UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Patent Owner’s Oral Hearing
`Demonstratives
`
`NINTENDO CO., LTD., and NINTENDO OF AMERICA INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`ANCORA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case No. IPR2021-01338
`Patent No. 6,411,941
`
`October 3, 2022
`
`IPR2021-01338 Ex. 2052 – Patent Owner Ancora’s DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1
`
`

`

`Summary
`
`The prior art “singly or collectively, do not teach licensed
`programs running at the OS level interacting with a program
`verification structure stored in the BIOS to verify the program
`using the verification structure and having a user act on the
`program according to the verification. . . . The present invention
`overcomes this difficulty by using an agent to set up a
`verification structure in the erasable, non-volatile memory of the
`BIOS.”
`
`Sur-Reply 14; Response 19; Ex. 2011 ANCC000162
`
`IPR2021-01338 Ex. 2052 – Patent Owner Ancora’s DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`
`

`

`Summary
`
` Claim construction:
`“agent” requires “OS-level software program or routine”
`‒ Unambiguous statements during prosecution require this meaning
`‒ Affects every challenged claim
`
` Claims 1–3, 6–14, and 16:
`‒ Hellman does not disclose BIOS, operating system, or an “agent”
`‒ Petitioners misconstrue Chou’s disclosure and functionality
`‒ Petitioners’ expert relies on conclusory obviousness arguments
`‒ The alleged combination would be inoperative
`‒ Objective indicia evince non-obviousness of the ’941 patent
`
`IPR2021-01338 Ex. 2052 – Patent Owner Ancora’s DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3
`
`

`

`Briefing on the Merits
`
`Paper No. Description
`
`1
`
`7
`
`9
`
`23
`
`33
`
`39
`
`Nintendo’s Petition
`
`Ancora’s Preliminary Response
`
`Institution Decision
`
`Ancora’s Response
`
`Nintendo’s Reply
`
`Ancora’s Sur-Reply
`
`IPR2021-01338 Ex. 2052 – Patent Owner Ancora’s DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`4
`
`

`

`‘941 Patent
`
`
`
`METHODOF RESTRICTING SOFTWARE
`OPERATION WITHIN A LICENSE
`LIMITATION
`
`Nintendo - Ancora Exh 1001
`
`PL
`i United States Patent
`9 Patent Naz
`US 6,411,941 BL
`1% Date of Pat
`Mullor ef al.
`ent:
`Jum, 25, 2002
`
`Ex. 1001
`
`Inventors: Miki Mullor; Julian Valiko, both of
`Ramat Hasharon (IL)
`
`Assignee: Beeble, Inc., Newport Beach, CA (US)
`
`= Inventor Miki Mullor
`
`— Founded multiple operating companies
`related to the ’941 patent
`besbles
`
`ANCORA
`See Response 11, 66-67; Ex. 1001; Ex. 2011 ANCC000178-85; Ex. 2027; Ex. 2029
`
`IPR2021-01338 Ex. 2052 — Patent Owner Ancora’s DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`

`

`’941 Patent
`
`Problem:
`Known methods were inadequate
` Software-based methods were vulnerable to
`hackers and physical instabilities of computer
`hard disc
` Hardware-based methods required
`expensive, inconvenient dongles—
`incompatible with Internet-based software
`sales
`
`Response 2–4; Ex. 1001 1:19–32
`
`Solution:
`Operating system interacts with existing BIOS
`memory
`
`Response 4;
`Ex. 2018 ¶¶61–65; Ex. 1001 FIG. 1, 1:45–47, 1:66–2:4, 5:10–27
`
`Ex. 1001 FIG. 1, cited at Response 4
`
`IPR2021-01338 Ex. 2052 – Patent Owner Ancora’s DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`6
`
`

