IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Terence W. O'Brien
`In re Patent of:
`7,765,399
`U.S. Patent No.:
`July 27, 2010
`Issue Date:
`Appl. Serial No.: 11/359,224
`February 22, 2006
`Filing Date:
`Title:
`COMPUTER ARCHITECTURE FOR A HANDHELD
`ELECTRONIC DEVICE
`
` Attorney Docket No.: 50095-0112IP1
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. SANDEEP CHATTERJEE
`
`APPLE 1003
`
`1
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0112IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,765,399
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`2. 
`3. 
`4. 
`
`I. 
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ................................................. 1 
`II.  OVERVIEW OF CONCLUSIONS FORMED ............................................... 8 
`III.  LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................. 9 
`IV.  THE ’399 PATENT ......................................................................................... 9 
`V. 
`PRIOR ART ANALYSIS .............................................................................. 11 
`A.  [GROUND 1A] – CLAIMS 1-7, 9-10, 12-13, AND 15-18 WOULD
`HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS OVER MAREK AND SKARINE ............... 11 
`1.  Marek describes a mobile device with a secure processor, a non-
`secure processor, a cryptographic engine ...................................... 11 
`Skarine provides an example of a conventional mobile device .... 16 
`The combination of Marek and Skarine ........................................ 19 
`Element-by-Element Explanation of How the Marek-Skarine
`Combination Renders the Challenged Claims Obvious ................ 36 
`B.  [GROUND 1B] – CLAIMS 4-5 WOULD HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS
`OVER MAREK, SKARINE, AND YOON .........................................171 
`1.  Yoon describes a mobile device providing voice command
`functionality .................................................................................171 
`The combination of Marek, Skarine, and Yoon ..........................172 
`Reasons for the combination .......................................................173 
`Element-by-Element Explanation of How the Marek-Skarine-
`Yoon Combination Renders the Challenged Claims Obvious ....175 
`C.  [GROUND 1C] – CLAIMS 9-10 WOULD HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS
`OVER MAREK, SKARINE, AND MOON .........................................176 
`1.  Moon describes a tamper-resistant mobile device ......................176 
`2. 
`The combination of Marek, Skarine, and Moon .........................178 
`3. 
`Reasons for the combination .......................................................180 
`4. 
`Element-by-Element Explanation of How the Marek-Skarine-
`Moon Combination Renders the Challenged Claims Obvious ...183 
`VI.  LEGAL PRINCIPLES .................................................................................185 
`A.  Anticipation ...........................................................................................185 
`B.  Obviousness ..........................................................................................186 
`VII.  ADDITIONAL REMARKS ........................................................................188 
`
`
`2. 
`3. 
`4. 
`
`i
`
`2
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0112IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,765,399
`
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`1. My education and experience are described more fully in the attached
`
`curriculum vitae. For ease of reference, I have highlighted certain information be-
`
`low.
`
`2.
`
`I am the Chief Executive Officer of Experantis LLC (“Experantis”), a
`
`technology consulting company. Previously, I was the Co-founder, Executive Vice
`
`President and Chief Technology Officer of SourceTrace Systems, Inc., a technol-
`
`ogy and services company enabling the delivery of secure remote electronic ser-
`
`vices over landline and wireless telecommunications networks.
`
`3.
`
`I received my Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering and Com-
`
`puter Science from the University of California, Berkeley in 1995. I received my
`
`Master’s degree in Computer Science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technol-
`
`ogy (MIT) in 1997, and my Doctorate in Computer Science from MIT in 2001. I
`
`received a certificate of completion for an executive education program on global
`
`leadership from Harvard University in 2011.
`
`4.
