UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`v.
`CARBYNE BIOMETRICS, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`———————
`IPR2024-00333
`U.S. Patent No. 11,475,105
`_____________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`I. CONTENTS
`
`IPR2024-00333 Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 11,475,105
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ........................................................................ 1
`A.
`Real Party-in-Interest ............................................................................ 1
`B.
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 1
`C.
`Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information ........................... 2
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING .................................................................. 2
`IV. THE ’105 PATENT ................................................................................... 3
`A.
`Summary of the ’105 patent .................................................................. 3
`B.
`Prosecution History ............................................................................... 4
`C.
`Effective Filing Date ............................................................................. 5
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ......................................... 8
`V.
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ...................................................................... 9
`A.
`“restricted interface” (Claims 9-11, and 28-30) .................................... 9
`VII. REQUESTED RELIEF ........................................................................... 11
`VIII. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGES ........................................................... 11
`A.
`Challenged Claims ..............................................................................11
`B.
`Statutory Grounds for Challenges .......................................................12
`IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE .. 13
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1, 14, 18, 33 and 35 are obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`§103 over Kesanupalli, Cheng and Kodama. ......................................13
`1.
`Kesanupalli ................................................................................13
`2.
`Cheng ........................................................................................15
`3.
`Kodama .....................................................................................18
`4.
`Combination of Kesanupalli, Cheng and Kodama ...................19
`5.
`Claim 1 ......................................................................................23
`6.
`Claim 14 ....................................................................................43
`7.
`Claims 18 and 33.......................................................................43
`
`IX.
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`B.
`
`C.
`
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00333 Petition
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,475,105
`
`8.
`Claim 35 ....................................................................................45
`Ground 2: Claims 9-11 and 28-30 are obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`§103 over Kesanupalli, Cheng, Kodama and in further view of
`Challener. ............................................................................................47
`1.
`Challener ...................................................................................47
`2.
`Reasons to Combine Kesanupalli, Cheng, Kodama and
`Challener ...................................................................................49
`Claim 9 ......................................................................................52
`3.
`Claim 10 ....................................................................................56
`4.
`Claim 11 ....................................................................................57
`5.
`Claims 28-30 .............................................................................58
`6.
`Ground 3: Claims 1, 9-11, 14, 18, 28-30, 33 and 35 are obvious
`under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Jakobsson ’351 and Kodama. .................58
`1.
`Jakobsson ’351 and Kodama ....................................................58
`2.
`Reasons to Combine Jakobsson ’351 and Kodama ..................58
`3.
`Claim 1 ......................................................................................61
`4.
`Claims 9-11 ...............................................................................67
`5.
`Claim 14 ....................................................................................68
`6.
`Claims 18, 28-30 and 33 ...........................................................69
`7.
`Claim 35 ....................................................................................70
`X. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL IS NOT WARRANTED ........................... 71
`A.
`The Fintiv factors favor institution. ....................................................71
`B.
`The Board should not deny under General Plastic ..............................73
`C.
`Advanced Bionics Test Favors Institution. ..........................................73
`XI. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................... 74
`XII. CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT ...................................................... 75
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ...................................................................... 76
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2024-00333 Petition
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,475,105
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`January 19, 2023
`
`APPL-1001 U.S. Patent No. 11,475,105 (“the ’105 patent”)
`APPL-1002
`Prosecution History of the ’105 patent
`APPL-1003 Declaration of Dr. Patrick McDaniel
`APPL-1004
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Patrick McDaniel
`APPL-1005
`Priority Chain Applications
`APPL-1006 U.S. Patent No. 8,799,666 (“Kesanupalli”)
`APPL-1007 U.S. Patent No. 8,099,789 (“Challener”)
`APPL-1008 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0117636 (“Cheng”)
`APPL-1009 U.S. Patent No. 9,652,629 (“Brown”)
`APPL-1010
`European Patent Application EP 2 079 023 A2 (“Kodama”)
`APPL-1011 U.S. Patent 10,360,351 (“Jakobsson ’351”)
`APPL-1012
`Patrick McDaniel, Authentication, Handbook of Computer
`Networks, Volume 3, Part 2, pp. 570-580, John Wiley and
`Sons, 2008. Ed. Hossein Bidgoli.
