Case 8:16-cv-01799-JVS-AGR Document 44 Filed 05/30/17 Page 1 of 154 Page ID #:285
`
`
`
`[See signature blocks for counsel information]
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`Case No. 8:16-CV-01790-JVS-AGR
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION CHART
`
`Case No. 8:16-CV-01799-JVS-AGR
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SPEX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`KINGSTON TECHNOLOGY
`CORPORATION, KINGSTON
`DIGITAL, INC., KINGSTON
`TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, INC.,
`IMATION CORPORATION,
`DATALOCKER INC., DATA
`LOCKER INTERNATIONAL, LLC,
`
`
`Defendants.
`SPEX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`WESTERN DIGITAL
`CORPORATION, WESTERN
`DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`HGST, INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION CHART
`
`SPEX Technologies, Inc.
`IPR2018-00082 Ex. 2005
`1
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`

`

`Case 8:16-cv-01799-JVS-AGR Document 44 Filed 05/30/17 Page 2 of 154 Page ID #:286
`
`
`SPEX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`TOSHIBA AMERICA
`ELECTRONICS COMPONENTS
`INC., TOSHIBA AMERICA
`INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC.,
`TOSHIBA AMERICA, INC., AND
`TOSHIBA CORPORATION,
`
`
`Defendants.
`SPEX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`APRICORN,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 8:16-CV-01800-JVS-AGR
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:16-CV-07349-JVS-AGR
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT
`
`2
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`

`

`Case 8:16-cv-01799-JVS-AGR Document 44 Filed 05/30/17 Page 3 of 154 Page ID #:287
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Court order and Northern District of California's Patent L.R. 4-3, Plaintiff
`
`SPEX Technologies, Inc. (“SPEX”) and Defendants Kingston Technology Corporation, Kingston
`
`Digital, Inc., Kingston Technology Company, Inc., Imation Corporation, Datalocker Inc., Data
`
`Locker International, LLC, Western Digital Corporation, Western Digital Technologies, Inc.,
`
`HGST, Inc., Toshiba America Electronics Components Inc., Toshiba America Information
`
`Systems, Inc., Toshiba Corporation and Apricorn. (collectively, “Defendants”) (SPEX and
`
`Defendants are referred to collectively as the “Parties”) hereby provide their Joint Claim
`
`Construction Chart and Prehearing Statement.
`
`I.!
`
`AGREED CONSTRUCTION.
`
`
`Phrase
`“means for non-volatilely storing data”
`
`
`
`Agreed Construction
`Subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112(6).
`
`Recited Function: non-volatilely storing data
`
`Corresponding Structures: Non-volatile memory
`devices; or equivalents thereof.1
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`II.! DISPUTED CONSTRUCTIONS.
`
`Phrase
`1. “defined
`interaction”
`
`“interaction with a
`host computing
`device in a defined
`way”
`
`
`
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`Proposal for “defined interaction”
`and “interaction… in a defined
`way”: Indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §
`112.
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`•! “In particular, the modular
`device can include a security module
`that
`is
`adapted
`to
`enable
`performance of one or more security
`operations on data, and a target
`module that is adapted to enable a
`defined
`interaction with a host
`computing device.” ’135 Patent,
`Abstract; ’802 Patent, Abstract (“In
`
`SPEX's Proposal
`Proposal
`for
`“defined
`a
`specific,
`interaction”:
`
`predefined functionality of
`the
`device, such as data storage, data
`communication, data input and
`output or user identification
`
`Proposal for “interaction with a
`host computing device
`in a
`defined way”: interaction with a
`host computing device using a
`specific, predefined functionality
`of the device, such as data storage,
`data communication, data input
`and output or user identification
`
`1 Although Defendants agree that 35 U.S.C. § 112(6) permits “equivalents” of the disclosed
`structure for the purposes of an infringement analysis, Defendants disagree that “equivalents”
`should be included as part of claim construction or that “equivalents” form part of the
`“corresponding structure,” as “equivalents” are not disclosed in the patent.
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION CHART
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 8:16-cv-01799-JVS-AGR Document 44 Filed 05/30/17 Page 4 of 154 Page ID #:288
`
`
`
`Phrase
`
`SPEX's Proposal
`
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`'802 patent at Abstract, Fig.
`•!
`4, Fig. 5, Fig. 6, 3:17-36, 4:62-5:4,
`5:59-6:18,
`7:25-27,
`13:27-41,
`claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16,
`17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27,
`29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35
`•! Petition for Inter Partes
`Review Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.100,
`IPR2017-00824, at 29-30, 41, 45,
`50, 55, 56, 58, 60, and cited
`evidence.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`•! Declaration of Mr. Miguel
`Gomez rebutting
`the opinions
`offered in the declaration of Mark
`T. Jones. Mr. Gomez may also
`declare that the term should be
`construed as proposed by SPEX in
`light of the intrinsic evidence.
`
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`particular, the peripheral device can
`be adapted to enable, in a single
`integral
`peripheral
`device,
`performance of one or more security
`operations on data, and a defined
`interaction with a host computing
`device that has not previously been
`integrated with security operations
`in a single integral device.”)
`•! “In particular, the modular
`device can include a security module
`that
`is
`adapted
`to
`enable
`performance of one or more security
`operations on data, and a target
`module that is adapted to enable a
`defined
`interaction with a host
`computing device.” ’135 Patent at
`3:27-31; ’802 Patent at 3:27-33 (“In
`particular, the peripheral device can
`be adapted to enable, in a single
`integral
`peripheral
`device,
`performance of one or more security
`operations on data, and a defined
`interaction with a host computing
`device that has not previously been
`integrated with security operations
`in a single integral device.”).
`•! “The peripheral device can
`also be implemented so that the
`security operations are performed in-
`line, i.e., the security operations are
`performed
`between
`the
`communication of data to or from the
`host computing device and
`the
`performance
`of
`the
`defined
`interaction.’).” ’802 Patent at 3:40-
`45.
`
`device
`peripheral
`•! “A
`the
`invention can
`to
`according
`advantageously enable application
`of security operations to a wide
`variety of interactions with a host
`computing device. In particular, a
`peripheral device according to the
`invention
`can
`accomplish
`this
`without necessity
`to use
`two
`peripheral
`devices:
`one
`that
`performs the security operations and
`
`
`
`2
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT
`
`4
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`