`
`I have extensive experience in designing, developing, and deploying
`
`end-to-end distributed systems, including communications systems. For example,
`
`as part of my doctoral research, I developed hardware and software systems for in-
`
`telligent environments within homes and offices. Some of these devices included
`
`televisions, digital picture frames, refrigerators and children’s toys. The hardware
`
`1
`
`3
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0112IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,765,399
`architecture of this system included a high-speed backplane that could support
`
`multiple, small-sized and pluggable modules, such as Personal Computer Memory
`
`Card International Association (PCMCIA) or CardBus PC cards. These pluggable
`
`modules could contain computing processor resources or peripheral resources,
`
`such as memory, storage, user interface components, etc. My doctoral dissertation
`
`at MIT involving networked client architectures and systems, was selected as one
`
`of the top inventions in the history of MIT’s Laboratory for Computer Science.
`
`This invention is showcased in a time capsule at the Museum of Science in Boston,
`
`Massachusetts. Other recipients of this honor included Bill Gates, the founder of
`
`Microsoft, and Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the World Wide Web.
`
`5.
`
`Thereafter, I joined Bluestone Software’s Mobile Middleware Labs as
`
`a Senior Engineer developing applications and systems infrastructure for enterprise
`
`Java/J2EE, Web services, and enterprise mobile solutions. After the completion of
`
`Hewlett-Packard’s (“HP”) acquisition of Bluestone, I became a Senior Member of
`
`the Technical Staff at HP’s Middleware Division. I was responsible for architect-
`
`ing and developing the company’s next-generation Web services platform for en-
`
`terprise as well as mobile environments, known as the Web Services Mediator. I
`
`also worked with HP’s worldwide software operations to add extensions into the
`
`Java 2 Enterprise Edition (J2EE) application server to easily support mobile appli-
`
`2
`
`4
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0112IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,765,399
`cations and content, as well as flexible integration with other software systems us-
`
`ing the eXtensible Markup Language (XML) and web services technologies. I was
`
`also part of the Expert Group that developed the JSR-00172 J2ME (Java 2 Plat-
`
`form, Micro Edition) Web Services Specification, the worldwide industry standard
`
`for mobile web services.
`
`6.
`
`After leaving HP and through a contract between HP and the United
`
`States Agency for International Development (USAID), I led the development of a
`
`software system that enabled customers to use mobile handsets to connect with the
`
`core banking systems of banks and other financial institutions, and perform trans-
`
`actions without having to travel to bank branches. This was one of the first mobile
`
`banking solutions in the world.
`
`7.
`
`Later, after SourceTrace Systems’ acquisition of this technology, I led
`
`the expansion of this solution into multiple countries and into multiple industries.
`
`Banks and other financial services companies utilized this technology to make their
`
`tellers more efficient, to provide self-service kiosks within branches, and to pro-
`
`vide remote access to banking services. Additionally, through our licensing agree-
`
`ment with Telefonica, one of the largest cellular and telecommunications compa-
`
`nies in the world, this solution was deployed in various other industries, including
`
`logistics and asset management and customer relationship management. Some of
`
`these vertical solutions supported location tracking based on GPS information,
`
`3
`
`5
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0112IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,765,399
`while other vertical solutions utilized location information to provide additional
`
`levels of security and authentication for transactions. Bloomberg Television se-
`
`lected and featured this technology and the company I co-founded to commercial-
`
`ize this technology on Bloomberg TV’s “Bloomberg Innovators” program.
`
`8.
`
`Based on my professional work, in 2011, I was named Young Global
`
`Leader by the World Economic Forum. This honor, bestowed each year by the
`
`World Economic Forum, recognizes and acknowledges the top leaders – all below
`
`the age of 40 – from around the world for their professional accomplishments,
`
`commitment to society, and potential to contribute to shaping the future of the
`
`world.
`
`9.
