UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________
`
`NINTENDO CO., LTD., and NINTENDO OF AMERICA INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ANCORA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`__________
`
`Case IPR2021-01338
`U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941 B1
`
`____________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01338: Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1 
`I. 
`II.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................ 2 
`A. 
`The Plain Meaning of “Agent” Excludes Hardware in the
`Context of the ’941 Patent ................................................................... 2 
`Construing “Agent” as Software-Only Is Consistent with its
`Plain Meaning and the Disclosure of the ’941 Patent ......................... 3 
`Ancora’s Interpretation of “Agent” is Not Inconsistent with
`Positions it Adopted in Related District Court Cases ......................... 5 
`“Agent” Is Properly Interpreted to Require an OS-Level
`Software Program or Routine in View of the ’941 File History ......... 7 
`The Meaning of “OS-Level” Is Reasonably Certain ........................ 10 
`E. 
`NEITHER HELLMAN NOR CHOU NOR THE ALLEGED
`I. 
`COMBINATION DISCLOSES USING AN AGENT TO SET UP A
`VERIFICATION STRUCTURE IN THE ERASABLE, NON-VOLATILE
`MEMORY OF THE BIOS .................................................................................. 11 
`A.  Hellman Discloses Hardware Used to Store License Records In
`an EEPROM, and Replacing Hellman’s Hardware with
`Software Would Not Have Been Obvious ........................................ 12 
`Hellman Does Not Disclose Any Operating System, Nor Would
`the Asserted Combination Render the Claimed Agent Obvious ...... 14 
`The Reply Does Not Redeem Petitioner’s Failed Motivation to
`Combine Arguments ......................................................................... 18 
`Petitioner’s Supplemental “Verification Structure” Arguments
`Did Not Appear in the Petition or the Supporting Wolfe
`Declaration ........................................................................................ 19 
`PETITIONER’S MODIFIED HELLMAN, ASSERTED AGAINST
`II. 
`DEPENDENT CLAIMS 3, 8, 9, AND 14, RELIES ON THE ’941 PATENT
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01338: Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`AS THE ROADMAP FOR SELECTING A SINGLE SPECIFIC
`EMBODIMENT IN A PARTICULAR WAY ................................................... 20 
`III.  OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE OF NON-OBVIOUSNESS ......................... 21 
`A. 
`The Joint Press Release Establishes Industry Recognition ............... 21 
`B. 
`Additional Settlement Agreements Show the Value of the ’941
`Patent ................................................................................................. 21 
`Settlements for Less That the Cost of Litigation Have No Value
`When Evaluating Commercial Success of the ’941 Patent ............... 22 
`IV.  CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 24 
`
`C. 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01338: Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`Cases 
`Access, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp.,
`383 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .............................................................................. 3
`Akzo N.V. v. United States ITC,
`808 F.2d 1471 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ............................................................................ 20
`Ancora Techs., Inc. v. Apple, Inc.,
`744 F.3d 732 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .............................................................................. 19
`Cole Kepro Int’l, LLC v. VSR Inds., Inc.,
`695 Fed. Appx. 566 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ................................................................... 22
`Ideal Instruments, Inc. v. Rivard Instruments, Inc.,
`498 F. Supp. 2d 1131 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ................................................................... 2
`Iron Grip Barbell Co. v. USA Sports, Inc.,
`392 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................ 22
`Kaken Pharma. Co., Ltd. v. Iancu,
`952 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .............................................................................. 7
`Mass. Inst. of Tech. v. Shire Pharms., Inc.,
`839 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .............................................................................. 7
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`572 U.S. 898 (2014) ............................................................................................. 11
`Personal Web Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`848 F.3d 987 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .............................................................................. 17
`Rembrandt Wireless Techs., LP v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd.,
`853 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .............................................................................. 7
`Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v. Sipnet EU S.R.O.,
`806 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .............................................................................. 3
`Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Drilling USA, Inc.,
`699 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................ 22
`Regulations 
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23 .............................................................................................. 19, 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01338: Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`EXHIBIT NO. TITLE
`1001
`U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941 to Mullor et al. (“’941 Patent”)
`Image File Wrapper of U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941 (“File
`1002
`History”)
`1003
`Declaration of Andrew Wolfe, Ph.D. (“Wolfe Decl.”)
