`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., and
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`ANCORA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-01184
`U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,411,941
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................ 1
`III.
`PAYMENT OF FEES .................................................................................... 3
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ....................................................................... 3
`V.
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED AND GROUNDS RAISED .................... 3
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL ................................................................... 4
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE ’941 PATENT ........................................................... 5
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................... 6
`IX. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS ............................................. 7
`A. Ground 1: Schwartz in View of Yee Renders Obvious Claims
`1-2 and 6-17 .......................................................................................... 7
`1.
`Claim 1 ....................................................................................... 7
`2.
`Claim 2 ..................................................................................... 22
`3.
`Claim 6 ..................................................................................... 23
`4.
`Claim 7 ..................................................................................... 23
`5.
`Claim 8 ..................................................................................... 24
`6.
`Claim 9 ..................................................................................... 25
`7.
`Claim 10 ................................................................................... 26
`8.
`Claim 11 ................................................................................... 26
`9.
`Claim 12 ................................................................................... 27
`10. Claim 13 ................................................................................... 27
`11. Claim 14 ................................................................................... 28
`
`i
`
`

`

`B.
`
`12. Claim 15 ................................................................................... 28
`13. Claim 16 ................................................................................... 30
`14. Claim 17 ................................................................................... 30
`Ground 2: Hasebe in View of Shipman Renders Obvious
`Claims 1-3 and 11-13 ......................................................................... 31
`1.
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 31
`2.
`Claim 2 ..................................................................................... 46
`3.
`Claim 3 ..................................................................................... 47
`4.
`Claim 6 ..................................................................................... 50
`5.
`Claim 7 ..................................................................................... 51
`6.
`Claim 8 ..................................................................................... 52
`7.
`Claim 9 ..................................................................................... 54
`8.
`Claim 10 ................................................................................... 55
`9.
`Claim 11 ................................................................................... 56
`10. Claim 12 ................................................................................... 57
`11. Claim 13 ................................................................................... 58
`12. Claim 14 ................................................................................... 58
`13. Claim 15 ................................................................................... 59
`14. Claim 17 ................................................................................... 60
`SECTIONS 314(a) and 325(d) ..................................................................... 61
`A.
`Section 325(d) .................................................................................... 61
`1.
`Schwartz and Schwartz-Based Grounds .................................. 61
`2.
`Hasebe and Hasebe-Based Grounds ........................................ 64
`
`X.
`
`ii
`
`