`
`I have been a retained expert witness for various disputes that in-
`
`volved significant technology issues, and I have been qualified as a technology ex-
`
`pert by U.S. District and State Courts, including in California, Delaware, Florida
`
`and Texas, at the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) and at vari-
`
`ous U.S. and international arbitrations. I have testified in technology areas that are
`
`relevant to this case, including but not limited to: computer software and hardware
`
`systems. I have previously testified through declaration or expert report, at deposi-
`
`tion and at trial in numerous intellectual property and commercial litigation mat-
`
`ters, including for patent litigation, copyright and trade secret misappropriation liti-
`
`gation, and contract dispute cases. I have submitted more than one hundred and
`
`4
`
`6
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0112IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,765,399
`forty expert declarations and expert reports, testified at deposition more than sev-
`
`enty times, and testified at trial or at hearings at least nine times. I have been iden-
`
`tified as one of the top 1000 patent professionals in the world, and am listed in the
`
`IAM Patent 1000, which identifies the world’s leading patent litigation and prose-
`
`cution attorneys, as well as damages and technology expert witnesses. I have at-
`
`tached a more detailed list of my qualifications as Exhibit A to this declaration.
`
`Based on my academic and professional experiences, I believe that I am qualified
`
`in the technology fields and technology issues relevant to this matter.
`
`10. Experantis is being compensated for my time working on this matter
`
`at my standard hourly rate plus expenses. Neither Experantis nor I have any per-
`
`sonal or financial stake or interest in the outcome of the present proceeding, and
`
`the compensation is not dependent on the outcome of this litigation and in no way
`
`affects the substance of my statements in this declaration.
`
`11.
`
`I have been retained on behalf of Apple Inc. to offer technical opin-
`
`ions relating to U.S. Patent No. 7,765,399 (“the ’399 Patent”) and prior art refer-
`
`ences relating to its subject matter. I have reviewed the ’399 Patent, and relevant
`
`excerpts of the prosecution history of the ’399 Patent. I have also reviewed the fol-
`
`lowing references:
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE-1004: U.S. Patent No. 7,716,720 (“Marek”)
`
`APPLE-1005: U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2005/0190159 (“Skarine”)
`
`5
`
`7
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0112IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,765,399
`APPLE-1007: U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2004/0082368 (“Yoon”)
`
`APPLE-1008: U.S. Patent No. 7,571,475 (“Moon”)
`
`
`
`
`
`12.
`
`I have also reviewed various supporting references and other docu-
`
`mentation, including the following list, and as further noted in my opinions below.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE-1009: U.S. Patent No. 6,671,745 (“Mathur”)
`
`APPLE-1010: U.S. Patent No. 7,325,032 (“Zuberec”)
`
`APPLE-1011: U.S. Patent No. 6,675,027 (“Huang”)
`
`APPLE-1012: U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2007/0006146 (“Kwong”)
`
`APPLE-1014: European Patent Publication No. EP 1283630 (“ITT”)
`
`APPLE-1015: U.S. Patent No. 7,496,060 (“Ramirez”)
`
`APPLE-1016: European Patent Publication No. EP1934879
`(“SanDisk”)
`
`APPLE-1017: U.S. Patent No. 8,442,231 (“Macchi”)
`
`APPLE-1018: U.S. Patent No. 7,853,656 (“Yach”)
`
`APPLE-1019: U.S. Patent No. 7,716,638 (“Thornton”)
`
`APPLE-1020: U.S. Patent No. 8,045,958 (“Kahandaliyanage”)
`
`APPLE-1021: U.S. Patent No. 7,607,131 (“Oe”)
`
`APPLE-1022: U.S. Patent No. 7,596,695 (“Liao”)
`
`APPLE-1023: U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2015/0372806 (“Carter”)
`
`6
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0112IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,765,399
`APPLE-1024: U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20070131097 (“Lu”)
`
`APPLE-1025: U.S. Patent No. 7,394,480 (“Song”)
`
`APPLE-1026: U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2002/0181468 (“Lucidarme”)
`
`APPLE-1027: U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2006/0258372 (“Naegeli”)
`
`APPLE-1040: U.S. Patent No. 6,240,303 (“Katzur”)
`
`APPLE-1041: U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2002/0178003 (“Gehrke”)
`
`APPLE-1042: PCT Pub. No. WO2000/028721 (“Ericsson”)
`
`APPLE-1043: U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2005/0288063 (“Seo”)
`
`Kylene Hall, et al. “Trusted Computing and
`APPLE-1044
`Linux.” Proceedings of the Linux Symposium, Volume 2 (2005)
`(“Hall”)
`
`“Infineon Announces Trusted Platform Module to
`APPLE-1045
`Enhance PC Security,” phys.org (2005), https://phys.org/news/2005-
`05-infineon-platform-module-pc.html (“Infineon”)
`
`13. Counsel has informed me that I should consider these materials
`
`through the lens of one of ordinary skill in the art related to the ’399 Patent at the
`
`time of the earliest possible priority date of the ’399 Patent, and I have done so
`
`during my review of these materials. The ’399 Patent was filed February 22, 2006
`
`(“the Critical Date”). Counsel has informed me that the Critical Date represents
`
`the earliest possible priority date to which the challenged claims of the ’399 Patent
`
`are entitled, and I have therefore used that Critical Date in my analysis below.
