`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC,
`
`Petitioner,
`v.
`DYNAPASS IP HOLDINGS LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`__________________
`IPR2023-00425
`U.S. Patent No. 6,993,658
`__________________
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF RAJEEV SURATI
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 2007
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC, IPR2023-00425
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00425
`Patent 6,993,658
`
`I, Rajeev Surati, declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I make this declaration based upon my own personal knowledge and, if
`
`called upon to testify, would testify competently to the matters contained herein.
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to respond to certain opinions in Petitioner’s Reply,
`
`Paper 16, in this proceeding. As with my previous declaration, Ex. 2003, in forming
`
`the opinions expressed in this declaration, I relied upon my education and experience
`
`in the relevant field of art and have considered the viewpoint of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art (“POSITA”) as of the effectively filing date of U.S. Patent 6,993,658
`
`(“the ’658 patent”) (which I understand to be March 6, 2000).
`
`I.
`
`GROUND 1 – VENEKLASE AND JONSSON DO NOT RENDER
`CLAIM 5 OBVIOUS
`3.
`In the Reply, Petitioner argued that “the combined system would not be
`
`‘more prone’ to DoS attack at least because a DoS attack is not dependent on
`
`knowing a password. As such, like Jonsson and the ’658 Patent, Veneklase is
`
`susceptible to repeated requests for access from a DoS attack.” Reply, p. 5. I
`
`disagree.
`
`4.
`
`As I discussed in my previous Declaration, Ex. 2003, ¶89, the overall
`
`authentication process in the proposed combination still has two steps: (1) the
`
`legitimate user transmits Jonsson’s “authentication request” to the system to trigger
`
`generation and transmission of the “challenge code” to the legitimate user’s
`
`“personal communication device” (e.g., pager) (see Ex. 1006, 9:1-4, 10:18-20, Fig.
`
`
`
`2
`
`Ex. 2007
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC, IPR2023-00425
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00425
`Patent 6,993,658
`3), and then (2) the legitimate user transmits the “response code” to the system (see
`
`Ex. 1006, 9:26-30, 11:4-13, Fig. 3).
`
`5.
`
`According to Petitioner, a “POSITA would have been motivated to
`
`make such a combination [of Veneklase and Jonsson] because having only one
`
`password transmitted via the computer system is more efficient and secure.” Pet., p.
`
`31 (emphasis added). But if only one password is being transmitted (i.e., the
`
`“response code”), then Petitioner is asserting that Jonsson’s “authentication request”
`
`(i.e., in step (1)) is not a password (i.e., not a secret). Ex. 2003, ¶90.
`
`6.
`
`In my opinion, because the “authentication request” is not a password
`
`(i.e., not a secret), there is nothing preventing a hacker from continuously
`
`transmitting the non-secret “authentication request” to the system, triggering
`
`generation and transmission of “challenge codes” to the legitimate user’s “personal
`
`communication unit” (e.g., pager), and thus interfering with the legitimate user’s
`
`ability to access the system. In my opinion, that fits the definition of a denial of
`
`service (DoS) attack. See Ex. 1019, 1:14-16 (“A ‘denial of service’ (DoS) attack is
`
`characterized by an explicit attempt by attackers to prevent legitimate users of a
`
`service from using that service.”). In contrast, Veneklase’s existing system requires
`
`a password (i.e., a secret) to trigger generation and transmission of the “random
`
`number code” to the legitimate user’s “pager 420.” See Ex. 1005, 8:1-15.
`
`Accordingly, in my opinion, the above-mentioned type of DoS attack is less likely
`
`
`
`3
`
`Ex. 2007
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC, IPR2023-00425
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00425
`Patent 6,993,658
`with Veneklase’s existing system because of the required password. See Ex. 2003,
`
`¶90.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`Ex. 2007
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC, IPR2023-00425
`
`
`
`II. CONCLUSION
`7.
`For the foregoing reasons, it is my opinion that the Challenged Claims
`
`IPR2023-00425
`Patent 6,993,658
`
`of the ’658 Patent are patentable.
`
`8.
`
`I reserve the right to modify and/or supplement this declaration, to
`
`present further analysis, and/or to amend my opinions as more and/or other
`
`arguments and/or information becomes available.
`
`9.
`
`I hereby declare that all statements made herein of my knowledge are
`
`true and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true.
`
`The statements in this declaration were made with the knowledge that willful false
`
`statements and the like are made punishable by fine or imprisonment under Section
`
`1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code and may jeopardize the validity of the
`
`application or any patent issuing thereon.
`
`
`
`__________________________________
`
`
`
`Date: February 20, 2024
`
`Rajeev Surati
`
`
`
`5
`
`Ex. 2007
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC, IPR2023-00425
`
`