`IBM Introducing Fingerprint Reader Into Laptop. Jack
`Germain. 2004 at https://www.technewsworld.com/story/ibm-
`introducing-fingerprint-reader-into-laptop-37017.html
`APPL-1014 U.S. Patent Publication 2008/0059804 to Shah et al.
`APPL-1015 Kerberos: An Authentication Service for Computer Networks.
`B. Clifford Neuman et al. 1994 at
`https://gost.isi.edu/publications/kerberos-neuman-tso.html
`ISO/IEC 11889-1:2009 Information technology Trusted
`Platform Module Part 1: Overview at
`https://www.iso.org/standard/50970.html
`TPM Main Part 3 Commands Specification Version 1.2 1
`March 2011 at https://trustedcomputinggroup.org/wp-
`content/uploads/TPM-Main-Part-3-
`Commands_v1.2_rev116_01032011.pdf
`RESERVED
`
`APPL-1018
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`APPL-1013
`
`APPL-1016
`
`APPL-1017
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`APPL-1021
`
`APPL-1023
`APPL-1024
`
`APPL-1025
`
`IPR2024-00333 Petition
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,475,105
`
`Computer Dictionary, Second Edition, entry “record” (1994)
`APPL-1019
`APPL-1020 How to Restore Your Data After a Hard Drive Crash, Glenn
`Derene, Aug 4, 2011 at
`https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/gadgets/how-
`to/a6819/how-to-restore-your-data-after-a-hard-drive-crash/
`Redline comparison of U.S. Patent No. 10,360,351 patent
`specification and the ’105 patent.
`APPL-1022 U.S. Patent Application No. 2008/0104416 to Challener et al.
`(“Challener’s PG-PUB”)
`RFC2818, HTTP Over TLS (May 2000)
`https://trustedcomputinggroup.org/wp-content/uploads/TPM-
`Applications-Whitepaper.pdf (retrieved Jan. 2, 2024)
`Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-
`Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation,
`(June 21, 2022) (“Director Memo)
`Preliminary Constructions, Carbyne Biometrics v. Apple Inc.,
`WDTX-1:23-cv-00324 (December 11, 2023)
`
`APPL-1026
`
`APPL-1027 United States District Courts—National Judicial Caseload
`Profile (September 30, 2023),
`https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics/table/na/federal-court-
`management-statistics/2023/09/30 (retrieved Dec. 14, 2023)
`Scheduling Order, Carbyne Biometrics, LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`WDTX-1:23-cv-00324 (July 14, 2023)
`
`APPL-1028
`
`APPL-1029
`
`Plaintiff Carbyne Biometrics, LLC’s Preliminary Infringement
`Contentions, Carbyne Biometrics v. Apple, Inc., 1:23-cv-
`00324 (June 21, 2023)
`
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00333 Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 11,475,105
`
`INTRODUCTION
`U.S. Patent No. 11,475,105 (the “’105 patent”) relates to “Authentication
`
`Translation” where a request to access a resource and an authentication input is
`
`received, and in response, “a previously stored credential associated with the
`
`resource is accessed” and provided to the resource. APPL-1001, Title, Abstract.
`
`Apple Inc. (“Petitioner” or “Apple”) respectfully requests the Board review and
`
`cancel as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) claims 1, 9-11, 14, 18, 28-30, 33,
`
`and 35 (“Challenged Claims”) of the ’105 patent.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), Petitioner certifies that the real party-in-
`
`interest is Apple Inc.