`1004
`U.S. Patent No. 4,658,093 (“Hellman”)
`1005
`U.S. Patent No. 5,892,906 (“Chou”)
`1006
`U.S. Patent No. 5,933,498 (“Schneck”)
`1007
`Reserved
`1008
`Reserved
`1009
`Reserved
`1010
`Reserved
`Claim Construction Order, Ancora Techs., Inc. v. Apple Inc., No.
`1011
`4:11-cv-06357 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 31, 2012) (ECF No. 107).
`Final Claim Constructions of the Court, Ancora Techs., Inc. v.
`LG Elecs., Inc., No. 1:20-cv-00034 (W.D. Tex. June 2, 2020)
`(ECF No. 69).
`Supplemental Claim Construction Order, Ancora Techs., Inc. v.
`LG Elecs., Inc., No. 1:20-cv-00034 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 19, 2020)
`(ECF No. 93).
`Civil Minutes re Telephonic Markman Hearing, Ancora Techs.,
`Inc. v. TCT Mobile (US), Inc., No. 8:19-cv-02192 (C.D. Cal.
`Nov. 12, 2020) (ECF No. 66) (attaching “The Court’s Final
`Ruling on Claim Construction (Markman) Hearing,” but also
`ordering further meet and confer on subject).
`Civil Minutes re Telephonic Markman Hearing, Ancora Techs.,
`Inc. v. TCT Mobile (US), Inc., No. 8:19-cv-02192 (C.D. Cal.
`Nov. 19, 2020) (ECF No. 69) (confirming no change to “The
`Court’s Final Ruling on Claim Construction (Markman)
`Hearing”).
`Decision Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review, TCT
`Mobile (US) Inc. v. Ancora Technologies, Inc., No. IPR2020-
`01609 (Feb. 16, 2021) (Paper No. 7) (“TCL Institution
`Decision”).
`Decision Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review, Sony
`Mobile Commc’ns AB v. Ancora Technologies, Inc., No.
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01338: Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`1034
`
`1035
`1036
`1037
`
`1038
`1039
`1040
`
`IPR2021-00663 (June 10, 2021) (Paper No. 17) (“Sony
`Institution Decision”).
`Board Email Authorizing Motion For Additional Discovery,
`1018
`May 27, 2022
`1019 – 1032 RESERVED
`Declaration of Andrew Wolfe, Ph.D., in Support of Petitioners’
`1033
`Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`Transcript of the Deposition of Miki Mullor, July 12, 2022
`(Confidential)
`Transcript of the Deposition of David Martin, Ph.D., July 14,
`2022
`RESERVED
`Denon DP-35F/DP-45F Instruction Manual, Nippon Columbia
`Co., Ltd.
`Excerpts from Dictionary of Computing, 4th ed., Oxford
`University Press, 1996
`U.S. Patent No. 5,568,552 to Davis
`Guttman, B., et al., Computer Security, National Institute of
`Standards and Technology, 1995)
`Kaliski, B., “PKCS #1: RSA Encryption,” RFC 2313, The
`1041
`Internet Society, Network Working Group, March 1998
`U.S. Patent No. 5,724,425 to Chang et al.
