throbber
Apple Inc.,
`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;

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


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

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

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

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

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

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

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

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

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

Your account does not support viewing this document.

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

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

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

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

Become a Member

One Moment Please

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

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

Your document is on its way!

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

Sealed Document

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

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


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket