Filed on behalf of: Unified Patents Inc.
`By:
`
`P. Andrew Riley
`James D. Stein
`Finnegan, Henderson,
`Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P.
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20001–4413
`Telephone: 202-408-4266
`Facsimile: 202-408-4400
`Email: IV459-IPR@finnegan.com
`
`
`
`
`Jonathan Stroud
`Unified Patents Inc.
`1875 Connecticut Ave. NW, Floor 10
`Washington, D.C., 20009
`Telephone: 202-805-8931
`Email: jonathan@unifiedpatents.com
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`________________________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________________
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.,
`Petitioner
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II, LLC
`Patent Owner
`_________________________
`
`U.S. Patent 6,968,459
`IPR2016-01404
`
`COMPUTING ENVIRONMENT HAVING SECURE STORAGE DEVICE
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01404, Petition
`Patent 6,968,459
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ................................... 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Real Party-in-Interest ............................................................................ 2
`
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 2
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel, and Service Information ......................... 2
`
`III. FEE PAYMENT .............................................................................................. 3
`
`IV. STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Claims for Which Review is Requested ................................................ 3
`
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge ............................................................ 3
`
`The Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art at the Time of the
`Claimed Invention ................................................................................. 4
`
`V.
`
`THE ’459 PATENT ......................................................................................... 5
`
`A. Overview of the Disclosure ................................................................... 5
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Prosecution History ............................................................................... 8
`
`Prior Art Secure Storage Devices .......................................................... 9
`
`VI. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ...................................................................... 10
`
`VII. STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EACH
`CLAIM CHALLENGED .............................................................................. 10
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Claims for Which Review is Requested .............................................. 10
`
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge .......................................................... 10
`
`Claim Construction ............................................................................. 11
`
`1.
`
`“Device-Specific Security Information” (Challenged
`Claims 1, 15, 33, and 39) .......................................................... 11
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01404, Petition
`Patent 6,968,459
`
`
`“Device-Specific Information” (Challenged Claim 18)
`and “User-Specific Information” (Challenged Claims 18
`and 24) ....................................................................................... 13
`
`“Security Information” (Challenged Claim 18) ........................ 14
`
`“Status Change . . . for the Storage Device” (Challenged
`Claims 13 and 14) ..................................................................... 14
`
`“Storage Manager” (Challenged Claim 39) .............................. 15
`
`“Drive” (Challenged Claim 39) ................................................ 17
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`VIII. CLAIMS 1, 2, 13–15, 33, 34, 39, 46 AND 48 OF THE ’459 PATENT
`ARE UNPATENTABLE ............................................................................... 18
`
`A. GROUND 1: Bensimon Anticipates Claims 1, 13, 14, 33, 39,
`46, and 48 of the ’459 Patent Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) .................... 18
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Overview of Bensimon .............................................................. 19
`
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................. 20
`
`Dependent Claims 13 and 14 .................................................... 27
`
`Independent Claim 33 ............................................................... 29
`
`Independent Claim 39 ............................................................... 31
`
`Dependent Claims 46 and 48 .................................................... 32
`
`B. GROUND 2: Bensimon in View of Takahashi Renders Obvious
`Claims 2, 15, and 34 Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ................... 33
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Overview of Takahashi ............................................................. 33
`
`Dependent Claim 2 ................................................................... 36
`
`Independent Claim 15 ............................................................... 40
`
`Dependent Claim 34 ................................................................. 42
`
`C. GROUND 3: Kimura in View of Takahashi Renders Obvious
`Independent Claim 18 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ............................... 43
`ii
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01404, Petition
`Patent 6,968,459
`
`Overview of Kimura ................................................................. 43
`
`Independent Claim 18 ............................................................... 48
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`IX. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 67
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01404, Petition
`Patent 6,968,459
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`Exhibit
`EX1001 U.S. Patent No. 6,968,459 to Jeffrey Morgan, et al.
`EX1002 Declaration of Expert: Dr. Paul Franzon
`EX1003
`Excerpts of Prosecution History for U.S. Patent No. 6,968,459
`EX1004 U.S. Patent No. 5,533,125 to Daniel Bensimon, et al. (“Bensimon”)
`EX1005 U.S. Patent No. 5,825,878 Richard Takahashi, et al. (“Takahashi”)
`EX1006 U.S. Patent No. 5,237,609 to Masatoshi Kimura (“Kimura”)
`EX1007
`Petitioner’s Voluntary Interrogatory Responses
`EX1008 U.S. Patent No. 6,738,877 to Yamakawa et al. (“Yamakawa”)
`EX1009 U.S. Patent No. 6,012,145 to Mathers et al. (“Mathers”)
`EX1010 Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Paul Franzon
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`IPR2016-01404, Petition
`Patent 6,968,459
`
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`No. 15-446, 579 U.S. ___ (June 20, 2016) ......................................................... 11
`
`In re GPAC,
`57 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1995) .............................................................................. 4
`
`Intellectual Ventures I, LLC, Intellectual Ventures II, LLC v. Lenovo
`Group Ltd., Lenovo (United States) Inc., LenovoEMC Products
`USA, LLC, and EMC Corp.,
`No. 1:16-cv-10860 (D. Mass) ............................................................................... 2
`
`Intellectual Ventures I, LLC, Intellectual Ventures II, LLC, v. NetApp,
`Inc.,
`No. 1:16-cv-10868 (D. Mass) ............................................................................... 2
`
`In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Litig.,
`639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 17
`
`Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California,
`814 F.2d 628, 2 USPQ2d 1051 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ................................................ 18
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC¸
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .............................................................. 15, 16, 17
`
`Federal Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ............................................................................................... 8, 11
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ............................................................................................passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ............................................................................................passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 .................................................................................................. 15, 17
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 .................................................................................................... 3, 10
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319 ................................................................................................ 1
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`
`Regulations
`
`IPR2016-01404, Petition
`Patent 6,968,459
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ......................................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ................................................................................................ 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) ................................................................................................... 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 11
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.100 et seq. ........................................................................................ 1
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.103(a) ............................................................................................... 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ............................................................................................... 10
`
`77 Fed. Reg. at 48764 .............................................................................................. 11
`
`Other Authorities
`
`M.P.E.P. § 2141.03 .................................................................................................... 4
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner Unified Patents Inc. (“Unified”) respectfully requests Inter Partes
`
`IPR2016-01404, Petition
`Patent 6,968,459
`
`
`I.
`
`Review (“IPR”) of claims 1, 2, 13–15, 18, 33, 34, 39, 46, and 48 of U.S. Patent
`
`6,968,459 (“the ’459 patent,” EX1001) assigned to Intellectual Ventures II, LLC
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319 and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.100 et seq. This petition shows
`
`by a preponderance of the evidence that the claims are unpatentable for at least the
`
`multiple reasons presented.
`
`The ’459 patent, filed on December 15, 1999, broadly claims restricting
`
`access to data storage devices. More particularly, it claims methods and systems
`
`for operating a data storage device in either full-access or restricted-access mode,
`
`depending on whether the storage device has security information. The ’459
`
`specification suggests that this technology “prevent[ed] an authorized user from
`
`appropriating sensitive data by simply copying the sensitive data to a removable
`
`storage device such as floppy diskette.” EX1006 at 1:21–31. But this simple
`
`technology was well known and often described in patents and printed publications
`
`long before the claimed priority date of the ’459 patent, and was likewise obvious
`
`to those of ordinary skill in late 1999.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01404, Petition
`Patent 6,968,459
`
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), Petitioner certifies that Unified is the real
`
`party-in-interest, and further certifies that no other party exercised control or could
`
`exercise control over Unified’s participation in this proceeding, the filing of this
`
`petition, or the conduct of any ensuing trial. In this regard, Unified has submitted
`
`voluntary discovery. See EX1007, Petitioner’s Voluntary Interrogatory Responses.
`
`B. Related Matters
`Upon information and belief, the ‘459 patent was asserted in the following
`
`cases:
`
`1. Intellectual Ventures I, LLC, Intellectual Ventures II, LLC v.
`Lenovo Group Ltd., Lenovo (United States) Inc., LenovoEMC
`Products USA, LLC, and EMC Corp., No. 1:16-cv-10860 (D.
`Mass);
`2. Intellectual Ventures I, LLC, Intellectual Ventures II, LLC, v.
`NetApp, Inc., No. 1:16-cv-10868 (D. Mass).
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel, and Service Information
`The signature block of this petition designates lead counsel, backup counsel,
`
`and service information for each petitioner. Unified designates P. Andrew Riley
`
`(Reg. No. 66,290) as lead counsel and designates James D. Stein (Reg. No. 63,782)
`
`as backup counsel. Both can be reached at Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett
`
`& Dunner, LLP, 901 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20001-4413
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01404, Petition
`Patent 6,968,459
`
`(phone: 202.408.4000; fax: 202.408.4400). Unified also designates as backup
`
`counsel Jonathan Stroud (Reg. No. 72,518). Petitioner consents to e-mail service at
`
`IV459-IPR@finnegan.com.
`
`III. FEE PAYMENT
`The required fees are submitted under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.103(a) and 42.15(a).
`
`If any additional fees are due during this proceeding, the Office may charge such
`
`fees to Deposit Account No. 50-6990.
`
`IV. STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`A. Claims for Which Review is Requested
`Petitioner respectfully requests inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 311 of
`
`claims 1, 2, 13–15, 18, 33, 34, 39, 46, and 48 of the ’459 patent and cancellation of
`
`those claims as unpatentable.
`
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge
`
`B.
`Petitioner requests that the Board hold claims 1, 2, 13–15, 18, 33, 34, 39, 46,
`
`and 48 unpatentable as follows:
`
`Ground
`
`Proposed Statutory Challenges for the ’459 Patent
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`
`
`Claims 1, 13, 14, 33, 39, 46 and 48 are anticipated under
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by U.S. Patent No. 5,533,125 to
`Bensimon, et al. (“Bensimon”).
`Claims 2, 15, and 34 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`over Bensimon in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,825,878 to
`Takahashi, et al. (“Takahashi”).
`Claim 18 is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over U.S.
`Patent No. 5,237,609 to Kimura (“Kimura”) in view of
`3
`
`Exhibit
`No(s).
`EX1004
`
`EX1004,
`EX1005
`
`EX1006,
`EX1005
`
`

`
`Takahashi.
`
`
`Bensimon, Takahashi, and Kimura all qualify as prior art to the ’459 patent under
`
`IPR2016-01404, Petition
`Patent 6,968,459
`
`
`pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because the patents issued more than a year before the
`
`December 15, 1999 priority date of the ’459 patent.
`
`C. The Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art at the Time of the Claimed
`Invention
`
`Several factors define the level of ordinary skill in the art. They include (1)
`
`the types of problems encountered in the art; (2) the prior art solutions to those
`
`problems; (3) the rapidity with which innovations are made; (4) the sophistication
`
`of the technology; and (5) the educational level of active workers in the field. See
`
`M.P.E.P. § 2141.03 (citing In re GPAC, 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). The
`
`’459 patent was filed on December 15, 1999. At that time, a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art of secure computer data storage devices (i.e. in the art for
`
`the ’459 patent) would have had (i) a B.S. degree in electrical engineering,
`
`computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent
`
`training, and (ii)
`
`approximately two years of experience in the design or research of secure
`
`computer data storage devices. See EX1002 (Dr. Franzon decl.) at ¶ 32.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01404, Petition
`Patent 6,968,459
`
`
`V. THE ’459 PATENT
`A. Overview of the Disclosure
`The ’459 patent describes “a computer 100 that automatically operates in a
`
`secure data storage mode when the computer 100 senses that storage device 151 is
`
`a secure storage device.” EX1001 (’459 patent) at 2:30–33.
`
`EX1001 (’459 patent), FIG. 1.
`
`The storage device 151 can be “a floppy diskette, a magneto-optical storage
`
`device, an optical disk, a SuperDiskTM diskette, a ZipTM disk, a JazzTM disk, a tape
`
`
`
`cartridge, etc.” Id. at 3:10–13.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01404, Petition
`Patent 6,968,459
`
`In particular, “[i]n block 204, the storage manager detects whether storage
`
`device 151 is a ‘secure’ removable device by attempting to read any device-
`
`specific security information from storage device 151.” EX1001 (’459 patent) at
`
`5:7–10. “The security information can be a function of a unique identifier retrieved
`
`from an electronic circuit embedded within the removable storage device or a
`
`serial number etched on the storage device during manufacturing.” Id. at Abstract.
`
`In another embodiment, the “device-specific security information [is] derived from
`
`the unique format information of the removable storage device.” Id. at 3:66–4:1.
`
`For example, “the device-specific security information is a function of the low-
`
`level format information and, therefore, uniquely identifies the underlying media
`
`of storage device 151,” such as “a hash of the addresses of the bad sectors for
`
`storage device 151. Because it is a function of the physical characteristics of the
`
`actual storage medium within storage device 151, the format information is
`
`inherently unique to each storage device 151.” Id. at 4:9–17.
`
`“If the device-specific security information is not successfully read, then the
`
`storage manager proceeds to block 216 and operates computer 100 in a restricted-
`
`access data storage mode.” Id. at 5:15–19. If it is successfully read, however, then
`
`the computer 100 operates the storage device in full-access mode. Id. at 6:28–33.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01404, Petition
`Patent 6,968,459
`
`
`EX1001 (’459 patent), FIG. 2.
`
`
`
`In full-access mode, both read and write access to the removable storage device are
`
`permitted, and a cryptographic key may be used to encrypt and decrypt the data
`
`stream between the computer and the storage device. Id. at 7:8–16. In restricted-
`
`access mode, read-only access is permitted such that the user can read data from
`
`the storage device but cannot write data to the drive. Id. at 7:8–16.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Prosecution History
`
`B.
`The application was filed on December 15, 1999 and did not claim priority
`
`IPR2016-01404, Petition
`Patent 6,968,459
`
`
`to any other application. See EX1003 (Pros. history) at 1–34. Thus, the ’459 patent
`
`has an effective filing date of December 15, 1999.
`
`The Examiner opened prosecution in November of 2003, rejecting every one
`
`of the original sixty-seven claims as being either anticipated or obvious in light of
`
`the prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) or §103(a). Id. at 85–118. In response,
`
`Applicant cancelled two claims and amended some claims to provide more details
`
`about the two different access modes. Id. at 120–140. In February of 2005, the
`
`Examiner responded with a requirement for restriction to one of the two distinct
`
`inventions claimed therein—either (I) the group of claims drawn to controlling
`
`types of access to a storage device based on drive specific and/or user specific
`
`information, or (II) the group of claims drawn to generating a cryptographic key
`
`used to encrypt/decrypt data based on the type of access request made to the
`
`storage device. Id. at 143–146.
`
`After the Applicant’s March 2005 response to the restriction requirement,
`
`electing to proceed with group (I), the Examiner mailed a Notice of Allowance on
`
`May 20, 2005. Id. at 149–155. Upon the cancellation of the claims captured within
`
`group (II), the newly allowed claims of group (I) were converted to final claims 1–
`
`50. Id. at 157. In the Notice of Allowance, the Examiner declined to identify the
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01404, Petition
`Patent 6,968,459
`
`allowable aspects of the claims, and instead merely stated that “Claims 1–7, 9–18,
`
`20–31, 39–31, 45–60, 66 and 67 are allowed.” Id. at 157.