`
`7
`
`9
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0112IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,765,399
`In writing this declaration, I have considered the following: my own
`
`14.
`
`knowledge and experience, including my work experience as detailed above and in
`
`Appendix A, and my experience in working with others involved in those fields.
`
`In addition, I have analyzed various publications and materials, in addition to other
`
`materials I cite in my declaration.
`
`15. My opinions, as explained below, are based on my education,
`
`experience, and expertise in the fields relating to the ’399 Patent. Unless otherwise
`
`stated, my testimony below refers to the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art as of the Critical Date, or before. Any figures that appear within this document
`
`have been prepared with the assistance of Counsel and reflect my understanding of
`
`the ’399 Patent and the prior art discussed below.
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF CONCLUSIONS FORMED
`16. This declaration explains the conclusions that I have formed based on
`
`my analysis. To summarize those conclusions, based upon my knowledge and ex-
`
`perience and my review of the prior art publications listed above, I believe that:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claims 1-7, 9-10, 12, 13, and 15-18 are obvious over Marek and Ska-
`
`rine;
`
`Claims 4-5 are obvious over Marek, Skarine, and Yoon; and
`
`Claims 9-10 are obvious over Marek, Skarine, and Moon.
`
`8
`
`10
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0112IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,765,399
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`17.
`In my opinion, one of ordinary skill in the art relating to, and at the
`
`time of, the alleged invention of the ’399 Patent would have been someone a per-
`
`son with a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, computer
`
`engineering, or a related field, and at least two years of work experience with com-
`
`puter architecture and system security, including cryptography. Greater education
`
`or greater experience could compensate for a deficiency in either of these criteria.
`
`18. Based on my experiences, I have a good understanding of the capabil-
`
`ities of one of ordinary skill. Indeed, I have worked closely with many such per-
`
`sons over the course of my career. Based on my knowledge, skill, and experience,
`
`I have an understanding of the capabilities of one of ordinary skill. For example,
`
`from my professional and industry experiences, I am familiar with what an engi-
`
`neer would have known and found predictable in the art. Furthermore, I possess
`
`those capabilities myself.
`
`IV. THE ’399 PATENT
`19. The’399 Patent describes “a mobile PDA computer system” including
`
`“a non-secure user processor, a secure user processor, and a cryptographic engine.”
`
`APPLE-1001 (’399 Patent), 2:23-26. Each of these processors has corresponding
`
`microprocessor hardware, an operating system, and software. See id., 2:25-30.
`
`The cryptographic engine “forms a bridge between the secure processing side of
`
`9
`
`11
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0112IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,765,399
`the PDA and the non-secure processing side of the PDA.” Id., 2:32-40. Two hu-
`
`man/machine interfaces are provided: a “secure human/machine interface” through
`
`which “[c]lassified information can be provided to the user from the secure proces-
`
`sor,” and a “non-secure human/machine interface” through which “unclassified in-
`
`formation can be provided to the user by the non-secure processor.” Id., 3:4-15.
`
`However, as I will demonstrate through the analysis that follows, this architecture
`
`was not new. Specifically, a mobile device system having secure and non-secure
`
`user processors and a cryptographic engine, along with secure and non-secure hu-
`
`man/machine interfaces, was not new in the art at the time of filing of the applica-
`
`tion leading to the ’399 Patent.
`
`20.
`
`In addition to the specific combinations of references I discuss below,
`
`I note that the trusted computing techniques and technologies described in the ’399
`
`Patent were not new. Indeed, the ’399 Patent itself acknowledges as much, stating
`
`that “the basic architecture and interface systems of many commercial PDA de-
`
`vices may leave these devices vulnerable to intrusion. For example, COTS devices
`
`do not employ trusted microprocessors, do not employ physical separation of clas-
`
`sified and unclassified data processing, nor do they employ physical tamper detec-
`
`tion and subsequent memory zeroization.” #399, 1:56-64 (emphasis added).
`
`These concepts, including trusted microprocessors, physical separation of classi-
`
`fied and unclassified data processing, and physical tamper detection were well
`
`10
`
`12
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0112IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,765,399
`known. For instance, Hall et al. described a platform for trusted computing which
`
`is “realized in hardware that has a small amount of both volatile and non-volatile
`
`storage and cryptographic execution engines.” #Hall, 2. Infineon introduced a
`
`“Trusted Platform Module” that “features a secure chip hardware, a complete suite
`
`of embedded security and TPM system management utilities as well as application
`
`software.” #Infineon, 1. Thus, while I discuss specific combinations of references
`
`in the following paragraphs, I do so noting that trusted computing was not new as
`
`of the time of filing of the ’399 Patent.
`
`V.
`
`PRIOR ART ANALYSIS
`A.
`[GROUND 1A] – CLAIMS 1-7, 9-10, 12-13, AND 15-18 WOULD
`HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS OVER MAREK AND SKARINE
`1. Marek describes a mobile device with a secure processor, a
`non-secure processor, a cryptographic engine
`21. Marek relates to mobile devices, and specifically describes “a system
`
`for providing a secure and trusted commercial-off-the shelf COTS computing envi-
`
`ronment” for use with an “untrusted computing system,” such as a mobile device,
`
`e.g., a PDA (personal digital assistant). APPLE-1004 (Marek), Abstract, 1:7-9.
`
`Specifically, Marek describes that a “Secure COTS environment may be provided
`
`by a system including a SCM [secure computing module] as an add-on module to
`
`an untrusted host environment” such as a PDA. APPLE-1004 (Marek), 8:37-39;
`
`11
`
`13
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0112IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,765,399
`see 11:53-55 (“the SCM is suitable for providing secure wireless network connec-
`
`tions when the SCM is added on wireless devices such as PDAs, cell phones, and
`
`other mobile devices”).
`
`22. Marek’s Fig. 10,which I have reproduced below, shows such an ex-
`
`ample of such a system, and specifically illustrates “a SCM 908 interfacing with an
`
`untrusted PDA 1014.” Id., 12:14-15. I have highlighted the secure computing
`
`module (SCM) in purple and the PDA in green. The interfacing of the SCM with
`
`the untrusted PDA allows “[o]nly authenticated COTS applications and COTS OS
`
`[to] execute on the SCM”—i.e., authenticated applications and operating systems
`
`execute on the secure computing module—while “untrusted applications execute
`
`on the untrusted host environment”—i.e., untrusted applications execute on the
`
`PDA. Id., 8:39-41; see 2:21-28.
`
`12
`
`14
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0112IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,765,399
`
`
`
`Excerpt from Marek, Fig. 10 (annotated)
`23. The detailed architecture of Marek’s SCM is shown in Fig. 7, which I
`
`have reproduced below. Fig. 7 illustrates a computing environment “implementing
`
`SCM architecture.” APPLE-1004 (Marek), 8:51-54. This environment includes a
`
`SCM 702 (which I have highlighted in orange) provided as “an add-on module to
`
`an untrusted host environment” 718, e.g., a PDA (again highlighted in green). Id.,
`
`8:38-39. The SCM includes an “Authenticated COTS Environment Subsystem
`
`(ACE)” (highlighted in red) that “includes an embedded COTS OS running on a
`
`13
`
`15
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0112IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,765,399
`compatible embedded COTS processor.” APPLE-1004 (Marek), 9:1-5. The SCM
`
`also includes a “Trusted Security Manager subsystem (TSM) 704” (highlighted in
`
`blue) that includes “a trusted processor 705 for providing a brick-wall partitioning
`
`of memory, time, and device resources, and enforcing predetermined security poli-
`
`cies,” as well as “a cryptographic engine 706 … [that] may aid the trusted proces-
`
`sor 705 to provide a robust security interface.” Id., 8:67, 9:31-41; see 2:21-38 (the
`
`TSM “provid[es] partitioning for both memory and I/O resources on the trusted en-
`
`vironment”). In this system, “[e]ach I/O path of the SCM 702,” such as “I/O paths
`
`between the untrusted host and the SCM” (purple), “is configured to go through
`
`the TSM 704” such that each “I/O path [is] secured and authenticated.” Id., 9:50-
`
`54; see 2:25-30 (“All I/O paths of the SCM are configured to go through the
`
`TSM,” with each I/O path being “subject to authentication protocols” provided by
`
`the TSM). For instance, the “I/O paths 730 between the untrusted host and the
`
`SCM 702,” which go through the TSM, “are managed by a low power Field-Pro-
`
`grammable Gate Array (FPGA) and a dedicated TSM partition,” which “allow[s]
`
`for any number of strict authentication protocols.” Id., 10:36-39.
`
`14
`
`16
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0112IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,765,399
`
`
`
`Excerpt from Marek, Fig. 7 (annotated)
`24. The untrusted host environment (e.g., the PDA, green) includes “input
`
`and output devices 722, 720,” such as a keypad and a display, which I have high-
`
`lighted pink in Fig. 7. APPLE-1004 (Marek), 10:51-52; see 10:60-65. These input
`
`and output devices communicate with the SCM via Scware 724, which is “software
`
`that acts as a trusted agent for the SCM 702 on the untrusted host environment.”
`
`Id., 10:43-45. Specifically, as illustrated in Fig. 7, the Scware “resides on the un-
`
`trusted host environment while the SCM 702 is operating” and “creates secure I/O
`
`15
`
`17
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0112IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,765,399
`paths 730 of input and output devices 722, 720,” thereby enabling input to and out-
`
`put from the SCM. Id., 10:47-54. For instance, the Scware enables “the input and
`
`output devices 722, 720 of the untrusted host 718 [to] be utilized as a virtual in-
`
`put/output system 800 of the SCM.” Id., 10:49-54; see Fig. 8.
`
`2.
`
`Skarine provides an example of a conventional mobile de-
`vice
`25. Skarine describes “a mobile device 202,” such as “a data messaging
`
`device, a two-way pager, a cellular telephone with data messaging capabilities, a
`
`wireless Internet appliance, or a data communication device” “having at least voice
`
`and advanced data communication capabilities.” APPLE-1005 (Skarine), [0034].
`
`As shown in Skarine’s Fig. 2, reproduced below, Skarine’s mobile device includes
`
`a “communication subsystem 211,” which I have highlighted in pink. Id., [0038].
