`Visa Inc., and Visa U.S.A. Inc.,
`v.
`Universal Secure Registry, LLC,
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.’s Demonstrative Slides
`U.S. Patent No. 9,530,137
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00809
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`July 16, 2019
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1
`
`
`
`Roadmap
`
`The Claims Are Invalid
`
`Responses to USR’s Surreply
`
`Lack of Secondary Considerations
`
`USR’s Substitute Claims Are Not Patentable
`
`USR’s Motion to Strike Should Be Denied
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`
`
`
`Roadmap
`
`The Claims Are Invalid
`
`Responses to USR’s Surreply
`
`Lack of Secondary Considerations
`
`USR’s Substitute Claims Are Not Patentable
`
`USR’s Motion to Strike Should Be Denied
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3
`
`
`
`The Claims Are Invalid
`• Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, and 12 are invalid as obvious over
`Jakobsson ‘585 and Maritzen.
`• Claim 5 is invalid as obvious over Jakobsson ‘585,
`Maritzen, and Niwa.
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`4
`
`
`
`’137 Patent Claims A System For Authenticating A User Using Well-
`Known Techniques With Generic Components
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`Ex. 1101 [’137 Patent], Claim 1
`Pet. at 20-41; Ex. 1102 [Shoup Decl.] at ¶¶53-101; Institution Decision at 4, 9-15
`5
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Jakobsson ‘585 Discloses A User Authentication
`System With A “First Device” And A “Second Device”
`(All Claims)
`
`Second Device
`
`First Device
`
`Ex. 1113 [Jakobsson ‘585], Figure 1
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`Pet. at 25-26, 34; Ex. 1102 [Shoup Decl.] at ¶¶53-54, 64, 84-86; Ex. 1130 [Juels Decl.] at ¶¶29-31
`6
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Jakobsson ‘585 Discloses Generating “One Or
`More Signals” (All Claims)
`
`One or More Signals
`
`Ex. 1113 [Jakobsson ‘585], Figure 2
`Pet. at 30-34; Ex. 1102 [Shoup Decl.] at ¶¶77-83; Ex. 1130 [Juels Decl.] at ¶¶31-35; Institution Decision at 11
`7
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`
`
`Jakobsson ‘585 Discloses “First Authentication
`Information” (All Claims)
`
`First Authentication Information
`
`One or More Signals
`
`First Authentication Information
`
`Ex. 1113 [Jakobsson ‘585], Figure 2
`Pet. at 30-34; Ex. 1102 [Shoup Decl.] at ¶¶77-83; Ex. 1130 [Juels Decl.] at ¶¶31-35; Institution Decision at 11
`8
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`
`
`Jakobsson ‘585 Discloses “Indicator Of
`Biometric Authentication” (All Claims)
`
`One or More Signals
`
`Indicator of Biometric Authentication
`
`Ex. 1113 [Jakobsson ‘585], Figure 2
`Pet. at 30-34; Ex. 1102 [Shoup Decl.] at ¶¶77-83; Ex. 1130 [Juels Decl.] at ¶¶31-35; Institution Decision at 11-13
`9
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`
`
`Jakobsson ‘585 Discloses “Time Varying Value”
`(All Claims)
`
`Time Varying Value
`
`One or More Signals
`
`Ex. 1113 [Jakobsson ‘585], Figure 2
`Pet. at 30-34; Ex. 1102 [Shoup Decl.] at ¶¶77-83; Ex. 1130 [Juels Decl.] at ¶¶31-35; Institution Decision at 11
`10
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`
`
`Values E, P, K, T Can Be Combined In “Any
`Order” In Jakobsson ‘585
`
`Ex. 1113 [Jakobsson ‘585], [0073], [0077]
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`Pet. at 30-34; Ex. 1102 [Shoup Decl.] at ¶¶77-83; Ex. 1130 [Juels Decl.] at ¶¶31-35; Institution Decision at 11
`11
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Jakobsson ‘585 Discloses An “Enablement
`Signal” (All Claims)
`
`Ex. 1113 [Jakobsson ‘585] at [0050]
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`Pet. at 36; Ex. 1102 [Shoup Decl.] at ¶¶88-90; Ex. 1130 [Juels Decl.] at ¶¶36, 46-52; Institution Decision at 11-13
`12
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Maritzen Discloses “Encrypt[ing] First
`Authentication Information” (Claim 6)
`
`Ex. 1114 (Maritzen) [0090]
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`Pet. at 43-44; Ex. 1102 [Shoup Decl.] at ¶¶107-109; Institution Decision at 13
`13
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Niwa Discloses “Compar[ing] Stored Authentication
`Information With The Authentication Information Of
`The User” (Claim 5)
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`Pet. at 54-55; Ex. 1102 [Shoup Decl.] at ¶151; Institution Decision at 15
`14
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1117 (Niwa), Abstract
`
`
`
`Reasons to Combine
`
`Jakobsson ‘585, Maritzen, and Niwa disclose similar and
`technologically-compatible authentication systems
`• All use local and remote authentication
`• All use biometric information for authentication
`• All are designed to reduce risk of stolen
`authentication credentials
`• All are designed to secure financial transactions
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`Pet. at 22-25, 44-45, 57-63; Ex. 1102 [Shoup Decl.] at ¶¶57-62, 110-112, 155-164; Institution Decision at 13-15
`15
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Reasons to Combine
`
`All use local and remote authentication
`
`Ex. 1113 (Jakobsson ‘585), Fig. 1
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`Ex. 1117 (Niwa), Fig. 1
`Ex. 1114 (Maritzen), Fig. 1
`Pet. at 22-25, 44-45, 57-63; Ex. 1102 [Shoup Decl.] at ¶¶57-62, 110-112, 155-164
`16
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Reasons to Combine
`
`All use biometric information for authentication
`
`Jakobsson ‘585
`
`Maritzen
`
`Niwa
`
`Ex. 1113 at [0013]
`
`Ex. 1114 at [0088]
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`Ex. 1117 at Abstract
`Pet. at 22-25, 44-45, 57-63; Ex. 1102 [Shoup Decl.] at ¶¶57-62, 110-112, 155-164
`17
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Reasons to Combine
`All are designed to reduce risk of stolen authentication information
`
`Jakobsson ‘585
`
`Maritzen
`
`Niwa
`
`Ex. 1113 at [0008]
`
`Ex. 1114 at [0003]
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`Ex. 1117 at 2:12-16
`Pet. at 22-25, 44-45, 57-63; Ex. 1102 [Shoup Decl.] at ¶¶57-62, 110-112, 155-164
`18
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Reasons to Combine
`All are designed to secure financial transactions
`
`Jakobsson ‘585
`
`Maritzen
`
`Niwa
`
`Ex. 1113 at [0039]
`
`Ex. 1114 at [0031]
`
`Ex. 1117 at 1:17-21
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`Pet. at 22-25, 44-45, 57-63; Ex. 1102 [Shoup Decl.] at ¶¶57-62, 110-112, 155-164
`19
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Reasons to Combine
`
`Niwa is incorporated by reference in Maritzen
`Maritzen
`Niwa
`
`Ex. 1114 at
`[0043]
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Pet. at 7-8, 57-58; Ex. 1102 [Shoup Decl.] at ¶156
`20
`
`
`
`Roadmap
`
`The Claims Are Invalid
`
`Responses to USR’s Surreply
`
`Lack of Secondary Considerations
`
`USR’s Substitute Claims Are Not Patentable
`
`USR’s Motion to Strike Should Be Denied
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`21
`
`
`
`Responses to USR’s Surreply
`
`Response to Surreply
`
`Addressed in Briefing
`
`1. Jakobsson discloses “one or more signals”
`
`Petition at 30-34; Reply at 1-6
`
`2. Jakobsson’s positive or negative
`acknowledgement is an “enablement signal”
`3. Maritzen does not teach away from
`Jakobsson and Niwa
`4. Jakobsson and Niwa both disclose comparing
`a stored value to a value received from a user
`5. Jakobsson discloses encrypting “first
`authentication information”
`6. Maritzen discloses encrypting “first
`authentication information”
`7. Jakobsson discloses storing data derived
`from the biometric observation
`
`Petition at 36, 38-41; Reply at 6-11
`
`Petition at 22-25, 44-45, 57-63; Reply at 16-22
`
`Petition at 53-65; Reply at 12-13
`
`Petition at 43; Reply at 13-15
`
`Petition at 43-44; Reply at 15
`
`Petition at 45-46; Reply at 15-16
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`22
`
`
`
`The Jakobsson ‘585 Reference
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1113 (’585 Reference)
`23
`
`
`
`Jakobsson ‘585 Discloses “A Credit Card”
`
`The ‘585 patent says:
`
`Dr. Jakobsson now says:
`
`IPR2018-00809 Ex. 1113 at [0041]
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`IPR2018-00809 Ex. 1127 at 243:25-244:7; see also IPR2018-00813 Ex. 2113 (Jakobsson Decl. at ¶54)
`24
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Jakobsson ‘585 Discloses “A Credit Card”
`
`Dr. Juels says:
`
`But Dr. Jakobsson says:
`
`IPR2018-00813 Ex. 1120 at ¶37
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`IPR2018-00809 Ex. 1127 at 243:25-244:7; see also IPR2018-00813 Ex. 2113 (Jakobsson Decl. at ¶54)
`25
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`A “One-Way Function” Is Not Required
`
`The ‘585 patent says:
`
`Dr. Jakobsson now says:
`
`IPR2018-00809 Ex. 1113 at [0073]
`
`IPR2018-00809 Ex. 1127 at 134:25-135:2; see also IPR2018-00809 Ex. 2010 (Jakobsson Decl. at ¶54)
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`26
`
`
`
`A “One-Way Function” Is Not Required
`
`Dr. Juels says:
