throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 10
`Entered: March 22, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GREAT WEST CASUALTY COMPANY, BITCO GENERAL
`INSURANCE CORPORATION, and
`BITCO NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TRANSPACIFIC IP I LTD. and
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01912
`Patent 8,929,555 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before MICHAEL W. KIM, THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, and
`ROBERT L. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KINDER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`Great West Casualty Company, BITCO General Insurance
`Corporation, and BITCO National Insurance Company (collectively
`“Petitioner”) filed a Petition pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319 to institute
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01912
`Patent 8,929,555 B2
`
`an inter partes review of claims 1, 7, and 13–15 of U.S. Patent No.
`8,929,555, issued on January 6, 2015 (Ex. 1001, “the ’555 patent”). Paper 1
`(“Pet.”). Transpacific IP I Ltd. and Intellectual Ventures II LLC
`(collectively “Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 9
`(“Prelim. Resp.”). Applying the standard set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a),
`which requires demonstration of a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner
`would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim, we institute an
`inter partes review of all challenged claims.
`I. BACKGROUND
`A. The ʼ555 patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ʼ555 patent is entitled “Data Encryption Systems and Methods.”
`The ’555 patent generally relates to data encryption methods that involve the
`generation of encryption key seeds that may be utilized for generating data
`encryption keys. Ex. 1001, 1:35–43. The ’555 patent recites:
`The system includes a storage device storing data and an
`encryption/decryption module.
` The encryption/decryption
`module randomly generates a device key seed according to the
`occurrence time of a specific operation or the interval between
`two specific operations on the storage device, and applies the
`device key seed to data encryption.
`
`
`
`Id. at Abstract. The ’555 patent discloses a storage device and a host, each
`of which includes an encryption/decryption module. Id. at 3:1–2, 7–9, 11–
`16, Fig. 1. The host may be a processor-based electronic device, such as a
`computer system, an electronic schoolbag, or a mobile device. Id. at 3:4–7.
`The storage device is used for storing data and may also be a mobile device,
`such as a mobile phone, USB handy disk, or a language learning machine.
`Id. at 3:9–11; see also id. at Abstract, Fig. 1.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01912
`Patent 8,929,555 B2
`
`According to the ’555 patent, the encryption/decryption modules may
`
`be implemented in either hardware or software and are responsible for
`generating key seeds and keys, as well as performing encryption and
`decryption operations. Id. at 3:7–9, 15–20. The storage device receives a
`read data request, and in response randomly generates a device key seed Sd
`according to the time of a specific operation or the interval between two
`specific operations on the storage device. Id. at 3:25–30. The device key
`seed is also randomly generated “in response to interrupts that notify the
`storage device of occurrence of the two specific operations.” E.g., id. at
`5:17–20.
`
`
`
`B. Illustrative Claim
`Claims 1, 7, and 15 are the contested independent claims. Claim 1 is
`illustrative of the claims at issue and is reproduced below:
`1. A data encryption system, comprising:
`a storage device adapted to store data D, the storage device
`including:
`an encryption/decryption module adapted to randomly
`generate a device key seed Sd according to a time interval
`between two specific operations on the storage device, and
`adapted to apply the generated device key seed Sd to data
`encryption of the data D,
`wherein the storage device is adapted to randomly
`generate the device key seed Sd in response to interrupts that
`notify the storage device of occurrence of the two specific
`operations.
`Ex. 1001, 5:9–20. Claims 1, 7, and 15 are similar in scope. One notable
`difference is that claim 1 refers to “an encryption/decryption module adapted
`to,” but claims 7 and 15 do not require such a module.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`C. Related Proceedings
`Petitioner identifies the following related proceedings involving the
`ʼ555 patent: Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. BITCO General Insurance
`Corporation f/k/a Bituminous Casualty Corporation et al, Civ. No. 6-15-cv-
`00059 (E.D. Tex.), Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Great West Casualty
`Company, Civ. No. 6-15-cv-00060 (E.D. Tex.), and Intellectual Ventures I
`LLC et al v. HCC Insurance Holdings, Inc. et al., Civ. No. 6-15-cv-00660
`(E.D. Tex.). Pet. 1–2. See also Paper 5 (Patent Owner Mandatory Notices).
`
`D. References
`Petitioner relies on the following references:
`Reference
`
`Date
`Apr. 12, 2002
`(filed)
`Oct. 16, 2003
`(published)
`July 3, 19961
`
`Exhibit
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`IPR2015-01912
`Patent 8,929,555 B2
`
`
`
`Dillaway
`
`US 7,545,931 B2
`
`Dev/Random
`
`
`Extracting
`Randomness
`
`Theodore Ts’o, random.c – A
`strong random number
`generator, version 1.00, last
`modified May 26, 1996
`
`José Castejón-Amenedo et al.,
`Extracting Randomness From
`External Interrupts, IASTED
`Int’l Conf. on Comm., Network,
`and Information Security,
`presented Dec. 10–12, 2003
`
`Dec. 10, 2003 Ex. 1007
`
`
`Petitioner also relies on the Declaration of Bruce Schneier. Ex. 1003.
`
`
`1 For purposes of this Decision, we accept Petitioner’s evidence that
`Dev/Random was a publicly available printed publication as of July 3, 1996.
`See Pet. 21–24 and accompanying exhibits.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01912
`Patent 8,929,555 B2
`
`
`E. Grounds Asserted
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of claims 1, 7, and 13–15 of the
`
`ʼ555 patent on the following grounds (Pet. 2–3):
`Reference(s)
`Basis
`Dillaway
`§ 102
`
`Claims Challenged
`1, 7, and 13–15
`
`Dillaway
`
`Dillaway and
`Dev/Random
`
`Dillaway and Extracting
`Randomness with or
`without Dev/Random
`
`
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`1, 7, and 13–15
`
`1, 7, and 13–15
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`13 and 14
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are
`interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`Under the rule of broadest reasonable interpretation, claim terms are given
`their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of
`ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. See In re
`Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Furthermore,
`if the applicant for patent desires to be its own lexicographer, the purported
`definition must be set forth in either the specification or prosecution history.
`CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`Only terms which are in controversy need to be construed, and only to
`the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01912
`Patent 8,929,555 B2
`
`Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Further, in this Decision,
`we determine that it is only necessary to address certain claim terms
`proposed for construction by one of the parties.
`1. “device key seed Sd”
`Each claim at issue requires a “device key seed Sd.” Petitioner
`proposes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of this term “includes
`‘an input to an encryption key generation algorithm of the storage device,’”
`and “the Board need not define the term further.” Pet. 8. Patent Owner does
`not address Petitioner’s proposed interpretation of “device key seed Sd.” See
`Prelim. Resp. 11–14.
`Petitioner contends its proposed interpretation is appropriate because
`the Specification “explains that the disclosed ‘device key seed Sd’ is
`generated by the disclosed encryption/decryption module,” and “that the key
`seed is used by the storage device to generate an encryption key.” Pet. 8
`(citing Ex. 1001, 1:38–39, 1:49–50, 2:19–21, 4:32–34). Referring to the
`Specification, Petitioner also notes the seed is used as an input to a detailed
`algorithm for generating an encryption key. Id. at 9 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:4–
`20). Thus, according to Petitioner, the Specification discloses that the
`“‘device key seed’” is used as an input to a process for generating an
`encryption key and the broadest reasonable interpretation should embrace
`that disclosure. Id.
`As additional support, Petitioner contends its interpretation is
`consistent with the proposed construction of Patent Owner’s exclusive
`licensee in related litigation. See I.C, supra. “Patent Owner’s exclusive
`licensee has proposed that ‘device key seed’ be construed to mean ‘[a] digital
`value used to generate cryptographic keys.’” Pet. 9–10 (quoting Ex. 1024).
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01912
`Patent 8,929,555 B2
`
`
`On this record, we agree with Petitioner that the broadest reasonable
`interpretation, in light of the Specification, of device key seed Sd “includes
`‘an input to an encryption key generation algorithm of the storage device.’”
`Pet. 8.
`
`2. “interrupt”
`Petitioner requests we construe the term “interrupt” recited in each of
`claims 1, 7, and 15. Pet. 11. Petitioner proposes “[t]he broadest reasonable
`construction of ‘interrupt’ is ‘a signal from a device to a computer’s
`processor requesting attention from the processor, such as a request for
`service generated by hardware components (e.g., a keyboard, mouse, disk
`drive, I/O port, and microprocessor).’” Id.
`
`Patent Owner contends Petitioner’s proposed construction is improper
`“because it is not the broadest reasonable interpretation of ‘interrupt.’”
`Prelim. Resp. 14. In particular, Patent Owner contends the material after
`“such as” was unnecessarily incorporated from an unrelated patent, and the
`example goes beyond the ordinary meaning. Id.
`
`On this record, we agree with Patent Owner, and determine that the
`additional language offered by the Petitioner, specifically “such as a request
`for service generated by hardware components (e.g., a keyboard, mouse,
`disk drive, I/O port, and microprocessor),” is unnecessary to the broadest
`reasonable interpretation of “interrupt.” We therefore construe “interrupt,”
`as “a signal from a device to a computer’s processor requesting attention
`from the processor.” See Ex. 1013 at 285.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01912
`Patent 8,929,555 B2
`
`
`3. “wherein the device key seed Sd is said randomly generated in
`response to interrupts that notify the storage device of
`occurrence of the two specific operations”
`Patent Owner contends the language “in response to interrupts” found
`in each independent claim should be changed to “is caused by interrupts.”
`Prelim. Resp. 13. Patent Owner argues the terminology used in the claim
`“denotes causation,” and “indicates that interrupts cause the random
`generation of the device key seed.” Id. Patent Owner relies on a statement,
`or argument, it made during prosecution of the application leading to the
`’555 patent as support for this change. Id. The statement, addressing
`features of the Khare prior art reference, reads: “the interrupt causes the
`‘seed’ to be ‘loaded’ into the pseudo-random number generator 325, rather
`than causing the ‘seed’ to be ‘generated’ by the pseudo-random number
`generator 325.” Ex. 1002 at 221.
`Based on the record before us, including the statement made during
`prosecution, we disagree with Patent Owner that the claimed wherein clause
`should be rewritten to substitute “is caused by interrupts” with the language
`of the claim — “in response to interrupts.” Patent Owner contends its
`proposed construction is mandated by the arguments it made during
`prosecution. Prelim. Resp. 13. The statement relied on by Patent Owner
`addresses the alleged shortcomings of the Khare prior art reference, but we
`disagree this statement mandates the interpretation proposed by Patent
`Owner. At this stage of the proceedings, we determine that “in response to
`interrupts” need not be interpreted as Patent Owner proposes.
`B. Anticipation of Claims 1, 7, and 13–15 Based On Dillaway
`
`Petitioner contends that these claims are anticipated by Dillaway
`under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), (b), and (e). Pet. 2, 15. Dillaway was filed on
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01912
`Patent 8,929,555 B2
`
`April 12, 2002, published on October 16, 2003, and is therefore prior art
`under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), (b), and (e). Ex. 1005. For the reasons that
`follow, we conclude that Petitioner has met the standard for instituting a
`review of claims 1, 7, and 13–15 based on this challenge.
`1. Dillaway Overview
`Dillaway relates to protecting information critical to an application’s
`functionality, and it describes a method and system for securely storing,
`managing, and sending critical application data (application secrets).
`Ex. 1005, Abstract. Dillaway likewise describes “protecting information
`critical to an application’s functionality by encrypting data based on
`machine-specific entropy and application-specific evidence.” Id. at 1:6–9.
`Dillaway discloses that it is “applicable to any general purpose computing
`platform capable of running a variety of operating systems, virtual machines;
`and applications . . . .” Id. at 4:37–43.
`Dillaway explains that its “inventive methods may be embodied as
`computer readable instructions stored on a computer readable medium such
`as a floppy disk, CD-ROM, removable storage device, hard disk, system
`memory, or other data storage medium.” Id. at 6:8–12 (referring to Fig. 2).
`According to Dillaway, “computer readable medium 201 may store one or
`more software modules, such as code components 411, SSC module 403,
`entropy 405, and encrypted data store 409.” Id. at 6:15–18, Fig. 2. The SSC
`module, or “secret store component” (id. at 3:42) module “manages
`application secrets” and its function may store or retrieve encrypted secret
`data to or from the encrypted store. Id. at 6:41–45, Fig. 2.
`The “SSC Module” of Dillaway can securely store “SSC (or machine-
`specific) internal entropy data, compute encryption keys . . . encrypt and
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01912
`Patent 8,929,555 B2
`
`decrypt secret data using predefined cryptographic algorithms, and provide
`persistent storage of encrypted secrets.” Id. at 6:53–61 (referring to Fig. 4).
`The entropy used by the SSC module of Dillaway “may be any data that
`cannot easily be determined by an attacker and that is specific to an instance
`of SSC 403.” Id. at 6:63–64. The entropy preferably “includes random
`binary data specific to the SSC in a given computer environment” and “may
`be computed using any high quality random number generator.” Id. at 6:62–
`7:2, Fig. 4. Dillaway discloses that “[r]eliable random number generators
`may use a hardware source of randomness if available, or it may use a
`software random number generator that uses multiple sources of
`unpredictable events such as a hard disk head position, time between
`keyboard entries, and so forth.” Id. at 7:2–6.
`In reference to Figure 5, Dillaway further describes “a method for
`protecting a code component secret by encrypting the secret using a key
`based on the code component’s evidence, as well as on machine-specific
`entropy.” Id. at 8:27–31. The SSC module “retrieves the machine-specific
`entropy byte array,” (step 505) and then “calculates the cryptographic key K
`that will be used to encrypt the secret S by combining the evidence with the
`entropy” (step 507). Id. at 8:45–51. “[T]he SSC encrypts S using key K,”
`(step 511) and “[f]inally in step 513, SCC 403 stores the encrypted secret in
`persistent data store 409.” Id. at 9:12–26.
`2. Discussion
`For each limitation of claims 1, 7, and 13–15, Petitioner identifies
`elements in Dillaway corresponding to the ʼ555 patent claims. Pet. 27–40.
`Petitioner relies also on testimony from its expert, Mr. Schneier. See Ex.
`1003 ¶¶ 97–114. For example, Petitioner asserts that the limitation “adapted
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01912
`Patent 8,929,555 B2
`
`to randomly generate a device key seed Sd according to a time interval
`between two specific operations on the storage device” of independent claim
`1 is met by Dillaway’s disclosure of the SSC Module storing internal
`entropy data and using it to compute encryption keys and encrypt and
`decrypt secret data using predefined cryptographic algorithms. Pet. 32–34.
`Specifically, Petitioner cites Dillaway as disclosing that entropy may be
`created from the “time between keyboard entries” as a random number
`generator. Ex. 1005 at 7:5–6; see also id. at 6:62–7:8 (“Entropy . . . includes
`random binary data specific to the SSC in a given computer environment . . .
`may be computed using any high quality random number generator.”).
`Petitioner contends “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art would understand
`that a ‘keyboard entry’ is a type of ‘specific operation’ on the generalized
`computing platform of Dillaway.” Pet. 34 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 113).
`As another example, Petitioner contends the “wherein clause” of
`claim 1, requiring random generation of “the device key seed Sd in response
`to interrupts,” is met by Dillaway’s disclosure of “keyboard entries,” which
`Petitioner asserts are known interrupts. Pet. 36–38. Specifically,
`Petitioner’s expert explains that “[a] keyboard entry in the Windows-based
`and Linux-based computing platforms disclosed by Dillaway necessarily
`creates an interrupt upon pressing of the key.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 132. Based on
`this record, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s contentions that Dillway meets
`this limitation of claim 1, and similarly worded independent claims 7 and 15.
`Claims 13 and 14, which depend from claims 1 and 7 respectively,
`further require that the random generation of the device key seed Sd occur
`“according to an occurrence time of one of the specific operations as
`obtained from a clock.” Petitioner asserts that Dillaway’s disclosure of
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01912
`Patent 8,929,555 B2
`
`using “time between keyboard entries,” would necessarily require obtaining
`the occurrence time of at least one of the keyboard entries from a clock in
`order to calculate the time between them. Pet. 38 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 145).