`

`Case 8:16-cv-01799-JVS-AGR Document 44 Filed 05/30/17 Page 5 of 154 Page ID #:289
`
`
`
`Phrase
`
`SPEX's Proposal
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`that performs
`the defined
`one
`interaction. This can, for example,
`minimize the possibility that the
`device adapted
`to perform
`the
`defined interaction will be used with
`the host computing system without
`proper
`application of
`security
`operations to that interaction.” ’802
`Patent at 3:49-59.
`is
`•! “The
`target module
`adapted
`to
`enable
`a defined
`interaction with a host computing
`device (examples of which are given
`below).” ’135 Patent at 4:18-20.
`•! “In another embodiment of
`the invention, a modular device
`includes a security module that is
`adapted to enable performance of
`one or more security operations on
`data, and a target module that is
`adapted
`to
`enable
`a defined
`interaction with a host computing
`device (such as the interactions
`discussed above with respect to
`exemplary embodiments of
`the
`target module of the previously
`discussed
`embodiment of
`the
`invention).” ’135 Patent at 4:40-47.
`•! “In yet another embodiment
`of the invention, a modular device
`that
`is
`adapted
`to
`enable
`a
`communication with
`host
`computing device, and that includes
`a security module that is adapted to
`enable performance of one or more
`security operations on data and a
`target module that is adapted to
`enable a defined interaction with a
`host computing device, is further
`adapted to enable provision of the
`type of a target module to a host
`computing device in response to a
`request from the host computing
`device for information regarding the
`type of the modular device.” ’135
`Patent at 4:56-65.
`•! “In still another embodiment
`of the invention, a modular device
`
`
`
`3
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT
`
`5
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`

