most instances, the patentee raises
`
`these secondary considerations of non-obviousness. In that context, the patentee
`
`argues an invention would not have been obvious in view of these considerations,
`
`which include: (a) commercial success of a product due to the merits of the claimed
`
`invention; (b) a long-felt, but unsatisfied need for the invention; (c) failure of others
`
`to find the solution provided by the claimed invention; (d) deliberate copying of the
`
`invention by others; (e) unexpected results achieved by the invention; (f) praise of
`
`the invention by others skilled in the art; (g) lack of independent simultaneous
`
`invention within a comparatively short space of time; (h) teaching away from the
`
`invention in the prior art.
`
`21.
`
`I am further informed that secondary-considerations evidence is only
`
`relevant if the offering party establishes a connection, or nexus, between the
`
`evidence and the claimed invention. The nexus cannot be based on prior art features.
`
`For example, if commercial success of products allegedly embodying the claims is
`
`presented as a secondary indicium of non-obviousness, the patent owner must show
`
`that such success is due to features of the claimed invention, and not features
`
`unrelated to the claimed invention or that already existed in the prior art. The
`
`establishment of a nexus is a question of fact. While I understand that the Patent
`
`Owner here has not offered any secondary considerations at this time, I will
`
`Unified Ex. 1003 – IPR2023-00425, Page 15
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC
`
`

`

`McNair Decl., IPR2023-00425
`U.S. Patent 6,993,658
`
`supplement my opinions in the event that Patent Owner raises secondary
`
`considerations during the course of this proceeding.
`
`B. Claim Construction
`
`22.
`
`I am informed that in performing an obviousness analysis, it is
`
`necessary to understand the scope of the claims. I am also informed the first step in
`
`an unpatentability analysis, therefore, involves construing the claims. Second, the
`
`construed claim language is then compared to the disclosures of the prior art.
`
`23.
`
`I am informed that claims are generally given their ordinary and custom
`
`meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention,
`
`in light of the patent specification. I am informed that, for the purposes of claim
`
`construction, expert testimony may be helpful to provide background on the
`
`technology at issue, to explain how an invention works, to ensure an understanding
`
`of the technical aspects of the patent is consistent with that of a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art, or to establish that a particular term in the patent had a
`
`particular meaning in the pertinent field at the time of the invention. However, I am
`
`also informed testimony from a technical expert is generally less reliable than the
`
`patent itself and its prosecution history in determining the meaning of claim terms,
`
`and it is not the role of technical experts to supplant courts and PTAB judges in
`
`applying principles of claim interpretation.
`
`24. For the purposes of my analysis below, I have reviewed the claim
`
`Unified Ex. 1003 – IPR2023-00425, Page 16
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC
`
`

`

`McNair Decl., IPR2023-00425
`U.S. Patent 6,993,658
`
`language, the specification, and the prosecution history. For the purposes of my
`
`analysis below, I do not believe that any of the claim terms require a specific
`
`construction beyond the plain and ordinary meaning as would be understood by a
`
`POSITA. That being said, I address certain claim terms below.
`
`i.
`
`“Cell phone network”
`
`25. Claims 1 and 5 of the’ 658 Patent require that the personal
`
`communication device communicates over a cell phone network. The ’658 Patent
`
`does not use the term cell phone network in the specification, but it does disclose
`
`that “[t]he communication module 118 forwards tokens 156 to a text messaging
`
`service provider 104, which may be a pager or mobile phone service provider.”
`
`EX1001, 5:32-40; see also 9:45-54, 4:13-17, 3:1-3, 2:28-31, 2:6-8, 1:7-11. Indeed,
`
`the ’658 Patent discloses an embodiment in which “the communication module 118
`
`is a phone dialer 622, the personal communication device 106 is a pager 624, and
`
`the text messaging service provider is a paging service 626.” EX1001, 10:31-34. In
`
`addition, claim 4 of the ’658 Patent, which, depends from claim 1, requires that “the
`
`personal communication device is a pager.” EX1001, 12:18-19. Thus, it is my
`
`opinion that a POSITA would have understood that the cell phone network, as
`
`claimed by the ’658 Patent, must at least include mobile device and pager service
`
`provider communication networks.
`
`ii.
`
`“Not known to the user”
`
`Unified Ex. 1003 – IPR2023-00425, Page 17
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC
`
`