`

`‘941 Patent
`
`Thus, consider a
`
`«2 United States Patent
`Malloret al.
`
`USIOSHIMIBI
`(oo) Patent No:
`US 6,411,941 BL
`@ Date of Patent:
`Jun, 25, 2002
`
`1) METHODOF RESTRICTING SOrTWARE
`OPERATION WITHIN ALICENSE
`LIMITATION
`Invecmoes Miki Mullor; Fallen Vidi, toe of
`(7S)
`Ramat Htasharoe (IL)
`3) Amigece: Beedle,lac, Newport each, CA (US)
`pores b exicaded of adjusted
`‘Sabject woanyee—
`(*) Nace
`TSC.
`isan by 0 days
`28) Appt Noo eonearrT
`22) Fed
`Ont. 1, 1998
`6)
`Reretgn Appitcorion Rriertty Duta
`Meyres Mt)
`oo) no
`Gow
`e) US. CL
`Ce) Fete of Serch
`References Cited
`US. PATENT DOCUMENTS.
`
`as?
`
`Ex. 1001, at 1:45-2:9
`
`ereof, during manufacture. The key
`constitutes, effectively, a unique identification code for the
`host computer. It is important to note that the key is stored
`in a non-volatile portion of the BIOS, ie.
`it cannot be
`removed or modified.
`Further, according to the invention, each application pro-
`gram that is to be licensed to run on the specified computer,
`is associated with a license record; that consists of author
`name, program name and numberoflicensed users (for
`network). The license record may be held in either encrypted
`or explicit form.
`Now, there commences an initial license establishment
`procedure, where a verification structure is set in the BIOS
`so as Lo indicate that the specified programis licensed to run
`on the specified computer. This is implemented by encrypt-
`ing the license record (or portion thereof) using said key (or
`portion thereof) exclusively or in conjunction with other
`identification information) as an encryption key. The result-
`
`+
`.
`
`ca
`
`new
`
`“
`FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS
`“nee A Le
`OTHER PUBLICATIONS
`Donibasch ¢! al. Desop managementsoftware: a0 eeel bo
`adjust your «t, Infoworld, ¥17, 037, p60."
`sina by
`exumian
`Avuitant
`Keaminee—<
`tewine
`piney Semtrn SeepheSoh
`(74) Atweney, Agent.FirmNeeabhe; Robert Kisherg:
`ft
`Penk
`
`.
`P
`memories, wirifying tbe progam waing the siecture, and
`acting 00 the program acconding tothe verification
`19 Claims, 2 Drawing Sheets
`
`Nintendo - Ancora Exh. 1001
`
`It should be noted that unlike the first non-volatile
`
`, modify or remove
`ual format of the license may include a
`string of terms that correspondto a license registration entry
`(e.g. lookup table entry or entries) at a license registration
`bureau (which will be further described as part of the
`preferred embodimentof the present invention).
`
`IPR2021-01338 Ex. 2052 — Patent Owner Ancora’s DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`

`

`’941 Patent: Claim 1
`
`1. A method of restricting software operation within 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:
`selecting a program residing in the volatile memory,
`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,
`verifying the program using at least the verification structure from
`the erasable non-volatile memory of the BIOS, and
`acting on the program according to the verification.
`
`Response 6–7; Ex. 1001 at 6:59–7:4
`
`IPR2021-01338 Ex. 2052 – Patent Owner Ancora’s DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`8
`
`

`

`Claim Interpretation
`
`• Plain Meaning of “Agent” Requires a “Software Program or Routine”
`• Applicant and Examiner Understood that “Agent” Must Be “OS Level”
`
`IPR2021-01338 Ex. 2052 – Patent Owner Ancora’s DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`9
`
`

`

`“Agent” Distinguishes the Prior Art
`
`Ancora’s Proposed Construction
`“OS-level software program or routine”
`Response 32
`
`Parties agree:
`“Agent” was critical to the Examiner when allowing the claims.
`Petition 19; Response 57; Reply 12
`
`Prosecution and Reexamination:
`Prior art does not disclose or suggest the claimed “agent.”
`Sur-Reply 14; Response 19, 25–26; Ex. 2011 ANCC000162; see Ex. 2001 249–50
`
`IPR2021-01338 Ex. 2052 – Patent Owner Ancora’s DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`10
`
`

`

`Disputes Over “Agent”
`
`Ancora’s Proposed Construction
`“OS-level software program or routine”
`Response 32
`
`Ancora:
`Plain meaning of “agent” is “software program or routine”
`Response 32–33; Sur-Reply 2–5
`
`OS-level clearly and unmistakably required by prosecution history
`Response 33–35; Sur-Reply 7–10
`
`Petitioners:
`Oppose “OS-level” or “software-only” – but offer no competing
`interpretation of “agent”
`
`Reply 3, 15
`
`IPR2021-01338 Ex. 2052 – Patent Owner Ancora’s DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`11
`
`

`

`Caselaw Binds Applicant to Arguments on “Agent”
`
`Ancora’s Proposed Construction
`“OS-level software program or routine”
`Response 32
`
`Petitioners do not distinguish cases cited by Ancora.
`See Reply 3–7
`
`Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance binds
`applicants to their arguments.
`Kaken Pharma. Co., Ltd. v. Iancu, 952 F.3d 1346, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2020),
`cited at Response 31–35;
`
`Unambiguous statements in prosecution history define
`language in the claims.
`Rembrandt Wireless Techs., LP v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd.,
`853 F.3d 1370, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2017),
`cited at Response 31, 33–35;
`
`IPR2021-01338 Ex. 2052 – Patent Owner Ancora’s DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`12
`
`