`

`Case 8:16-cv-01799-JVS-AGR Document 44 Filed 05/30/17 Page 6 of 154 Page ID #:290
`
`
`
`Phrase
`
`SPEX's Proposal
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`is
`adapted
`to
`enable
`that
`a
`communication with
`host
`computing device, and that includes
`a security module that is adapted to
`enable performance of one or more
`security operations on data and a
`target module that is adapted to
`enable a defined interaction with a
`host computing device, is further
`adapted
`to enable
`the security
`module and/or the target module to
`be operably connected to the host
`computing device in response to an
`instruction from the host computing
`device.” ’135 Patent at 5:1-9.
`•! “In another embodiment of
`the invention, a security module is
`adapted to enable communication
`with a host computing device,
`performance of one or more security
`operations
`on
`data,
`and
`communication with a target module
`that is adapted to enable a defined
`interaction with a host computing
`device.” ’135 Patent at 5:13-18.
`•! “The security module is also
`adapted to enable performance of
`one or more security operations on
`data, and communication with a
`target module that is adapted to
`enable a defined interaction with a
`host computing device.” ’135 Patent
`at 5:32-36.
`further particular
`•! “In a
`the system,
`the
`embodiment of
`modular device further includes a
`target module which is adapted to
`enable
`communication with
`a
`security module, as well as to enable
`a defined interaction with a host
`computing device
`(examples of
`which are discussed above with
`respect to exemplary embodiments
`of the target module of previously
`discussed embodiments of
`the
`invention).” ’135 Patent at 5:36-42.
`•! “A modular device according
`to the invention can advantageously
`
`
`
`4
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT
`
`6
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`

`

`Case 8:16-cv-01799-JVS-AGR Document 44 Filed 05/30/17 Page 7 of 154 Page ID #:291
`
`
`
`Phrase
`
`SPEX's Proposal
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`enable
`application of
`security
`operations to a wide variety of
`interactions with a host computing
`device. In particular, a modular
`device according to the invention
`can
`accomplish
`this without
`necessity to use multiple peripheral
`devices that each include security
`functionality
`in addition
`to
`the
`primary
`functionality
`of
`the
`peripheral device. This can, for
`example, facilitate use of peripheral
`devices having security capability
`that operate in a predictable, reliable
`and consistent (yet secure) manner,
`since a single security module can be
`used to provide security to multiple
`types of interaction with a host
`computing device. This can also
`enable ease and flexibility in use of
`secure peripheral devices, since the
`same security module can be used
`with a variety of target modules.
`Moreover, the provision of in-line
`security
`in a modular device
`according to the invention enables a
`more secure exchange of data
`between a host computing device
`and the modular device, overcoming
`the problems identified above in
`previous systems for performing
`security
`operations
`on
`data
`exchanged between such devices.
`Additionally,
`implementing
`a
`modular device according to the
`invention so that the performance of
`security operations by the modular
`device is transparent can reduce or
`eliminate the need to modify aspects
`of
`the operation of
`the host
`computing device
`(e.g., device
`drivers of
`the host computing
`device), making implementation and
`use of a data security system
`including
`the modular device
`simpler and easier. Thus,
`the
`possibility that a user will use the
`system incorrectly (e.g., fail to apply
`
`
`
`5
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT
`
`7
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`

`

`Case 8:16-cv-01799-JVS-AGR Document 44 Filed 05/30/17 Page 8 of 154 Page ID #:292
`
`
`
`Phrase
`
`SPEX's Proposal
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`security operations to an interaction
`with the host computing device, or
`apply
`the
`security
`operations
`incorrectly or
`incompletely)
`is
`reduced. Making
`the
`security
`operations
`transparent can also
`enhance
`the security of
`those
`operations.” ’135 Patent at 3:48-
`4:13; ’802 Patent at 3:49-4:10 (“A
`peripheral device according to the
`invention can advantageously enable
`application of security operations to
`a wide variety of interactions with a
`host computing device. In particular,
`a peripheral device according to the
`invention
`can
`accomplish
`this
`without necessity
`to use
`two
`peripheral
`devices:
`one
`that
`performs the security operations and
`one
`that performs
`the defined
`interaction. This can, for example,
`minimize the possibility that the
`device adapted
`to perform
`the
`defined interaction will be used with
`the host computing system without
`proper
`application of
`security
`operations
`to
`that
`interaction.
`Moreover, the provision of in-line
`security
`in a peripheral device
`according to the invention enables a
`more secure exchange of data
`between a host computing device
`and
`the
`peripheral
`device,
`overcoming the problems identified
`above
`in previous systems
`for
`performing security operations on
`data
`exchanged between
`such
`devices. Additionally, implementing
`a modular device according to the
`invention so that the performance of
`security operations by the modular
`device is transparent can reduce or
`eliminate the need to modify aspects
`of
`the operation of
`the host
`computing device
`(e.g., device
`drivers of
`the host computing
`device), making implementation and
`use of a data security system
`
`
`
`6
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT
`
`8
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`