`

`McNair Decl., IPR2023-00425
`U.S. Patent 6,993,658
`
`26. Claims 1 and 5 of the ’658 Patent require that the token is not known to
`
`the user. While the specification never explicitly discusses this limitation, it is clear
`
`from the embodiments disclosed in the ’658 Patent that this term must mean “not
`
`known to the user before being sent to the user as part of the authentication process.”
`
`This is because the ’658 Patent distinguishes between “secret information known to
`
`the user, such as the passcode” and “information provided to the user through an
`
`object possessed by the user, such as the token.” EX1005, 2:11-15. The ’658 Patent
`
`further discloses that “token 156 is preferably provided only to the user 108 by the
`
`user authentication server 102 through the user’s personal communication device
`
`106 on an as needed basis,” and in certain embodiments, “the user 108 combines the
`
`token 156 with the passcode 154 to form a password 158.” EX1005, 4:41-44, 4:52-
`
`53. Indeed, Figures 2A-D of the ’658 Patent disclose “login screens that can be used
`
`in conjunction with various embodiments of the invention,” and all three of the
`
`embodiments require the user to eventually be provided the token in order to input
`
`it into the computer, either by itself (e.g., Figs. B and C-D) or combined with the
`
`passcode (e.g., Fig. A). EX1005, Figs. 2A-D.
`
`Unified Ex. 1003 – IPR2023-00425, Page 18
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC
`
`

`

`McNair Decl., IPR2023-00425
`U.S. Patent 6,993,658
`
`
`
`Unified Ex. 1003 – IPR2023-00425, Page 19
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC
`
`

`

`McNair Decl., IPR2023-00425
`U.S. Patent 6,993,658
`
`27. Furthermore, the claims require the user to receive the token and input
`
`the password, which is based on the token and passcode. Therefore, a POSITA
`
`would have understood that the token would eventually need to be known to the user.
`
`This is confirmed by the ’658 Patent’s specification, which describes “information
`
`provided to the user through an object possessed by the user, such as the token.” Id.,
`
`2:11-15.
`
`28. Thus, it is my opinion that a POSITA would have understood that not
`
`known to the user, as claimed by the ’658 Patent, must include information that is
`
`not known to the user at the start of the process, but is eventually provided to the
`
`user.
`
`iii.
`
`“a control module…configured to…”; “a
`communication module configured to…”; “an
`authentication module configured to…”
`
`29.
`
`I have been told that there is special rule for construing means-plus-
`
`function limitations that involves two steps: (1) identifying the claimed function, and
`
`(2) determining what structure corresponds to that claimed function. I have been
`
`informed that the claim terms “control module…configured to,” “communication
`
`module configured to,” and “authentication module configured to” may be
`
`considered as means-plus-function limitations. While I provide no opinion as to
`
`whether those terms are means-plus-function terms, I have been asked to consider
`
`the function and the structure as disclosed in the’658 Patent for these claim terms as
`
`Unified Ex. 1003 – IPR2023-00425, Page 20
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC
`
`

`

`they would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`McNair Decl., IPR2023-00425
`U.S. Patent 6,993,658
`
`
`i.
`
`“a control module…configured to”
`
`30. The ’658 Patent claims “a control module executed on the computer
`
`processor configured to” perform the following function: “create a new password
`
`based at least upon a token and a passcode” and “set a password associated with the
`
`user to be the new password.” EX1001, 12:27-33. The specification provides the
`
`corresponding structure for the claimed function to be software executed on a
`
`“server” that performs the following algorithm: (1) associates user ID with passcode
`
`and phone number of user’s personal communication device, (2) generates a new
`
`password, and (3) sets or rests the password associated with the user ID. See, e.g.,
`
`EX1001, 2:32-48, 8:2-8, 8:53-9:44, Figs. 1, 4, 5.
`
`ii.
`
`“a communication module configured to”
`
`31. The ’658 Patent claims “a communication module configured to”
`
`perform the following function: “transmit the token to the personal communication
`
`device through the cell phone network.” EX1001, 12:34-36. The specification
`
`provides the corresponding structure for the claimed function to be one of: (1) a
`
`mobile device with messaging capabilities, (2) a phone dialer, or (3) a connection
`
`card connected to a messaging service provider. See, e.g., EX1001, 2:39-42, 5:66-
`
`6:1, 6:18-20, 10:14-41, Fig. 1.
`
`iii.
`
`“an authentication module configured to”
`
`Unified Ex. 1003 – IPR2023-00425, Page 21
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC
`
`

`

`McNair Decl., IPR2023-00425
`U.S. Patent 6,993,658
`
`32. The ’658 Patent claims “an authentication module configured to”
`
`perform the following function: “receive the password from the user through a
`
`secure computer network” and “activate[] access to the account in res