`
`The communication subsystem 211 is connected to a microprocessor 238 (high-
`
`lighted in green) of the mobile device. Id., [0038]. “Communication functions, in-
`
`cluding at least data and voice communications, are performed” through the com-
`
`munication subsystem 211. Id., [0038].
`
`16
`
`18
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0112IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,765,399
`
`
`
`Excerpt from Skarine, Fig. 2 (annotated)
`26. The communication subsystem 211 “includes a receiver 212, a trans-
`
`mitter 214, and associated components,” and is “analogous to RF transceiver cir-
`
`cuitry 108 and antenna 110 shown in FIG. 1.” APPLE-1005 (Skarine), [0035].
`
`The RF transceiver circuitry and antenna of FIG. 1 are described as follows: “Mo-
`
`17
`
`19
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0112IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,765,399
`bile device 102 sends communication signals to and receives communication sig-
`
`nals from network 104 over a wireless link via antenna 110. RF transceiver cir-
`
`cuitry 108 performs functions such as modulation/demodulation and possibly en-
`
`coding/decoding and encryption/decryption.” Id., [0023]. The RF transceiver cir-
`
`cuitry is, for instance, a cellular telephone transceiver for communication with
`
`“wireless network 104 [that] is configured in accordance with General Packet Ra-
`
`dio Service (GPRS) and a Global Systems for Mobile (GSM) technologies.” Id.,
`
`[0027]-[0028]; see also the description of the RF transceiver circuitry of FIG. 2 in
`
`paragraph [0023] (“RF transceiver circuitry 108 will be adapted to particular wire-
`
`less network or networks in which mobile device 102 is intended to operate”).
`
`27. Skarine’s mobile device also includes “additional device subsystems
`
`such as … a speaker 234, [and] a microphone 236,” which I have highlighted or-
`
`ange in Fig. 2. APPLE-1005 (Skarine), [0038]. As illustrated in Fig. 2, the
`
`speaker and microphone are also connected to the microprocessor of the mobile
`
`device. See id., [0038]. Skarine describes that “[f]or voice communications, …
`
`the received signals would be output to speaker 234 and signals for transmission
`
`would be generated by microphone 236.” Id., [0042]. Skarine’s mobile device can
`
`also implement “[a]lternative voice or audio I/O subsystems, such as a voice mes-
`
`sage recording subsystem.” Id., [0042].
`
`18
`
`20
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0112IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,765,399
`28. Skarine’s mobile device also includes “a flash memory 224, [and] a
`
`random access memory (RAM) 226,” in purple. Id., [0038]. Skarine describes
`
`that “[o]perating system software used by microprocessor 238 is preferably stored
`
`in a persistent store such as flash memory 224, which may alternatively be a read-
`
`only memory (ROM) or similar storage element,” while “the operating system,
`
`specific device applications, or parts thereof, may be temporarily loaded into a vol-
`
`atile store such as RAM 226.” Id., [0038].
`
`3.
`The combination of Marek and Skarine
`It is my opinion that a POSITA would have found it obvious to com-
`
`29.
`
`bine teachings of Marek with teachings of Skarine to produce a Marek-Skarine
`
`combination system that I describe in the following paragraphs. An example of
`
`this combination system is illustrated in the composite figure below. Generally, in
`
`the Marek-Skarine combination, a SCM, such as that described by Marek, is pro-
`
`vided as an add-on module to a conventional mobile device, such as a PDA or cell
`
`phone (which I have highlighted in green in the composite figure below), as taught
`
`by Marek. See APPLE-1004 (Marek), 8:37-39, 11:44-12:21, 13:49-51.