`
`B. Related Matters
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(2), the ’105 patent is or was involved in the
`
`following matters, which may affect, or be affected by, this proceeding:
`
`• Carbyne Biometrics, LLC v. Apple Inc., 1:23-cv-00324 (WDTX), filed
`
`March 24, 2023 (Pending) (“Parallel District Court Proceeding”)
`
`Apple is not aware of any disclaimers, reexamination certificates or other IPR
`
`petitions addressing the ’105 patent; however, the following matter involved a
`
`related application and may affect this proceeding:
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2024-00333 Petition
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,475,105
`
`• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al v. RightQuestion, LLC, IPR2022-
`
`00244 (PTAB), filed December 1, 2021 (terminated July 26, 2022)
`
`(“Samsung ’696 Patent IPR”)
`
`C. Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information
`Lead Counsel
`
`David W. O’Brien
`Phone: (512) 867-8457
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`Fax: (214) 200-0853
`2801 N. Harwood St. Suite 2300
`david.obrien.ipr@haynesboone.com
`Dallas, TX 75201
`USPTO Reg. No. 40,107
`
`
`Back-up Counsel
`
`Phone: (512) 867-8528
`Kelly Gehrke Lyle
`Fax: (214) 200-0853
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`kelly.lyle.ipr@haynesboone.com
`2801 N. Harwood St. Suite 2300
`Dallas, TX 75201
`USPTO Reg. No. 62,332
`
`
`Hong Shi
`Phone: (512) 867-8440
`Fax: (214) 200-0853
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`hong.shi.ipr@haynesboone.com
`2801 N. Harwood St. Suite 2300
`USPTO Reg. No. 69,009
`Dallas, TX 75201
`
`Please address all correspondence to lead and back-up counsel. Petitioner
`
`consents to electronic service and asks Patent Owner to do the same.
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioner certifies that the ’105 patent is eligible for IPR, and that Petitioner
`
`is not barred or estopped from requesting IPR challenging the patent claims. 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.104(a).
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`
`
`IV. THE ’105 PATENT
`Summary of the ’105 patent
`A.
`The ’105 patent is directed to an environment including a client device, such
`
`IPR2024-00333 Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 11,475,105
`
`
`
`
`as a notebook computer or tablet, which is connected via a network to a service
`
`such as a website. APPL-1001, 2:62-3:14. FIG. 1 is illustrative:
`
`APPL-1001, FIG. 1, annotated
`
`
`
`The ’105 patent describes authentication techniques to provide user
`
`credentials (e.g., a password) from a client device to a service with a goal of
`
`avoiding reliance on a user’s input of the credential, which is tedious for the user
`
`and leads to poor security practices. APPL-1001, 1:43-52. The ’105 patent
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00333 Petition
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,475,105
`
`
`describes users “need not type such usernames and passwords into their devices
`
`whenever required by a service. Instead, users can authenticate themselves to an
`
`‘authentication translator’...and the authentication translator will provide the
`
`appropriate credentials to the implicated service on the user’s behalf.” APPL-
`
`1001, 3:20-26. FIG. 5 illustrates this authentication translation. APPL-1001, 1:66-
`
`67.
`
`APPL-1001, FIG. 5
`
`
`
`However, these techniques for authentication translation and the systems
`
`performing them were well-known at the time of the claimed invention. APPL-
`
`1003, ¶¶31-35.
`
`Prosecution History
`B.
`The Office rejected all claims as obvious but indicated that then-pending
`
`claim 16 reciting “the backup is performed in response to a determination that the
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00333 Petition
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,475,105
`
`
`first device is of a same brand as the second device” was allowable. APPL-1002,
`
`89-104 (Office Action dated 01-28-2022). The Office also rejected the claims on
`
`obviousness-type double-patenting grounds over various patents including U.S.
`
`Patent 10,360,351 (“Jakobsson ’351”). APPL-1002, 88-89. In a response with
`
`accompanying Terminal Disclaimer, Applicant amended each of its independent
`
`claims to require initiating backup to a second device is “based at least in part on
`
`the first device being a same brand as a second device.” APPL-1002, 69-70, 76-
`
`79. This also was well-known by the earliest claimed invention date. APPL-1003,
`
`¶¶34-35.
`
`C. Effective Filing Date
`The ’105 Patent issued on a continuation-in-part (CIP) application (US
`
`Application 17/123,018 (“the ’018 App”)) filed December 15, 2020. APPL-1001,
`
`(22), (63); see also APPL-1002, 353-54 (ADS-Domestic Benefit), 397. The ’018
`
`App claims priority as a CIP to U.S. Application 17/027,481, which claims priority
`
`through a chain of five (5) continuation applications originating with US
`
`Application 13/706,254 (“the pre-AIA ’254 App”), filed December 5, 2012. Id.
`
`Applicable Law: Because the ’018 App was filed after March 16, 2013, but
`
`purports to claim benefit of a filing date before March 16, 2013, it is a “transition
`
`application.” The America Invents Act provides that its amendment of 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§102, 103 applies to “any application for patent, and to any patent issuing
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00333 Petition
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,475,105
`
`
`thereon, that contains or contained at any time—(A) a claim to a claimed invention
`
`that has an effective filing date as defined in Section 100(i) of title 35, United
`
`States Code, that is [after March 15, 2013].” AIA §3(n)(1).
