UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________
`
`ROKU, INC. and VIZIO, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ANCORA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`__________
`
`Case IPR2021-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941 B1
`
`____________________________________________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`

`

`I.
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1
`SUMMARY OF THE ’941 PATENT ........................................................ 2
`A.
`The Inventions Disclosed in the ’941 Patent ....................................... 2
`B.
`The Challenged Claims ....................................................................... 6
`C.
`Prosecution History ............................................................................. 7
`1.
`Non-Final Office Action, December 20, 2000 ......................... 7
`2.
`Amendment, May 23, 2001 .................................................... 10
`3.
`Final Office Action, June 22, 2001 ......................................... 10
`4.
`Amendment and Request for Continued Examination,
`November 16, 2001 ................................................................. 11
`Non-Final Office Action, January 15, 2002 ........................... 11
`5.
`Amendment, February 5, 2002 ............................................... 17
`6.
`Notice of Allowability, March 28, 2002 ................................. 18
`7.
`Prior Invalidity Challenges ................................................................ 20
`1. Microsoft’s Reexamination No. 90/010,560........................... 20
`2.
`Apple Litigation ...................................................................... 26
`3.
`HTC’s Failed Petition for CBM Review ................................ 27
`4.
`HTC’s Failed Patentable Subject Matter Challenge ............... 27
`5.
`TCL’s IPR Petition Asserting Hellman and Chou and the
`“Me-Too” Challengers ............................................................ 28
`Samsung’s Failed Inter Partes Review Petition ...................... 28
`6.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ..................................................... 29
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`

`

`F.
`
`2.
`
`Claim Interpretation .......................................................................... 30
`1.
`“Agent” ................................................................................... 32
`III. SUMMARY OF THE ASSERTED REFERENCES .............................. 36
`A. Hellman ............................................................................................. 37
`B.
`Chou .................................................................................................. 43
`C.
`Shneck ............................................................................................... 46
`IV. PETITIONER FAILS TO ESTABLISH OBVIOUSNESS BASED ON
`EITHER ASSERTED GROUND ....................................................................... 48
`A. Governing Legal Principles ............................................................... 49
`B.
`Claim 1: The Petition Fails to Establish a Valid Motivation for
`Combining Hellman With Chou ....................................................... 52
`1.
`The Petition’s Asserted Motivations to Combine Hellman
`with Chou Are Logically Flawed ............................................ 52
`Petitioners Do Not Offer Any Motivation for Storing
`Hellman’s Value “M” in the Memory Area “Used By the
`BIOS” ...................................................................................... 55
`Claim 1: Petitioners’ Combinations Fail to Identify the Claimed
`Step of Using an Agent to Set Up a Verification Structure in the
`Erasable, Non-Volatile Memory of the BIOS ................................... 56
`1.
`The Petition Wholly Fails to Identify Any Teaching in the
`Combined References of the claimed “Agent,” Which
`Requires an “OS-Level Software Program or Routine” ......... 57
`The Petition Fails to Identify a Legally Sufficient
`Motivation For Modifying Hellman’s Update Unit 36 or
`Authorization and Billing Unit 13 to Be Software-Based ...... 59
`The Petition Improperly Conflates the Memory of the
`BIOS and the Verification Structure, Which the Claim
`Requires to be Separate ........................................................... 62
`
`C.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`

`

`E.
`
`F.
`
`D. Dependent Claims 3, 8, 9, 14: The Allegedly Combined System
`Proposed in the Petition Would Not Function for its Intended
`Purpose .............................................................................................. 64
`Dependent Claims 2, 6–7, 10–13 Are Not Obvious For All of
`the Same Reasons as Claim 1 ............................................................ 66
`Objective Evidence Establishes Non-Obviousness of
`the
`Claimed Invention ............................................................................. 66
`1.
`A Leading BIOS Company Praised the Claimed Invention
`and Agreed to Commercialize ................................................ 66
`Additional Licenses Establish the Significance of the
`Claimed Invention ................................................................... 69
`V. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 71
`
`2.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`Cases
`Activevideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................ 51
`Akzo N.V. v. United States ITC,
`808 F.2d 1471 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ............................................................................ 50
`Ancora Techs., Inc. v. Apple, Inc.,
`744 F.3d 732 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ........................................................... 27, 35, 36, 70
`Ancora Techs., Inc. v. HTC Am., Inc.,
`908 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ..................................................................... 27, 28
`Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd.,
`839 F.3d 1034 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..................................................................... 66, 67
`Bosch Automotive Service Solutions, LLC v. Matal,
`878 F.3d 1027 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................ 68
`Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC v. Rovi Guides, Inc.,
`IPR2019-00299, Paper 45 (PTAB June 29, 2020) ............................................... 52
`Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc.,
`807 F.2d 955 (Fed. Cir. 1986) .............................................................................. 66
`Fox Factory Inc. v. SRAM LLC,
`944 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................................................................ 67
`Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ................................................................................................. 50
`Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster LLC,
`938 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................................................................ 67
`Impax Laboratories Inc. v. Lannett Holdings Inc.,
`893 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................................................ 69
`In re Dow Chem. Co.,
`837 F.2d 469 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ....................................................................... 51, 62
`In re Evanega,
`829 F.2d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ............................................................................ 50
`In re Gordon,
`733 F.2d 900 (Fed. Cir. 1984) .............................................................................. 51
`In re Huang,
`100 F.3d 135 (Fed. Cir. 1996) .............................................................................. 67
`In re NTP, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................... 50, 61, 62
`
`

`

`In re NuVasive, Inc.,
`842 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..................................................................... 51, 59
`In re Young,
`927 F.2d 588 (Fed. Cir. 1991) .............................................................................. 50
`Kaken Pharma. Co., Ltd. v. Iancu,
`952 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .................................................................... passim
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ................................................................................ 49, 50, 51
`Monarch Knitting Mach. Corp. v. Sulzer Morat Gmbh,
`139 F.3d 877 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .............................................................................. 51
`Personal Web Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`848 F.3d 987 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ....................................................................... 50, 61
`Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc.,
`882 F.3d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................................................ 67
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc.,
`711 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................ 66
`Rembrandt Wireless Techs., LP v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd.,
`853 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................... 31, 33, 34
`Sony Mobile Commc’ns AB v. Ancora Technologies, Inc.,
`IPR2021-00663, Paper 13 (April 23, 2021) ......................................................... 57
`Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,
`655 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................ 50
`Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Drilling USA, Inc.,
`699 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................ 69
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ....................................................................... 30, 32
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) ................................................................................................. 53
`37 C.F.R. 42.100(b) .......................................................................................... 31, 33
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`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”)
`Scheduling Order, Ancora Techs., Inc. v. TCT Mobile (US), Inc.,
`1007
`No. 8:19-cv-2192 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2020) (ECF No. 34)
`In re: Coronavirus Public Emergency, Order Concerning Phased
`Reopening of the Court, General Order No. 20-09, United States
`District Court for the Central District of California, Aug. 6, 2020
`Civil Docket, Ancora Techs., Inc. v. Sony Mobile Commc’ns AB,
`No. 1:19-cv-01703 (D. Del.)
`Civil Docket, Ancora Techs., Inc. v. Lenovo Grp. Ltd., No. 1:19-
`cv-01712 (D. Del.)
`Claim Construction Order, Ancora Techs., Inc. v. Apple Inc., No.
`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).
`Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement, Ancora
`Techs., Inc. v. TCT Mobile (US), Inc., No. 8:19-cv-2192 (C.D.
`Cal. July 17, 2020) (ECF No. 49)
`European Patent Application No. EP 0766165A2 (“’165
`Application”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,724,425 (“’425 Patent”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,138,236 (“’236 Patent”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,802,592 (“’592 Patent”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,835,594 (“’594 Patent”)
`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
`
`1015
`1016
`1017
`1018
`1019
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1020
`
`

`

`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”).
`Complaint, Ancora Techs., Inc. v. TCL Corp., et al., No. 4:19-
`cv-00624 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 27, 2019) (ECF No. 1)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,734,819 (“Lewis”)
`File Wrapper of Ex Parte Reexamination of U.S. Patent No.
`6,411,941, Control No. 90/010,560 (“’560 Reexam File
`Wrapper”)
`
`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 Techns., 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”)
`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
`
`1021
`
`1022
`1023
`
`1024
`
`
`2001
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`2008
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`2012
`
`