`For instance, the time would have to be calculated either by obtaining the
`time of a system clock or through use of a counter. Id. Petitioner asserts
`that both would qualify as a “clock” under the broadest reasonable
`interpretation of that term. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 145 (“a counter used to count
`time would be considered by a person or ordinary skill in the art to be a
`clock”). On this record, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s contentions that
`this limitation of claims 13 and 14 is met.
`On this record, therefore, we determine that Petitioner demonstrates a
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing on this ground of challenge to claims 1,
`7, and 13–15.
`C. Obviousness of Claims 1, 7, and 13–15 Over Dillaway
`Petitioner contends these claims are also obvious over Dillaway. Pet.
`40–43 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 115, 133, 146). For reasons similar to those set
`forth above, and in the analysis and claim charts provided in the Petition for
`this challenge, we are persuaded that Petitioner has also met the threshold
`showing required by § 314(a) with respect to these claims. We therefore
`institute a review of claims 1, 7, and 13–15 based on this challenge.
`D. Obviousness of Claims 1, 7, and 13–15 Over Dillaway and
`Dev/Random
`Petitioner contends that the subject matter of these claims would have
`been obvious over Dillaway and Dev/Random. Pet. 43–52. We have
`considered the information provided by Petitioner, including the claim-by-
`claim, element-by-element analysis, and the supporting Declaration of Mr.
`Bruce Schneier (Ex. 1003). Pet. 43–52. We are persuaded, based on this
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01912
`Patent 8,929,555 B2
`
`record, that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing
`on this challenge as to all claims.
`1. Dev/Random Overview
`Dev/Random discloses a number generation routine for the Linux
`operating system that was developed purportedly by Dr. Theodore Ts’o in
`1994. Ex. 1006, 1. Dev/Random describes that “[t]his routine gathers
`environmental noise from device drivers, etc., and returns good random
`numbers, suitable for cryptographic use.” Id. The “random number
`generator” was implemented through the Linux source code file “random.c.”
`Id. Petitioner has presented evidence that “[v]ersion 1.00 of that source code
`was last modified on May 26, 1996, and was publically available for
`redistribution by programmers as of July 3, 1996, making it a printed
`publication for purposes of Section 102.” Pet. 21–24, 24 (“The version of
`Dev/Random relied on here was thus publically available before November
`23, 2003 and is therefore prior art to the 555 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§
`102 (a) and (b).”).
`Dev/Random explains that its routine “gathers environmental noise
`from device drivers, etc., and returns good numbers, suitable for
`cryptographic use.” Ex. 1006 at 1. Dev/Random relies on sources of
`randomness from the environment including, “inter-keyboard timings, inter-
`interrupt timings from some interrupts, and other events which are both (a)
`non-deterministic and (b) hard for an outside observer to measure.” Id. at 1–
`2. The sources of randomness are added into an “entropy pool, which is
`mixed using a CRC-like function” on every interrupt. Pet. 24–25 (quoting
`Ex. 1006 at 2 (“Randomness from these sources are added to an ‘entropy
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01912
`Patent 8,929,555 B2
`
`pool’ . . . randomness is . . . fast enough that the overhead of doing it on
`every interrupt is very reasonable.”)).
`Dev/Random explains that three exported interfaces may be used for
`gathering environmental noise from the device, including:
`add_keyboard_randomness(unsigned char scancode)
`add_mouse_randomness(__u32mouse_data)
`add_interrupt_randomness(int irq)
`Ex. 1006 at 2–3. These interfaces apparently provide random input into the
`entropy pool. Id. at 3. Dev/Random explains that the
`add_keyboard_randomness function uses the timing between presses on a
`keyboard as a source of entropy. Id. at 3 (“add_keyboard_randomness()
`
`uses the inter‐keypress timing, as well as the scancode as random inputs into
`
`the ‘entropy pool.’”). Likewise, Dev/Random discloses that the
`add_interrupt_randomness function uses the timing between interrupts as
`“random inputs to the entropy pool.” Id.