`

`Kaken Pharma. Co., 952 F.3d 1346
`
`Statements made to convince the examiner of patentability, followed by an
`examiner’s concomitant action based on the statement, bind the applicant.
`Kaken Pharma. Co., Ltd. v. Iancu, 952 F.3d 1346, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2020),
`cited at Response 31
`
`Applicant argued “onychomycosis . . . specifically affects the nail plate” and
`the “present invention” included the medication’s unexpected ability to
`“penetrate the nail.”
`
`Id. at 1353–54, cited at Response 31
`
`Examiner issued allowance, noting the method required applying medication
`such that it “penetrates through the nail plate.”
`
`Id. at 1354, cited at Response 31–32
`
`“Treating a subject having onychomycosis” was therefore bound to
`applicant’s arguments, requiring “penetrating the nail plate to treat a fungal
`infection inside the nail plate or in the nail bed under it.”
`
`Id., cited at Response 32
`
`IPR2021-01338 Ex. 2052 – Patent Owner Ancora’s DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`13
`
`

`

`Rembrandt Wireless, 853 F.3d 1370
`
`Unambiguous statements in prosecution history define language in the
`claims.
`
`Rembrandt Wireless Techs., LP v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd.,
`853 F.3d 1370, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2017),
`cited at Response 31, 33–35
`
`Applicants’ remarks stated that “different types” would “refer to two types of
`modulation methods, i.e., different families of modulation techniques . . ..”
`Rembrandt Wireless, 853 F.3d at 1376,
`cited at Response 31
`
`Federal Circuit therefore held that “different types” required “different
`families of modulation techniques . . ..”
`
`Id.,
`cited at Response 31
`
`IPR2021-01338 Ex. 2052 – Patent Owner Ancora’s DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`14
`
`

`

`Distinctions in Petitioners’ Caselaw on “Agent”
`
`Ancora’s Proposed Construction
`“OS-level software program or routine”
`Response 32
`
`“Disavowal” cases cited by Petitioners do not preclude Ancora’s construction.
`Sur-Reply 7–10; see Reply 3–7
`
`Ancora cites both applicant’s arguments and the Examiner’s statement of reasons for
`allowance—unlike MIT, where defendant did not cite any prosecution history.
`
`Sur-Reply 7;
`Mass. Inst. of Tech. v. Shire Pharms., Inc., 839 F.3d 1111, 1119 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`
`Only one reasonable interpretation exists here—unlike Intellectual Ventures.
`Sur-Reply 7–10;
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 902 F.3d 1372, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
`
`IPR2021-01338 Ex. 2052 – Patent Owner Ancora’s DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`15
`
`

`

`Applicant’s Remarks Related to “Agent”
`
`Ancora’s Proposed Construction
`“OS-level software program or routine”
`Response 32
`
`Applicants’ February 5, 2002 remarks addressed the “set up” step performed by the
`claimed agent—not the “selecting,” “verifying,” or “acting on” steps.
`Sur-Reply 8–9; Response 34–36
`
`1. 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.”
`2. No motivation to combine Ewertz with Misra’s OS-level license generator because
`“BIOS and OS level programs are normally mutually exclusive.”
`3. “There is no OS support whatsoever to write data to the system BIOS” and lack of a
`BIOS file system “is further evidence that OS level application programmers would
`not consider the BIOS as a storage medium for license data.”
`4. “Misra teaches away from using the BIOS as a local storage area for licenses.”
`Sur-Reply 8; Ex. 2011 at ANCC000151, 153–55
`
`IPR2021-01338 Ex. 2052 – Patent Owner Ancora’s DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`16
`
`

`

`February 5, 2002 Amendment
`
`
`
`
`
`The cited references do not render the present invention obvious astheydonotteachor
`
`Ex. 2011 ANCCO00155
`
`level programs. Therefore, BIOS programs and software Jicensing management applications do
`
`not ordinarily interact or communicate becausewhenBIOSisrunning,thecomputerisina
`
`
`
`
`
`configurationmode,henceOSisnotrunning,BIOSandOSlevelprogramserenormallyThus,
`
`
`mutuallyexclusive.
`
`
`Ex. 2011 ANCCO00153
`
`Ex. 2011 ANCC000151
`
` person skilled in the art makes use of OS features to write date to storage mediums.ThereisnoRespoastvetothe Offer Action dand Jamawy 15, 2000, please amend theapplication as
`
`Hine:
`.
`
`| aeOSsupportwhatsoevertowritedatatothesystemBIOS.Therefore, an ordinary person sk'lled
`
`
`
`
`writable device. No such file system is associated with the BIOS.Thisisfurtherevidencethat
`
`wei
`1PR2021-01338 | ANCORA EX2011
`
`ayococo149
`
`|
`
`Ex. 2011 ANCC000154
`
`IPR2021-01338 Ex. 2052 — Patent Owner Ancora’s DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`17
`
`