`
`30. For instance, in the Marek-Skarine combination, the SCM (secure
`
`computing module) includes an ACE 703 (Authenticated COTS Environment Sub-
`
`system, which I have highlighted in red) and a TSM 704 (Trusted Security Man-
`
`ager subsystem, highlighted in blue), consistent with the architecture of the system
`
`19
`
`21
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0112IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,765,399
`described by Marek. APPLE-1004 (Marek), 8:51-67. Also consistent with the ar-
`
`chitecture of Marek’s computing environment, “[o]nly authenticated applications
`
`including COTS [commercial-off-the-shelf] OS execute on the SCM while un-
`
`trusted applications execute on the untrusted host environment,” e.g., on the un-
`
`trusted host mobile device, while the TSM “provid[es] partitioning for both
`
`memory and I/O resources on the trusted environment.” APPLE-1004 (Marek),
`
`2:21-38. Additionally, and also based on the architecture of Marek’s computing
`
`environment, “[a]ll I/O paths of the SCM are configured to go through the TSM,”
`
`with each I/O path being “subject to authentication protocols” provided by the
`
`TSM. APPLE-1004 (Marek), 2:25-30.
`
`20
`
`22
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0112IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,765,399
`
`Marek-Skarine composite figure1
`
`
`
`
`1 This figure, as well as other composite figures herein, is just one example combi-
`
`nation that a POSITA would have found to be obvious, and is provided for illustra-
`
`tive purposes only. Other, similar example combinations could be conceived that
`
`also would have been obvious that that would render the challenged claims obvi-
`
`ous for similar reasons as those discussed herein.
`
`21
`
`23
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0112IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,765,399
`31. Marek states that the untrusted host mobile device can be, e.g., a PDA
`
`or cell phone. See APPLE-1004 (Marek), 8:37-39, 11:53-55, Fig. 10. A PDA or
`
`cell phone was a conventional device as of the Critical Date, and it is my opinion
`
`that a POSITA would have understood or found obvious for such a conventional
`
`mobile device to include various conventional components. For instance, to the
`
`extent that Marek does not provide explicit description of the specific components
`
`of this untrusted host mobile device (e.g., a cell phone or PDA), it is my opinion
`
`that a POSITA would have understood or found it obvious that the untrusted host
`
`mobile device—a conventional mobile device—includes common and well-known
`
`components of wireless devices. Many such conventional components are de-
`
`scribed, for example, in Skarine. I discuss in the following paragraphs one exam-
`
`ple of an obvious way to configure some of these well-known components in the
`
`untrusted host mobile device of the Marek-Skarine combination, e.g., based on
`
`these teachings of Skarine.
`
`Audio functionality in the untrusted host mobile device of the combination
`32.
`In one example of the configuration of conventional components in
`
`the conventional untrusted host mobile device of the Marek-Skarine combination,
`
`it is my opinion that a POSITA would have understood or found obvious for the
`
`22
`
`24
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0112IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,765,399
`untrusted host mobile device in the Marek-Skarine combination to include a con-
`
`ventional audio input and output components, such as a speaker and a microphone
`
`(highlighted in orange in the composite figure above).
`
`33. The speaker and microphone are for audio input and output to/from
`
`the microprocessor of the mobile device (e.g., for voice communications). This
`
`was well-known in the art in the context of conventional mobile devices, for in-
`
`stance, as demonstrated by Skarine. See APPLE-1005 (Skarine), [0038] (“Mobile
`
`device 202 includes a microprocessor 238 … [that] interacts with additional device
`
`subsystems such as … a speaker 234 [and], a microphone 236”), [0042] (“For
`
`voice communications, the overall operation of mobile device 202 is substantially
`
`similar, except that the received signals would be output to speaker 234 and signals
`
`for transmission would be generated by microphone 236”), Fig. 2.
`
`34.
`
`I also refer to the following other references to corroborate that speak-
`
`ers and microphones were standard components in conventional mobile devices as
`
`of the Critical Date: APPLE-1018 (Yach), 3:45-50 (describing a microprocessor of
`
`a mobile device that “interacts with additional subsystems such as … a speaker 118
`
`[and] a microphone 120”), 6:22-32; APPLE-1010 (Zuberec), 3:54-67 (“The mobile
`
`device 100 is also