`

`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
`Reserved
`AIPLA statistics
`
`2013
`
`2014
`2015
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`2018
`2019
`2020
`2021
`
`2022
`
`2023
`
`2024
`2025
`2026
`2027
`2028
`2029
`2030
`2031
`2032
`2033
`2034
`2035
`
`REDACTED
`
`REDACTED
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`

`2036
`
`2037
`
`2038
`2039
`2040
`2041
`2042
`
`2043
`
`2044
`2045
`
`2046
`
`
`
`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)
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioners mischaracterize the ’941 patent repeatedly by contending that the
`
`invention consists merely of storing a license record for a program in the BIOS
`
`memory. Petitioners ignore statements by both the applicants and the examiners in
`
`the ’941 patent’s prosecution history, distinguishing the cited art because it did not
`
`teach programs running at the OS level interacting with a program verification
`
`structure stored in the BIOS. These statements applied to all of the cited art during
`
`prosecution, through reexamination, and in multiple challenges to the validity of the
`
`’941 patent at the USPTO, district court, and the Federal Circuit. The references
`
`asserted in the Petition have the same shortcomings as the references already
`
`addressed during these earlier proceedings.
`
`Because they ignore this prosecution and reexamination history, Petitioners
`
`do not apply the correct interpretation of the challenged claims. Interpreted properly,
`
`Petitioners fail identify any teaching in the art that would have rendered the claimed
`
`“agent” obvious. Neither Hellman, Chou, or Schneck; nor the Petitioners’
`
`combinations disclose programs running at the OS level interacting with a program
`
`verification structure stored in the BIOS.
`
`Petitioners also fail to identify adequate evidence of a motivation to combine
`
`Hellman with Chou, and ignore important details in Hellman that render Hellman’s
`
`

`

`disclosed system unsuitable for its intended purpose when modified as Petitioners
`
`have proposed.
`
`The non-obviousness of the challenged claims is further confirmed by
`
`objective evidence including industry praise and significant licensing related to the
`
`’941 patent. In particular, Patent Owner has licensed the ’941 patent to multiple
`
`companies that asserted the very same prior art combinations in district court and
`
`the USPTO. This licensing success can only be attributed to the patent’s strength
`
`over the asserted grounds and every other prior art reference known to the licensees.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’941 PATENT
`
`A. The Inventions Disclosed in the ’941 Patent
`The ’941 patent discloses a specific technique for “identifying and restricting
`
`an unauthorized software program’s operation.” (Ex.1001 1:6–8.) It describes
`
`“illegally copied software,” which “represents billions of dollars in lost profits to
`
`commercial software developers.” (Id. at 1:14–18.) The ’941 patent describes two
`
`known methods of verifying and restricting a software program on a computer: first
`
`involving software-based products, and second involving hardware-based products.
`
`(Id. 1:19–32.)
`
`The ’941 patent identifies problems with both. First, the software-based
`
`products “validate authorized software usage by writing a license signature onto the
`
`computer’s volatile memory (e.g., hard disk).” (Id. 1:19–21.) The license signature,
`
`

`

`however, is vulnerable to “hackers” and to “physical instabilities” of the hardware.
`
`(Id. 1:21–26.) Second, the hardware-based products required “a dongle that is
`
`coupled e.g. to the parallel port of the P.C.” (Id. 1:27–29.) The dongles, however,
`
`are “expensive, inconvenient, and not particularly suitable for software that may be
`
`sold by downloading (e.g., over the internet).” (Id. 1:29–32.)
`
`In contrast to these systems, the ’941 patent describes using existing computer
`
`hardware with “a conventional BIOS module in which a key was embedded at the
`
`ROM section thereof.” (Id. 1:45–47.) The BIOS module further includes “another
`
`(second) non-volatile section of the BIOS, e.g., E2PROM (or the ROM)” in which
`
`“memory may optionally be erased or modified (using E2PROM manipulation
`
`commands).” (Id. 1:66–2:4.) FIG. 1 illustrates a first non-volatile memory 4 (e.g.,
`
`ROM section of the BIOS) including a key 8, and a second non-volatile memory 5
`
`(e.g., E2PROM section of the BIOS) with a license-record area 9 that includes license
`
`records 10–12. (Ex. 1001 5:10–27.)
`
`

`

`
`
`(Ex. 1001 FIG. 1.) BIOS memory space of this type was and is typically used for
`
`storing programs that assist in the start-up of a computer. (Ex. 2018 ¶62.) The ’941
`
`patent explains that two-part BIOS modules (ROM + E2PROM) were known. (Ex.
`
`1001 3:21–24 (“a processor normally includes a first non-volatile memory, a second
`
`non-volatile memory, and data linkage access to a volatile memory.”); see also Ex.
`
`2018 ¶63.)
`
`A license record is created in the second non-volatile section of the BIOS
`
`during “an initial license establishment procedure” that sets up a “verification
`
`structure” using E2PROM manipulation commands that enable the method to “add,
`
`

`

`modify or remove licenses” in the BIOS. (See Ex. 1001 1:33–2:9.) Separately, the
`
`“key” stored in the BIOS is “a unique identification code for the host computer,”
`
`which is embedded “during manufacture” and “cannot be removed or modified.” (Id.
`
`1:46–52.) In one example, setting up the verification structure includes “establishing
`
`at least one license-record location in the first or second nonvolatile memory area.”
`
`(Id. 6:20–21.) License records can then be created and stored in the verification
`
`structure. With reference to FIG. 1, license record fields (13–15) appended to a
`
`licensed program 16 are encrypted to form license records (10–12). (Id. 5:27–43.)
`
`The key stored in the ROM portion of the BIOS is used to encrypt the license records,
`
`such that the license record is rendered useless if copied to a second computer with
`
`a different key. (See id. 2:27–59; 6:22–26, Ex. 2018 ¶64.) The encrypted license
`
`records are then established in the license record locations (e.g., 10–12 in FIG. 1).
`
`(Ex. 1001 6:26–28.)
`
`Verifying the license requires a license verifier application, which “accesses
`
`the program under question, retrieves therefrom the license record, encrypts the
`
`record utilizing the specified unique key (as retrieved from the ROM section of the
`
`BIOS) and compares the so encrypted record to the encrypted records that reside in
`
`the E2PROM.” (Id. 2:10–19; 6:29–39.) The program is allowed to run if the
`
`encrypted records match or halted if they do not. (Id. 2:19–26; 6:40–52.)
`
`The ’941 patent explains the advantages of the disclosed method:
`
`

`

`An important advantage in utilizing non-volatile memory
`such as that residing in the BIOS is that the required level
`of system programming expertise that is necessary to
`intercept or modify commands, interacting with the BIOS,
`is substantially higher than those needed for tampering
`with data residing in volatile memory such as hard disk.
`Furthermore, there is a much higher cost to the
`programmer, if his tampering is unsuccessful, i.e. if data
`residing in the BIOS (which is necessary for the
`computer's operability) is inadvertently changed by the
`hacker. This is too high of a risk for the ordinary software
`hacker to pay. Note that various recognized means for
`hindering the professional-like hacker may also be utilized
`(e.g. anti-debuggers, etc.) in conjunction with the present
`invention.
`
`(Ex. 1001 3:4–17.)
`
`The Challenged Claims
`B.
`Petitioners assert that claims 1–3, 6–14, and 16 were obvious. Each depends
`
`from claim 1, which recites:
`
`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
`the BIOS,
`the
`erasable, non-volatile memory of
`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.
`
`(Ex. 1001 6:59–7:4.)
`
`Prosecution History
`C.
`The ’941 patent issued from Application No. 09/164,777, filed on October 1,
`
`1998, and claimed priority to Israeli Application No. 124571, filed on May 21, 1998.
`
`1.
`
`Non-Final Office Action, December 20, 2000
`
`In a first office action, the Examiner rejected the then-pending claims over
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,892,900 by Ginter et al. (hereinafter “Ginter”) and U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,684,951 by Goldman et al. (hereinafter “Goldman”). (Ex. 2011 ANCC000077–
`
`83.) The examiner relied primarily on Ginter, asserting that Ginter anticipated many
`
`of the pending claims. (Id. ANCC000077–79.) For certain dependent claims, the
`
`examiner asserted that the pending claims were obvious based on Ginter modified
`
`with Goldman’s disclosure of pseudo unique keys. (Id. ANCC00080–83.)
`
`