`1042
`U.S. Patent No. 5,935,246 to Benson
`1043
`1044 – 1049 RESERVED
`1050
`LG Settlement and License Agreement (Confidential)
`1051
`TCL Settlement and License Agreement (Confidential)
`1052
`Sony Settlement and License Agreement (Confidential)
`1053
`Microsoft Settlement and License Agreement (Confidential)
`1054
`Lenovo Settlement and License Agreement (Confidential)
`1055
`Toshiba Settlement and License Agreement (Confidential)
`1056
`Dell Settlement and License Agreement (Confidential)
`1057
`HP Settlement and License Agreement (Confidential)
`1058 – 1069 RESERVED
`Opening Claim Construction Brief, Ancora Techs., Inc. v. LG
`Electronics Inc. et al., No. 1:20-cv-00034 (W.D. Tex. April 9,
`2020) (ECF No. 47)
`Responsive Claim Construction Brief, Ancora Techs., Inc. v. LG
`Electronics Inc. et al., No. 1:20-cv-00034 (W.D. Tex. April 10,
`2020) (ECF No. 50)
`
`1070
`
`1071
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01338: Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`1072
`
`1073
`
`1074
`
`1075
`
`1076
`
`1077
`
`2001
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`2008
`2009
`
`2010
`
`Reply Claim Construction Brief, Ancora Techs., Inc. v. LG
`Electronics Inc. et al., No. 1:20-cv-00034 (W.D. Tex. April 27,
`2020) (ECF No. 53)
`Opening Markman Brief, Ancora Techs., Inc. v. HTC America,
`Inc. et al., No. 2:16-cv-01919-RAJ (W.D. Washington
`September 23, 2019) (ECF No. 59)
`Ancora Technologies, Inc.’ Responsive Markman Brief, Ancora
`Techs., Inc. v. HTC America, Inc. et al., No. 2:16-cv-01919-RAJ
`(W.D. Washington October 7, 2019) (ECF No. 62)
`Ancora Technologies, Inc.’s Disclosure Of Extrinsic Evidence;
`Ancora Techs., Inc. v. Google, Inc. et al., No. 6:21-cv-00735,
`0737, 00738 (W.D. Tex. January 13, 2022)
`Complaint for Patent Infringement, Ancora Techs., Inc. v.
`Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al., No. 6:21-cv-00738 (W.D. Tex. July
`16, 2021)
`Complaint for Patent Infringement, Ancora Techs., Inc. v. Roku,
`Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00737 (W.D. Tex. July 16, 2021)
`
`Microsoft Corporation’s Request for Ex Parte Reexamination
`Image File Wrapper, Control No. 90010560
`Ancora Techs., Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 744 F.3d 732 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
`Deposition Excerpts of Jon Weissman, Ancora Techs., Inc. v.
`HTC America, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-01919 (W.D. Wa. Sep. 9,
`2019)
`Declaration of Ian Jestice, Ancora Techs., Inc. v. HTC America,
`Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-01919 (W.D. Wa. Aug. 26, 2019)
`Brief of Appellees HTC America, Inc. and HTC Corporation,
`Ancora Techs., Inc. v. HTC America, Inc., HTC Corp., Case No.
`18-1404 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 23, 2018)
`Declaration of Jon Weissman, Ancora Techs., Inc. v. HTC
`America, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-01919 (W.D. Wa. Sep. 4, 2019)
`Terplan, Kornel, Morreale, Patricia, THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS
`HANDBOOK, CRC Press, 2000
`COMPUTER USER’S DICTIONARY, Microsoft Press, 1998
`MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY FOURTH EDITION, Microsoft
`Press,1999
`PC MAGAZINE ENCYCLOPEDIA, available at
`https://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia (excerpt, definition of
`“Agent”)
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01338: Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`2014
`2015
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`2018
`2019
`2020
`2021
`
`2022
`
`2023
`
`2024
`2025
`2026
`2027
`2028
`2029
`2030
`2031
`2032
`2033
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941 File History with Beeble White Paper
`Joint Claim Construction Chart, Ancora Techs., Inc. v. TCT
`Mobile (US) Inc., Huizhou TCL Mobile Commc’n Co., Ltd., and
`Shenzhen TCL Creative Cloud Tech. Co., Ltd., Case No. 8:19-
`cv-02192 (Dkt. #49, 49-1, 49-2)
`Declaration of Dr. David Martin, Ph.D., Sony Mobile Commc’ns
`AB, Sony Mobile Commc’ns, Inc., Sony Elecs. Inc., and Sony
`Corp. v. Ancora Techs., Inc., IPR2021-00663, Ex. 2015 (PTAB
`Apr. 23, 2021)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,189,146 (Misra)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,479,639 (Ewertz)
`Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review, Samsung
`Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v.