`
`Here, the ’018 App contained (on filing) dependent claim 16, which
`
`contained the language “the backup is performed in response to a determination
`
`that the first device is of the same brand as the second device.” APPL-1002, 417.
`
`As confirmed by Dr. McDaniel, no disclosure exists in any application to which
`
`the ’018 App claims priority—including the pre-AIA ’254 App—that provides
`
`written description support for a backup being performed in response to a
`
`determination that the first device is of the same brand as the second device.
`
`APPL-1003, ¶¶36-41. Accordingly, AIA §3(n)(1) dictates the ’105 patent be
`
`evaluated under post-AIA §§102, 103.
`
`Effective Filing Date: The claims are only entitled to the actual filing date of
`
`the ’018 App where description of the initiating a backup based at least in part on a
`
`first device being a same brand as a second device (a limitation of each claim) was
`
`first presented.
`
` APPL-1003, ¶¶36-41; APPL-1021 (redline ’105 patent
`
`specification and U.S. Patent 10,360,351 specification). For a claim in a later-filed
`
`application to be entitled to the filing date of an earlier application, the earlier
`
`application must provide written description support for the claimed subject matter.
`
`Anascape, Ltd. v. Nintendo of Am. Inc., 601 F.3d 1333, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00333 Petition
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,475,105
`
`
`written description requirement “guards against the inventor’s overreaching by
`
`insisting that he recount his invention in such detail that his [or her] future claims
`
`can be determined to be encompassed within his original creation.” Vas-Cath Inc.
`
`v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1991). To satisfy the written
`
`description requirement, “the disclosure of the earlier application, the parent, must
`
`reasonably convey to one of skill in the art that the inventor possessed the later-
`
`claimed subject matter at the time the parent application was filed.” Tronzo v.
`
`Biomet, Inc., 156 F.3d 1154, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
`
`As confirmed by Dr. McDaniel, no written description exists in any
`
`application to which the ’018 App claims priority for initiating backup to a second
`
`device based at least in part on the first device being a same brand as a second
`
`device. APPL-1003, ¶¶36-41. To the extent passages of the ’018 App discuss the
`
`term “brand” (i.e., those portions corresponding to 13:28-33 and/or 19:29-35 of the
`
`’105 patent), these passages are not found in any application to which the ’018 App
`
`claims priority. APPL-1003, ¶¶39-41. These passages fall under a heading
`
`“ADDITIONAL EMBODIMENTS.” APPL-1001, 11:30; APPL-1002, 18. This
`
`heading begins a portion of the ’018 App’s specification that spans pages
`
`numbered 18 to 36; in contrast, the originally filed specification of the U.S.
`
`Application 17/027,481 of which the ’018 App is a CIP, does not include this
`
`heading and begins its claim recitation at its page 17. APPL-1002, 395-414;
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`
`
`APPL-1005, 38.
`
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00333 Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 11,475,105
`
`Accordingly, the effective filing date of each of the claims of the ’105 patent
`
`is no earlier than December 15, 2020. For avoidance of doubt, only Ground 3
`
`depends on this priority analysis.
`
`V. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`The level of ordinary skill in the art may be reflected by the prior art of
`
`record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Here,
`
`Persons of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSITA”) at the time of the claimed
`
`invention 1 would have had a bachelor’s degree in an electrical engineering,
`
`computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and at least two years
`
`of experience in the research, design, development, and/or testing of authentication
`
`techniques, and related firmware and software, or the equivalent, with additional
`
`education substituting for experience and vice versa. APPL-1003, ¶¶18-22.
`
`Furthermore, a person with less formal education but more experience, or more
`
`formal education but less experience, could have also met the relevant standard for
`
`POSITA. Id. However, Petitioner does not imply a person having an
`
`extraordinary level of skill should be regarded as POSITA.
`
`
`
`1 This discussion applies to POSITA both at the earliest claimed priority date
`
`(2011) and at the filing date of the ’105 patent (2020).
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`During IPR, claims are construed according to the standard as set forth in
`
`IPR2024-00333 Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 11,475,105
`
`
`
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). 37 C.F.R.
`
`§42.100(b) (Nov. 13, 2018). The claims are construed to the extent necessary to
`
`resolve the underlying controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad
`
`Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Petitioner submits for
`
`purposes of this proceeding, and as set forth below, terms of the challenged claims
`
`should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314-17;
`
`APPL-1003, ¶¶62-64.
`
`“restricted interface” (Claims 9-11 and 28-30)
`A.
`A “restricted interface” is an interface that limits accessibility. APPL-1003,
`
`¶¶63-64. As described above (see Section IV.C.), the ’105 patent issued on a CIP
`
`application that adds description beyond that appearing in the applications to which
`
`it claims priority including new disclosure providing examples of a “restricted
`
`interface.” See APPL-1001, 11:30-24:39 (“Additional Embodiments”).
`
`Turning first to the original disclosure, the ’105 patent (like US 11,514,138,
`
`to which the ’105 patent claims priority as a CIP, and its parent US 10,929,512)
`
`describes an example device including “a fast processor 304, and a smaller but
`
`secure storage 306 attached to a dedicated processor 308 and a sensor 310 (e.g., a
`
`camera or a fingerprint reader),” the specification refers to access limitations in the
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00333 Petition
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,475,105
`
`
`device in connection with an application programming interface (API). APPL-
`
`1001, 4:29-33 (“users cannot access the secure storage area, and the fast processor
`
`can only communicate with the dedicated processor/sensor via a restricted API”).
`
`Thus, POSITA would understand restricted interface to at least include an API that
`
`limits accessibility to secure storage, a fingerprint sensor, or dedicated processor.
`
`APPL-1003, ¶63.
`
`In addition to this originally described form of restricted interface, the ’105
`
`patent adds examples including “dedicated physical connection from a processor
`
`permitted to access the secure storage,” such as “a bus” or secure storage
`
`“integrated with the processor” such as “a SoC (System on a Chip)” as well as
`
`forms of “an API (Application Programming Interface)” having
`
`limited
`
`accessibility. APPL-1001, 18:45-61 (added description in CIP).
`
`In the Parallel District Court Proceeding and without differentiating between
`
`patents, Patent Owner proposed (and the court issued a preliminary construction)
`
`that the term restricted interface is to be understood in accord with plain and
`
`ordinary meaning. APPL-1026, 1. Nonetheless, Petitioner is mindful that, in
`
`review of a related patent, the term restricted interface was central to a non-
`
`institution decision that found another petitioner and its expert failed to explain
`
`how prior art teachings disclosed a “restricted interface” in part because no express
`
`construction was offered. See IPR2022-00251, Paper 17, 23, 25 (PTAB 2002).
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2024-00333 Petition
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,475,105
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning of “restricted interface” is an interface that
`
`limits accessibility. Petitioner also demonstrates in the following analysis that the
`
`prior art renders obvious a restricted interface including configurations explicitly
`
`described in the ’105 patent in hardware and API examples that limit accessibility
`
`to secure storage, a fingerprint sensor or a dedicated physical connection, which is
`
`included within the meaning of the term regardless of how it is construed.
`
`VII. REQUESTED RELIEF
`Petitioner asks the Board to institute trial and cancel the Challenged Claims.
`
`VIII. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGES
`A. Challenged Claims
`Claims 1, 9-11, 14, 18, 28-30, 33 and 35 (“Challenged Claims”) of the ’105
`
`patent are challenged.
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`B.
`Grounds
`#1
`#2
`
`
`
`Statutory Grounds2 for Challenges
`Claim(s)
`1, 14, 18, 33, 35
`9-11, 28-30
`
`#3
`
`1, 9-11, 14, 18, 28-30,
`33, 35
`
`IPR2024-00333 Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 11,475,105
`
`Basis
`§103 over Kesanupalli, Cheng and Kodama
`§103 over Kesanupalli, Cheng and Kodama in
`further view of Challener
`§103 over Jakobsson ’351 and Kodama
`
`Kesanupalli was filed March 24, 2010, published April 7, 2011, and issued
`
`August 5, 2014. Challener was filed September 29, 2006, published May 1, 2008
`
`(APPL-1022), and issued January 17, 2012. Cheng was filed September 24, 2003
`
`and published June 17, 2004. Kodama published July 15, 2009. Kesanupalli and
`
`Challener are prior art under at least §102(a)(2); Cheng and Kodama are prior art
`
`under at least §102(a)(1).