`
`But Dr. Jakobsson says:
`
`IPR2018-00809 Ex. 1130 at ¶43
`
`IPR2018-00809 Ex. 1127 at 134:25-135:2; see also IPR2018-00809 Ex. 2010 (Jakobsson Decl. at ¶54)
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`27
`
`
`
`Device 120 May Perform Authentication Alone
`
`The ‘585 patent says:
`
`Dr. Jakobsson now says:
`
`IPR2018-00809 Ex. 1113 at [0059]
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-00809 Ex. 1127 at 152:13-20
`
`28
`
`
`
`Device 120 May Perform Authentication Alone
`
`Dr. Juels says:
`
`But Dr. Jakobsson says:
`
`IPR2018-00809 Ex. 1130 at ¶54
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-00809 Ex. 1127 at 152:13-20
`
`29
`
`
`
`1. Jakobsson discloses “one or more signals”
`The Board’s Institution Decision correctly found that Jakobsson ‘585 discloses
`each required element in “one or more signals”
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Institution Decision at 11
`30
`
`
`
`1. Jakobsson discloses “one or more signals”
`
`The “authentication code 292” includes each of the required elements:
`
`Claim Element
`“one or more signals” including:
`
`Jakobsson ’585
`Authentication code 292 (A, K, P, E, T)
`
`“first authentication information”
`
`Authentication code 291 A (K, P)
`
`“indicator of biometric information”
`
`Event state (E)
`
`“time varying value”
`
`Dynamic value (T)
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`Petition at 30-34; Reply at 1-3; Ex. 1102 [Shoup Decl.] at ¶¶77-83;
`Ex. 1130 [Juels Decl.] at ¶¶31-34, 44-45; Ex. 1113 [Jakobsson ‘585] at [0071] - [0073]; Institution Decision at 11
`31
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`1. Jakobsson discloses “one or more signals”
`Jakobsson discloses that “any” combination of values is possible
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`Petition at 30-34; Reply at 1-3; Ex. 1102 [Shoup Decl.] at ¶¶77-83; Ex. 1130 [Juels Decl.] at ¶¶31-34, 44-45
`32
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1113 [Jakobsson ‘585] at [0073]
`
`
`
`1. Jakobsson discloses “one or more signals”
`Jakobsson discloses that “any” combination of values is possible
`
`Ex. 1113 [Jakobsson ‘585] at [0077]
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`Petition at 30-34; Reply at 1-3; Ex. 1102 [Shoup Decl.] at ¶¶77-83; Ex. 1130 [Juels Decl.] at ¶¶31-34, 44-45
`33
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`1. Jakobsson discloses “one or more signals”
`Jakobsson discloses that “any” combination of values is possible
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`Petition at 30-34; Reply at 1-3; Ex. 1102 [Shoup Decl.] at ¶¶77-83; Ex. 1130 [Juels Decl.] at ¶¶31-34, 44-45
`34
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1113 [Jakobsson ‘585] at [0071]
`
`
`
`1. Jakobsson discloses “one or more signals”
`
`1. The claims do not require the “first authentication
`information,” “indicator of biometric authentication of the
`user,” and the “time varying value” to be separable.
`2. Even if there was a separable requirement, Jakobsson ‘585
`discloses that the inputs are separable after combination.
`3. Contrary to USR’s argument, Jakobsson ‘585 does not always
`require a one-way function.
`4. Finally, a one-way hash function would not cause the inputs
`to the combination function to be no longer included.
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`35
`
`Reply at 5-6; Ex. 1128 (Shoup Reply Decl.) ¶¶18-19; Ex. 1130 (Juels Reply Decl.) ¶¶44-45
`
`
`
`1. Jakobsson discloses “one or more signals”
`USR’s attempt to add a “separable fields” limitation confirms that the
`present claim has no such requirement
`
`Paper No. 19 at A1 (Substitute Claim 13)
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`Reply at 5-6; Ex. 1128 (Shoup Reply Decl.) ¶18; Ex. 1130 (Juels Reply Decl.) ¶¶44-45
`36
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`1. Jakobsson discloses “one or more signals”
`The input values are separable even after combined into an
`authentication code
`
`Ex. 1128 [Shoup Reply Decl.] at ¶19 (citing Ex. 1113 at [0015])
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`See also Reply at 6
`37
`
`
`
`1. Jakobsson discloses “one or more signals”
`The input values are separable even after combined into an
`authentication code
`
`Ex. 1130 [Juels Reply Decl.] at ¶45
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`See also Reply at 6
`38
`
`
`
`1. Jakobsson discloses “one or more signals”
`Jakobsson does not require a one-way function. Jakobsson discloses
`multiple, alternative combination functions.