`

`Case 8:16-cv-01799-JVS-AGR Document 44 Filed 05/30/17 Page 9 of 154 Page ID #:293
`
`
`
`Phrase
`
`SPEX's Proposal
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`including
`the modular device
`simpler and easier. Thus,
`the
`possibility that a user will use the
`system incorrectly (e.g., fail to apply
`security operations to an interaction
`with the host computing device, or
`apply
`the
`security
`operations
`incorrectly or
`incompletely)
`is
`reduced. Making
`the
`security
`operations
`transparent can also
`enhance
`the security of
`those
`operations.”).
`•! “The particular manner in
`which operation of the operating
`system software is suspended so that
`the modular device can establish its
`identity
`can
`depend
`on
`the
`characteristics of
`the operating
`system software and/or the device
`interface. However,
`for many
`combinations of operating system
`software and device interface, the
`operating system software waits for
`confirmation
`that
`the
`device
`connected to the device interface is
`ready for further interaction with the
`operating system software before the
`operating system software seeks to
`identify the type of the device
`connected
`to
`the
`interface (the
`standard for PCMCIA interfaces, for
`example, specifies such operation).
`In such cases, the modular device
`can be configured to delay informing
`the operating system software that
`the modular device is ready for
`further interaction until the modular
`device has established its identity.”
`’135 Patent at 10:11-25; ’802 Patent
`at 7:44-59 (“The particular manner
`in which operation of the operating
`system software is suspended so that
`the peripheral device can establish
`its
`identity can depend on
`the
`characteristics of
`the operating
`system software and/or the device
`interface. However,
`for many
`combinations of operating system
`
`
`
`7
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT
`
`9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`

`

`Case 8:16-cv-01799-JVS-AGR Document 44 Filed 05/30/17 Page 10 of 154 Page ID #:294
`
`
`
`Phrase
`
`SPEX's Proposal
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`software and device interface, the
`operating system software waits for
`confirmation
`that
`the
`device
`connected to the device interface is
`ready for further interaction with the
`operating system software before the
`operating system software seeks to
`identify the type of the device
`connected
`to
`the
`interface (the
`standard for PCMCIA interfaces, for
`example, specifies such operation).
`In such cases, the peripheral device
`can be configured to delay informing
`the operating system software that
`the peripheral device is ready for
`further
`interaction
`until
`the
`peripheral device has established its
`identity.”).
`the data
`•! “Since use of
`security system is easier (e.g., a user
`need not provide input to cause the
`host driver
`to be appropriately
`tailored to enable desired interaction
`with
`a
`security device),
`the
`possibility that a user will use the
`system incorrectly (e.g., fail to apply
`security operations to an interaction
`with the host computing device, or
`apply
`the
`security
`operations
`incorrectly or
`incompletely)
`is
`reduced.” ’135 Patent at 11:4-11;
`’802 Patent at 8:28-35 (“Since use of
`the data security system is easier
`(e.g., a user need not provide input to
`cause
`the host driver
`to be
`appropriately
`tailored
`to enable
`desired interaction with a security
`device), the possibility that a user
`will use the system incorrectly (e.g.,
`fail to apply security operations to an
`interaction with the host computing
`device, or apply
`the
`security
`operations
`incorrectly
`or
`incompletely) is reduced.”).
`•! “The modular device driver
`can have previously been installed
`on a data storage device (e.g., hard
`disk) of the host computing device
`
`
`
`8
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT
`
`10
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`

`

`Case 8:16-cv-01799-JVS-AGR Document 44 Filed 05/30/17 Page 11 of 154 Page ID #:295
`
`
`
`Phrase
`
`SPEX's Proposal
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`(in FIG. 6, the modular device driver
`is shown stored in the memory
`section 606b of the memory device
`606 of the host computing device
`601), or can be made accessible to
`the host computing device via an
`appropriate interface (such as a
`floppy disk drive, CD-ROM drive or
`network connection) at a time when
`the user wishes to initiate interaction
`between the host computing device
`and the modular device.” ’135 Patent
`at 12:28-37; ’802 Patent at 9:5-14
`(“The peripheral device driver can
`have previously been installed on a
`data storage device (e.g., hard disk)
`of the host computing device (in
`FIG. 6, the peripheral device driver
`is shown stored in the memory
`section 606b of the memory device
`606 of the host computing device
`601), or can be made accessible to
`the host computing device via an
`appropriate interface (such as a
`floppy disk drive, CD-ROM drive or
`network connection) at a time when
`the user wishes to initiate interaction
`between the host computing device
`and the peripheral device.”).
`•! “In such an implementation,
`the modular device driver can be
`implemented to automatically cause
`one or more predetermined security
`operations to be performed based
`upon a user-specified interaction
`with
`the
`target module, or
`the
`modular device can be configured to
`cause such security operations to be
`performed any time a specified
`interaction with the target module
`occurs.” ’135 Patent at 16:9-16; ’802
`Patent 12:64-13:4 (“In such an
`implementation,
`the
`peripheral
`device driver can be implemented to
`automatically cause one or more
`predetermined security operations to
`be performed based upon a user-
`specified interaction with the target
`
`
`
`9
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT
`
`11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`

`

`Case 8:16-cv-01799-JVS-AGR Document 44 Filed 05/30/17 Page 12 of 154 Page ID #:296
`
`
`
`Phrase
`
`SPEX's Proposal
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`functionality, or
`the peripheral
`device can be configured to cause
`such security operations
`to be
`performed any time a specified
`interaction with
`the
`target
`functionality occurs.”).
`•! “A
`target module of a
`modular device according to the
`invention can also be embodied as a
`biometric module, which is defined
`herein as any module that is adapted
`to receive input data regarding a
`physical characteristic of a person
`based upon a physical interaction of
`the person with the module.” ’135
`Patent at 17:19-25; ’802 Patent at
`14:9-15 (“Target functionality of a
`peripheral device according to the
`invention can also be embodied as a
`biometric device, which is defined
`herein as any device that is adapted
`to receive input data regarding a
`physical characteristic of a person
`based upon a physical interaction of
`the person with the device.”).
`•! “In the security module 800,
`the interface control device 802
`mediates the interaction between the
`host computing device, the target
`module and
`the cryptographic
`processing device 801.” ’135 Patent
`at 20:1-4; ’802 Patent at 16:40-43
`(“In the peripheral device 800, the
`interface
`control
`device
`802
`mediates the interaction between the
`host computing device, the target
`functionality
`807
`and
`the
`cryptographic processing device
`801.”).
`set of configuration
`•! “A
`registers is maintained for the host
`computing device I/O interface, the
`cryptographic processing device
`interface, and the target module
`interface. In particular, the content of
`the host computing device I/O
`interface configuration registers is
`such that the interaction of the host
`
`
`
`10
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT
`
`12
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`

