Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 451-5 Filed 07/27/20 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 25338
`
`EXHIBIT 24
`
`Public Version
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 451-5 Filed 07/27/20 Page 2 of 12 PageID #: 25339
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`MAXELL, LTD.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00202
`U.S. Patent No. 10,212,586
`____________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,212,586
`
`Public Version
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 451-5 Filed 07/27/20 Page 3 of 12 PageID #: 25340
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,212,586
`IPR2020-00202
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’586 PATENT .......................................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`DESCRIPTION OF THE ALLEGED INVENTION OF THE ’586 PATENT ........... 1
`
`SUMMARY OF THE PROSECUTION HISTORY OF THE ’586 PATENT ............ 2
`
`III. THE BOARD’S DISCRETION UNDER § 314(A) .................................... 7
`
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37
`C.F.R. § 42.104 ............................................................................................... 8
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(A) ....................... 8
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B) AND
`RELIEF REQUESTED ................................................................................ 9
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)(3) ...................... 9
`
`LEVEL OF SKILL OF A PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE
`ART ...................................................................................................... 10
`
`V.
`
`THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE ..................... 11
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`GROUND 1: KIRKUP RENDERS CLAIMS 1, 6-7, 9, 13-14, 16, AND 18
`OBVIOUS .............................................................................................. 11
`
`GROUND 2: KIRKUP IN VIEW OF DE LA HUERGA RENDERS CLAIMS 2,
`6, 10, 13, 17, AND 18 OBVIOUS ............................................................ 54
`
`VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 67
`
`VII. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) ................... 69
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`REAL PARTY-IN-INTEREST AND RELATED MATTERS ............................ 69
`
`LEAD AND BACK-UP COUNSEL UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(B)(3-4) ......... 70
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ..................................... 70
`
`i
`
`Public Version
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 451-5 Filed 07/27/20 Page 4 of 12 PageID #: 25341
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,212,586
`IPR2020-00202
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`Cases:
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`
`8, 9
`
`Statutes:
`
`35 U.S.C § 102 (AIA)
`
`35 U.S.C § 102
`
`35 U.S.C § 102(a)
`
`35 U.S.C § 102(b)
`
`35 U.S.C § 102(e)
`
`35 U.S.C § 103
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b)
`
`Regulations:
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`
`ii
`
`12
`
`11
`
`11
`
`3, 11, 54
`
`11
`
`11
`
`3, 9, 11
`
`7
`
`7
`
`80
`
`79
`
`69
`
`69
`
`69
`
`70
`
`Public Version
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 451-5 Filed 07/27/20 Page 5 of 12 PageID #: 25342
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,212,586
`IPR2020-00202
`
`70
`
`70
`
`79
`
`9
`
`70
`
`70
`
`8
`
`8
`
`9
`
`9
`
`9
`
`9
`
`9
`
`9
`
`80
`
`80
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a)
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a)
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103(a)
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1)
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2)
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5)
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.105(a)
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.105(b)
`
`iii
`
`Public Version
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 451-5 Filed 07/27/20 Page 6 of 12 PageID #: 25343
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,212,586
`IPR2020-00202
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) requests Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of
`
`claims 1-2, 6-7, 9-10, 13-14, and 16-18 (“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No.
`
`10,212,586 (“the ’586 Patent”), issued on February 19, 2019, to Hirabayashi, et al.
`
`(“Applicant”). Ex. 1001, ’586 Patent. As demonstrated below, the purportedly
`
`distinguishing feature of the ’586 Patent of using a password input on one mobile
`
`terminal to unlock another mobile terminal was known in the art long before the
`
`priority date of the ’586 Patent.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’586 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`Description of the Alleged Invention of the ’586 Patent
`
`The ’586 Patent is directed to the use of one mobile terminal to unlock another
`
`mobile terminal when the two terminals are in proximity to each other. Id. at Abst.
`
`(“A plurality of mobile terminals are previously registered mutually. When unlocked
`
`among them, one mobile terminal communicates with another mobile terminal in a
`
`communication range of short-range wireless communications, unlocks the above
`
`another mobile terminal, and when out of the communication range, locks it again.”).
`
`Per the ’586 Patent, mobile terminals such as cellular telephones were
`
`previously known in the art. ’586 Patent at 1:15-60, FIG. 7; Ex. 1003, Shoup
`
`Declaration at ¶ 33, 53 (opining FIG. 7 depicts a conventional cellular telephone).
`
`Such terminals were also known to require protection from use by unauthorized
`
`1
`
`Public Version
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 451-5 Filed 07/27/20 Page 7 of 12 PageID #: 25344
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,212,586
`IPR2020-00202
`
`communication include standards developed by the Infrared Data
`
`Association (IrDA), Bluetooth, and the 802.11 family of standards
`
`developed by IEEE.
`
`Kirkup at ¶ [0093]; cf. ’586 Patent at 2:61-63 (“Examples of the short-range wireless
`
`communication include Bluetooth (trademark), infrared rays, and Wi-Fi Direct.”);
`
`Shoup Declaration at ¶ 56 (confirming that “Wi-Fi Direct” communicates via “the
`
`802.11 family of standards developed by IEEE 802.11”). A POSITA would have
`
`understood that “short range-communications subsystem 340” includes a transceiver
`
`at least because short-range communications subsystem 340 establishes wireless
`
`communication link 145, which transmits to and receives from computer 110.
`
`Kirkup at ¶ [0067] (“Wireless communication link 145 may, for example, be
`
`established by
`
`infrared communications or short-range
`
`radio
`
`frequency
`
`communications, such as those specified by the Bluetooth or 802.11 standards.”);
`
`Shoup Declaration at ¶ 56 (confirming that information is transmitted and received
`
`over wireless communications link 145 and that the short range-communications
`
`subsystem includes a transceiver). Thus, Kirkup’s short-range communication
`
`subsystem 340 teaches the claimed “transceiver which performs short-range wireless
`
`communications.”
`
`“a memory which previously stores information about an
`5.
`another mobile terminal”
`
`Kirkup teaches a “memory,” as claimed:
`
`25
`
`Public Version
`
`

`

`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 451-5 Filed 07/27/20 Page 9 of 12 PageID #: 25346
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,212,586
`IPR2020-00202
`
`authentication code is correct, the handheld electronic device 120 then provides the
`
`authentication code for the PC 110 (as extracted from smart-card 130) across
`
`communication link 115, thereby authenticating the user and unlocking the desktop
`
`of PC 110.” Id. at ¶ [0052]; Shoup Declaration at ¶ 57 (citing Kirkup at ¶¶ [0068],
`
`[0052] and opining that because Kirkup teaches the memory storing the
`
`authentication code includes non-volatile memory 324, a POSITA would have
`
`understood the authentication code is stored on memory 324). This authorization
`
`code is “information about” PC 110 as claimed at least because the authorization
`
`code allows access to PC 110. Shoup Declaration at ¶ 57 (opining the memory of
`
`handheld electronic device 120 stores information about PC 110 including at least
`
`the authentication code).
`
`Finally, PC 110 may be “an another mobile terminal,” such as another
`
`handheld electronic device like handheld electronic device 120:
`
`PC 110 may be of any kind of computer, such as a normal desktop
`
`computer, laptop or other portable or fixed computer system which
`
`may require authentication of the user identity prior to enabling use
`
`thereof. Accordingly, while the computer is described as a PC 110, it
`
`should be understood that it need not be a personal computer or be of a
`
`particular type.
`
`Kirkup at ¶ [0047] (emphasis added); see also ¶ [0006] (confirming that handheld
`
`electronic devices have authentication codes and therefore are “portable computer
`
`27
`
`Public Version
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 451-5 Filed 07/27/20 Page 10 of 12 PageID #: 25347
`
`systems [that] require authentication of the user”). Thus, a laptop or other portable
`
`computer system teaches the claimed “another mobile terminal.”
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,212,586
`IPR2020-00202
`
`“a controller which switches the mobile terminal between an
`6.
`unlocked state and a locked state based on an authentication input
`to the mobile terminal, wherein the locked state prevents
`unauthorized access to the mobile terminal”
`
`Kirkup teaches that the microprocessor 338 of handheld device 120 “controls
`
`the overall operation of the handheld electronic device,” and in particular, performs
`
`all functions or steps described with relation to FIG. 2:
`
`Handheld electronic device 120 comprises a number of components,
`
`the controlling component being microprocessor 338. Microprocessor
`
`338 controls the overall operation of the handheld electronic device
`
`120. The hardware and software control functions described above
`
`in relation to FIGS. 1A to 1F and FIG. 2 are performed by
`
`microprocessor 338.
`
`Id. at ¶ [0085]; see also FIG. 3:
`
`28
`
`Public Version
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 451-5 Filed 07/27/20 Page 11 of 12 PageID #: 25348
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,212,586
`IPR2020-00202
`
`Id. at FIG. 34. Thus, the electronic security device 10 of de la Huerga (the mobile
`
`terminal) stores information about a plurality of trusted computer systems (the two
`
`or more another mobile terminals) that device 10 can unlock. Shoup Declaration at
`
`¶ 85.
`
`4.
`
`Kirkup in View of de la Huerga Renders Claim 10 Obvious
`
`(a) Kirkup in view of de la Huerga teaches that “the operation
`includes a biometrics authentication”
`
`Kirkup in view of de la Huerga teaches this limitation. See claim 2, supra.
`
`5.
`
`Kirkup in View of de la Huerga Renders Claim 13 Obvious
`
`(a)
`
`Kirkup in view of de la Huerga teaches the step of “storing
`information about two or more another mobile terminals”
`
`Kirkup in view of de la Huerga teaches this limitation. See claim 6, supra.
`
`6.
`
`Kirkup in View of de la Huerga Renders Claim 17 Obvious
`
`(a) Kirkup in view of de la Huerga teaches that “the operation
`includes a biometrics authentication”
`
`Kirkup in view of de la Huerga teaches this limitation. See claim 2, supra.
`
`7.
`
`Kirkup in View of de la Huerga Renders Claim 18 Obvious
`
`(a) Kirkup in view of de la Huerga teaches a lock state control
`system “comprising two or more second mobile terminals”
`
`Kirkup in view of de la Huerga teaches this limitation. See claim 6, supra.
`
`VI. CONCLUSION
`
`For the forgoing reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests inter partes review
`
`of the Challenged Claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,212,586.
`
`67
`
`Public Version
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 451-5 Filed 07/27/20 Page 12 of 12 PageID #: 25349
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,212,586
`IPR2020-00202
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`ERISE IP, P.A.
`
`BY: /s/ Adam P. Seitz
`Adam P. Seitz, Reg. No. 52,206
`Jennifer C. Bailey, Reg. No 52,583
`Robin A. Snader, Reg. No. 66,085
`7015 College Blvd., Suite 700
`Overland Park, KS 66211
`P: (913) 777-5600
`F: (913) 777-5601
`adam.seitz@eriseip.com
`jennifer.bailey@eriseip.com
`robin.snader@eriseip.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER
`APPLE INC.
`
`68
`
`Public Version
`
`