`
`Prior Art Secure Storage Devices
`
`C.
`Prior art secure storage devices like
`
`those claimed in the ’459 patent were well
`
`known before the filing of the ’459 patent.
`
`EX1002 (Dr. Franzon decl.) at ¶ ¶ 29-30.
`
` For example, U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,738,877
`
`to Yamakawa
`
`et
`
`al.
`
`(“Yamakawa”) describes a system where a
`
`host unit 5 supplies a master password to
`
`a drive unit 2, which writes the master
`
`password onto an optical disk 3. EX1008 (Yamakawa) 10:8–22, FIG. 1
`
`(reproduced right). And, like the device-specific security information of the ’459
`
`patent, in the Yamakawa, “[t]he master password is provided to limit access to the
`
`optical disk 3.” Id. at 8:65–66.
`
`Another example of a secure portable storage device like the one in the ’459
`
`patents is described in U.S. Patent No. 6,012,145 to Mathers et al. (“Mathers”).
`
`Mathers describes “[a] portable hard disk drive ha[ving] an electrically erasable
`
`programmable read-only-memory (EEPROM) for storing a first password for
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01404, Petition
`Patent 6,968,459
`
`allowing a user access to the disk and a random access memory (RAM) for
`
`temporarily storing a password entered by a user.” EX1009 (Mathers), Abstract. A
`
`microprocessor “ compare[s] the user-entered passed with the password stored in
`
`the EEPROM and . . . generate[s] a signal to allow a user access to the disk if a
`
`valid match is found and to prohibit access if there is no match.” Id.
`
`VI. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’459 patent is available for IPR and that the
`
`Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting IPR challenging the ‘459
`
`patent on the grounds identified. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a). Specifically: (1)
`
`Petitioner is not the owner of the ’459 patent; (2) Petitioner is not barred or
`
`estopped from requesting IPR; and (3) Petitioner has not been served with a
`
`complaint alleging infringement of the ’459 patent.
`
`VII. STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EACH
`CLAIM CHALLENGED
`A. Claims for Which Review is Requested
`Petitioner respectfully requests review under 35 U.S.C. § 311 of claims 1, 2,
`
`
`
`13–15, 18, 19, 24, 33, 34, 39, 46, and 48 of the ‘459 patent, and their cancellation
`
`as unpatentable.
`
`
`
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge
`
`B.
`Claims 2, 5, 15, 18, 19, 24, 34, and 40 are challenged as unpatentable under
`
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Additionally, claims 1, 13, 14, 33, 39, 46, and 48 are
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01404, Petition
`Patent 6,968,459
`
`challenged as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a). The claim construction,
`
`reasons for unpatentability, and specific evidence supporting this request are
`
`detailed below.
`
`C.
`Claim Construction
`
`A claim in an unexpired patent subject to inter partes review “shall be given
`
`its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in
`
`which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, No.
`
`15-446, 579 U.S. ___ (U.S. 2016). Unified suggests the following constructions are
`
`helpful in assessing the patentability of the claims at issue. Claim terms not
`
`addressed below should be given their plain and ordinary meaning under the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation standard. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Office Patent
`
`Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48764.
`
`1. “Device-Specific Security Information” (Challenged Claims
`1, 15, 33, and 39)
`
`
`
`The above-identified challenged claims recite “device-specific security
`
`information.” This term should be construed to mean “information that is specific
`
`to the storage device and used to secure access to the storage device.” EX1002 at
`
`¶¶ 37-40. This construction is consistent with the specification and claims of the
`
`’459 patent.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01404, Petition
`Patent 6,968,459
`
`First, the specification explains that the security information is specific to
`
`the device. “The security information can be a function of a unique identifier
`
`retrieved from an electronic circuit embedded within the removable storage device
`
`or a serial number etched on the storage device during manufacturing.” EX1001 at
`
`Abstract (emphasis added). In another embodiment, the “device-specific security
`
`information [is] derived from the unique format information of the removable
`
`storage device.” EX1001 (’459 patent) at 3:66–4:1 (emphasis added). For example,
`
`“the device-specific security information is a function of the low-level format
`
`information and, therefore, uniquely identifies the underlying media of storage
`
`device 151,” such as “a hash of the addresses of the bad sectors for storage device
`
`151. Because it is a function of the physical characteristics of the actual storage
`
`medium within storage device 151, the format information is inherently unique to
`
`each storage device 151.” Id. at 4:9–17.
`
`Additionally, the ’459 patent teaches that the device-specific security
`
`information is used to secure access to the storage device. In particular, in the ’459
`
`patent teaches that “computer 100 detects the device-specific security information
`
`on storage device 151 and automatically operates in a full-access data storage
`
`mode.” Id. at 4:47–49. But “[i]f the device-specific security information is not
`
`successfully read, then the storage manager proceeds to block 216 and operates
`
`computer 100 in a restricted-access data storage mode . . . .” Id. at 5:15–18. Since
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01404, Petition
`Patent 6,968,459
`
`the presence or absence of the device-specific security information dictates
`
`whether the storage device 151 operates in full-access or restrict-access mode, it is
`
`used to secure access to the storage device 151. Consistent with this, the claims of
`
`the ’459 patent also explain that the device-specific security information is used to
`
`secure access to the storage device 151. See, e.g., EX1001 (’459 patent) at claim 1
`
`(reciting that the storage device operates in full-access mode if the storage device
`
`has the device-specific information but operates in a restricted-access mode if it
`
`does not have the information).
`
`Accordingly, “device-specific security information” should be construed to
`
`mean “information that is specific to the storage device and that is used to secure
`
`access to the storage device.”
`
`2. “Device-Specific Information” (Challenged Claim 18) and
`“User-Specific Information” (Challenged Claims 18 and 24)
`
`The above-identified challenged claims recite “device-specific information”
`
`“user-specific security information.” These terms should be construed to mean
`
`“information specific to the device” and “information specific to the user,”
`
`respectively. EX1002 at ¶¶ 41-43.
`
`“Device-specific information” is similar to “device-specific security”
`
`information discussed above, except it lacks the “security” prefix. Thus, for the
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`reasons discussed for “device-specific security information,” the term “device-
`
`IPR2016-01404, Petition
`Patent 6,968,459
`
`
`specific information” simply means information specific to the device.
`
`Similarly, the ’459 patent explains that the “user-specific information” is
`
`information specific to a user, “such as a password or biometric information such
`
`as input received from a fingerprint scan or retina scan.” EX1001 (’459 patent) at
`
`4:4–5; see also id. at 11:1–7 (claims 25–27 reciting that the user-specific
`
`information is a password, biometric information, or digital output from a retina
`
`scanner or a fingerprint scan, respectively).
`
`3. “Security Information” (Challenged Claim 18)
`Challenged claim 18 recites “security information.” This is similar to the
`
`“device-specific security information” term discussed above, except that it lacks
`
`the “device-specific” aspect. So, for the reasons discussed for “device-specific
`
`security information,” the term “security information” simply means information
`
`that is used to restrict access. EX1002 at ¶ 44.
`
`4. “Status Change . . . for the Storage Device” (Challenged
`Claims 13 and 14)
`
`
`
`The above-identified challenged claims recite “status change . . . for the
`
`storage device.” The broadest reasonable construction of this term includes
`
`insertion or removal of the storage device 151 into/from the media drive 121 of the
`
`computer 100. EX1002 at ¶ 45. While the ’459 patent specification does not
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01404, Petition
`Patent 6,968,459
`
`expressly define the term, it explains that “the storage manager performs method
`
`200 anytime a status change is detected for storage device 151, such as when
`
`storage device 151 is inserted into removable media drive 121.” EX1001 (’459
`
`patent) at 4:57–60 (emphasis added). Similarly, “the storage manager repeats [the
`
`security process] when a status change is detected for storage device 151, such as
`
`when storage device 151 is removed from removable media drive 121 and a new
`
`storage device 151 is inserted.” EX1001 (’459 patent) at 6:24–28 (emphasis
`
`added). Dependent claim 14 of the ’459 patent confirms that “the status change
`
`indicates the insertion of the storage device into the computer.” Id. at 10:7–9.
`
`Accordingly, the broadest reasonable construction of “status change . . . for
`
`the storage device” must include the insertion or removal of the storage device
`
`into/from a media drive.
`
`5. “Storage Manager” (Challenged Claim 39)
`Challenged independent claim 39 recites “a storage manager.” EX1001
`
`(’459 patent) at 12:5. In determining whether a particular limitation should be
`
`construed under 35 U.S.C. § 112, 6th paragraph/(f) as “means-plus-function”
`
`language, “the essential inquiry is not merely the presence or absence of the word
`
`‘means’ but whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary
`
`skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure.”
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC¸792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Here,
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01404, Petition
`Patent 6,968,459
`
`persons of skill in the art would not have understood “storage manager” to have a
`
`sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure, and thus the term may be
`
`construed under 35 U.S.C. § 112, 6th paragraph/(f).
`
`“Construing a means-plus function claim term is a two-step process. The
`
`court must first identify the claimed function. . . . Then, the court must determine
`
`what structure, if any, disclosed in the specification corresponds to the claimed
`
`function.” 792 F.3d 1339, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`a. Claimed Function
`The claim identifies the claimed function as:
`
`selectively configur[ing] the drive to operate in a full-
`access mode of operation or a restricted-access mode of
`operation as a function of the device-specific security
`information stored on the storage device, wherein in the
`full-access mode the drive permits both read and write
`access to the storage device, and in the restricted-access
`mode the drive permits read access to the storage device
`and prevents write access to the storage device.
`
`EX1001 (’459 patent) at 12:5–13.
`
`b. Corresponding Structure
`With respect to the structure of claim 39’s “storage manager,” the ’459
`
`patent discloses that “[m]ethod 200 is described in reference to one or more
`
`software applications 136 executing on computer 100, referred to hereafter as the
`16
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01404, Petition
`Patent 6,968,459
`
`storage manager.” Id. at 4:49–52. Thus, the structure corresponding to the claimed
`
`“storage manager” is “one or more software applications executing on a
`
`computer.” EX1002 at ¶ 46.
`
`While generally a “computer-implemented” means-plus-function limitation
`
`is limited to a disclosed algorithm, the Federal Circuit holds that an algorithm is
`
`not required where the limitation does not “involve[] [a] specific function that
`
`would need to be implemented by programming a general purpose computer to
`
`convert it into a special purpose computer capable of performing those specified
`
`functions.” In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1316
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2011). Instead, if a limitation recites “functions [that] can be achieved by
`
`any general purpose computer without special programming,” it is “not necessary
`
`to disclose more structure than [a] general purpose processor that performs those
`
`functions.” Id. Here, the functions of claim 39’s “storage manager” could be
`
`implemented by any general-purpose computer that performs those functions.
`
`Thus, “one or more software applications executing on a computer” is sufficient
`
`structure. Accordingly, “storage manager” should be construed to mean “one or
`
`more software applications executing on a computer.”
`
`6. “Drive” (Challenged Claim 39)
`Challenged independent claim 39 recites “a drive.” EX1001 (’459 patent) at
`
`12:2. This term need not be construed under 35 U.S.C. § 112, 6th paragraph,
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01404, Petition
`Patent 6,968,459
`
`because it would be “understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a
`
`sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure.” Williamson¸ 792 F.3d
`
`1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015). For example, one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`readily identify the claimed drive as “a floppy drive, a magneto-optical drive, a