`

`a) Ginter
`
`Ginter discloses “a distributed virtual distribution environment (VDE) that
`
`may enforce a secure chain of handling and control, for example, to control and/or
`
`meter or otherwise monitor use of electronically stored or disseminated
`
`information.” (Ex. 2019 Abstract; see also id. 2:20–32, 6:29–67.)
`
`Ginter discloses an “electronic appliance” with a secure processing unit (SPU)
`
`capable of operating within the VDE. (Id. 60:7–15; see also id. 3:67–4:4, 20:47–59.)
`
`Ginter explains that “tamper resistance and concealment of VDE control process
`
`execution and related data storage activities” is used to improve the overall security
`
`of the VDE system. (Id. 21:22–33.) In an example illustrated in FIG. 8, Ginter
`
`describes the electronic appliance as a computer, comprising one or more SPU 500.
`
`(Id. 62:31–63, 63:67–65:15.) Alternatively, “SPU 500 may be integrated together
`
`with one or more other CPU(s) (e.g., a CPU 654 of an electronic appliance) in a
`
`single component or package.” (Id. 65:21–24.) The SPU, as illustrated in Ginter’s
`
`FIG. 9, “may comprise a combination of a masked ROM 532a and an EEPROM
`
`and/or equivalent “flash” memory 532b.” (Id. 70:39–71:15, FIG. 9.)
`
`

`

`
`
`(Id. FIG. 9.) Separately, Ginter discloses “cryptography employing keys and/or
`
`authentication values hidden in normally inaccessible locations in the appliance
`
`600,” including: “[n]on-volatile, writable, storage in the appliance or its components,
`
`such as that used for . . . standard BIOS software, etc.” (Ex. 2011 ANCC000111
`
`(citing Ex. 2019 245:55–246:24).) Ginter does not disclose or suggest an OS-level
`
`agent capable of setting up a verification structure in memory of the BIOS.
`
`b) Goldman
`
`Goldman discloses a system for “user validation with respect to a multi-user
`
`computer system.” (Ex. 2045 1:8–10.) In this system, a computer system 112 is
`
`connected via an internet interface 110 to an application system 310. (Id. FIG. 1,
`
`

`

`4:59–5:4.) As shown in Figure 3A, the system provides a user validation system
`
`310a communicating with the computer system 112. (Id. 5:34–40.)
`
`(Id. FIG. 3A.) In certain situations, the validation system generates a pseudo unique
`
`key from a userID, current IP address, and a secret code, which can be used to verify
`
`the user when the user is logged in from a new IP address. (Id. Abstract, 8:42–54,
`
`
`
`9:26–33.)
`
`2.
`
`Amendment, May 23, 2001
`
`Applicants initially contended that Ginter does not disclose “setting up a
`
`verification structure and verifying the program using the verification structure as
`
`recited in the rejected claims.” (Ex. 2011 ANCC000093.)
`
`3.
`
`Final Office Action, June 22, 2001
`
`In a second office action, the Examiner maintained the same rejections (Ex.
`
`2011 ANCC000110–16), disagreeing with applicant’s argument that Ginter does not
`
`

`

`teach “setting up a verification structure and verifying the program using the
`
`verification structure” (Ex. 2011 ANCC000106).
`
`4.
`
`Amendment and Request for Continued Examination,
`November 16, 2001
`
`Applicants amended claim 1 to recite “using an agent to setting up verification
`
`structure in the second erasable, non-volatile memory of the BIOS, the verfication
`
`verification structure accommodatinges data that includes at least one license
`
`record.” (Ex. 2011 ANCC000130.) The response further noted that “a description of
`
`a specific embodiment of the invention is attached hereto.” (Id. ANC000129.) The
`
`file history includes a white paper, authored by the inventors of the ’941 patent. (See
`
`id. ANC000178–85.) The white paper explains that, “[i]n order for a user to access
`
`the BIOS E2PROM[,] proprietary software” needed to be developed. (Id.
`
`ANC000180 (emphasis added).) The document explains that the “Beeble License
`
`Manager is a windows control panel applet that allows users to self manage Beeble
`
`licenses installed on their machine.” (Id. ANC000182.) The control panel applet was
`
`responsible for “installation and removal of Beeble licenses.” (Id.) Skilled artisans
`
`would recognize the described control panel applet as an example of an OS-level
`
`software agent. (Ex. 2018 ¶88.)
`
`5.
`
`Non-Final Office Action, January 15, 2002
`
`In a third office action, the Examiner relied on new references, U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,189,146 to Misra et al. (hereinafter “Misra”) and U.S. Patent No. 5,479,639 to
`
`

`

`Ewertz et al. (hereinafter “Ewertz”). (See Ex. 2011 ANC000143–45.) The examiner
`
`rejected all of the then-pending claims as obvious over Misra, Goldman, and Ewertz.
`
`(Ex. 2011 ANCC000143–45.) The examiner relied primarily on Misra, equating
`
`“programs” disclosed by Misra to the claimed agent. According to the examiner,
`
`“Misra teaches . . . programs (“agents”) used in the license collation process that
`
`belong to various parties.” (Id. ANCC000144–45.) The examiner asserted that Misra
`
`would have been modified in view of Ewertz’s teaching of expanding BIOS memory
`
`to store identification or configuration data such as software licenses. (Id.)
`
`a) Misra
`
`Misra discloses “a system and method for enforcing software licenses.” (Ex.
`
`2014 1:7–8.) Misra’s architecture included four components: license generator 26,
`
`license server 28, intermediate server 32, and client 30, as illustrated in FIG. 3. (Id.
`
`6:21–24.)
`
`

`

`
`
`(Id. FIG. 3.) Misra explains that the clients 30 can be “many different kinds of
`
`computers, including a desktop personal computer, a workstation, a laptop, a
`
`notebook computer, a handheld PC, and so forth;” or a “terminal device, which is a
`
`low cost machine.” (Id. 5:13–22.) As shown in FIG. 3, the client 30 includes a client
`
`system ID 142 that “is a unique identifier of the client computer” and based on
`
`information such as hard disk volume numbers, network cards, registered software,
`
`video cards, microprocessor identifiers, total RAM, and floppy disk drive
`
`configuration. (Id. 12:50–63.) Misra also describes a license ID, which is a unique
`
`identifier assigned to a software license when the software license is issued to a client
`
`device. (Id. 11:9–12.) The license ID may be a digital certificate indicating the right
`
`

`

`to use the particular software at issue. (Id. 10:60–67.)
`
`Misra does not, however, teach using the BIOS of a computer to store the
`
`license ID. (Ex. 2011 ANCC000145 (Examiner noted that Misra does not teach
`
`“constructing license records within a computer BIOS”).)
`
`b)
`
`Ewertz
`
`Ewertz discloses “a paging technique . . . used to expand the usable non-
`
`volatile memory capacity beyond a fixes address space limitation.” (Ex. 2015 2:24–
`
`26.) Ewertz explains that “ROM devices with a BIOS contained therein are typically
`
`constrained to a specific address range within the address space available.” (Id. 1:56–
`
`59, 1:62–67; see also id. 5:15–17.) According to Ewertz, developments at the time
`
`made it “increasingly unfeasible to fit all desired BIOS features within the 128K
`
`boundary of the IBM PC AT architecture.” (Id. 2:6–12.)
`
`Ewertz illustrates the preferred embodiment of a paged flash memory 103.
`
`(E.g., Id. 4:33–35.)
`
`

`

`(Id. FIG. 2.) Ewertz describes the contents of the 128K region 320 as follows:
`
`The upper region 301 is used for storage of the normal sy