`
`Ex. 1113 [Jakobsson ‘585] at [0073]
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`Pet. at 31-32; Ex. 1102 (Shoup Decl.) ¶79;
`Reply at 3-6; Ex. 1128 (Shoup Reply Decl.) ¶17; Ex. 1130 (Juels Reply Decl.) ¶¶30-43
`39
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`1. Jakobsson discloses “one or more signals”
`Jakobsson does not require a one-way function. Jakobsson discloses
`multiple, alternative combination functions.
`
`Ex. 1113 [Jakobsson ‘585] at [0071]
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`Pet. at 31-32; Ex. 1102 (Shoup Decl.) ¶79;
`Reply at 3-6; Ex. 1128 (Shoup Reply Decl.) ¶17; Ex. 1130 (Juels Reply Decl.) ¶¶30-43
`40
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`1. Jakobsson discloses “one or more signals”
`Dr. Juels confirms that Jakobsson is not limited to one-way functions.
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`See also Reply at 3-6; Ex. 1130 (Juels Reply Decl.) ¶¶30-41
`41
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1130 (Juels Reply Decl.) ¶¶42-43
`
`
`
`1. Jakobsson discloses “one or more signals”
`Even if Jakobsson required a one-way function, the inputs would still
`be “included” in the authentication code.
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`See also Reply at 5; Ex. 2011 (Shoup Dep. Tr.) at 51:20-52:6; 52:18-24
`42
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1128 [Shoup Decl. iso Reply] at ¶18
`
`
`
`2. Jakobsson’s “positive or negative acknowledgement”
`is an “enablement signal”
`The “positive or negative acknowledgement” is not merely an
`acknowledgement of receipt
`
`Ex. 1113 [Jakobsson ‘585] at [0050]
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`Pet. at 36; Ex. 1102 (Shoup Decl.) ¶¶ 88-90;
`Reply at 6-11; Ex. 1128 (Shoup Reply Decl.) ¶¶20-27; Ex. 1130 (Juels Decl.) ¶¶39-43, 46-52
`43
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`2. Jakobsson’s “positive or negative acknowledgement”
`is an “enablement signal”
`
`Jakobsson discloses that “first authentication information” and
`“indicator of biometric authentication” are separate items
`
`Claim Element
`“one or more signals” including:
`
`Jakobsson ’585
`Authentication code 292 (A, K, P, E, T)
`
`“first authentication information”
`
`Authentication code 291 A (K, P)
`
`“indicator of biometric information”
`
`Event state (E)
`
`“time varying value”
`
`Dynamic value (T)
`
`Petition at 30-34, 38-41; Ex. 1102 [Shoup Decl.] at ¶¶77-83, 95-101;
`Reply at 1-3, 6-9; Ex. 1128 [Shoup Reply Decl.] at ¶¶20-24;
`Ex. 1130 [Juels Decl.] at ¶¶31-34, 39-47; Ex. 1113 [Jakobsson ‘585] at [0071] - [0073]; Institution Decision at 11-12
`44
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`
`
`3. Maritzen does not teach away from Jakobsson
`and Niwa
`
`Ex. 1128 [Shoup Reply Decl.] at ¶¶41-42
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply at 18-21; Institution Decision at 15
`45
`
`
`
`3. Maritzen does not teach away from Jakobsson
`and Niwa
`
`Ex. 1113 at [0072]
`
`Ex. 1113 at [0058]
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`Reply at 13-14; Ex. 1130 [Juels Reply Decl.] ¶35; Institution Decision at 15
`46
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`4. Jakobsson and Niwa both disclose comparing a stored
`value to a value received from a user
`Jakobsson discloses comparing a stored value with a value received
`from a user
`
`Ex. 1113 [Jakobsson ‘585] at [0059]
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`Pet. at 53-57; Ex. 1102 [Shoup Decl.] ¶¶150-154;
`Reply at 12-13; Ex. 1128 [Shoup Reply Decl.] ¶¶28-30
`Ex. 1130 [Juels Reply Decl.] ¶¶53-56
`47
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`4. Jakobsson and Niwa both disclose comparing a stored
`value to a value received from a user
`Jakobsson discloses comparing a stored value with a value received
`from a user
`
`Ex. 1113 [Jakobsson ‘585] at [0005]
`
`Pet. at 53-57; Ex. 1102 [Shoup Decl.] ¶¶150-154;
`Reply at 12-13; Ex. 1128 [Shoup Reply Decl.] ¶¶28-30
`Ex. 1130 [Juels Reply Decl.] ¶¶53-56
`48
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`
`
`4. Jakobsson and Niwa both disclose comparing a stored
`value to a value received from a user
`Niwa also discloses the concept of comparing a stored value with a
`user value
`
`Ex. 1117 (Niwa), Abstract
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`Pet. at 53-57; Ex. 1102 [Shoup Decl.] ¶¶150-154;
`Reply at 12-13; Ex. 1128 [Shoup Reply Decl.] ¶¶28-30
`Ex. 1130 [Juels Reply Decl.] ¶¶53-56
`49
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`4. Jakobsson and Niwa both disclose comparing a stored
`value to a value received from a user
`The combination of Jakobsson and Niwa discloses that the “first
`processor” in Jakobsson compares a stored finger print with a
`fingerprint of the user
`
`Ex. 1113 [Jakobsson ‘585] at [0041]
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`Pet. at 53-57; Ex. 1102 [Shoup Decl.] ¶¶150-154; Reply at 12-13;
`Ex. 1128 [Shoup Reply Decl.] ¶¶28-30; Ex. 1130 [Juels Reply Decl.] ¶¶53-56
`50
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1117 (Niwa), Abstract
`
`
`
`5. Jakobsson discloses encrypting “first authentication
`information”
`
`Ex. 1113 [Jakobsson ‘585] at [0071]
`
`Ex. 1113 [Jakobsson ‘585] at [0073]
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`Ex. 1113 [Jakobsson ‘585] at [0058]
`
`Pet. at 43-44; Ex. 1102 [Shoup Decl.] ¶¶107-109; Reply at 13-15;
`Ex. 1128 [Shoup Reply Decl.] ¶¶31-34; Ex. 1130 [Juels Reply Decl.] ¶¶59-62
`51
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`5. Jakobsson discloses encrypting “first authentication
`information”
`Hashing and encryption are not redundant techniques.
`
`Ex. 1128 [Shoup Reply Decl.] at ¶33
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`Pet. at 43-44; Ex. 1102 [Shoup Decl.] ¶¶107-109; Reply at 13-15;
`Ex. 1128 [Shoup Reply Decl.] ¶¶31-34; Ex. 1130 [Juels Reply Decl.] ¶¶59-62
`52
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`6. Maritzen discloses encrypting “first authentication
`information”
`Maritzen teaches encrypting “transaction key 340,” which is “first
`authentication information.”
`
`Ex. 1114 (Maritzen) [0090]
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`Pet. at 43-44; Ex. 1102 [Shoup Decl.] ¶¶107-109; Reply at 13-15;
`Ex. 1128 [Shoup Reply Decl.] ¶¶31-34; Ex. 1130 [Juels Reply Decl.] ¶¶59-62
`53
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`6. Maritzen discloses encrypting “first authentication
`information”
`Dr. Jakobsson conceded that the prior art disclosed encrypting
`authentication information.
`
`Ex. 1127 [Jakobsson Dep. Tr.] at 31:17-32:2
`
`Pet. at 43-44; Ex. 1102 [Shoup Decl.] ¶¶107-109; Reply at 13-15;
`Ex. 1128 [Shoup Reply Decl.] ¶¶31-34; Ex. 1130 [Juels Reply Decl.] ¶¶59-62;see also Ex. 1127 at 30:15-24; 32:11-23; 32:24-33:3; 33:16-21
`54
`IPR2018-00809
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`7. Jakobsson discloses storing “data derived from the
`biometric observation”
`There is no distinction between “data derived from biometric observation”
`and “first biometric information” captured by the biometric sensor
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`Pet. at 45-46; Ex. 1102 [Shoup Decl.] ¶¶113-115;
`Reply at 15-17; Ex. 1128 [Shoup Reply Decl.] ¶¶35-36; Ex. 1130 [Juels Reply Decl.] ¶¶57-58
`55
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1130 [Juels Reply Decl.] at ¶57
`
`
`
`Roadmap
`
`The Claims Are Invalid
`
`Responses to USR’s Surreply
`
`Lack of Secondary Considerations
`
`USR’s Substitute Claims Are Not Patentable
`
`USR’s Motion to Strike Should Be Denied
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`56
`
`
`
`USR Failed to Demonstrate Any Secondary
`Considerations
`In his declaration, Dr. Jakobsson opined that “the claimed inventions are
`practiced by...Apple Pay and Visa Checkout services.”
`
`Ex. 2010 (Jakobsson Decl.) ¶88
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`Reply at 22-26; Ex. 1128 [Shoup Reply Decl.] ¶¶46-48
`57
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`USR Failed to Demonstrate Any Secondary
`Considerations
`But at deposition, Dr. Jakobsson conceded he did not conduct any analysis
`to conclude that Apple Pay or Visa Checkout practice the patent.
`
`Ex. 1127 (Jakobsson Dep. Tr.) at 118:16-19; 118:24-119:2;
`see also 119:12-121:9 (same answers regarding Visa Checkout)
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`Reply at 22-26; Ex. 1128 [Shoup Reply Decl.] ¶¶46-48
`58
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`USR Failed to Demonstrate Any Secondary
`Considerations
`Dr. Jakobsson’s errata changed his testimony that he reviewed Visa code.
`
`Ex. 1127 (Jakobsson Dep. Tr.) at 520:3-6
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`Reply at 22-26; Ex. 1128 [Shoup Reply Decl.] ¶¶46-48
`59
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`June 27, 2019 Errata
`
`
`
`USR Failed to Demonstrate Any Secondary
`Considerations
`Dr. Jakobsson conceded that key features purportedly showing
`long-felt need were already known
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`Reply at 22-26; Ex. 1128 [Shoup Reply Decl.] ¶¶46-48
`60
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1127 (Jakobsson Dep. Tr.) at 98:12-15;113:6-10
`
`
`
`USR Failed to Demonstrate Any Secondary
`Considerations
`Dr. Jakobsson conceded that key features purportedly showing
`long-felt need were already known
`
`Ex. 1127 (Jakobsson Dep. Tr.) at 27:17-24
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`Reply at 22-26; Ex. 1128 [Shoup Reply Decl.] ¶¶46-48
`61
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`USR Failed to Demonstrate Any Secondary
`Considerations
`Dr. Jakobsson conceded that he never heard of the patent before he was
`retained and was not aware of any praise or recognition for the patent.
`
`Ex. 1127 (Jakobsson Dep. Tr.) at 14:24-15:3
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`Reply at 22-26; Ex. 1128 [Shoup Reply Decl.] ¶¶46-48
`62
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1127 (Jakobsson Dep. Tr.) at 17:6-9
`
`
`
`Roadmap
`
`The Claims Are Invalid
`
`Responses to USR’s Surreply
`
`Lack of Secondary Considerations
`
`USR’s Substitute Claims Are Not Patentable
`
`USR’s Motion to Strike Should Be Denied
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`63
`
`
`
`USR’s Substitute Claims Are Not Patentable
`
`Section 101
`
`Section 103
`
`Section 112
`
`Limitation
`Credit/debit/financial
`transactions
`
`Multi-digit identification (ID)
`code mappable to a card
`number
`Networked validation-
`information entity is the
`second device
`Signal with separable fields
`
`Prevent intentional deletion of
`data
`First authentication
`information including a digital
`signature
`
`Claims
`13[pre], 13[e],
`13[h], 21[pre],
`21[h], 21[i]
`13[c], 21[d]
`
`13[e], 21[f]
`
`13[e]
`
`17[a]
`
`18[b]
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`See CMTA Opposition, Paper 24; Ex. 1129 (Shoup Decl. ISO CMTA Opposition)
`64
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`USR’s Substitute Claims Are Not Patentable
`
`Grounds for Invalidity
`1. The ’660 application does not support a
`networked validation-information entity being
`the second device in limitations 13[e] and 21[f]
`2. Schutzer renders obvious the multi-digit ID
`code in limitations 13[c] and 21[d]
`3. The ’585 reference discloses a signal with
`“separable fields”
`4. Prevention of intentional deletion in
`limitation 17[a] lacks written description and is
`indefinite
`5. Schutzer renders obvious the digital
`signature in substitute claim 18
`6. The substitute claims are drawn to ineligible
`subject matter
`
`Issue Addressed in Briefing
`
`CMTA Opp. at 23-24; CMTA Sur-Reply at 6-8
`
`Petition at 63-69; CMTA Opp. at 2-3, 20; CMTA
`Sur-Reply at 1-2
`
`CMTA Opp. at 18-20; CMTA Sur-Reply at 3-4
`
`CMTA Opp. at 25; CMTA Sur-Reply at 8-10
`
`CMTA Opp. at 21-23; CMTA Sur-Reply at 4-6
`
`CMTA Opp. at 8-17; CMTA Sur-Reply at 10-11
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`See CMTA Opposition, Paper 24; Ex. 1129 (Shoup Decl. ISO CMTA Opposition)
`65
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`USR’s CMTA Is Also Deficient
`
`USR’s CMTA Deficiency
`1. USR is estopped from reintroducing the
`subject matter of disclaimed claims 8 and 11,
`and waived its right to respond to Ground 3
`
`Issue Addressed in Briefing
`CMTA Opp. at 1-3, 5-6; CMTA Sur-Reply at 11-
`12
`
`2. USR violated its duty of candor
`
`CMTA Opp. at 6; CMTA Sur-Reply at 11
`
`3. USR submitted an unreasonable number of
`substitute claims & substituted unchallenged
`claims
`
`CMTA Opp. at 6-8
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`66
`
`
`
`1. Limitations 13[e] and 21[f] Lack Written
`Description
`Substitute limitation 13[e] amends claim 1 to recite:
`
`wherein the first processor is programmed to
`generate one or more signals having at least three
`separable fields that include including the first
`authentication information, an indicator of biometric
`authentication, and a time varying value in response to valid
`authentication of the first biometric information, and to
`provide the one or more signals having the at least three
`separable fields including the first authentication
`information, the indicator of biometric authentication, and
`the time varying value for transmitting to a second device,
`the second device being the networked validation-
`information entity configured to enable the credit and/or
`debit card transaction based on authentication of the user;
`and
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`USR’s CMTA, Paper 19, B1 (Limitation 13[e]);
`see also CMTA Opp., Paper 24 at 2-3, 23-24, CMTA Sur-Reply, Paper 39 at 6-8
`67
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`1. Limitations 13[e] and 21[f] Lack Written
`Description
`Substitute limitation 13[e] requires that the same device perform the
`functions of two elements
`
`USR’s CMTA, Paper 19 at B1 (Limitation 13[c])
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`See also CMTA Opp., Paper 24 at 2-3, 23-24; CMTA Sur-Reply, Paper 39 at 6-8; Motion to Strike, Paper 43 at 1-5
`68
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`USR’s CMTA, Paper 19 at B1 (Limitation 13[e])
`
`
`
`1. Limitations 13[e] and 21[f] Lack Written Description
`
`USR’s new argument that the USR is a networked validation-
`information entity is incorrect
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`CMTA Sur-Reply, Paper 39 at 6-8; see also Motion to Strike, Paper 43 at 1-5
`69
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 2006 (’660 Application, 23:30-3)
`
`
`
`1. Limitations 13[e] and 21[f] Lack Written Description
`
`Schutzer’s disclosure is more explicit than the ’660 application
`
`Ex. 1115 (Schutzer, ¶¶ 26, 32)
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 2006 (’660 Application, 23:30-3)
`
`CMTA Sur-Reply, Paper 39 at 6-8
`70
`
`
`
`1. Limitations 13[e] and 21[f] Lack Written
`Description
`The only support for the claimed mapping is a credit card company,
`not a USR
`
`USR’s CMTA, Paper 19 at 7
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`Ex. 2006 (’660 Application, 23:32-24:4)
`See also CMTA Opp., Paper 24 at 2-3, 23-24; CMTA Sur-Reply, Paper 39 at 6-8
`71
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`1. Limitations 13[e] and 21[f] Lack Written Description
`
`A credit card company is different from the claimed second device
`
`Ex. 1129 (Shoup Decl. ISO CMTA Opp. at ¶53)
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`See also CMTA Opp., Paper 24 at 2-3, 23-24; CMTA Sur-Reply, Paper 39 at 6-8
`72
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`1. Limitations 13[e] and 21[f] Lack Written Description
`
`USR’s Reply belatedly argues the USR is a networked validation-
`information entity
`
`USR’s Reply ISO CMTA, Paper 31 at 24
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`See also CMTA Sur-Reply, Paper 39 at 6-8; Motion to Strike, Paper 43 at 1-5
`73
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`2. Schutzer Renders Obvious a Multi-digit ID Code
`
`Substitute limitations 13[c] and 21[d] are substantially the same as
`original claim 8
`
`CMTA Opposition, Paper 24 at 2; see also CMTA Sur-Reply, Paper 39 at 2
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`74
`
`
`
`2. Schutzer Renders Obvious a Multi-digit ID Code
`
`USR’s contradicts its own argument
`
`USR’s CMTA Reply, Paper 31 at 15
`
`USR’s CMTA Reply, Paper 31 at fn. 7 (citing Ex. 2021, Jakobsson Decl. at fn. 5)
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`See also CMTA Sur-Reply, Paper 39 at 2; CMTA Opposition, Paper 24 at 2
`75
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`2. Schutzer Renders Obvious a Multi-digit ID Code
`
`Schutzer’s anonymous card number maps to an actual card number
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`Ex. 1115 (Schutzer, ¶ 19)
`See also Petition, Paper 3 at 64-69; Ex. 1102 (Shoup Decl., ¶¶ 167-175); CMTA Sur-Reply, Paper 39 at 1-2
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`76
`
`
`
`2. Schutzer Renders Obvious a Multi-digit ID Code
`
`Schutzer’s anonymous card number maps to an actual card number
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`Ex. 1115 (Schutzer, ¶¶ 26, 32);
`See also CMTA Sur-Reply, Paper 39 at 1-2 ; Petition, Paper 3 at 64-69; Ex. 1102 (Shoup Decl., ¶¶ 167-175)
`77
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`3. The ’585 Reference Discloses “Separable Fields”
`
`Substitute limitation 13[e] amends claim 1 to recite:
`
`wherein the first processor is programmed to
`generate one or more signals having at least three
`separable fields that include including the first
`authentication information, an indicator of biometric
`authentication, and a time varying value in response to valid
`authentication of the first biometric information, and to
`provide the one or more signals having the at least three
`separable fields including the first authentication
`information, the indicator of biometric authentication, and
`the time varying value for transmitting to a second device,
`the second device being the networked validation-
`information entity configured to enable the credit and/or
`debit card transaction based on authentication of the user;
`and
`
`USR’s CMTA, Paper 19, B1 (Limitation 13[e])
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`See also CMTA Opp., Paper 24 at 17-20; CMTA Sur-Reply, Paper 39 at 3-4; Ex. 1130 (Juels Decl., ¶¶39-43)
`78
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`3. The ’585 Reference Discloses “Separable Fields”
`
`The combination function can be prepending/appending or another
`reversible functions
`
`Ex. 1113 (’585 Reference, ¶73)
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`See also CMTA Opp., Paper 24 at 17-20; CMTA Sur-Reply, Paper 39 at 3-4; Ex. 1130 (Juels Decl., ¶¶39-43)
`79
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`3. The ’585 Reference Discloses “Separable Fields”
`
`The combination function can be prepending/appending or another
`reversible functions
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`See also CMTA Opp., Paper 24 at 17-20; CMTA Sur-Reply, Paper 39 at 3-4; Ex. 1130 (Juels Decl., ¶¶39-43)
`80
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1113 (’585 Reference, ¶58)
`
`
`
`3. The ’585 Reference Discloses “Separable Fields”
`
`Dr. Juels identified additional functions that are not one-way
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`Ex. 1130 (Juels Decl. at ¶¶40-41, 43)
`See also CMTA Opp., Paper 24 at 17-20; CMTA Sur-Reply, Paper 39 at 3-4
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`81
`
`
`
`3. The ’585 Reference Discloses “Separable Fields”
`
`The ’585 reference therefore does not require a one-way function,
`as USR suggests
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`USR’s CMTA Reply, Paper 31, 17-18
`But see CMTA Opp., Paper 24 at 17-20; CMTA Sur-Reply, Paper 39 at 3-4; Ex. 1130 (Juels Decl., ¶¶39-43)
`82
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`4. Substitute Limitation 17[a] Lacks Written Description
`
`The ’660 application does not support “prevent[ing] intentional deletion
`of information stored at the first device”
`
`Ex. 2006 (’660 Application, 39:24-28)
`
`Ex. 2006 (’660 Application, 40:14-24
`See also CMTA Opp., Paper 24 at 25; Ex. 1129 (Shoup Decl. ISO CMTA Opposition, ¶54); CMTA Sur-Reply, Paper 39 at 8-10
`83
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`
`
`4. Substitute Limitation 17[a] is Indefinite
`
`A POSITA would not understand what or whose intention matters
`
`CMTA Opposition, Paper 24, 25
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`CMTA Sur-Reply, Paper 39, 10
`
`84
`
`
`
`5. Schutzer Renders Obvious Digital Signatures
`Dr. Shoup showed “the first authentication information further
`including a digital signature generated using a private key associated
`with the first device” in substitute claim 18 is obvious
`
`Ex. 1129 (Shoup Decl. ISO CMTA Opp., ¶50)
`See also CMTA Opp., Paper 24 at 21-23; Ex. 1129 (Shoup Decl. ISO CMTA Opposition, ¶51); CMTA Sur-Reply, Paper 39 at 4-6
`85
`IPR2018-00809
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`6. The Substitute Claims Are Ineligible Under § 101
`The substitute claims are drawn to the abstract idea of “verifying an
`account holder’s identity based on codes and/or information related to
`the account holder before enabling a transaction”
`
`* * *
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`Ex. 1127 (Jakobsson Transcript, 92:14-20);
`See also CMTA Opp., Paper 24 at 10-14; CMTA Sur-Reply, Paper 39 at 10-11
`86
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`6. The Substitute Claims Are Ineligible Under § 101
`The substitute claims are drawn to the abstract idea of “verifying an
`account holder’s identity based on codes and/or information related to
`the account holder before enabling a transaction”
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`Ex. 1101 (’137 Patent at 1:45-48, 11:45-46, 12:1-3, 12:34-36; 12:67-13:2); see also CMTA Opp. at 10-14
`87
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`6. The Substitute Claims Are Ineligible Under § 101
`The substitute claims do not add anything inventive
`
`* * *
`
`* * *
`
`* * *
`
`* * *
`
`* * *
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`Ex. 1127 (Jakobsson Tr., 161:20-162:30);
`see also id. at at 30:16-34:24, 36:10-12, 44:10-12, 46:2-5, 56:20-24, 76:11-77:19, 95:3-5, 95:19-96:18,
`96:23-98:15, 98:22- 99:18, 99:19-101:7, 101:2-7, 161:14-63:12, 198:2-4;