`
`
`
`2 As demonstrated above, the ’105 patent is an AIA patent. See supra, Section
`
`VII.C; AIA § 3(n)(1). Were Patent Owner to contest that, it would be understood
`
`that Kesanupalli also qualifies as prior art under pre-AIA §§102(a), (e), Challener
`
`(or Challener’s PG-PUB) also qualifies under pre-AIA §§102(a), (b), (e), and that
`
`Cheng and Kodama also qualify under pre-AIA §102(b).
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2024-00333 Petition
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,475,105
`
`Jakobsson ‘351 issued July 23, 2019 and qualifies as prior art under at least
`
`§102(a)(1). Only Ground 3 depends on the priority date of the Challenged Claims.
`
`See APPL-1003, ¶¶65-69.
`
`IX.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1, 14, 18, 33 and 35 are obvious under 35
`U.S.C. §103 over Kesanupalli, Cheng and Kodama.
`1. Kesanupalli
`Kesanupalli is entitled “Secure User Authentication Using Biometric
`
`Information” and is directed to a secure authentication system using biometric
`
`information to “provide[] a more secure authentication of the user than commonly
`
`used password-based methods and systems.” APPL-1006, (54), 1:59-62. See
`
`APPL-1003, ¶¶70-75. Based on a match between a fingerprint template stored for
`
`a particular user and fingerprint information read from a finger presented at a
`
`fingerprint reader, Kesanupalli’s methods retrieve credentials associated with the
`
`user and communicate those credentials to an external system or process. APPL-
`
`1006, FIGS. 8-9, 3:14-4:11.
`
`During an enrollment process with a resource such as a website, “a user
`
`swipes [or places] their finger [on] a fingerprint sensor several times to create [the]
`
`fingerprint template. The fingerprint template allows the user’s fingerprint to be
`
`distinguished from fingerprints associated with other users.” APPL-1006, 3:33-41.
`
`The user (or system) also “provides user credentials, such as a password,
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00333 Petition
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,475,105
`
`
`cryptographic key…or the like,” and the systems and methods described in
`
`Kesanupalli “bind the user’s fingerprint template with the user credentials.”
`
`APPL-1006, 3:15-18, 3:41-46. To protect user credentials, “[t]he fingerprint
`
`template and user credentials are then stored in a secure storage of the user’s
`
`device.” APPL-1006, 3:46-47, see also, APPL-1006, 8:29-53.
`
`During a subsequent user identification or verification for the website, a user
`
`presents her biometric information (e.g., places a finger on a fingerprint sensor)
`
`and if the presented fingerprint “matches a fingerprint template, the user’s
`
`credentials are released to the user and/or [the] service or process requesting the
`
`user verification.” APPL-1006, 3:52-61. “[T]he user credentials released after
`
`finding a matching fingerprint template may include an OTP (One Time Password)
`
`token, RSA signature and the like,” such as a “cryptographic key.” APPL-1006,
`
`3:41-44, 3:65-4:1, FIG. 12.
`
`FIG. 9 of Kesanupalli illustrates these steps of authenticating a user in the
`
`context of an embodiment in which user credentials are cryptographically secured
`
`in storage. FIG. 2 illustrates an example system 200 in which user enrollment and
`
`authentication processes are performed using a biometric sensor 204, secure
`
`storage 206 and a Host PC 202. APPL-1006, 6:26-49, 9:10-24.
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00333 Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 11,475,105
`
`
`
`APPL-1006, FIGS. 9 and 2
`
`In an authentication process, sensor 204 receives a biometric input from a user and
`
`releases the user’s credentials from secure storage 206 upon a successful match of
`
`the input with the user’s stored biometric template. APPL-1006, 6:31-45. The
`
`released credentials are then communicated to the external resource by an
`
`application 214 of the Host PC 202. APPL-1006, 5:9-58, 6:11-31.
`
`2. Cheng
`Cheng is entitled “System, Method and Apparatus for Secure Two-Tier
`
`Backup and Retrieval of Authentication Information” and provides ways to
`
`“securely backup and restore” a user’s authentication-based device without
`
`compromising the security thereof. APPL-1008, (54), Abstract.
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2024-00333 Petition
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,475,105
`
`Cheng recognizes because “[b]iometrics-based authentication” is commonly
`
`implemented portable devices
`
`include “user’s authentication
`
`information,
`
`electronic identity and any data associated therewith.” APPL-1008, [0004],
`
`[0006]. Cheng securely backs-up this data to avoid costs of creating the data on
`
`new device from scratch should a first device containing the data be lost or stolen.
`
`See APPL-1008, Abstract, [0006]. An exemplary backup process is illustrated in
`
`Cheng’s FIGS. 3A-3B where a backup of a first user’s device data is performed
`
`through secure communication between a user service bureau (a storage service)
`
`and the device. APPL-1008, [0029]-[0030]. Cheng’s backup process includes a
`
`two-tier encryption procedure. APPL-1008, [0031]-[0039].
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00333 Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 11,475,105
`
`APPL-1008, FIG. 3A – 3B (portion), annotated
`
`
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00333 Petition
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,475,105
`
`
`See APPL-1003, ¶¶76-79. Cheng describes a use case of a user’s first device,
`
`having been backed up, becoming unavailable. A second device connects to the
`
`user service to download the data. APPL-1008, [0044]–[0050], FIGS. 4A-4C.
`
`3. Kodama
`Kodama is also directed to backing up data in an electronic device. APPL-
`
`1010, (57), [0040], [0041]. While Kodama centers around examples applying to a
`
`hard disk device (HDD), Kodama explains that its teachings are “not limited to an
`
`HDD recorder” and “can be applied to any electronic appliance such as a mobile
`
`phone, a PDA or a PC” and “there is no particular limitation in the backup target
`
`data upon applying the present invention.” APPL-1010, [0040], [0041].
`
`Like Cheng, Kodama teaches registering a first device with a backup service
`
`(storage). APPL-1010, [0101]. Kodama’s registration includes providing “device
`
`information including the manufacturer name.” Id. Kodama continues to describe
`
`sending data of the registered first device to the backup service. See APPL-1010,
`
`[0106]–[0107].
`
`Kodama explains previously stored data of the backup service is restored
`
`onto another device (e.g., a “new” device) and to start the restoration process
`
`“device information including the manufacturer name” of the second device is sent
`
`to the backup service system. APPL-1010, [0135]–[0136]. The backup service
`
`system verifies this new device information–including the manufacturer name–
`
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00333 Petition
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,475,105
`
`
`coincides with the first device before permitting the backup of data to the new
`
`device. See APPL-1010, [0137-[0144]. See also, APPL-1003, ¶¶80-82.
`
`4. Combination of Kesanupalli, Cheng and Kodama
`POSITA would have been motivated to apply Cheng’s data backup
`
`teachings to Kesanupalli’s device including biometric information and credentials
`
`for user authentication. APPL-1003, ¶¶83-92. Kesanupalli’s device and its stored
`
`biometric information and credentials, which are a user’s personal data, combined
`
`with Cheng’s data backup teachings would produce obvious, beneficial, and
`
`predictable results of reducing the need to recreate the user’s personal data when
`
`using a new device (e.g., a device replacing one having been lost or stolen). Id.
`
`POSITA would have been further motivated to apply Kodama’s teachings of
`
`ensuring devices implementing the backup are the same brand, which provides the
`
`obvious, beneficial, and predictable result of mitigating compatibility and security
`
`issues. Id.
`
`Kesanupalli, Cheng, Kodama and the ’105 patent, are all in the same field
`
`of endeavor—security arrangements and procedures for protecting data in
`
`computer systems. APPL-1003, ¶85; see, e.g., APPL-1006, 30-38 (“[S]ystems and
`
`methods described herein relate to biometric authentication of users…biometric
`
`information provides an additional level of security when used in systems and
`
`procedures related to authentication of a user.”), 2:48-50 (“client device, such as a
`
`
`
`- 19 -
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00333 Petition
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,475,105
`
`
`computer, cellular phone, and so forth”); APPL-1008, [0003], [0004] (“computers,
`
`electronics, communications, networks, and the Internet, access control in general
`
`and network security in particular have come increasingly important…To satisfy
`
`different security needs, various authentication systems, methods, and devices exist
`
`today and new ones