`

`Examiner’s Statement Defined “Agent”
`
`Ancora’s Proposed Construction
`“OS-level software program or routine”
`Response 32
`
`Examiner’s February 20, 2002 reasons for allowance cite “using an agent to set up a
`verification structure” as overcoming prior art.
`Sur-Reply 9; Response 34–35; Ex. 2011 at ANCC000161–62
`
`“However, the key distinction between the present invention and the closest prior art,
`is that the Misra et al., and Ginter et al. systems and the Ewertz et al. system run at
`the operating system level and BIOS level, respectively. More specifically, the closest
`prior art systems, singly or collectively, do not teach licensed programs running at the
`OS level interacting with a program verification structure stored in the BIOS to verify
`the program using the verification structure and having a user act on the program
`according to the verification. Further, it is well known to those of ordinary skill of the
`art that a computer BIOS is not setup to manage a software license verification
`structure. The present invention overcomes this difficulty by using an agent to set up
`a verification structure in the erasable, non-volatile memory of the BIOS.”
`Ex. 2011 at ANCC000162; Sur-Reply 9–10
`
`IPR2021-01338 Ex. 2052 – Patent Owner Ancora’s DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`18
`
`

`

`February 20, 2002 Notice of Allowability
`
`Ewertz et al. (US 5,479,639) teach the use of BIOS memory for storing
`
`licensing numbers. Hence,it appearsinitially, that to one of ordinary skill of the
`
`art, the combination of Ewertzet al. with either Ginter et al. and/or Misraetal.,
`
`
`
`would renderthe present invention obvious. However,thekeydistinction
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`betweenthepresentinventionandtheclosestpriorart,isthattheMisraetal.,
`
`
`
`
`
`andGinteretal.systemsandtheEwertzetal.systemrunattheoperating
`
`
`
`‘systemlevelandBIOSlevel,respectively.More specifically, the closestprior art
`
`
`
`Ex. 2011 ANCC000162
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`systems, singly or collectively,donotteachlicensedprogramsrunningattheOS
`
`a
`1
`
`
`
`levelinteractingwithaprogramverificationstructurestoredintheBIOSto verify
`RPORMALPATENT APPICASION(FTO.ataehgiveRennastyBieoanor GeciaraionmOrtewnt
`
`Ogee sone byoe ronDeniesAmeena|Comenaet ote OMewateoFPater Mn
`00 cioemenroaretterymint futierent
`SC) ORRCaT Cr ator MEORIATIONsetteSopont ofBOLOGICAL MATERA, cuesbe red Natehe
`—<£*
` .
`2D) teeeternaPomeAgphotonPTOSDso
`
`the program usingthe verification structure and having a user act on the program
`
`accordingto the verification. Further,it is well knownto those of ordinary skill of .
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the art thatacomputerBIOSisnotsetuptomanageasoftwarelicense
`
`
`
`wramrne | ANEORABAN pcosagenttosetupaverificationstructureintheerasable,non-volatilememoryofthe
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01338 Ex. 2052 — Patent Owner Ancora’s DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`19
`
`

`

`Dictionaries Define Plain Meaning of “Agent”
`
`Ancora’s Proposed Construction
`“OS-level software program or routine”
`Response 32
`
`Dictionary definitions establish the plain meaning of “agent” as a “software program
`or routine.”
`
`Response 33; Sur-Reply 2; Ex. 2018 ¶¶126, 133
`
`“An agent is a program, which, with a certain degree of autonomy, performs tasks on
`behalf of a user or an application. . . . ”
`
`Ex. 2007 at 2-11
`
`“agent n. 1. A program that performs a background task . . . 2. A program that
`searches . . . 3. In client/server applications, a process that mediates . . . 4. In Simple
`Network Management Protocol, a program that monitors . . . ”
`Ex. 2008 at 13; Ex. 2009 at 18–19 (same)
`
`“A software routine that waits in the background and performs an action when a
`specified event occurs. . . . ”
`
`IPR2021-01338 Ex. 2052 – Patent Owner Ancora’s DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 2010 at 1
`
`20
`
`