`

`Case 8:16-cv-01799-JVS-AGR Document 44 Filed 05/30/17 Page 13 of 154 Page ID #:297
`
`
`
`Phrase
`
`SPEX's Proposal
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`computing device with the modular
`device is the same as if the security
`functionality were not present
`(unless the data security system is
`operating in security functionality
`only mode).” ’135 Patent at 20:62-
`21:3; ’802 Patent at 17:36-42 (“A set
`of
`configuration
`registers
`is
`maintained for the host computing
`device
`I/O
`interface,
`the
`cryptographic processing device
`interface, and the target functionality
`interface. In particular, the content of
`the host computing device I/O
`interface configuration registers is
`such that the interaction of the host
`computing
`device with
`the
`peripheral device is the same as if the
`security
`functionality were not
`present (unless the data security
`system
`is operating
`in security
`functionality only mode).”).
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`•! Declaration of Mark T.
`Jones, Ph.D. In addition to providing
`relevant background
`information,
`Dr. Jones may offer one or more of
`the following opinions regarding
`claim construction:
`
`1. There is no particular meaning
`for “defined
`interaction” (or
`“interaction with
`a
`host
`computing device in a defined
`way”) in the field of computing.
`
`the
`2. The specifications of
`Asserted Patents do not define
`the meaning of the term “defined
`interaction” (or “interaction with
`a host computing device in a
`defined way”).
`
`the
`3. The specifications of
`not
`Asserted
`Patents
`do
`differentiate
`a
`“defined”
`interaction or a “defined way”
`
`
`
`11
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT
`
`13
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`

`

`Case 8:16-cv-01799-JVS-AGR Document 44 Filed 05/30/17 Page 14 of 154 Page ID #:298
`
`
`
`Phrase
`
`SPEX's Proposal
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`from,
`e.g.,
`“undefined”
`interactions or interactions that
`are not performed in a “defined
`way.”
`
`4. The Abstract of the ‘802
`Patent
`says
`“The
`defined
`interactions can provide a variety
`of types of functionality (e.g.,
`data
`storage,
`data
`communication, data input and
`output, user identification).” The
`‘802 Patent specification also
`says “The defined interactions
`can provide a variety of types of
`functionality (e.g., data storage,
`data communication, data input
`and output, user identification),
`as described further below.”
`Neither of these are a definition
`of “defined interaction.”
`
`the
`5. The specifications of
`Asserted Patents may purport to
`give non-limiting examples of
`defined interactions, but these do
`not clarify the actual scope of the
`term “defined interaction” (or
`“interaction with
`a
`host
`computing device in a defined
`way”).
`
`6. The language of the asserted
`claims distinguishes between
`“defined
`interaction”
`(or
`“interaction with
`a
`host
`computing device in a defined
`way”)
`and
`other
`claim
`limitations
`(e.g.,
`“communication”, “function” or
`“operation”), exemplifying the
`ambiguity in the term “defined
`interaction” (or “interaction with
`a host computing device in a
`defined way”).
`
`the
`7. The file histories of
`Asserted Patents do not define or
`
`
`
`12
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT
`
`14
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`

`

`Case 8:16-cv-01799-JVS-AGR Document 44 Filed 05/30/17 Page 15 of 154 Page ID #:299
`
`
`
`Phrase
`
`SPEX's Proposal
`
`2. “peripheral
`device”
`
`
`
`Proposal: Plain and ordinary
`meaning. The plain and ordinary
`meaning is: "a device that is not
`part of the keyboard-computer-
`screen system, but is connected to
`it separately and can exchange
`signals with it. Typical peripheral
`devices include but are not limited
`to a disk drive and a printer."
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`'802 patent at Abstract,
`•!
`3:17-4:10, 4:50-5:21, 5:46-
`6:9, 6:19-40, 6:52-7:16,
`12:37-13:4,
`13:49-62,
`claims 1-39
`
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`•! Definition of "peripheral"
`in Sinclair, Ian R., The Harper
`Collins Dictionary Computer
`Terms (1991) ("a device that is not
`part of the keyboard-computer-
`screen system, but is connected to
`it separately and can exchange
`signals with
`it.
` Typical
`peripherals are a disk drive, a
`printer…")
`•! Definition of "peripheral"
`in Computer Dictionary (3rd. Ed.)
`(Microsoft Press, 1997)
`("In
`computing, a device, such as a disk
`drive, printer, modem, or joystick,
`that is connected to a computer
`and is controlled by the computer's
`microprocessor.")
`•! Declaration of Mr. Miguel
`Gomez. Mr. Gomez's declaration
`may
`include
`testimony
`that
`SPEX's proposed construction
`reflects the ordinary meaning of
`the term and is consistent with the
`intrinsic evidence.
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`otherwise clarify the meaning of
`the term “defined interaction”
`(or “interaction with a host
`computing device in a defined
`way”).
`Proposal: Any device that operates
`outside of a host computing device
`and that is connected to the host
`computing device.
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`•! “FIG. 1 is a block diagram of
`a prior art system for enabling a host
`computing device to provide secured
`data to, and retrieve secured data
`from, a portable device. In FIG. 1, a
`system 100
`includes
`a host
`computing device 101 and a portable
`device 102. The host computing
`device 101 and portable device 102
`are
`adapted
`to
`enable
`communication between the devices
`101 and 102. The host computing
`device 101
`includes a security
`mechanism 101a (which can be
`embodied
`by
`appropriately
`configured
`hardware,
`software
`and/or
`firmware, such as,
`for
`example,
`a
`general
`purpose
`microprocessor
`operating
`in
`accordance with instructions of one
`or more computer programs stored in
`a data storage device such as a hard
`disk) which can be directed to
`perform one or more cryptographic
`operations.” ’802 patent at 1:52-65.
`•! “FIG. 2 is a block diagram of
`another prior art system for enabling
`a host computing device to provide
`secured data to, and retrieve secured
`data from, a portable device. In FIG.
`2, a system 200 includes a host
`computing device 201, a portable
`device 202 and a security device
`203. The host computing device 201,
`the portable device 202 and security
`device 203 are adapted to enable
`communication between the devices
`
`
`
`13
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT
`
`15
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`

`

`Case 8:16-cv-01799-JVS-AGR Document 44 Filed 05/30/17 Page 16 of 154 Page ID #:300
`
`
`
`Phrase
`
`SPEX's Proposal
`
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`201 and 202, and between the
`devices 201 and 203. The security
`device 203 includes appropriately
`configured
`hardware,
`software
`and/or firmware which can be
`directed to perform one or more
`cryptographic operations.
`In the system 200, if it is
`desired to provide secured data from
`the host computing device 201 to the
`portable device 202,
`the host
`computing device 201 first causes
`data to be transferred to the security
`device 203, where appropriate
`cryptographic
`operations
`are
`performed on the data. The secured
`data is then transferred back to the
`host computing device 201, which,
`in turn, transfers the secured data to
`the portable device 202. Similarly,
`the host computing device 201 can
`receive secured data
`from
`the
`portable device 202 by, upon receipt
`of secured data, transferring the
`secured data to the security device
`203, which performs appropriate
`cryptographic operations on the data
`to convert the data into a form that
`enables the data to be accessed
`and/or modified by a person who is
`authorized to do so, then transfers
`the unsecured data back to the host
`computing device 201.” Id. at 2:22-
`47.
`
`device
`peripheral
`•! “A
`the
`invention can
`to
`according
`advantageously enable application
`of security operations to a wide
`variety of interactions with a host
`computing device. In particular, a
`peripheral device according to the
`invention can accomplish
`this
`without necessity
`to use
`two
`peripheral
`devices:
`one
`that
`performs the security operations and
`one
`that performs
`the defined
`interaction. This can, for example,
`minimize the possibility that the
`
`
`
`14
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT
`
`16
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`

`

`Case 8:16-cv-01799-JVS-AGR Document 44 Filed 05/30/17 Page 17 of 154 Page ID #:301
`
`
`
`Phrase
`
`SPEX's Proposal
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`the
`device adapted
`to perform
`defined interaction will be used with
`the host computing system without
`proper
`application of
`security
`operations
`to
`that
`interaction.
`Moreover, the provision of in-line
`security
`in a peripheral device
`according to the invention enables a
`more secure exchange of data
`between a host computing device
`and
`the
`peripheral
`device,
`overcoming the problems identified
`above
`in previous systems for
`performing security operations on
`data
`exchanged between
`such
`devices. Additionally, implementing
`a modular device according to the
`invention so that the performance of
`security operations by the modular
`device is transparent can r