UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SMART AUTHENTICATION IP, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-02047
`Patent 8,082,213 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: November 6, 2018
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN W. CHERRY, MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, and
`JAMES A. WORTH, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SMART AUTHENTICATION IP, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-02047
`Patent 8,082,213 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: November 6, 2018
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN W. CHERRY, MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, and
`JAMES A. WORTH, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-02047
`Patent 8,082,213 B2
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`ROSHAN MANSINGHANI, ESQUIRE
`JONATHAN R. BOWSER, ESQUIRE
`Unified Patents
`13355 Noel Road
`Suite 1100
`Dallas, Texas 75240
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`TAREK N. FAHMI, ESQUIRE
`Ascenda Law Group
`333 W. San Carlos Street
`Suite 200
`San Jose, California 95110-2730
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday,
`
`
`November 6, 2018, commencing at 1:00 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-02047
`Patent 8,082,213 B2
`
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE WORMMEESTER: Good afternoon, everyone. We have
`our final hearing in IPR2017-02047, Unified Patents, Inc., v. Smart
`Authentication IP, LLC, which concerns U.S. patent number 8,082,213. I'm
`Judge Wormmeester, and with me are Judge Cherry and Judge Worth.
`Let's get the parties' appearances, please. Who do we have for
`petitioner?
`MR. MANSINGHANI: Good afternoon. My name is Roshan
`Mansinghani. And my colleague, Jonathan Bowser, is here with me. We
`both work at Unified Patents.
`JUDGE WORMMEESTER: Thank you. Welcome. Who will be
`presenting the arguments?
`MR. MANSINGHANI: I will, thank you.
`JUDGE WORMMEESTER: And for patent owner, who do we
`
`have?
`
`MR. FAHMI: Good afternoon, Your Honors. Tarek Fahmi on
`behalf of the patent owner.
`JUDGE WORMMEESTER: Thank you. Welcome. We set forth
`the procedure for today's hearing in our trial order, but just to remind
`everyone the way this will work, each party will have 60 minutes to present
`arguments. Petitioner has the burden and will go first and may reserve time
`for rebuttal. Patent Owner will then have the opportunity to present its
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-02047
`Patent 8,082,213 B2
`
`response. And when referring to any demonstrative, please remember to
`state the slide for the record -- the slide number for the record. Also, this is a
`reminder that the demonstratives you submitted are not part of the record.
`The record of the hearing will be the transcript.
`We will give you a warning when you are into your rebuttal time
`or nearing the end of your argument time.
`Are there any questions before we start? Okay, will you be
`reserving any time?
`MR. MANSINGHANI: Yes, I would like to reserve 20 minutes
`for rebuttal.
`JUDGE WORMMEESTER: Twenty minutes, okay. And you
`may start when you are ready.
`MR. MANSINGHANI: I'm ready to begin. Good afternoon.
`Thank you so much for your time here today. I represent Unified Patents.
`We do believe that the challenged claims are unpatentable, and today we are
`here to present to you a summary of the reasons why, but also most
`importantly to answer your questions. So if you do have questions as I'm
`presenting, feel free to interrupt me. My main goal is to answer your
`questions more than anything else.
`On slide 2 I have got a summary of what I want to talk about
`today, and what I would like to start with is slide 3, which is just giving a
`brief overview of the patent so we are all on the same page.
`So the '213 patent is addressed to a problem of how to authenticate
`a user that is remote whose identity may have been stolen while trying to
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-02047
`Patent 8,082,213 B2
`
`deal with an online service, for example, logging into a bank. So on the
`right we have Figure 3 that's been annotated just with colors and some
`examples in the annotations to explain the solution. And on slide 4, we have
`the proposed solution that the patent provides.
`The first part of this solution is to give the user the control to be
`able to tell the authentication system these are the policies I would like and
`be able to set it up per site or per service. That aspect of the claims is
`actually not at issue today. So I'm not going to focus on it, but that is part of
`the proposed solution.
`The second part is where most of the focus today, I imagine, will
`be presented. That's where most of the parties' dispute is, and that is when
`you are dealing in a situation where a user's identity may have been stolen,
`the Smart Authentication patent, the '213 patent, proposes a solution. That
`solution is: instead of the user just providing one piece of authentication
`information, let's let them provide more than one, and in the example we are
`discussing here, two.
`So the two that would be provided would be the user would
`provide secret information such as their password, something that only the
`user is supposed to know, but this is the piece that can be stolen. So as a
`failsafe, let's also have the user provide evidence that they control a tangible
`object like a cell phone.
`And how this works is we've got some slides on that as well. So
`turning to the next slide, slide 5, we have the same figure, but now we have
`highlighted the communication channels in blue, red and green, since that's
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-02047
`Patent 8,082,213 B2
`
`really where the dispute between the parties lie. So in the first step, the user,
`using, for example, their laptop, will try to connect to the website it wants to
`log into called the ASP client, using the '213 patent's parlance. And that is
`done using a first communication channel. We've highlighted that in blue.
`Then the ASP client will contact the ASP, which is the
`authentication service, to determine whether any other forms of
`authentication are needed. And that is done using either the first medium, so
`the ASP client and the ASP could be connected via the internet in this
`example or a second medium. And Figure 3 is an embodiment in which
`there is a second medium. And we've highlighted that in red. An example
`of a different medium might be a local area network if, for example, the ASP
`client and the ASP happen to be in a common network.
`Finally, though, which is the main dispute between the parties
`here, is the ASP then causes the user at a second device, using a different
`medium than either the first or the second, to receive a code and then the
`code is then provided to the ASP client to confirm that the user has control
`of that second device. So the example given in the '213 patent is the cell
`phone. And the third communication medium that's different than the first
`two is, for example, a cell phone channel where you can send SMS
`messages.
`JUDGE WORTH: Would you agree that this Figure 3 that you
`have annotated on the screen here only applies when there's the correct user?
`So there could be a different diagram if there was a fraudulent attempt and
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-02047
`Patent 8,082,213 B2
`
`then you had an authentication code, let's say, in green sent to a different
`person?
`MR. MANSINGHANI: Absolutely, Judge Worth, that's right. So
`how the '213 patent operates is that if there is someone who has stolen the
`user's password, for example, so if we have a thief's laptop that would be
`logging in to the ASP client, that green communication channel -- medium,
`excuse me, would be them pointing to the user's other device that, hopefully,
`hasn't also been stolen by the thief. And so, yes, in the example you gave,
`my understanding of the '213 patent's teachings would be that the diagram
`would look different if authentication failed. Now, importantly, claim 1
`doesn't really contemplate the situation where the authentication failed. It
`just contemplates that you have two devices that the user is using, one to use
`what we've colored in blue, the first communications medium, and the
`second device using what we've colored in green, the, I guess, claimed third
`medium.
`JUDGE WORTH: I bring that up because that was part of your
`opening. You had framed the problem that was being addressed, and that's
`how it would be addressed.
`MR. MANSINGHANI: That's exactly right. That's how it would
`be solved, yes.
`On slide 7 we see that this is exactly what got this patent allowed
`during prosecution. So the patent owner at the time had to amend the claims
`to recite these limitations. And the two key points here that slide 7 is
`making is that what made this patent allowable is using two different devices
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-02047
`Patent 8,082,213 B2
`
`and using two different communication media for those two different
`devices.
`
`On slide 8 I have a summary of the two issues that -- high-level
`issues that we are facing regarding the two grounds we've presented, the
`Vandergeest-based grounds and the Harris-based grounds. One thing to
`note, patent owner has not disputed in any of their writings after the
`institution decision and they did not submit a preliminary response in this
`case the obviousness of claim 12 and its dependents. So the patent has two
`sets of independent claims that we've challenged, claim 1 and its dependents,
`and claim 12 and its dependents. They haven't challenged claim 12 at all.
`So today we are going to be focusing on claim 1. And on claim 1 and its
`dependent claims, patent owner has only presented arguments regarding
`independent claim 1. They haven't presented any separate arguments
`regarding the dependent claims. So that's why today we are just focusing on
`claim 1. All the rest of the claims rise and fall.
`So let's turn to Vandergeest and looking at slide 10. And as we
`look at the overview of why we believe Vandergeest renders this claim
`obvious, we see that Vandergeest discloses a system that's nearly identical to
`what is disclosed by the '213 patent. In Vandergeest the user has two
`different devices called a first unit and a third unit. Third is a little
`confusing but it's not referring to the number of devices of the user. It's just
`the numbering scheme that the patent drafter chose to use since Vandergeest
`is a patent reference. So the user has those two devices. And you can see
`that an example of the first device would be a laptop, and an example of a
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-02047
`Patent 8,082,213 B2
`
`second device could be a cell phone that Vandergeest discloses. And
`Vandergeest also discloses using three media, and it discloses that the two
`devices of the users use different media. So this is exactly what the '213
`patent claims and exactly what got this patent allowed in the Patent Office
`was these features.
`Now, I'm going to now walk through an operation of Vandergeest
`fairly quickly. It's going to sound very familiar because it's very reminiscent
`of what the '213 patent discloses. So in the first step, the user uses that first
`unit across Channel 310, which we've colored in blue, for example, to
`contact a second unit which could be a web server. So the website that the
`user is trying to log into.
`Then over in Step 2, over the suitable link, which Vandergeest
`does not have a reference numeral for the suitable link. It's just called a
`suitable link. I have colored that in red. The second unit communicates
`with the authentication unit which we have mapped to the ASP of the claim,
`the authentication service of the claim. And then the authentication unit
`causes the user's second device to receive an authentication code over a
`completely separate medium which is -- which Vandergeest calls the back
`channel. And an example of that in Vandergeest is text messaging. So this
`is very, very similar, if not almost identical to what the '213 patent teaches
`and certainly what it claims.
`JUDGE CHERRY: Does Vandergeest explain whether the units
`could be running on the same server or does Vandergeest describe them as
`running on separate servers?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-02047
`Patent 8,082,213 B2
`
`
`MR. MANSINGHANI: So looking at slide 11, Judge Cherry, you
`are asking me if the second unit of Vandergeest and the authentication unit
`of Vandergeest can be on the same server or separate servers?
`JUDGE CHERRY: Yes.
`MR. MANSINGHANI: That's a great question. I'm going to have
`my colleague look into that briefly, and then if I find the answer for you, I
`will give it to you during maybe the rebuttal time or towards the end of my
`time right now. I don't have that answer off the top of my head. Thank you.
`So looking at slide 13, we've now put side by side the claim
`language of the '213 patent and its Figure 3 along with Vandergeest's
`teaching and its figure regarding this point of whether or not the third
`medium is separate than the first and second media since that is what the
`parties dispute.
`And the point of this here is to demonstrate that Vandergeest does
`disclose three completely separate media, which is something the patent
`owner disputes and we think that they are incorrect about.
`JUDGE CHERRY: Does the '213 patent explain whether the ASP
`client and the ASP have to be separate or can they be -- could they be like,
`let's say, for example, could the bank have an ASP client and then also have
`the ASP within the same entity?
`MR. MANSINGHANI: Yes, it does, Judge Cherry. And I think
`this is an extremely important point that I believe addresses some of the
`patent owner's mistakes in their argument. And I have got some citations for
`that in the slides for that very point.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-02047
`Patent 8,082,213 B2
`
`
`So the '213 patent explicitly teaches that the ASP client and the
`ASP can be completely separate. They can also be arranged such that the
`ASP communicates to the user via the ASP client. So -- and it teaches that
`they can be co-located, meaning they can even be part of the same system.
`On slide 19 I have the specification slide that makes exactly this point. So it
`states, In certain embodiments the authentication is carried out via a
`dialogue between the ASP and user. In alternative embodiments, the ASP
`can proactively push information to the clients so that the routines running
`on the client using the information that's provided by the ASP can carry out
`all or a portion of the process. And then still yet another alternative
`embodiment is a proxy ASP server can be installed on a server running or
`controlled by the ASP client. So this is extremely important because it
`shows that the patent contemplated a variety of arrangements between the
`ASP and the ASP client.
`To answer your question about what does Vandergeest disclose
`regarding the second unit and the authentication unit, my colleague,
`Jonathan Bowser, helpfully found on column 6, lines starting at 58 through
`65 of Vandergeest it states, In this embodiment, the authentication unit is
`shown as being separate from the second unit. However, the authentication
`unit may be part of the second unit, which may be a web server, wireless
`network element or any other suitable device.
`So I think the answer to your question is, just like the '213 patent, a
`wide variety of embodiments are contemplated.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-02047
`Patent 8,082,213 B2
`
`
`So turning to slide 15, we now have a summary of what we believe
`the patent owner is arguing in order to distinguish Vandergeest from these
`three media. And specifically, we believe the patent owner is trying to
`rewrite the claim in order to save the claim from unpatentability. I note here
`that they have not offered a claim construction position for this point, for the
`attempts to narrow. And this patent has not expired and they have not
`offered to amend their patent to narrow it further, which they could have.
`Ultimately, the patent owner believes that claim 1 should be
`rewritten to require that the ASP client not be involved at all when
`communicating with the -- when the ASP communicates with the user and
`that any media that may connect the ASP client with the ASP cannot be used
`in the communication between the ASP and the user. The problem is the
`claims don't say that. Rather, for patent owner's argument to have weight, it
`must have included -- the claim must have been written to have something
`like saying that you can only use the third communication medium which is
`different than the first and second medium. The claim doesn't say that. And
`this is ultimately the problem, we believe, that the patent owner has with
`their arguments. And we would like to step through those briefly if you
`would find that helpful.
`So on slide 16, we have a brief point that "different from" does
`have a plain and ordinary meaning. We are not seeking a construction of
`"different from" today. No one has sought a construction of "different from"
`in any of the briefing. It is straightforward. It is the normal sense of the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-02047
`Patent 8,082,213 B2
`
`word, and there is nothing in the prosecution history or any expert evidence
`we have to somehow narrow that beyond its plain meaning.
`Instead, patent owner turns to specification support to try to
`import, I guess, implicitly, since they haven't made a construction position,
`to include this concept of exclusivity and secrecy. So the first place that
`patent owner turns to is 2:55-67, which we have excerpted on slide 17. And
`here the passage simply states that the user can be connected to the ASP by
`at least two different media. It does not require nor even state that one of
`those media has to be the exclusive or only media that is used.
`The next patch they rely on is 3:20-25, which we have excerpted
`on slide 18. Here again, all this passage stands for is for the proposition that
`the user can be connected via two different communications media. It
`doesn't say that with any particular device the user has to be connected with
`only one medium.
`JUDGE WORMMEESTER: Counsel, so is it your position that
`when the claim recites, User communicates with the user authentication
`service through a third communications medium, is it your position that that
`language encompasses both indirect and direct communication?
`MR. MANSINGHANI: Yes, Judge Wormmeester, that is our
`position. It contemplates that. And the reason why it does, from our
`position, from our understanding of the specification is because the
`specification provides for that very thing. And we saw that, and I'll turn to it
`again briefly, slide 19. The specification teaches the opposite of what patent
`owner is urging this Board to read about the '213 patent. Again, on slide 19
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-02047
`Patent 8,082,213 B2
`
`we have excerpted 7:49-56. Various embodiments are taught here about the
`arrangement between the ASP and the ASP client. They can be separate
`devices. They can be the same device or located physically on the same
`device, and they can be arranged such that the ASP communicates indirectly,
`as Judge Wormmeester said, with the user through the ASP client. All of
`these arrangements are contemplated, and there's no disclaimer or any other
`legal basis for reading out these embodiments from the claims when the
`claims are written to encompass that, since they don't use language like
`"only" or "directly," as Judge Wormmeester mentioned.
`JUDGE CHERRY: Does the '213 patent, it does identify SMS as
`one of the possible third communication media?
`MR. MANSINGHANI: Yes, that is my current recollection at the
`moment, but I'm going to have my colleague confirm just so that I don't
`mislead you in any way.
`So the other issue that patent owner disputes is that applying
`Vandergeest to the claims would lead to a situation in which the ASP client
`would not be kept in the dark between the ASP and user communication,
`which would prevent a form of man-in-the-middle attack, which is what
`patent owner has written in their patent owner response and in their
`sur-reply. In essence, they are requiring a form of secrecy that the ASP
`client -- that the communications, excuse me, between the ASP and the user
`be kept secret from the ASP client. Unfortunately, that concept is nowhere
`mentioned in the patent.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-02047
`Patent 8,082,213 B2
`
`
`Also, the concept of foiling some sort of man-in-the-middle attack
`is also not mentioned in the patent at all. Rather, a man-in-the-middle
`attack, as I understand patent owner's argument, is one in which the
`communication path between the user and the service is untrusted. So you
`are not sure if someone is listening in on your communications, let's say, at
`the server level or even at the network level, and so it's that piece of the
`communications system that is untrusted. As we discussed regarding the
`overview of the '213 patent, the distrust that the '213 patent places is on the
`user. It's trying to deal with the issue of stolen identity of the user. Not
`distrust of the medium itself. Those are real authentication problems and
`communication security problems. They are just not ones the '213 patent
`ever addressed.
`So on slide 20 we have another excerpt from the patent that patent
`owner relies on, 2:15-18. And here you can see that the word "secret" is
`used, but it's not about keeping the ASP client in the dark. Rather, it's secret
`information as well as evidence of control of a tangible object. So secret
`information referred to here is the password. It's the information that is sent
`to the ASP client. So rather than the ASP client being kept in the dark, as
`patent owner is urging in their brief, the '213 patent teaches the opposite,
`that the ASP client actually receives the secret information.
`JUDGE CHERRY: Wouldn't for this to work, wouldn't the ASP
`client have to receive a copy of the information so they can -- because it's
`doing the comparison, right?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-02047
`Patent 8,082,213 B2
`
`
`MR. MANSINGHANI: That is correct that the '213 patent teaches
`that the ASP client can do all of the verification. We saw that from the
`column 7 passage we referred to earlier.
`Turning to slide 21, we have another excerpt from lines 2 -- excuse
`me, column 2:52-67 of the '213 patent. Here again, we've seen this passage
`before. The word "secret" is not even used or there's nothing in there that
`even mentions that the ASP client needs to be held in the dark and kept away
`from the ASP at all.
`And on slide 22, another excerpt from 3:20-25, again, this is what
`the patent owner response cited to for their position of requiring secrecy.
`And here again, there's no mention of secrecy. It's just talking about the
`need for the ASP to be able to communicate with the user on two devices
`using two different media.
`JUDGE WORTH: Can we go back a couple of slides. So here
`there's an excerpt from Exhibit 1001 at 2:15-18. And then if you look at that
`passage, immediately prior to that, it walks through different embodiments.
`And so starting at 2:10, it says, In many of the embodiments the user and
`commercial entity are remote from one another and communicate through an
`electronic communications medium. And this is immediately before the
`quote that's on your slide. It says, In other embodiments the user may
`directly interact with the commercial or other entity. So can you fit that into
`your analysis.
`MR. MANSINGHANI: Absolutely. So looking at column 2 as a
`whole -- and just to be clear, the reason why we only included lines 15 to 18,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-02047
`Patent 8,082,213 B2
`
`because that was what the patent owner cited in their POR. So we were just
`trying to walk through each of their pieces of evidence for your benefit. But
`I would love to answer your question regarding column 2.
`So starting at line 3, the patent reads, Thus, in these embodiments
`of the present invention, a user controls the level and complexity of the
`authentication processes. So this portion is discussing what we talked about
`earlier, that there were two major parts of the solution that the '213 patent
`provided, right. The first one was a user controlling how complicated the
`authentication process could be. And then it says that the user -- so starting
`at line 8 which is in the middle of the sentence, The user, in the course of
`conducting electronic transactions, electronic dialogues and other
`interactions for which user authentication is needed, in many of the
`embodiments the user and commercial entity are remote from one another
`and communicate through an electronic communications medium. So that
`was, for example, that blue medium we highlighted with the internet, right.
`In other embodiments the user may directly interact with a commercial or
`other entity that needs to identify the user.
`So the difference between those two passages, those two
`paragraphs or sentences is thinking about the concept of a user being
`physically at a location, so for example, an ATM or the user is physically
`there as opposed to being remote. The claim talks about -- claim 1 talks
`about the user interacting with the ASP client over a first communications
`medium. So my understanding is that the claim would be covering more of
`that remote situation. However, I still think it's possible that maybe that
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-02047
`Patent 8,082,213 B2
`
`medium is the physical medium that the user is interacting with, for
`example, the ATM service. So I think that both of those are included.