`

`B.
`
`Fintiv Factors―§ 314(a) .................................................................... 66
`1.
`Stay Considerations ................................................................. 66
`2.
`Trial Date and Final Written Decision Considerations............ 67
`3.
`Investment in the Parallel Proceeding ..................................... 69
`4.
`Issue Overlap in the Petition and Parallel Proceeding ............. 70
`5.
`Same Party Considerations ...................................................... 71
`6.
`Other Circumstances ................................................................ 72
`XI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 73
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941 (“’941 Patent’)
`Declaration of Dr. Erez Zadok
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Erez Zadok
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941
`U.S. Patent No. 6,153,835 (“Schwartz”)
`Ph.D. Thesis of Bennett Yee, “Using Secure Coprocessors”,
`Carnegie-Mellon University, CMU-CS-94-149 (“Yee”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,935,243 (“Hasebe”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,852,736 (“Shipman”)
`Plaintiff’s Opening Claim Construction Brief (Corrected), dated April
`9, 2020 in Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.,
`Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-
`00034-ADA (W.D. Tex.)
`Israel Application No. 124,571, filed May 21, 1998 (“the IL’571
`application”)
`“Final Claim Constructions of the Court”, Claim Construction Order
`dated June 2, 2020 in Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. Samsung
`Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Case
`No. 1:20-cv-00034-ADA (W.D. Tex.)
`Desktop Management BIOS Specification, Version 2.0, March 6,
`1996 (“DMI Specification”)
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary, 3rd edition (1997)
`Silberschatz, Operating System Concepts, 5th edition (1997)
`Declaration of Dr. S.D. Hall-Ellis
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. S.D. Hall-Ellis
`Supplemental Order Regarding Court Operations Under the Exigent
`Circumstances Created by the Covid-19 Pandemic, dated June 18,
`2020 (W.D. Tex.)
`Prosecution History for Ex Parte Reexamination of U.S. Patent No.
`6,411,941, filed May 28, 2009, Control No. 90/010,560
`Scheduling Order, dated January 2, 2020, in Ancora Technologies,
`Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics
`America, Inc., Case No. 6:19-cv-00384 (W.D. Tex.)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,892,900 (“Ginter”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,748,084 (“Isikoff”)
`
`Ex-1001
`Ex-1002
`Ex-1003
`Ex-1004
`Ex-1005
`Ex-1006
`
`Ex-1007
`Ex-1008
`Ex-1009
`
`Ex-1010
`
`Ex-1011
`
`Ex-1012
`
`Ex-1013
`Ex-1014
`Ex-1015
`Ex-1016
`Ex-1017
`
`Ex-1018
`
`Ex-1019
`
`Ex-1020
`Ex-1021
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Ex-1022
`
`Ex-1031
`
`Ex-1032
`
`DocketNavigator printout on Judge Albright’s case load June 22,
`2020
`Ex-1023 West Texas Cements Its Place As Patent Hotbed, Law 360 (February
`26, 2020)
`B. Schneier, Applied Cryptography, Second Edition (1996)
`Ex-1024
`Ex-1025 W.R. Cheswick et al., Firewalls and Internet Security (1994)
`Ex-1026
`Intel-28F001BX-B-datasheet.pdf
`Ex-1027
`U.S. Patent No. 6,009,524 (“Olarig”)
`Ex-1028
`U.S. Patent No. 5,802,592 (“Chess”)
`Ex-1029
`U.S. Patent No. 6,138,236 (“Mirov”)
`Ex-1030
`Supplemental Order Regarding Court Operations Under the Exigent
`Circumstances Created by the Covid-19 Pandemic, dated April 15,
`2020 (W.D. Tex.)
`Supplemental Order Regarding Court Operations Under the Exigent
`Circumstances Created by the Covid-19 Pandemic, dated May 8,
`2020 (W.D. Tex.)
`Order Regarding Court Operations Under the Exigent Circumstances
`Created by the Covid-19 Pandemic, dated March 13, 2020 (W.D.
`Tex.)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,684,951 (“Goldman”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,189,146 (“Misra”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,479,639 (“Ewertz”)
`Transcript of June 15, 2020 Telephonic Status Conference in MV3
`Partners, LLC v. Roku, Inc., Case No. W-18-CV308 (W.D. Tex.)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,009,177 (“Sudia”)
`
`Ex-1033
`Ex-1034
`Ex-1035
`Ex-1036
`
`Ex-1037
`
`v
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`
`AMERICA, INC. (“Petitioners”) request inter partes review of claims 1-3 and 6-
`
`17 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. 6,411,941 (“the ’941 patent”) (Ex-1001). The
`
`challenged claims should be found unpatentable and canceled.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`Real Parties-in-Interest: Petitioners identify the following as the real
`
`parties-in-interest: SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. and SAMSUNG
`
`ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.
`
`Related Matters: The ’941 patent is at issue in the following cases:
`
`• Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. TCL Communication Holdings Ltd., TCL
`Communication Ltd., TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd.,
`and TCL Corp., Case No. 2-20-cv-01252-GW-AS (C.D. Cal.);
`
`• Ancora Technologies, Inc v. TCT Mobile (US) Inc. and Huizhou TCL
`Mobile Communication Co. Ltd., Case No. 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS
`(C.D. Cal.);
`
`• Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. Lenovo Group Ltd., Lenovo (United
`States) Inc., and Motorola Mobility, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-01712-
`CFC (D. Del.);
`
`• Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. Sony Corporation, Sony Mobile
`Communications AB, Sony Mobile Communications, Inc., and Sony
`Mobile Communications (USA) Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-01703-CFC
`(D. Del.);
`
`• Ancora Technologies, Inc., v. LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics
`U.S.A., Inc., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung
`Electronics Co., Ltd., Case No. 1:20-cv-00034-ADA (W.D. Tex.);
`
`1
`
`