`

`Hardware Is not Within Plain Meaning of “Agent”
`
`Ancora’s Proposed Construction
`“OS-level software program or routine”
`Response 32
`
`Plain meaning of “agent” excludes hardware in the context of the ’941 patent,
`which distinguishes hardware-based products.
`
`Sur-Reply 2–3; Ex. 1001 1:27–35; Ex. 2018 ¶61
`
`Petitioners’ Oxford Dictionary of Computing offers only 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; Sur-Reply 2
`
`Davis patent uses “hardware agent” to describe an integrated circuit
`component—NOT “agent.”
`
`E.g., Ex. 1039 3:1–10, 8:55–9:12; Sur-Reply 3
`
`IPR2021-01338 Ex. 2052 – Patent Owner Ancora’s DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`21
`
`

`

`“Verifying Software” Includes the “Agent”
`
`Response 32
`
`“OS-level software program or routine”
`
`Ancora’s Proposed Construction
`
`Federal Circuit held only that: “the applicants were clear that the OS-level language
`referred to the verifying software.”
`
`Response 35-36; Sur-Reply 9-10
`Ancora Techs., Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 744 F.3d 732, 735-37 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
`
`“verifying software”
`
`“orogram” > “to-be-
`verified software”
`
`IPR2021-01338 Ex. 2052 — Patent Owner Ancora’s DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`22
`
`

`

`Patentability
`Claims 1–3, 6–14, and 16
`
`• Petition Misinterprets Teachings in Hellman and Chou
`• Asserted Motivations Are Not Supported
`• Substantial Objective Indicia of Non-Obviousness Precludes Unpatentability
`
`IPR2021-01338 Ex. 2052 – Patent Owner Ancora’s DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`23
`
`

`

`Relevant Law: Motivation to Combine
`
`References must be considered for all that they teach—both the reasons for and
`against the proposed modifications.
`
`See In re Dow Chem. Co., 837 F.2d 469, 473 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
`It is not enough to show that multiple references “could be combined.”
`Personal Web Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc., 848 F.3d 987, 993–94 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (emphasis in original) ;
`Response 50, 61
`
`Conclusory statements of obviousness will not suffice.
`In re NuVasive, 842 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
`Activevideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 694 F.3d 1312, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2012);
`Response 51
`“Care must be taken to avoid hindsight reconstruction by using the patent in suit as a
`guide through the maze of prior art references. . . . This kind of piecemeal analysis is
`precisely the kind of hindsight that the Board must not engage in.”
`In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
`Response 50, 61–62
`
`IPR2021-01338 Ex. 2052 – Patent Owner Ancora’s DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`24
`
`

`

`Hellman
`
`Hellman discloses a hardware-implemented system, missing OS, BIOS, and “agent.”
`Response 60; Ex. 2018 ¶¶164–71
`
`IPR2021-01338 Ex. 2052 – Patent Owner Ancora’s DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Response 41; Ex. 1004 FIG. 8
`
`25
`
`

`

`Petitioners’ and Dr. Wolfe’s Assumptions
`
` Hellman’s “computer” has a BIOS and an operating system (OS)
`Reply 11–12; but see Sur-Reply 14–15; Response 43; Ex. 2018 ¶143; Ex. 1003 ¶105
` Hellman’s update unit 36 is implemented in software running on the microprocessor
`or CPU embodiment of Hellman’s software player 42.
`Reply 11, 17; but see Sur-Reply 12–14; Response 60; Ex. 2018 ¶¶164–71
` The software-implemented update unit 36 is an OS-level agent and/or Hellman’s
`software package 17 runs at the OS level.
`
`Reply 13–14; but see Sur-Reply 15–16; Response 60–61
` Hellman’s software player 42 is modified to allow a software-based update unit 36
`to run before the processor is “activated” by the software-based update unit 36.
`Reply 18; Ex. 1033 ¶¶22–25; but see Response 60; Sur-Reply 16
` Hellman’s EEPROM 37 is replaced with or modified to include Chou’s BIOS, with a
`verification structure in the memory of the BIOS, and data including a license record
`Petition 40–41; Reply 19–23; but see Response 52–55; Sur-Reply 18–19; Ex. 2018 ¶¶191–92
`
`IPR2021-01338 Ex. 2052 – Patent Owner Ancora’s DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`26
`
`

`

`Petitioners’ and Dr. Wolfe’s Assumptions
`
`
`Hellman’s “computer” has a BIOS and an operating system (OS)
`
`Reply 11-12; but see Sur-Reply 14-15; Response 43; Ex. 2018 9143; Ex. 1003 4105
`
`SOFTWARE
`
`
`
`NON
`UPDATE
`
`VOLITILE
`
`
`UNIT
`MEMORY
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01338 Ex. 2052 — Patent Owner Ancora’s DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`27
`
`FIG_8
`
`Ex. 1004 FIG. 8 (demonstrative annotations added)
`
`

`

`Hellman
`
`Both experts agree:
`Hellman does not expressly recite BIOS, operating system (“OS”), or OS-level software.
`Sur-Reply 14–15; Response 43; Ex. 2018 ¶143; Ex. 1003 ¶105; see also Ex. 1033 ¶28
`
`Petitioner’s Expert, Dr. Wolfe:
` “There were certainly things that ran an ordinary Intel microprocessor on an
`ordinary Intel mother board that did not run an operating system” and further
`“there are all kinds of computers for home use.”
`
`Ex. 2026 33:7–25
` Does not identify any “application” or “OS-level” software disclosed by Hellman.
`Sur-Reply 15; See Ex. 1033 ¶¶28–30
` Instead of evidence: he “would assume” a computer has an operating system.
`Sur-Reply 15; Ex. 1033 ¶28 (quoting his own testimony at Ex. 2026 31:24–25)
` Leaps from “operating systems were known,” to “Hellman’s system is already
`implementable on an OS-based system.”
`
`IPR2021-01338 Ex. 2052 – Patent Owner Ancora’s DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1033 ¶29
`
`28
`
`

`

`Petitioners’ and Dr. Wolfe’s Assumptions
`
`
`
`Hellman’s update unit 36 is implemented in software running on the microprocessor
`or CPU embodimentof Hellman’s software player 42.
`
`Reply 11, 17; but see Sur-Reply 12-14; Response 60; Ex. 2018 99/164—-71
`
`SOFTWARE
`
`ay)faye
`
`__
`
`ONE WAY
`
`
`
`
`
`NON
`VOLITILE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FIG_8
`
`MEMORY
`
`IPR2021-01338 Ex. 2052 — Patent Owner Ancora’s DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`29
`
`Ex. 1004 FIG. 8 (demonstrative annotations added)
`
`

`

`Petitioners’ and Dr. Wolfe’s Assumptions
`
`
`
`Hellman’s software player 42 is modified to allow a software-based update unit 36 to
`run before the processor is “activated” by the software-based update unit 36.
`
`Reply 18; Ex. 1033 99/22—25; but see Response 60; Sur-Reply 16
`
`SOFTWARE
`
`
`
`
`wy} a
`
`A
`
`ONE WAY
`
`
`
`NON
`—~
`
`VOLITILE
`Mi
`
`
`MEMORY
`
`IPR2021-01338 Ex. 2052 — Patent Owner Ancora’s DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`30
`
`FIG_8&
`
`Ex. 1004 FIG. 8 (demonstrative annotations added)
`
`

`

`Petitioners’ and Dr. Wolfe’s Assumptions
`
`
`
`The software-implemented update unit 36 is an OS-level agent and/or Hellman’s
`software package 17 runsat the OSlevel.
`
`Reply 13-14; but see Sur-Reply 15-16; Response 60-61
` w| [Oey
`
`
`jraverBE]spor
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NON
`VOLITILE
`
`MEMORY
`
`IPR2021-01338 Ex. 2052 — Patent Owner Ancora’s DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`31
`
`FIG_8
`
`Ex. 1004 FIG. 8 (demonstrative annotations added)
`
`

`

`Hellman
`
`Hellman discloses a hardware-implemented system.
`
`Response 60; Ex. 2018 ¶¶164–71
`
`Petitioner’s Expert, Dr. Wolfe:
`Hellman does not “specifically disclose
`how update unit 36 is implemented.”
`Response 60; Ex. 1003 ¶137; see also Ex. 1003 ¶138A
`
`Ancora’s Expert, Dr. Martin:
`Undisputed evidence of hardware:
` Wire sending control signal from
`update unit 36 to software player 42
` Epoxy to encapsulate switch 41 and the
`wire
` Factory seals or a dab of paint
` “Signals” representing K, N, R, H, C, A
`Response 60; Ex. 2018 ¶¶164–66
`
`Response 41; Ex. 1004 FIG. 8
`
`IPR2021-01338 Ex. 2052 – Patent Owner Ancora’s DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`32
`
`

`

`Schneck
`
`Schneck discloses a hardware-implemented system designed to
`destroy data if physical intrusion is detected.
`Response 46–48; Ex. 1006 FIG. 8, 9:46–59; 15:51–16:19, 16:49–59
`
`Hardware-protected access mechanism 114 prevents tampering.
`Response 54; Ex. 1006 15:51-63
`
`IPR2021-01338 Ex. 2052 – Patent Owner Ancora’s DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`33
`
`Ex. 1006 FIG. 8
`
`

`

`Hellman
`
`If Hellman’s software player 42 was a processor, the combined system would be
`inoperative because it could not run before the software player 42 is “activated.”
`Response 60; Ex. 1004 10:44–54
`
`If M indicates available uses the update
`unit 36 “sends a control signal to switch
`41 which activates software player 42,
`allowing it to use software package 17.”
`Response 42; Ex. 1004 10:44–46
`
`“[I]f the software is a computer program,
`then software player 42 would be a
`microprocessor or central processing
`unit (CPU).”
`
`Response 42; Ex. 1004 10:66–11:3
`
`Response 41; Ex. 1004 FIG. 8
`
`IPR2021-01338 Ex. 2052 – Patent Owner Ancora’s DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`34
`
`

`

`Petitioners’ and Dr. Wolfe’s Assumptions
`
`
`
`Hellman’s EEPROM 37is replaced with or modified to include Chou’s BIOS, with a
`verification structure in the memoryof the BIOS, and data including a license record
`
`Petition 40—41; Reply 19-23; but see Response 52-55; Sur-Reply 18-19; Ex. 2018 9191-92
`
`IPR2021-01338 Ex. 2052 — Patent Owner Ancora’s DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`35
`
`FIG_8
`
`Ex. 1004 FIG. 8 (demonstrative annotations added)
`
`

`

`Chou
`
`Chou does not disclose any means of preventing software piracy or tampering.
`Response 43, 52; Ex. 2018 ¶144
`
`Chou discloses a system that “makes use of these new BIOS memory devices for
`effecting security measures which discourage theft.”
`
`Ex. 1005 2:6–2:7; Response 43
`
`“Unless the BIOS routine has
`completely executed, the computer
`operating system can never be
`accessed rendering the computer
`inoperative.”
`Ex. 1005 3:60–62, see also 4:1–5; Response 43–44
`
`IPR2021-01338 Ex. 2052 – Patent Owner Ancora’s DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`36
`
`Response 43; Ex. 1005 FIG. 1, 3:30–36
`
`

`

`Chou
`
`Chou does not disclose tamper-prevention.
`
`Response 52; Ex. 2018 ¶191; Ex. 1005 1:54–2:7
`
`Chou teaches, at most, a means for password protection that cannot be defeated by
`removing CMOS RAM power.
`
`Sur-Reply 11–12; Response 52–53; Ex. 2018 ¶¶191–92
`
`“[I]f the power is removed from the
`CMOS RAM, the password is cleared
`and the system will boot up without
`requiring the user to enter the
`required password.”
`
`Ex. 1005 1:54–62
`
`Chou does not disclose any attack
`that would modify password
`information.
`
`Sur-Reply 12
`
`Response 43; Ex. 1005 FIG. 1, 3:30–36
`
`IPR2021-01338 Ex. 2052 – Patent Owner Ancora’s DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`37
`
`

`

`Chou
`
`Chou does not disclose storing
`information in the BIOS during
`“normal” operation of the computer.
`Response 59; Ex. 1005 FIG. 10, 8:42–43;
`Ex. 2018 ¶¶146, 179
`
`Chou discloses BIOS routines including
`a “security function.”
`
`Response 44–45;
`Ex. 1005 FIG. 10, 9:13–17, 9:26–36; Ex. 2018 ¶146
`
`Chou’s administrative functions are also
`part of the BIOS routines.
`
`Response 45–46;
`Ex. 1005 FIG. 10, 8:49–61, 9:1–7; Ex. 2018 ¶146
`
`IPR2021-01338 Ex. 2052 – Patent Owner Ancora’s DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`38
`
`

`

`Relevant Law: Objective Indicia
`
`Objective indicia “can be the most probative evidence of non-obviousness in the
`record, and enables the . . . court to avert the trap of hindsight.”
`Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 960 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
`
`Professional approval and praise by others can indicate non-obviousness of an
`invention.
`
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc., 711 F.3d 1348, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2013);
`Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elec. Co., Ltd., 839 F.3d 1034, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`
`Licensing activity evidences non-obviousness of a patent where the licensing holds a
`nexus to the patent at issue and was entered into based on the strength of the patent.
`Impax Laboratories Inc. v. Lannett Holdings Inc., 893 F.3d 1372, 1381–82 (Fed. Cir. 2018);
`Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Drilling USA, Inc., 699 F.3d 1340, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
`
`Where licensee paid more than costs of litigation, litigation-based licenses
`demonstrate a nexus between the license and patent’s strength.
`Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Drilling USA, Inc., 699 F.3d 1340, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
`
`IPR2021-01338 Ex. 2052 – Patent Owner Ancora’s DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`39
`
`