`I don't see that distinction between whether the user is physically at
`the service provider's location or terminal or connected over the internet as
`really changing the analysis because in Vandergeest it is remote, the user is
`communicating with the internet, and there is a separate back channel that
`the user uses to complete the authentication process. That's exactly what the
`'213 patent teaches as well.
`Does that help you, Judge Worth? Is that the answer you were
`looking for in terms of answering your question?
`JUDGE WORTH: You can proceed.
`MR. MANSINGHANI: Thank you. So on slide 23 we have a
`long excerpt from 7:6-22. I note that Judge Worth's question was sort of
`anticipated here. If you look at the end of this citation from the patent, it
`does talk about the ATM situation where you are physically located. But
`again, this long patch that's cited to by the patent owner does not mention
`any form of secrecy being required where the ASP client is kept in the dark.
`Finally, on slide 25, we believe the patent owner's position is a
`logical one. I believe Judge Cherry alluded to this issue. So in 7:6-22 we
`find, and we've got it underlined here starting at line 15, that the user can
`furnish the received randomly generated password which came from the
`ASP to the ASP client. So the ASP client is not kept in the dark in this form
`of communication. So this is why we believe patent owner's requirement for
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-02047
`Patent 8,082,213 B2
`
`secrecy is nowhere even mentioned and is also contrary to the embodiments
`that are mentioned in the specification.
`JUDGE CHERRY: Now, in terms of the patent, let's say I'm on
`my laptop and I have a wireless network in my house. I'm communicating
`with my cable modem via Wi-Fi and then my internet service provider has a
`cable that goes to the central server. Would that still be -- and I'm
`communicating with the ASP client. Would that still, even though I'm
`communicating over two different physical interfaces, would that still --
`within the '213 patent, would that be one still the first interface?
`MR. MANSINGHANI: Medium? Communications medium?
`JUDGE CHERRY: Yes.
`MR. MANSINGHANI: So my understanding of the '213 patent is
`that the term "communication media" would be -- it would be different, yes,
`because you have got the home network that you have. Let's say you are
`over Wi-Fi. Well, that is a local network. So that would be one medium.
`And then you are using the internet which it views as a second medium now.
`I think many of us know that the internet is quite complicated. There's a lot
`of sort of things that go on inside the internet that the '213 patent does not try
`to distinguish between. It just calls that whole thing a medium, right.
`So from my view, my answer to that question would be yes, but it
`wouldn't preclude the fact. So if a user used a first intermediary medium to
`get the actual medium that's connecting with the ASP client, that's what the
`'213 patent cares about. It cares about what is connected to the ASP client
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-02047
`Patent 8,082,213 B2
`
`and the user. And so that would be one medium because it would just be
`focusing on that one medium that actually went to the ASP client.
`JUDGE CHERRY: And in terms of the second medium, the
`medium between the second device and the -- that communicates to the ASP
`client, does the patent say that that has to be something other than the
`internet or could that also be the internet?
`MR. MANSINGHANI: That's a great question. So --
`JUDGE CHERRY: If you have the first communication medium
`being the internet.
`MR. MANSINGHANI: Right. That's right. So what the patent
`teaches and the claim teaches -- I'm going to flip to a slide just so we can
`have that and look at it together. Look at slide 5 here. So what the patent
`says is that the ASP client and the ASP can be linked via the same first
`medium or a second medium. That's what the claim says. So the patent
`contemplates both options and the claim explicitly contemplates both
`options. An example of something that would be different than the internet
`is that local area network if they happen to be residing on the same network.
`Turning back to slide 24, I did want to make a point about the legal
`framework in which this analysis should be undertaken, and that was from
`the Unwired Planet case that we cited in our reply brief. In order for a claim
`scope to read out embodiments from the ambit of a claim that would
`otherwise normally cover those embodiments, and there is a preference, as
`you well know, to include all of the embodiments you can into a claim
`scope, you need to have a clear disavowal. It has to be clear and
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-02047
`Patent 8,082,213 B2
`
`unmistakable. The fact that alternative embodiments that go contrary to the
`patent owner's position, we think, defeats their position according to the case
`law.
`
`My colleague helped me by providing a citation to one of the
`earlier questions about what does the '213 patent disclose as far as that third
`medium. I'm going to refer to colu
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