`

`• HTC Corp. and HTC America, Inc., v. Ancora Technologies Inc.,
`Case No. CBM2017-00054 (P.T.A.B.)
`
`• Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. HTC, Inc. and HTC Corp., Case No.
`2:16-cv-01919-RAJ (W.D. Wash.);
`
`• Apple, Inc. v. Ancora Technologies, Inc., Case No. CBM2016-00023
`(P.T.A.B);
`
`• Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-03659-
`YGR (N.D. Cal.);
`
`• Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 744 F.3d 732 (Fed. Cir.
`2014);
`
`• Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 4:11-cv-06357-
`YGR (N.D. Cal.);
`
`• Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 4:11-cv-06357-
`YGR (N.D. Cal.);
`
`• Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 2:10-cv-10045-
`AG-MLG (C.D. Cal.);
`
`• Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. Toshiba Am. Information Sys. Inc., Dell
`Inc., and Hewlett-Packard Co., Case No. 2:09-cv-00270-MJP (W.D.
`Wash.);
`
`• Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. Toshiba Am. Information Sys. Inc., Dell
`Inc., and Hewlett-Packard Co., Case No. 8:08-cv-00626-AG-MLG
`(C.D. Cal.);
`
`• Ex Parte Reexamination No. 90/010,560, filed by Microsoft Corp. on
`May 28, 2009.
`Counsel and Service Information: Lead counsel is Anupam Sharma (Reg.
`
`No. 55,609), and backup counsel are Peter P. Chen (Reg. No. 39,631), Gregory S.
`
`Discher (Reg. No. 42,488), Sinan Utku (Reg. No. 46,137) and Richard L. Rainey
`
`(Reg. No. 47,879). Service information is Covington & Burling LLP, 850 10th St.
`
`2
`
`

`

`N.W., Washington, D.C., 20001, Tel.: 202.662.6000, Fax: 202.778.5485, and 3000
`
`El Camino Real, 5 Palo Alto Square, 10th Floor, Palo Alto, California 94306, Tel.:
`
`650.632.4700, Fax: 650.632.4800. Petitioner consents to electronic service by
`
`email: Samsung-Ancora-IPR@cov.com.
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES
`The Office is authorized to charge any fees due during this proceeding to
`
`Deposit Account No. 603160.
`
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioner certifies that the ’941 patent is available for review and Petitioner
`
`is not barred or estopped from requesting review on the grounds identified herein.
`
`V.
`
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED AND GROUNDS RAISED
`Claims 1-3 and 6-17 of the ’941 Patent should be canceled as unpatentable
`
`based on the following grounds:
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-2, 6-17 are unpatentable under both AIA 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103 and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over U.S. 6,153,835
`
`(“Schwartz”) and Ph.D. Thesis of Bennett Yee, “Using Secure Coprocessors”,
`
`Carnegie-Mellon University, CMU-CS-94-149 (“Yee”); and
`
`Ground 2: Claims 1-3, 6-15 and 17 are unpatentable under both AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103 and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over U.S. 5,935,243
`
`(“Hasebe”) and U.S. 5,852,736 (“Shipman”).
`
`3
`
`

`

`The ’941 patent issued from U.S. Patent Application No. 09/164,777 filed
`
`October 1, 1998. (Ex-1001, Cover.) The ’941 patent purports to claim priority to
`
`Israel Application No. 124,571 filed May 21, 1998 (Ex-1010).
`
`Schwartz issued on November 28, 2000 from U.S. Application No.
`
`08/485,269 filed June 7, 1995, which was a divisional application of U.S.
`
`Application No. 08/139,898 filed October 14, 1993. (Ex-1005, Cover.) Yee was
`
`published in 1994. (Ex-1006, Cover; Ex-1015.)
`
`Hasebe issued on August 10, 1999 based on U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`08/673,108 filed July 1, 1996. (Ex-1007, Cover.) Shipman issued on December
`
`22, 1998, based on U.S. Patent Application No. 08/623,930 filed March 28, 1996.
`
`(Ex-1008, Cover.)
`
`Schwartz, Hasebe and Shipman are prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(e); Yee is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`A person of ordinary skill in the art as of the claimed priority date of the
`
`’941 patent (“POSITA”) would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science,
`
`computer engineering, or in a related field, and about two or three years of
`
`experience in industry with respect to software security, storage systems, and
`
`4
`
`

`

`operating systems. An advanced degree in a relevant field may substitute for a
`
`lesser amount of experience and vice versa. (Ex-1002, ¶28.)1
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE ’941 PATENT
`The patent discloses a method for restricting software operation via
`
`software licensing. (Ex-1001, Abstract.) Fig. 2 shows the claimed method:
`
`
`(Ex-1001, Fig. 2.) In step 17, a program in volatile memory (e.g., RAM, or indeed
`
`a hard drive according to the patent (Id., 1:20-21)) is selected. (Id., 6:7-17.) In
`
`step 18, a verification structure is set up and accommodates a license record. (Id.,
`
`6:18-22.) In step 19, the selected program is verified using the verification
`
`
`1 Petitioner submits the declaration of Dr. Erez Zadok (Ex-1002), an expert in the
`
`field of the ’941 patent (Ex-1002; Ex-1003.)
`
`5
`
`

`

`structure. (Id., 6:29-39.) In step 20, the program is acted upon depending on the
`
`result of the verification. (Id., 6:40-52.)
`
`The ’941 patent’s alleged improvement over the prior art is storing the
`
`license record in the memory of the BIOS. (Id., 3:4-14.) But storing sensitive
`
`information in BIOS memory to enhance security was well-known.
`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`For IPR proceedings, patent claims are “construed using the same claim
`
`construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action,”
`
`i.e., the Phillips standard. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). The Board construes the claims only
`
`when necessary to resolve the underlying controversy. Toyota Motor Corp. v.
`
`Cellport Systems, Inc., IPR2015-00633, Paper No. 11 at 16 (Aug. 14, 2015).
`
`The district court (“Court”) in the Western District of Texas (“WDTX”)
`
`construed the claims. (Ex-1011, Cover.)2 These claim constructions have been
`
`adopted for purposes of this Petition.
`
`
`2 Petitioner reserves all rights to raise other arguments in district court.
`
`6
`
`

`

`IX. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS
`Claims 1-3 and 6-17 are unpatentable. (Ex-1002, ¶¶ 162, 163-348.)3
`
`A. Ground 1: Schwartz in View of Yee Renders Obvious Claims 1-2
`and 6-17
`Claim 1
`1.
`A method of restricting software operation within a
`a)
`license for use with a computer including an erasable,
`non-volatile memory area of a BIOS of the computer,
`and a volatile memory area; the method comprising
`the steps of:
`Schwartz discloses the preamble. (Ex-1011, 5 (holding part of the preamble
`
`to be limiting).) In Fig. 1, Schwartz discloses an electronic postage scale system
`
`10 that includes a scale 11 and a console 13. (Ex-1005, 4:28-45.)
`
`
`
`
`3 The public availability of all non-patent literature has been confirmed by Dr.
`
`Sylvia Hall-Ellis. (Ex-1013.)
`
`7
`
`

`

`(Id., Fig. 1.) System 10 is controlled by software that can be updated periodically.
`
`(Id., 10:15-20.) During an update, a user enters an authorization number to verify
`
`that the software was licensed. (Id., 10:21-25.) System 10 verifies the
`
`authorization number by comparing portion of the authorization number with an
`
`internally generated electronic signature. (Id., 10:25-37, 10:45-49.) The latter is
`
`calculated based on the configuration of system 10 and its software. (Id.) If the
`
`two match, the software is executed. (Id., 11:38-40.) Additionally, the
`
`authorization number is stored in an EEPROM in system 10 and is used to verify
`
`the licensed software during subsequent uses. (Id., 10:47-54, 11:24-36.) Each
`
`time system 10 is powered up, it retrieves the verification number from the
`
`EEPROM and compares it with an internally generated electronic signature. (Id.)
`
`A match implies that the software remains licensed. (Id.) The method allegedly
`
`deters unauthorized copying. (Id., 12:29-40; Ex-1002, ¶¶ 155, 168.)
`
`“computer”
`(1)
`Fig. 8 is a block diagram of the console 13. Console 13 includes a
`
`microprocessor 201, memory (ROM 213, flash EEPROM 250a and EPROM 250b)
`
`that runs an application program, a display module 16, and a keyboard 17. (Ex-
`
`1005, 1:1-4, 4:56-57, 6:27-8:67, Fig. 8, claim 1.) A POSITA will understand that
`
`console 13 is a “computer.” (Ex-1002, ¶163.)
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
` (Ex-1005, Fig. 8.)
`
`“volatile memory area”
`(2)
`Fig. 9 of Schwartz is a map of memory section 250 shown in Fig. 8.
`
`Memory section 250 includes a volatile memory SRAM 250d (Ex-1005, 7:50-56,
`
`8:23-25; Ex-1002, ¶¶32-33, 163-64.) SRAM 250d corresponds to the “volatile
`
`memory” because, as required by the Court, its data is not maintained when the
`
`power is removed. (Ex-1011, 2; Ex-1002, ¶¶32-33, 163-66.)
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`(Ex-1005, Fig. 9.)
`
`“erasable, non-volatile memory area of a BIOS”
`(3)
`Memory section 250 also includes a flash EEPROM 250a. (Ex-1005, 7:50-
`
`62.) A POSITA will understand that EEPROM 250a is erasable and
`
`programmable, and maintains its data when the power is removed. (Ex-1011, 1;
`
`Ex-1002, ¶163.) Thus, EEPROM 250a is the claimed “non-volatile memory.”
`
`(Ex-1011, 1.) Furthermore, EEPROM 250a stores part of BIOS module 309. (Ex-
`
`1005, 8:17-19; Ex-1002, ¶167.) BIOS module 309 “contains firmware responsible
`
`for basic machine operation of system 10.” (Ex-1005, 8:14-16.) Thus, the
`
`firmware performs the function of the BIOS, as construed by the Court. (Ex-1011,
`
`2; Ex-1002, ¶¶43, 167.) A POSITA will understand that flash EEPROM 250a
`
`10
`
`

`

`corresponds to the “erasable, non-volatile memory [of] BIOS” of the “computer.”
`
`(Ex-1002, ¶167.)4
`
`“restricting software operation within a license”
`(4)
`Schwartz discloses restricting use of system 10 and hence its application
`
`program. The restriction is based on a verification process that involves using an
`
`authorization number. (Ex-1005, 10:21-28, 11:21-40). The authorization number
`
`is unique to system 10 and consists of a 32-bit electronic signature and another 32-
`
`bit encrypted option segment. (Id.) System 10 becomes operational only if the
`
`authorization number is verified. (Ex-1005, 11:21-40.)
`
`The verification scheme disclosed in Schwartz deters unauthorized copying
`
`of the software of system 10. (Ex-1005, 12:29-40.) Thus, Schwartz’s system 10
`
`“restricts software operation within a license for use with a computer.” (Ex-1002,
`
`¶¶155, 168.)
`
`
`4 In the related litigation, the Court did not construe “non-volatile memory of the
`
`BIOS.” (Ex-1011.) Patent Owner has asserted that “non-volatile memory of the
`
`BIOS” is “memory space associated with the computer’s basic input/output system
`
`(BIOS).” (Ex-1009, p. 12.) EEPROM 250a is the claimed memory under that
`
`interpretation because it stores part of BIOS module 309. (Ex-1005, 8:17-19.)
`
`11
`
`

`

`selecting a program residing in the volatile memory,
`b)
`Schwartz discloses this limitation. Schwartz discloses verifying an
`
`electronic signature that was previously stored in configuration module 307 by
`
`comparing it with another electronic signature that is calculated based on the
`
`current configuration of system 10 and its current software. (Ex-1005, 11:21-38;
`
`Ex-1002, ¶¶154, 185.) If there is a match, the application program is run--the
`
`program is loaded into volatile memory (SRAM 250d) and executed. (Ex-1005,
`
`11:38-40.) Thus, by disclosing that a program is loaded and run, Schwartz
`
`discloses selecting the program that was resident in the volatile memory of system
`
`10. (Ex-1002, ¶169.) The application program in Schwartz corresponds to the
`
`“program” because the application program is executed by a computer, (Ex-1002,
`
`¶170), as required by the Court. (Ex-1011, 3 (“program” is “[a] set of instructions
`
`that can be executed by a computer.”))
`
`Schwartz discloses selecting program after the verification step. (Ex-1005,
`
`11:36-40.) However, the Court construed the order of steps for claim 1 in a
`
`manner that allows this limitation to occur at any time, while the remaining steps
`
`of claim 1 must be “completed” prior to the later steps being completed. (Ex-1011,
`
`5.) The combination of Schwartz and Yee satisfies the Court’s construction for all
`
`of the limitations of claim 1. (Ex-1002, ¶171.)
`
`12
`
`

`

`c)
`
`using an agent to set up a verification structure in the
`erasable, non-volatile memory of the BIOS, the
`verification structure accommodating data that
`includes at least one license record,
`Schwartz in combination with Yee discloses this limitation. (Ex-1002,
`
`¶172.) Schwartz discloses the use of a verification software (Ex-1005, 11:33-36) to
`
`set up an authorization number (id., 10:25-28) that includes an electronic signature
`
`(id.) in EEPROM 250a (id., 8:16-19) in system 10. The verification software runs
`
`on the system 10 to first set up the authorization number. (Ex-1005, 10:21-54.) It
`
`then carries out verification based on the authorization number. (Ex-1005, 11:21-
`
`40; Ex-1002, ¶¶173, 175.) It renders an application program of system 10
`
`operational only if verification is successful. (Ex-1005, 11:36-40.)
`
`“License Record”
`(1)
`The Court has construed the term “license record” as “[d]ata associated with
`
`a license program with information for verifying that licensed program.” (Ex-
`
`1011.) The verification software in system 10 verifies whether the application
`
`program is licensed based on the authorization number, and, in particular, based on
`
`the electronic signature contained in the authorization number. (Ex-1005, 12:29-
`
`31, 11:21-40.) The electronic signature is based on data that is associated with the
`
`application program (e.g., the version number of the program). (Ex-1005, 10:28-
`
`38; Ex-1002, ¶175.) The electronic signature disclosed in Schwartz corresponds to
`
`the “license record.” (Id.)
`
`13
`
`

`

`“Verification Structure”
`(2)
`The “using an agent” limitation requires the “verification structure” to (i)
`
`include at least one “license record” and (ii) be stored in the “erasable, non-volatile
`
`memory of the BIOS.” (Ex. 1001, 6:64-67.)
`
`Schwartz discloses the authorization number includes the electronic
`
`signature. (Ex-1005, 10:25-28.) The authorization number (and hence the
`
`electronic signature) is stored in configuration module 307, and configuration
`
`model 307 and part of the BIOS module are stored in EEPROM 250a. (Ex-1005,
`
`8:16-20, 10:51-54, 11:37-38; Ex-1002, ¶¶176-78.) Thus, the authorization number
`
`is stored in EEPROM 250a (Id.) The electronic signature corresponds to the
`
`“license record” and EEPROM 250a corresponds to the “erasable, non-volatile
`
`memory of the BIOS.” (Section IX.A.1.a.3, supra.) Thus, the authorization
`
`number in Schwartz corresponds to the “verification structure.” (Ex-1002, ¶¶174-
`
`75.)
`
`“Set Up a Verification Structure”
`(3)
`The step of “set[ting] up a verification structure” requires: “[1] establishing
`
`or certifying the existence of a pseudo-unique key and [2] establishing at least one
`
`license-record location.” (Ex-1011, p. 4.) Schwartz discloses that the verification
`
`software in system 10 calculates the electronic signature based on the configuration
`
`of system 10 using a first encryption algorithm. (Ex-1005, 10:25-38; Ex-1002,
`
`14
`
`

`

`¶¶179-80.) The authorization number, which includes the electronic signature, is
`
`calculated outside system 10 and provided to the user of system 10. (Ex-1005,
`
`10:21-28.) Then, the user enters the authorization number in to system 10. (Ex-
`
`1005, 10:42-53.) The authorization number is stored in configuration module 307,
`
`which is in flash EEPROM 250a (“non-volatile memory of the BIOS”). Id. A
`
`POSITA will understand that the application program in Schwartz can access
`
`EEFROM 250a. (Ex-1002, ¶¶51-57.) Thus, Schwartz discloses establishing one
`
`license-record location. (Id., ¶¶178, 184.)
`
`While Schwartz generally discloses use of electronic signature and
`
`encryption/decryption techniques, it does not disclose an algorithm for encryption.
`
`On the other hand, Yee discloses using a secure coprocessor to enhance security in
`
`a computer by using cryptographic techniques implemented on the coprocessor.
`
`(Ex-1006, 5, 53-69.) Yee employs non-volatile memory to store both BIOS
`
`software and verification-related information, such as (i) digital signatures and
`
`cryptographic checksums, and (ii) encryption/decryption-related keys. (Id., at 20,
`
`38; Ex-1002, ¶181.) Yee’s techniques can be used in postage meters with copy
`
`protection for software. (Id., 19-22, 31-33; Ex-1002, ¶¶156, 212-215.)
`
`The secure processor in Yee employs a “Random_Priv_Key” that is a
`
`symmetric, pseudo-unique key. (Ex-1006, Fig. 3.1 (p. 21); Ex-1001, 4:10-18; Ex-
`
`15
`
`

`

`1002, ¶¶181-82.)5 The block labeled “Software R US” in Fig. 3.1 assigns the key
`
`to the Secure Processor to encrypt messages not intended for third parties. (Ex-
`
`1006, p. 21; Ex-1002, ¶¶182-83.) Use of a distinct (pseudo-unique) key by each
`
`host in the system would enhance overall security. (Ex-1006, 20-21; Ex-1002,
`
`¶182.) Such a scheme would ensure that an encrypted message sent to a host could
`
`be read only by that host. (Ex-1006, p. 20-21; Ex-1002, ¶182.)
`
`Yee further discloses that the “Random_Priv_Key” is stored in non-volatile
`
`memory. (Ex-1006, 20, 38.) The non-volatile memory also stores software that
`
`enables the microprocessor to locate the operating system on the hard disk drive
`
`and load it into RAM. (Id., 38.) This software is BIOS software because it
`
`performs startup operations and starts the operating system. (Ex-1002, ¶¶43, 181.)
`
`Thus, the non-volatile memory that stores the “Random_Priv_Key” is “non-
`
`volatile memory of the BIOS.” A POSITA would thus understand that Yee
`
`teaches “establishing or certifying the existence of a pseudo-unique key” in non-
`
`volatile memory of the BIOS. (Ex-1002, ¶181.)
`
`A POSITA would further understand that Yee’s “Random_Priv_Key” can be
`
`used in Schwartz’s first encryption algorithm to generate Schwartz’s authorization
`
`
`5 The ’941 Patent indicates that “unique keys” are a subset of “pseudo-unique
`
`keys.” (Ex-1001, 4:10-18; Ex-1002, ¶¶58-59.)
`
`16
`
`

`

`number (i.e., “verification structure”) through encryption. (Ex-1005, 10:28-38;
`
`Ex-1002, ¶¶184, 225.) A POSITA would understand that the combination of
`
`Schwartz and Yee discloses establishing or certifying the existence of a pseudo-
`
`unique key when Schwartz employs the “Random_Priv_key” of Yee. (Ex-1002,
`
`¶¶181, 184.)6
`
`“Agent”
`(4)
`The Court has construed the plain and ordinary meaning of “agent” to mean
`
`“a software program or routine.” (Ex-1011, 3.) A POSITA will understand that
`
`the verification software disclosed in Schwartz and Yee is a software program or
`
`routine. (Ex-1002, ¶173.)
`
`d)
`
`verifying the program using at least the verification
`structure from the erasable non-volatile memory of
`the BIOS, and
`Schwartz discloses this limitation. The term “verifying the program using at
`
`least the verification structure” means “confirming whether a program is licensed
`
`using at least the verification structure.” (Ex-1011, 4.) Schwartz initially confirms
`
`that the program is licensed by comparing the electronic signature input by a user
`
`with an internally generated electronic signature. (Ex-1005, 10:21-53.) The latter
`
`
`6 The Court noted that the “establishing” prong may include additional steps. (Ex-
`
`1011, 4.) Schwartz and Yee suggest these steps. (Ex-1002, ¶¶175, 179, 193-94.)
`
`17
`
`

`

`is calculated based on the configuration of system 10 and its software. (Ex-1005,
`
`10:25-41, 10:44-46.) If the two match, the authorization number is stored in
`
`configuration module 307, which is part of EEPROM 250a. (Id. 10:51-54.)
`
`Subsequently, each time system 10 is powered up, system 10 confirms again that
`
`the program is licensed. (Id., 11:21-38, 12:29-40; Ex-1002, ¶185.) It retrieves the
`
`authorization number from configuration module 307 (which is part of EEPROM
`
`250a) and compares it with an internally generated electronic signature. (Id.) The
`
`EEPROM 250a in Schwartz corresponds to the “erasable non-volatile memory of
`
`the BIOS.” (Section IX.A.1.a.3, supra.) Thus, Schwartz confirms that the program
`
`is licensed by using the authorization number (“verification structure”) that was
`
`stored in the EEPROM 250a. (Id.)
`
`acting on the program according to the verification.
`e)
`Schwartz discloses this limitation. If there is a match in the verification step,
`
`the application program is run. (Ex-1005, 8:26-35, 11:38-40; Ex-1002, ¶186.) If
`
`not, the program is not run. Id. This disclosure satisfies the Court’s construction
`
`that the ordinary meaning of this step includes “restricting the program’s operation
`
`with predetermined limitations [and] halting the operation of the program.” (Ex-
`
`1011, 4.)
`
`18
`
`

`

`f) Motivation to Combine Schwartz and Yee
`Schwartz discloses an electronic postage scale system. (Ex-1005, 4:28-55.)
`
`To deter unlicensed use of software, the system permits a user to enable a program
`
`only after the user enters a valid authorization number. (Id., 10:21-25.) The
`
`system verifies the authorization number by generating an electronic signature with
`
`an encryption algorithm. (Id., 10:25-41, 11:21-38; Ex-1002, ¶185.) But Schwartz
`
`does not describe the details of the encryption algorithm. (Id., 10:25-41; Ex-1002,
`
`¶233.) A POSITA implementing Schwartz would have to select a specific
`
`encryption algorithm and would necessarily search outside Schwartz.
`
`Yee discloses an encryption algorithm that uses a private key in an
`
`electronic postage scale system. (Ex-1006, 20-21, Fig. 3.1.) Both Schwartz and
`
`Yee are in the same field: electronic postage systems. (Ex-1005, 2:25-49; Ex-
`
`1006, pp. 31-33.) Both share a common goal of providing security against piracy
`
`of programs. (Ex-1005, 12:29-31; Ex-1006, pp. 20-21) Both Schwartz and Yee
`
`check to ensure a program is licensed before it can be used. Id. Therefore,
`
`Schwartz and Yee are in the same or similar technical field, and a POSITA would
`
`consider Yee when implementing the Schwartz system. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶212-20.) See
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417-420 (2007).
`
`When implementing Schwartz, a POSITA would be motivated to adopt the
`
`disclosures of Yee an