`Ancora Technologies, Inc., IPR2020-01184
`Declaration of Ian Jestice, Ancora Technologies Inc. v. LG
`Electronics Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A. Inc., Samsung
`Electronics Co., Ltd., and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,
`Case No. 1:20-cv-00034 (Dkt. # 44-8)
`Declaration of Dr. David Martin (May 3, 2022)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,892,900 (Ginter)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,734,819 (Lewis)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,153,835 (Schwartz)
`Ancora Techs. Inc. v. Apple, inc., Case No. 4:11-cv-06357 (Dkt.
`# 171-3) [Apple Inc.’s N.D. Cal. L.R. 3-3 (Invalidity)
`Disclosures]
`Petition, HTC Corp. v. Ancora Techs. Inc., Case No. CBM2017-
`00054, Paper 1 (PTAB May 26, 2017)
`Institution Decision, HTC Corp. v. Ancora Techs. Inc., Case No.
`CBM2017-00054, Paper 7 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2017)
`Croucher, “The BIOS Companion” (1997) (Excerpts)
`Transcript of Deposition of Dr. Andrew Wolfe (April 22, 2022)
`Joint News Release (February 14, 2005)
`March 25, 2022 Email from Board regarding IPR2021-01338
`and IPR2021-01406
`
` (Confidential)
`Declaration of Miki Mullor
`
` (Confidential)
` (Confidential)
`
`Reserved
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01338: Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`2034
`2035
`2036
`
`2037
`
`2038
`2039
`2040
`2041
`2042
`
`2043
`
`2044
`2045
`
`2046
`
`2047
`
`2048
`
`2049
`
`2050
`
`2051
`
`
`
`
`
`Reserved
`AIPLA statistics
`Reserved
`
`
`
`
`
`(Confidential)
`Proposed Protective Order
`Redline Relative To Standard Protective Order
`Reserved
`Reserved
`Barron’s Dictionary of Computing and Internet Terms (5th Ed.
`1996)
`Decision Granting Institution, Case No. IPR2020-01609, Paper
`7 (PTAB Feb. 16, 2021)
`Free On-Line Dictionary of Computing (June 6, 1999), available
`at http://foldoc.org/bios
`U.S. Patent No. 5,684,951 (Goldman)
`Paul C. Kocher, Timing Attacks on Implementations of Diffie-
`Hellman, RSA, DSS, and Other Systems, Proceedings of 16th
`Annual Int’l Cryptology Conf. (Aug. 18–22, 1996)
`Ancora’s Patent Owner Preliminary Response, Sony Mobile
`Communications AB v. Ancora Techs., Inc., Case No. IPR2021-
`0063, Paper 13 (PTAB Apr. 23, 2021)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` (Confidential)
`
`
`
`(Confidential)
`
`(Confidential)
`
`(Confidential)
`
`viii
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01338: Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Board should ignore Petitioner’s desperate and inflammatory attempts to
`
`distract from the weaknesses in the asserted grounds. For example, Petitioner’s
`
`plain-meaning claim construction arguments—asserting the claimed agent should
`
`not be limited to software—rely on evidence that is divorced from the context of the
`
`’941 patent.
`
`The Reply then relies on a series of improper, hindsight-biased arguments and
`
`assumptions relating to Hellman and Chou. Petitioner’s arguments cannot and do
`
`not overcome the differences cited in Ancora’s Response. Specifically, Hellman
`
`never mentions BIOS or any operating system and does not disclose a BIOS
`
`EEPROM. Taken together, Hellman and Chou do not disclose an OS-level software
`
`program or routine for setting up a verification structure, which was the
`
`differentiator that the applicants and the examiner cited during prosecution of the
`
`’941 patent.
`
`Lastly, the Reply attempts to impugn Ancora and its settlement agreements.
`
`Petitioner offers no legal basis for its theory that
`
`.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01338: Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A. The Plain Meaning of “Agent” Excludes Hardware in the Context
`of the ’941 Patent
`The plain meaning of “agent” requires “a software program or routine.” (See
`
`POR 33.) Multiple technical dictionaries, relied on by Ancora’s expert Dr. Martin,
`
`require this meaning. (See Ex. 2018 ¶¶126, 133; Ex. 2007 at 2–11; Ex. 2008 at 13;
`
`Ex. 2009 at 18–19; Ex. 2010 at 1.) Defying these dictionary definitions and the courts
`
`that have found otherwise (see POR 33), Petitioner argues that the claimed agent can
`
`include hardware—relying on a dictionary definition that relates to “robots” and a
`
`patent that discloses a unique “hardware agent.” (Reply 15–16.)
`
`Petitioner relies on the Oxford Dictionary of Computing, which explicitly
`
`explains that a “robot (see robotics) is an example of an agent that perceives its
`
`physical environment through sensors and acts through effectors.” (Ex. 1038 at 4.)
`
`The definition does not identify any other agent comprising “hardware.” (Id.) The
`
`definition is inconsistent with the ’941 patent and should not be relied upon. See
`
`Ideal Instruments, Inc. v. Rivard Instruments, Inc., 498 F. Supp. 2d 1131, 1153 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2007) (“the court must choose the proper dictionary definition in light of the
`
`‘intrinsic’ evidence of the meaning of patent terms”). The use of special hardware in
`
`the agent would be anathema to the ’941 patent, which specifically distinguishes
`
`prior art hardware-based products. (Ex. 1001 1:27–35; Ex. 2018 ¶61 (“the ’941
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01338: Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`patent discloses using existing computer hardware with ‘a conventional BIOS
`
`module . . . .’”) (emphasis added).)
`
`The Davis patent (Ex. 1039) cited by Petitioner’s expert likewise does not
`
`establish that “agent” is normally understood to include hardware. Davis does not
`
`disclose a single instance where the unmodified word “agent” is used to describe a
`
`hardware-based agent. (See, e.g., Ex. 1039 8:55–9:12.) Instead, Davis consistently
`
`uses “hardware agent” as shorthand to describe an integrated circuit component. (Id.
`
`3:1–10.) Further, usage in a patent does not necessarily indicate a word’s plain
`
`meaning because it is well known that patentees are free to act—even by
`
`implication—as their own lexicographers. See Irdeto Access, Inc. v. Echostar
`
`Satellite Corp., 383 F.3d 1295, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`B. Construing “Agent” as Software-Only Is Consistent with its Plain
`Meaning and the Disclosure of the ’941 Patent
`The Reply argues that the ’941 patent cannot support construing “agent” as
`
`software-only, relying upon alleged lack of “support.” (Reply 15–16.) The Board
`
`has no authority to consider written description arguments as part of Petitioner’s
`
`grounds here. Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v. Sipnet EU S.R.O., 806 F.3d 1356, 1363
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2015); see 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) (petitions are limited to grounds “that could
`
`be raised under section 102 or 103”). Novartis does not hold otherwise. See Novartis
`
`Pharma. v. Accord Healthcare Inc., 38 F.4th 1013, 1015 (Fed. Cir. 2022). The issue
`
`there was whether the district court correctly found written description support for
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01338: Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`an express negative limitation added during prosecution. Id. at 1018–19. On the
`
`merits, Novartis explained that adequate written description exists for a negative
`
`claim limitation when the specification “distinguishes among” the element and
`
`alternatives to it. Id. at 1016–17 (citing Inphi Corp. v. Netlist, Inc., 805 F.3d 1350,
`
`1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Here, the ’941 patent distinguishes prior art solutions that
`
`required added hardware (Ex. 1001 1:27–35) and it describes the use of E2PROM
`
`manipulation commands (software) used to write data to effect setting up a license
`
`record (id. 2:2–5). These disclosures provide the needed support for a software-only
`
`agent. See Inphi, 805 F.3d at 1357.
`
`The Reply alternatively contends the Board previously concluded it was error
`
`to construe “agent” as software only. (Reply at 15.) But the cited decision makes
`
`clear that the Board merely declined to decide the issue at the institution stage of that
`
`case. (Ex. 1017 at 28 (“At this stage, we decline . . . .”).) Further, Ancora’s arguments
`
`in the Sony IPR are not an admission that the plain meaning of agent, in the context
`
`of the ’941 patent, includes hardware. (Ex. 2047 at 28–34.) To the contrary, Ancora
`
`distinguished “an agent comprised entirely of specialized hardware” from the agent
`
`claimed in the ’941 patent. (Id.)
`
`Lastly, the Reply argues that construing the claimed agent to exclude
`
`hardware would make the scope of the claims an “arbitrary line-drawing exercise,”
`
`citing Dr. Martin’s testimony. (Reply 16 (citing Ex. 1035 117:7–123:10.) Dr. Martin
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01338: Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`repeatedly testified that, for example “I don’t see how something that is known to
`
`be hardware could satisfy the constraint of actually being software.” (Ex. 1035
`
`118:17–119:9; also id. 122:12–22.) Petitioner takes issue with Dr. Martin’s
`
`testimony that “it may be possible to analyze the software component without the
`
`hardware, but it depends on the specific circumstance.” (Id. 123:6–10.) But
`
`Petitioner fails to cite later testimony in which Dr. Martin explains that hardware
`
`may act “in service of” the agent. (Id. 129:9–132:2.) This is not an arbitrary analysis.
`
`The claimed agent requires software to provide the logic that controls the “setting
`
`up” step—not hardware.
`
`C. Ancora’s Interpretation of “Agent” is Not Inconsistent with
`Positions it Adopted in Related District Court Cases
`Ancora has never opposed a construction requiring “agent” to be an “OS level
`
`software program or routine.” Petitioner cites cases in which Ancora argued for the
`
`plain meaning of “agent,” but Ancora was opposing defendants’ means-plus-
`
`function arguments. (See Ex. 1070 at 17 (“the parties’ dispute regarding this term is
`
`whether ‘agent’ is a nonce word”); Ex. 1071 at 2; Ex. 1073 at 12–19; Ex. 1074 at 6–
`
`7; Ex. 1075 at 3.)
`
`Defendants in prior district court proceedings could have argued that “agent”
`
`should be limited to the narrower “OS level software routine or program” asserted
`
`here. Certainly, they would have asserted this narrower construction of “agent” if it
`
`could have helped their case. In fact, LG and Samsung argued that the prosecution
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01338: Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`history required the “verifying” and “acting on” steps to be performed by an OS
`
`level application. (See Ex. 1070 at 22 & 26.) There, Ancora distinguished arguments
`
`relating to the claimed agent in the “setting up step” from the subsequent “verifying”
`
`and “acting on” steps. (See Ex. 1071 at 17.) Specifically, the examiner’s reasons for
`
`allowance did not amount to a disavowal with respect to the “verifying” and “acting
`
`on” steps because context suggested “the OS-level ‘agent’ is required only to ‘set up
`
`a verification structure in the erasable, non-volatile memory of the BIOS.’” (Id. at
`
`18.) The district court agreed. (Ex. 1012 at 4.)
`
`Throughout claim construction briefing in the Samsung and LG cases, Ancora
`
`noted that the claimed “agent” is OS-level. (See Ex. 1070 at 2, 14, & 23; Ex. 1071
`
`at 5, 15–16, & 17–19; Ex. 1072 at 6 & 12–14.) Specifically, Ancora argued that
`
`“where the patentee intended that an OS-level program or application participate in
`
`a particular step, it amended the claims to say so specifically by adding the term
`
`‘agent.’” (Ex. 1070 at 23; see also id. at 24 & 26; Ex. 1071 at 17–19.) Ancora
`
`similarly argued that “the ‘setting up’ step requires the involvement of an OS-level
`
`software program or routine (i.e. an agent).” (Ex. 1072 at 12; see also id. at 13–14.)
`
`In short, Ancora’s Response is consistent with arguments from the Samsung and LG
`
`cases.
`
`Finally, applying prosecution history disclaimer here does not unfairly
`
`prejudice Petitioner. In the district court, “statements made by a patent owner during
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01338: Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`an IPR proceeding, whether before or after an institution decision, can be considered
`
`for claim construction and relied upon to support a finding of prosecution
`
`disclaimer.” Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 856 F.3d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2017).
`
`D.
`“Agent” Is Properly Interpreted to Require an OS-Level Software
`Program or Routine in View of the ’941 File History
`As discussed in the Response, disavowal of claim scope can be shown by the
`
`applicant’s actions during prosecution of a patent, particularly when the examiner
`
`accedes to the applicant’s position. (POR 31–32 (citing Rembrandt Wireless Techs.,
`
`LP v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 853 F.3d 1370, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Kaken
`
`Pharma. Co., Ltd. v. Iancu, 952 F.3d 1346, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2020).) The Reply does
`
`not discuss the references distinguished by the applicants during prosecution of the
`
`’941 patent and does not contradict the way the Response characterized those
`
`references. (See POR 12–14 (Misra), 14–16 (Ewertz), 34 (applicants’ remarks).)
`
`The MIT case cited in the Reply is factually differentiable because the
`
`defendant in that case did not cite any prosecution history that addressed the disputed
`
`limitation. Mass. Inst. of Tech. v. Shire Pharms., Inc., 839 F.3d 1111, 1120–22 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2016). Consequently, defendant failed to demonstrate “clear and unmistakable”
`
`disclaimer as required by law. Id. at 1122.
`
`Here, as discussed in Ancora’s Response, both the applicants and the
`
`examiner entered remarks that require a narrower interpretation of “agent.” (POR
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01338: Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`34–35.) The remarks in applicants’ February 5, 2002 amendment were clearly and
`
`unmistakably aimed at the function of the claimed agent—not the “selecting,”
`
`“verifying,” or “acting on” steps recited in the claims. Applicant argued that the cited
`
`references “do not teach or suggest, among other things, storing a verification
`
`structure, such as a software license information, in the BIOS of a computer as is
`
`recited in the present claim.” (Ex. 2011 at ANCC000151 (emphasis added).)
`
`Applicant secondly argued that there was no motivation to combine the cited
`
`references because “BIOS and OS level programs are normally mutually exclusive,”
`
`making it undesirable to combine the BIOS routines in Ewertz with Misra’s OS level
`
`license generator. (Id. at ANCC000153–54 (emphasis added).) Third, applicant
`
`argued that the invention proceeded against conventional wisdom in the art because
`
`“[t]here is no OS support whatsoever to write data to the system BIOS” and because
`
`the lack of a file system associated with the BIOS “is further evidence that OS level
`
`application programmers would not consider the BIOS as a storage medium for
`
`license data.” (Id. at ANCC000154 (emphasis added).) Fourth, applicant argued that
`
`“it is clear that Misra teaches away from using the BIOS as a local storage area for
`
`licenses.” (Id. at ANCC000155 (emphasis added).)
`
`The fact that the word “agent” is unstated in the February 5, 2022 amendment
`
`does not change the thrust of applicant’s arguments. After filing that amendment,
`
`applicants interviewed the examiner and agreed to further amend claim 20 (claim 18
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01338: Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`in the ’941 patent) to add “agent.” (Id. at ANCC000160 (noting interview on Feb.
`
`19, 2002).)
`
`The Reply mischaracterizes Ancora’s claim construction argument as relying
`
`“on a single office action response.” (Reply 4.) As noted in Ancora’s Response (POR
`
`34–35), the examiner’s reasons for allowance explained that the cited references “do
`
`not teach licensed programs running at the OS level interacting with a program
`
`verification structure stored in the BIOS” and that “a computer BIOS is not setup
`
`to manage a software license verification structure.” (Ex. 2011 at ANCC000162
`
`(emphasis added).) The examiner further stated that “[t]he present invention
`
`overcomes this difficulty by using an agent to set up a verification structure in the
`
`erasable, non-volatile memory of the BIOS.” (Id.) Taken as a whole, the examiner’s
`
`statement clearly and unmistakably refers to the claimed agent.
`
`The Board should reject Petitioner’s attempt to pin the “OS-level” limitation
`
`imposed by the prosecution history on straw-man “verifying software.” (See Reply
`
`6–7.) “Verifying software” is not expressly recited in any claim in the ’941 patent,
`
`as Petitioner acknowledges. (Reply 6.) And the Reply fails to identify a single
`
`instance where “verifying software” appears in the written description or the file
`
`history—in fact it does not. (See Ex. 1001; Ex. 2011.) As discussed in Ancora’s
`
`Response, the Federal Circuit used “verifying software” as shorthand to distinguish
`
`“to-be-verified software” when discussing claim construction arguments related to
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01338: Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`the “to-be-verified software.” (POR 35–36.) Further, the prosecution history
`
`explicitly contradicts Petitioner’s argument that only the “verifying software” must
`
`be OS-level. As emphasized above, the examiner noted that the Claim 1 embodiment
`
`overcame the art “by using an agent to set up a verification structure.” (Ex. 2011 at
`
`ANCC000162 (emphasis added).) The examiner likewise noted that the independent
`
`claim 20 (claim 18 in the ’941 patent) embodiment overcame the prior art “by
`
`utilizing an agent to verify the application software program using the license
`
`information stored in the erasable, writable, non-volatile memory of the BIOS.” (Id.
`
`at ANCC000163 (emphasis added); see also Ex. 1071 at 17–18.)
`
`Even if the examiner’s remarks related only to “verifying software,” Petitioner
`
`has not identified any reason why the remarks do not also require the agent used by
`
`the verifying software to be OS-level. As discussed above, the examiner’s remarks
`
`explicitly discuss the agent in the context of setting up a verification structure. (Ex.
`
`2011 at ANCC000162–63.) Requiring an OS level agent also comports with the
`
`disclosure of the ’941 patent. Dr. Martin’s uncontradicted testimony establishes that
`
`the E2PROM manipulation commands disclosed in the ’941 patent describe OS-level
`
`activity. (Ex. 1035 136:8–138:17; see Ex. 1001 1:65–2:9.)
`
`E.
`The Meaning of “OS-Level” Is Reasonably Certain
`The Reply includes over three pages of red-herring arguments about whether
`
`the meaning of “OS level” is sufficiently clear, including a laundry list of instances
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01338: Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`where Ancora’s Response, Dr. Martin, the examiner, or the applicants used the term
`
`“OS level.” (Reply 7–11.) But “absolute precision is unattainable” in patented
`
`claims. Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 910 (2014) (claims
`
`will not be found indefinite unless they fail to “inform those skilled in the art about
`
`the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty”). Further, Petitioner does not
`
`identify any conflicts or logical inconsistencies in the way OS level has been
`
`described. (See Reply 7–11.) Dr. Wolfe, allegedly applying the knowledge of one
`
`skilled in the art, evaluates Hellman under the “varying criteria” articulated by Dr.
`
`Martin. (Ex. 1033 ¶¶27–41.) And neither Petitioner nor Dr. Wolfe assert the outcome
`
`will change based on the allegedly different ways that OS level has been described.
`
`In short, the exact meaning of OS level is a non-issue.
`
`I.
`NEITHER HELLMAN NOR CHOU NOR THE ALLEGED
`COMBINATION DISCLOSES USING AN AGENT TO SET UP A
`VERIFICATION STRUCTURE IN THE ERASABLE, NON-VOLATILE
`MEMORY OF THE BIOS
`
`The crux of the asserted Grounds is that Hellman—which does not disclose a
`
`BIOS, an operating system, or any software routine or program (OS level or
`
`otherwise) that sets up a verification structure in the memory of the BIOS—would
`
`have rendered the claims obvious in view of Chou. The Petition and Institution
`
`Decision assert that Chou teaches storing sensitive information in the BIOS
`
`EEPROM to reduce the risk of tampering with that information. (E.g., Pet. 32; ID
`
`16–17 & 26.) But Chou teaches, at most, a means for password protection that cannot
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01338: Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`be defeated by removing CMOS RAM power. (POR 52–53; Ex. 2018 ¶¶191–92.)
`
`Backpedaling, Petitioner’s Reply argues Chou discloses that “any attempt to modify
`
`or delete the sensitive information would result in disabling the boot process of the
`
`computer.” (Reply 20 (citing Ex. 1005 1:63–2:7).) At most, however, Chou discloses
`
`an attack that deleted data stored in CMOS RAM on prior art devices, by removing
`
`power from the RAM. (Ex. 1005 1:54–62.) Chou’s design beneficially stores data in
`
`non-volatile EEPROM that happens also to store the BIOS. Chou does not
`
`contemplate any other type of attack that could delete its password information and
`
`does not disclose any attack that would modify password information. Further, Chou
`
`discloses onl