`

`American MegatrendsPraised the Invention
`
`and Ancora Technologies Inc. announce strategic alliance to offer BIOS based security products utilizing
`
`LeietNewsRecase
`Ancora Ontne"™
`Ancora’s Platform Security Anchor ™ (PSA) technology (as described in US Patent 6,411,941). The first
`American Mogstrceds Lac. (AMD) ané Ancor Techsologics
`Ex. 2027 at 1; Response 67; see also Ex. 2029
`Ansonnce Strategic Alliance to Offer BIOS Rasod Security Products
`ATLANTA, GA and IRVINT, CA, Fetesary 14, 2005«THOS pioneer Americas Megatwnds Inc. (AME)
`
`snd Ancora Tectmolngies Inc mmeaunce strnegic allance to offer NO ased wourity prochace wiring
`‘Ancors's Piarform Securty Anchor™(PSA) technoingy (as described in US Peent 6411.94). The fins
`te be
`revased ie Q2 205, prodes “omsuner smog
`PSA™ is a security technology that embeds encryption keys in the core of the PC, its motherboard. This
`mechentcanion”fironline service pereiderssich as cating Danks. celine wenilery and ESP,
`The recone “phishing artacts”0ortine baniing sccowsts highlight the road for a0eflecovr yet comamient
`2 face authentication in wition to 4 pasmwend, Ancers Online™ provides “ommener simang
`eetceteien” et bate commer eeervenineside oflriveneesend weet, Amree Clineethos
`CoenaTEN 10 Gouge WT COMME OFCARPET May Accre HeWT orline ACU Weal patrmorde
`eceemes unclearat the barter will tot he able 1 anc a elem eurwendto accom the comeamer's seat
`wedeurpyecalmeee ofthe onmrrer
`PSA™ in a socuity technology thee embedsencryption keys in the core of the RC. its mothertourt This
`
`approas acteever a hiphe level o! retublry sed seursy thin scthwarrNenetebncdegpes ad abipher
`“The strategic alliance with Ancora allows us to enter the security field and leverage our BIOS expertise
`
`approach achieves a higher level of reliability and security than software-based technologies and a higher
`
`level of convenience than hardware-based ones(i.e. tokens and smart cards).
`
`ite Ancors aiken
`snd knewledge”, sat S. Shankar, AMI prisident. “We see great vale for consumers in BHOS based
`security products”
`level of
`“The THOS i te core of the competer and is the only componane that enables the Nighest
`relusbiiry ard comnemsenes, These mcriteae ae crecal for edewpreat consumer sccepance of wounty
`tachnclogiey”, said Miki Mlor, CHD of Ascorn. “We are vary plonset to have AMI asa satogic ally
`AMCs nomiage ad CMGI MRNA Gr PENIS GeO <TH We Come hak ARCO
`prodace will always be compatible with the teas PCpiatformchologien™
`"Der fit protect, Ancom Oniting, offers 2 whution to the online ID theft protiem canst by “phishing
`zack", stated Ancora Prident Ai Sasvedia. “Wes ws dexigned the product, t wan important for es to
`tras «product at consumers wars, makingwxabvity comvenimce and cot high priority xige gouk™
`
`and knowledge”, said S. Shankar, AMI president. “We see great value for consumers in BIOS based
`
`security products.”
`
`Ex. 2027 at 1; Response 67
`
`ANCORA EX2027 ATLANTA,GA and IRVINE, CA, February 14, 2005 - BIOS pioneer American Megatrends Inc. (AMI)
`
`About American Megatrends Inc.
`
`ANCORA_cOD10088
`1PR2021-01338
`
`Founded in 1985, American MegatrendsInc. (AMI)has dedicated its resources to providing OEMs,
`
`resellers and systems integrators with leading edge computer technologies. Privately held, AMI is best
`
`known for its BIOS, but it also supplies state-of-the-art hardware, software andutilities to over 55 percent
`
`of today's high-tech manufacturers. AMI offers high-density motherboards, disk subsystems and innovative
`
`storage solutions and is a voting member of the Storage Networking Industry Association (SNIA).
`
`Headquartered in Atlanta, AMI has locations in the U.S. and throughout the world including Chennai,
`
`Munich, Seoul, Taipei and Tokyo to better serve its customers.
`
`Ex. 2027 at 2; Response 66-67
`
`IPR2021-01338 Ex. 2052 — Patent Owner Ancora’s DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`40
`
`

`

`Reported Litigation Costs
`
`IPR2021-01338 Ex. 2052 – Patent Owner Ancora’s DEMONSTRA