`2. Discussion
`Petitioner’s element-by-element analysis attempts to demonstrate
`where each limitation of claims 1, 7, and 13–15 is met by the Dillaway and
`Dev/Random combination. Pet. 43–52. For example, Petitioner identifies
`the “wherein” clause in the independent claims as corresponding to the
`Dev/Random’s “interface called ‘add_interrupt_randomness’ that ‘uses the
`
`inter‐interrupt timing as random inputs to the entropy pool’ and specifically
`
`discloses that ‘[d]isk interrupts’ should be used.” Pet. 49 (quoting Ex. 1006
`at 2). As explained by Petitioner, “[t]he ‘add_interrupt_randomness’ method
`therefore generates entropy in response to the interrupts that notify the
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01912
`Patent 8,929,555 B2
`
`system of the occurrence of operations such as disk accesses and keyboard
`or mouse operations.” Id.
`As another example, for claims 13 and 14, Petitioner explains that
`“Dev/Random discloses an interface called ‘add_timer_randomness’ which
`uses the occurrence time of a specific operation as obtained from a clock to
`generate a random number.” Id. at 50. Petitioner notes that information
`from this routine is added to the entropy pool and its generation is based on
`clock ticks. Id. at 50–51 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 147). Accordingly, Petitioner
`presents evidence demonstrating Dev/Random teaches or suggests
`“randomly generat[ing] the device key seed Sd according to an occurrence
`time of one of the specific operations as obtained from a clock,” as recited
`by each of claims 13 and 14.
`Petitioner asserts additionally that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Dillaway and
`Dev/Random for multiple reasons. Id. at 45–48; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 120–25. At
`this stage, we are satisfied that Petitioner has sufficiently explained the
`reasons a person of ordinary skill would have combined Dev/Random with
`Dillaway.
`We have considered Petitioner’s arguments, including Mr. Schneier’s
`Declaration. On this record, we are persuaded that they are sufficient to
`demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on this challenge to claims
`1, 7, and 13–15.
`E. Obviousness of Claims 13 and 14 Over Dillaway, Dev/Random,
`and Extracting Randomness
`Petitioner contends that the subject matter of these claims would have
`been obvious over Dillaway, Dev/Random, and Extracting Randomness.
`Pet. 53–55. Although Petitioner states that this combination may be with or
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01912
`Patent 8,929,555 B2
`
`without Dev/Random, Petitioner presents the grounds as a combination of all
`three references. See Pet. 53–55. We therefore exercise our discretion and
`only consider obviousness over Dillaway, Dev/Random, and Extracting
`Randomness for this ground. We have considered the information provided
`by Petitioner, including the claim-by-claim, element-by-element analysis,
`and the supporting Declaration of Mr. Schneier (Ex. 1003). Pet. 53–55. We
`are persuaded, based on this record, that Petitioner has demonstrated a
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing on this challenge.
`1. Extracting Randomness Overview
`The paper Extracting Randomness From External Interrupts
`(“Extracting Randomness”) lists copyright 2003, and Petitioner has
`presented evidence demonstrating a publication date of December 10, 2003.
`Thus, the reference would be prior art to the ’555 patent pursuant to 35
`U.S.C. § 102(a). See Ex. 1007; Pet. 26; Ex. 1003 ¶ 94.
`Extracting Randomness describes “a method for generating random
`bits on a computer system using interrupts from external sources (e.g.,
`keyboard strokes, hard-disk I/O completions, network packet arrivals, etc).”
`Ex. 1007 at 141. The reference purportedly “show[s] how a sequence of
`timestamps of external interrupts can be converted into a uniformly
`distributed random sequence of 0’s and 1’s” and then “how the random
`sequence can later be used in blocking (/ dev / random) and nonblocking (/
`dev / urandom) devices for providing a source of random bits in an UNIX
`environment.” Id. Extracting Randomness uses an entropy gathering
`mechanism with “timestamps derived directly from the processor clock.” Id.
`at 142. Further, timestamps of interrupts are apparently transformed “into
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01912
`Patent 8,929,555 B2
`
`truly random bits” with the timestamp being “the value of the clock register
`at the time when an interrupt is recorded.” Id.
`2. Discussion
`Petitioner’s element-by-element analysis attempts to demonstrate
`where each limitation of claims 13 and 14 is met by the Dillaway,
`Dev/Random, and Extracting Randomness combination. Pet. 53–55. For
`example, Petitioner identifies the “according to an occurrence time of one of
`the specific operations as obtained from a clock” limitation, recited in both
`claims 13 and 14, as corresponding to Extracting Randomness’ disclosure
`that the occurrence time of various operations on a computer, as obtained
`from a system clock, may be used as a source of entropy for a random
`number generator employed in an encryption module. See Pet. 53–54.
`Petitioner also notes that Extracting Randomness “specifically suggest[s] its
`use with dev/random in particular” and “[t]he authors further provide an
`express suggestion to use a clock to obtain the occurrence time of operations
`used for entropy purposes.” Id.
`We have considered Petitioner’s arguments, including Mr. Schneier’s
`Declaration. On this record, we determine that they are sufficient to
`demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on this ground of
`challenge to claims 13 and 14.
`F. “Redundant” Grounds
`Patent Owner contends that the Board should deny certain grounds
`because they are “redundant.” Prelim. Resp. 5–9.
`Based on the record before us, we are unpersuaded that we should
`exercise our discretion in denying institution of certain grounds for the
`reasons set forth by Patent Owner. For example, we are unpersuaded that
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01912
`Patent 8,929,555 B2
`
`the asserted obviousness ground based on Dillaway should not be
`maintained alongside the anticipation ground based on Dillaway. Petitioner
`has made a sufficient threshold showing on both grounds. For example,
`Petitioner provides distinct reasoning and expert testimony to support the
`ground based on obviousness. See Pet. 40–43 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 115, 133,
`146). In addition, Petitioner identifies what Patent Owner may or may not
`argue are shortcomings in Dillaway’s disclosure, and thereafter provides two
`additional references (Dev/Random and Extracting Randomness) directed at
`those areas. See Pet. 43–55. We determine that the use of the two additional
`references is rational, narrowly targeted, and not burdensome considering
`only five claims with very similar limitations are at issue. We determine
`also that Petitioner’s arguments adequately explain why each of the two
`additional references may more closely satisfy certain claim limitations at
`issue than compared to Dillaway alone. The Petition also conveys the
`circumstances in which the full combination may be stronger. For instance,
`claims 13 and 14 each require “an occurrence time of one of the specific
`operations as obtained from a clock” and Dev/Random with Extracting
`Randomness seemingly provide specific routines describing use of clock for
`entropy. On these facts, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny any
`ground set forth in the Petition.
`III. CONCLUSION
`Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail
`in establishing the unpatentability of claims 1, 7, and 13–15 of the ’555
`patent.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01912
`Patent 8,929,555 B2
`
`
`At this stage of the proceeding, we have not made a final
`determination as to the patentability of any challenged claim or the
`construction of any claim term.
`
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`It is, therefore,
`ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes
`review is hereby instituted on the following grounds:
`Claims 1, 7, and 13–15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated based on
`Dillaway;
`Claims 1, 7, and 13–15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
`Dillaway;
`Claims 1, 7, and 13–15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
`Dillaway and DEV/RANDOM; and
`Claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Dillaway,
`Dev/Random, and Extracting Randomness;
`FURTHER ORDERED that review based on any other proposed
`grounds of unpatentability is not authorized; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and
`37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial
`commencing on the entry date of this decision.
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01912
`Patent 8,929,555 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`Joseph A. Micallef
`Russell E. Cass
`Erik J. Carlson
`Vernon M. Winters
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`jmicallef@sidley.com
`rcass@sidley.com
`ecarlson@sidley.com
`vwinters@sidley.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Brenton R. Babcock
`Ted M. Cannon
`Scott Raevsky
`Bridget A. Smith
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`2BRB@knobbe.com
`2tmc@knobbe.com
`2bzs@knobbe.com
`
`Tim Seeley
`James Hietala
`Scott Raevsky
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES
`tim@intven.com
`jhietala@intven.com
`2sxr@knobbe.com
`
`
`
`
`
`20

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket