UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK
`OFFICE
`
`
`_________________  
`_________________  
`
`
`
`Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`
`
`
`
`Sony Network Entertainment International LLC, Petitioner,
`
`
`v.
`
`William Grecia, Patent Owner.
`
`
`_________________  
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,533,860
`Filing Date: January 11, 2013
`Issue Date: September 10, 2013
`Title: Personalized Digital Media Access System—PDMAS Part II
`
`
`__________________  
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Preliminary Response by Patent Owner William Grecia
`
`
`
`EWS-005398
`
`Early Warning Services 1031
`IPR of U.S. Pat. No. 8,887,308
`
`

`

`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Introduction ........................................................................................ 1
`Background ......................................................................................... 2
`Overview of the ‘860 Patent ................................................................... 2
`Written Description ....................................................................... 2
`Exemplary Claim from the ‘860 Patent ........................................... 8
`The Examiner’s Reasons for Allowance of the ‘860 Patent Claims .............. 10
`Baiya ........................................................................................... 11
`Wimmer ...................................................................................... 13
`Argument .......................................................................................... 14
`I. Sony is unlikely to prevail with DeMello or Pestoni as anticipatory
`references because neither reference establishes a connection with a
`verified web service as claimed in the ‘860 patent. ............................ 14
`A. DeMello does not anticipate the ‘860 patent because DeMello
`requests and receives the identification reference from the same
`module or apparatus that received and authenticated the verification
`token. .......................................................................................... 15
`B. Pestoni does not anticipate the ‘860 patent because Pestoni fails
`to disclose establishing a connection with a verified web service and
`requesting an identification reference from the communications
`console. ....................................................................................... 20
`II. Sony is unlikely to prevail on the asserted obviousness grounds
`because none of the proffered combinations cure the failure of the prior
`art to establish a connection with a verified web service as claimed in
`the ‘860 invention. .......................................................................... 21
`Conclusion ........................................................................................ 22
`
`  
`
`
`
`  
`
`
`
`i  
`
`EWS-005399
`
`

`

`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Exhibit List
`
`Description
`
`2001
`
`2002
`2003
`
`
`
`2013-05-31 Notice of Allowance and Fees Due
`(PTOL-85)
`U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0288946 to Baiya et al.
`U.S. 7,526,650 to Wimmer
`
`  
`
`ii  
`
`EWS-005400
`
`

`

`Introduction
`
`U.S. Patent 8,533,860 (the “‘860 patent”) claims methods,
`
`
`
`systems, and apparatuses for facilitating access rights to digital content
`
`among a plurality of data processing devices. In stating the reasons for
`
`allowance of claims 1 through 30 of the ‘860 patent, the Examiner
`
`recognized that although the prior art included methods for facilitating
`
`access rights between a plurality of devices, no reference included the
`
`steps of “establishing a connection with . . . a verified web service” and
`
`“requesting at least one identification reference from the at least one
`
`communications console . . . .” via the connection with the verified web
`
`service. (Ex. 2001.)
`
`
`
`The Board should decline to institute inter partes review of the ‘860
`
`patent. Petitioner Sony Network Entertainment International LLC
`
`(“Sony”) cannot show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any of the
`
`grounds raised in the petition because each of the four references Sony
`
`cites (DeMello, Pestoni, Wiser, and Cooper) fails to teach the ‘860
`
`patent limitations that the USPTO has already determined to be novel
`
`and nonobvious. Specifically, DeMello, Pestoni, Wiser, and Cooper are
`
`cumulative to the two prior art references the Examiner believed to be
`
`  
`
`1  
`
`EWS-005401
`
`

`

`closest to the invention claimed in the ‘860 patent (Baiya and Wimmer).
`
`None of the cited art teaches, discloses, or in any way renders obvious
`
`the claimed process of establishing a connection with a verified web
`
`service and requesting an identification reference from a device through
`
`that connection.
`
`In short, the United States Patent and Trademark Office already
`
`reviewed the questions raised in the Sony’s Petition. Therefore, no basis
`
`exists to institute proceedings under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
`
`Background
`
`Overview of the ‘860 Patent
`
`Written Description
`
`The ‘860 patent claims methods, systems, and apparatuses that
`
`“work as a front-end to encrypted files as an authorization agent for
`
`decrypted access.” (‘860 patent, 5:37-39.)1 Thus, the invention claimed in
`
`the ‘860 patent is akin to a gatekeeper who authorizes access to the
`
`encrypted digital content behind him.
`
`Fig. 1, for example, shows a system containing six modules that
`
`lay at the front-end of the encrypted content:
`
`                                                                                                                
`1  The ‘860 patent has been filed as Exhibit 1001 with the Petition.
`  
`2  
`
`EWS-005402
`
`

`

`
`
`The ‘860 patent describes the various modules as being distinct
`
`and assigns an order for each module’s use.
`
`At the front of the method/system/apparatus, “The first receipt
`
`module 102 receives a branding request from at least one
`
`communications console of the plurality of data processing devices. The
`
`branding request is a read or write request of metadata of the encrypted
`
`digital media and includes a membership verification token
`
`corresponding to the encrypted digital media.” (‘860, 5:45-50.)
`
`“Subsequently, the authentication module 104 authenticates the
`
`membership verification token. The authentication is performed in
`
`connection with a token database. Further, the connection module 106
`
`  
`
`3  
`
`EWS-005403
`
`

`

`establishes communication with the at least one communication
`
`console.” (‘860 patent, 5:56-60.)
`
`There is only one request module and, as described, the request
`
`module “108 requests at least one electronic identification reference from
`
`the at least one communication console.” (‘860 patent, 6:4-6.) In
`
`contrast, however, there are two receipt modules. While the first receipt
`
`module has already received the verification token, “[t]he second receipt
`
`module 110 receives the at least one electronic identification reference
`
`from the at least one communication console.” (Id., 6:6-8.) “The
`
`branding module 112 brands metadata of the encrypted digital media by
`
`writing the membership verification token and the electronic
`
`identification into the metadata.” (Id., 6:8-11.)
`
`In context, these modules each have specific roles and operate in a
`
`specific order. For example, if the branding module were able to brand
`
`the metadata of the digital media prior to the successful completion of
`
`the previous modules, the system would fail to perform its gatekeeping
`
`function.
`
`Fig. 3 illustrates an example of the process claimed in the ‘860
`
`patent. The elements and processes described with reference to Fig. 3
`
`  
`
`4  
`
`EWS-005404
`
`

`

`clearly delineate the distinctions between the claimed invention and the
`
`prior art:
`
`“A user posts a branding request via the Kodekey GUI interface 301.”
`
`(‘860, 6:65-66.) In response, “The Kodekey GUI interface 301 prompts
`
`the user to enter the token and press the redeem button present on the
`
`
`
`  
`
`5  
`
`EWS-005405
`
`

`

`Kodekey GUI interface 301.” (‘860, 6:67-7:3.) The token is then
`
`authenticated: “The Kodekey GUI interface is connected to the database
`
`305 via the internet 304 through the networking card 303. The database
`
`305 is the database used to read/write and store the tokens, also referred
`
`to as the token database.” (Id., 7:6-10.)
`
`Clearly, many prior art systems taught the verification of a token
`
`through a GUI interface, but these next steps are where the invention
`
`claimed in the ‘860 patent distinguishes itself from the prior art. Rather
`
`than completing the process between the connection established between
`
`the Kodekey GUI and the token database, the ‘860 patent teaches a
`
`process of establishing a new and distinct connection with a verified web
`
`service: “The user is redirected to the APIwebsite.com GUI 307 through
`
`the internet 306.” (Id., 7:10-11.) The identification reference is then
`
`requested, received, and written into the metadata: “The
`
`APIwebsite.com is the GUI to the membership API in which the
`
`electronic ID is collected and sent back to the Kodekey GUI interface
`
`301. . . . The database 309 is the database connected to the web service
`
`membership in which the user’s electronic ID is queried from.” (Id.,
`
`7:11-19.)
`
`  
`
`6  
`
`EWS-005406
`
`

`

`In other words, after the user posts a branding request through a
`
`first GUI (i.e., Kodekey GUI 301) and the user’s verification token is
`
`authenticated in a first database (i.e., database 305), the system
`
`establishes a new connection through a second GUI, a verified web
`
`service (i.e., APIwebsite.com GUI 307), through which an identification
`
`reference is requested, received, and written into the metadata (i.e.,
`
`product metadata 302). The prior art simply does not teach the use of a
`
`verified web service in the manner claimed in the ‘860 patent.
`
`
`
`The ‘860 patent’s description of the metadata underscores that this
`
`invention “will work as a front-end to encrypted files as an authorization
`
`agent for decrypted access” (id., 5:38-39): “The product metadata 302 is
`
`read/writable metadata associated with the digital media to be acquired.”
`
`(Id., 7:3-4 (emphasis added).) Simply put, the invention claimed in the
`
`‘860 patent does not handle the digital content itself, but rather acts as a
`
`gatekeeper to that content. The invention authorizes access by ultimately
`
`writing the verification token or the identification reference into the
`
`metadata of the digital content. To extend the gatekeeper metaphor, the
`
`digital content itself is behind the gatekeeper who authorizes decrypted
`
`access by completing the process claimed in the ‘860 patent.
`
`  
`
`7  
`
`EWS-005407
`
`

`

`  
`
`
`
`Exemplary Claim from the ‘860 Patent
`
`Claim 1 of the ‘860 patent is an exemplary claim, and it is
`
`reproduced as follows with annotations from Figures 1 and 3:
`
`A method for authorizing access to digital
`content using a cloud system [Fig. 3]
`
`comprising connected modules [102, 104, 106,
`
`108, 110, 112] in operation as one or more of a
`
`cloud computing or a cloud storage in
`
`connection with devices and users, wherein the
`
`digital content is at least one of encrypted or not
`
`encrypted, the method facilitating access rights
`
`between a plurality of data processing devices,
`
`the method comprising:
`
`
`[102; 301] receiving a digital content access
`
`request from at least one communications
`
`console of the plurality of data processing
`
`devices, the access request being a read or write
`
`request of metadata of the digital content,
`
`wherein the read or write request of metadata is
`
`performed in connection with a combination of
`
`at least one device and the cloud system, the
`
`request comprising a verification token provided
`
`by a first user corresponding to the digital
`
`content, wherein the verification token is one or
`
`8  
`
`  
`
`EWS-005408
`
`

`

`more of a password, e-mail address, payment
`
`system, credit card, authorization ready device,
`
`rights token, or one or more redeemable
`
`instruments of trade;
`
`
`[104; 303, 304, & 305] authenticating the
`
`verification token;
`
`
`[106; 306 & 307] establishing a connection with
`
`the at least one communications console,
`
`wherein the communications console is a
`
`combination of a graphical user interface (GUI)
`
`and an Application Programmable Interface
`
`(API) wherein the API is related to a verified
`
`web service, the web service capable of
`
`facilitating a two way data exchange session to
`
`complete a verification process wherein the data
`
`exchange session comprises at least one
`
`identification reference;
`
`
`[108; 307, 308 & 309] requesting the at least one
`
`identification reference from the at least one
`
`communications console, wherein the
`
`identification reference comprises one or more
`
`of a verified web service account identifier,
`
`letter, number, rights token, e-mail, password,
`
`9  
`
`  
`
`EWS-005409
`
`

`

`access time, serial number, address,
`
`manufacturer identification, checksum,
`
`operating system version, browser version,
`
`credential, cookie, or key;
`
`
`[110; 309, 308, 307, & 306] receiving the at least
`
`one identification reference from the at least one
`
`communications console; and
`
`
`[112; 302] writing at least one of the verification
`
`token or the identification reference into the
`
`metadata.
`
`The Examiner’s Reasons for Allowance of the ‘860 Patent Claims
`
`During examination, the Examiner cited the following two
`
`references as being the closest materials to the subject matter of the ‘860
`
`patent: Baiya et al. PG Pub. 20110288946, Method and System of
`
`Managing Digital Multimedia Content (“Baiya”); and Chris Wimmer,
`
`U.S. Patent 7,526,650, Personal Identifiers for Protecting Video Content
`
`(“Wimmer”). (Ex. 2001.) In short, the examiner found that while Baiya
`
`and Wimmer disclose certain of the ‘860 patent limitations, these
`
`references lack disclosure of “facilitating access rights between a plurality
`
`of data processing devices” by establishing a connection with a verified
`
`  
`
`  
`
`web service that then requests an identification reference. (Id.)
`
`10  
`
`EWS-005410
`
`

`

`Closer examination of the Baiya and Wimmer disclosures
`
`illustrates the novelty and nonobviousness of the ‘860 patent, as
`
`determined by the Examiner.
`
`Baiya
`
`
`
`In Baiya, a user accesses digital media through an interface called
`
`the Content Manager [0022]:
`
`Baiya discloses a process of ‘the management of
`
`digital multimedia content comprises a
`
`computer-implemented digital multimedia
`
`content management system comprising the
`
`following computer executable components: an
`
`upload component that allows a first user to tag
`
`the digital media content with one or more
`
`attributes . . . a grouping component that groups
`
`the digital media content according to the one or
`
`more attributes; a licensing component that
`
`attaches one or more keys to the digital media
`
`content; a security component that encrypts the
`
`digital media content; and a sharing component
`
`that allows one or more second users to access
`
`the digital media content [sic] (Fig. 3-4 and
`
`paragraphs [0008]).
`
`
`
`  
`
`11  
`
`EWS-005411
`
`

`

`(Ex. 2001 at 13-14.) The Examiner then notes that the Content Manager
`
`uses an API protocol “for access control authentication and
`
`authorization information.” (Id. at 14 (citing paragraph [0064]).)
`
`
`
`As the Examiner recognized, Baiya does not suggest “facilitating
`
`access rights between a plurality of data processing devices” according to
`
`the invention claimed in the ‘860 patent because, for example, Baiya
`
`only practices the first and second steps of claim 1 of the ‘860 patent.
`
`Indeed, in Baiya, “At 440 the Content Manager receives a request for
`
`access to content from a second user, where prior to sharing the content
`
`with the second user, the second user is authenticated 445.” (Ex. 2002
`
`(Baiya [0078].) This disclosure corresponds to, for example, the first and
`
`second steps of claim 1 of the ‘860 patent as illustrated in Figure 3 at
`
`301, 303, and 305. Baiya stops there, however, and critically lacks the
`
`third, fourth, and fifth steps of claim 1 of the ‘860 patent: establishing a
`
`connection with a verified web service (306 and 307), requesting an
`
`identification reference (307, 308, and 309), and a second receipt, this
`
`time of the identification reference (309, 308, 307, and 306).
`
`  
`
`12  
`
`EWS-005412
`
`

`

`Wimmer
`
`The Examiner cited, among other things, Figure 5 of Wimmer as
`
`disclosing some of the limitations of the ‘860 patent. The disclosure
`
`corresponding to Figure 5 of Wimmer suggests, for example, the
`
`limitations of the first, second, and sixth steps of claim 1 of the ‘860
`
`patent:
`
`The branding decision engine 504 receives the
`
`metadata 302 or interpretation from the
`
`metadata reader 502 and may be employed to
`
`decide which parts or programs within a video
`content 102 are to receive a brand 104. When
`
`the branding decision engine 504 decides to
`
`brand a video content 102 or program, an
`
`indication is sent to the brand generator 508 to
`
`brand the associated video content 102.
`
`
`(Ex. 2003 (Wimmer, 6:22-28).) This disclosure corresponds to, for
`
`example, the first, second, and sixth steps of claim 1 of the ‘860 patent as
`
`illustrated in Figure 3 at 301, 303, and 305 (i.e., receiving a write request
`
`and authentication) and 302 (i.e., writing the verification token into the
`
`metadata). Wimmer stops there, however, and critically lacks the third,
`
`fourth, and fifth steps of claim 1 of the ‘860 patent: establishing a
`
`  
`
`13  
`
`EWS-005413
`
`

`

`connection with a verified web service (306 and 307), requesting an
`
`identification reference (307, 308, and 309), and a second receipt, this
`
`time of the identification reference (309, 308, 307, and 306).
`
`Argument
`
`I.
`
`
`
`
`Sony is unlikely to prevail with DeMello or Pestoni as
`anticipatory references because neither reference establishes a
`connection with a verified web service as claimed in the ‘860
`patent.
`
`DeMello and Pestoni are similar to Baiya and Wimmer in that
`
`these references teach some of the limitations of the ‘860 patent. Some
`
`crossover between the ‘860 patent and the prior art is to be expected,
`
`however, because communicating access rights over the Internet to a
`
`license server—the first and second steps of method claim 1 in the ‘860
`
`patent—was well known in the digital rights management field: “Prior
`
`art DRM methods rely on content providers to maintain computer
`
`servers to receive and send session authorization keys to client
`
`computers with an Internet connection.” (‘860 patent, 2:54-56.)
`
`
`
`As described below, DeMello and Pestoni are also similar to Baiya
`
`and Wimmer in that neither discloses, nor even suggests, establishing a
`
`connection with a verified web service after having authenticated the
`
`  
`
`14  
`
`EWS-005414
`
`

`

`verification token. For this reason, DeMello and Pestoni cannot
`
`anticipate the ‘860 patent:
`
`Because the hallmark of anticipation is prior
`
`invention, the prior art reference—in order to
`
`anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102—must not
`
`only disclose all elements of the claim within the
`
`four corners of the document, but must also
`
`disclose those elements “arranged as in the
`
`claim.”
`Net Moneyin, Inc. v. Verisign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`
`A. DeMello does not anticipate the ‘860 patent because
`DeMello requests and receives the identification reference
`from the same module or apparatus that received and
`authenticated the verification token.
`
`DeMello does not disclose a DRM method, system, or apparatus
`
`
`
`
`“arranged as in” the ‘860 patent claims. Returning to claim 1 of the ‘860
`
`patent as exemplary, the first step of the method is:
`
`receiving a digital content access request from at
`
`least one communications console of the
`
`plurality of data processing devices, the access
`
`request being a read or write request of metadata
`
`of the digital content, wherein the read or write
`
`request of metadata is performed in connection
`
`  
`
`with a combination of at least one device and
`
`the cloud system, the request comprising a
`
`15  
`
`EWS-005415
`
`

`

`verification token provided by a first user
`
`corresponding to the digital content . . . .
`
`(‘860 patent, 14:38-46.) Sony relies on two disclosures in DeMello to
`
`meet this element: (1) a web content server’s receipt of a user’s credit
`
`card information upon the user’s request to purchase an electronic book
`
`(Petition at 21 (citing DeMello, 40:23-29)); and (2) an activation server’s
`
`receipt of login credentials from a user’s device. (Id. (citing DeMello,
`
`13:30-35).) Accepting these citations as meeting the first step of the ‘860
`
`method, each of the web content server and the activation server would
`
`correspond to the “First receipt module” (102) in Figure 1 of the ‘860
`
`patent and the “KODEKEY GUI” (301) in Figure 3 of the ‘860 patent.
`
`
`
`The second step of the ‘860 patent is “authenticating the
`
`verification token” (id., 14:50). Sony relies on the same disclosure,
`
`arguing that in DeMello the web content server and the activation server
`
`authenticate the credit card information and login credentials,
`
`respectively. (Petition at 24.) Thus, according to Sony, the web content
`
`server and the activation server would also serve as the “Authentication
`
`Module” (104) in Figure 1 of the ‘860 patent and line up with the
`
`networking card (303), the internet connection (304), and database (305)
`
`in Figure 3 of the ‘860 patent.
`
`  
`
`16  
`
`EWS-005416
`
`

`

`
`
`The comparison of DeMello to the ‘860 patent begins to falter at
`
`the third step of claim 1, which provides as follows:
`
`establishing a connection with the at least one
`
`communications console, wherein the
`
`communications console is a combination of a
`
`graphical user interface (GUI) and an
`
`Application Programmable Interface (API)
`
`wherein the API is related to a verified web
`
`service, the web service capable of facilitating a
`
`two way data exchange session to complete a
`
`verification process wherein the data exchange
`
`session comprises at least one identification
`
`reference . . . .
`
`(‘860, 14:51-59.) Sony again points to the same two examples (the web
`
`content server and the activation server) performing the “establishing a
`
`connection” step. (Petition at 25-26.) Critically, however, Sony points to
`
`the same connections that DeMello has already used to receive and
`
`authenticate the verification token: “Once user’s PASSPORT™
`
`credentials are authenticated (step 156), a PASSPORT™ API is queried
`
`for the user alias and e-mail address (step 158). Thereafter, at steps 160-
`
`162, the activation servers 94 will request that the client (via the ActiveX
`
`control) upload a unique hardware ID . . . .” (DeMello, 23:18-23.)
`
`  
`
`17  
`
`EWS-005417
`
`

`

`
`
`For DeMello to anticipate, the disclosure of that invention must be
`
`found within the four corners of DeMello and “arranged as in” claim 1
`
`of the ‘860 patent. Net Moneyin, Inc., 545 F.3d at 1369. The ‘860 patent
`
`claims “establishing a connection with . . . a verified web service” after,
`
`and separately, from receiving and authenticating the verification token.
`
`In DeMello, however, the connection used to request and receive the
`
`identification reference had already been established, as this connection
`
`is the same connection that DeMello used to authenticate the
`
`verification token. (DeMello, 23:18-23.) As such, DeMello lacks the
`
`“Connection module,” “Request module,” and “Second receipt module”
`
`of Figure 1 of the ‘860 patent:
`
`  
`
`18  
`
`
`
`EWS-005418
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Additionally, DeMello lacks establishing a connection with a
`
`verified web service and therefore lacks half of the disclosure in Figure 3
`
`of the ‘860 patent:
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`
`
`
`
`Sony relies on the same disclosure in DeMello to meet the ‘860
`
`patent’s limitation of “establishing a connection with a verified web
`
`service” for each of independent claims 1, 9, 11, and 21. (Petition at 41,
`
`  
`
`19  
`
`EWS-005419
`
`

`

`44, & 55.) Therefore, DeMello does not anticipate claims 1, 9, 11, and
`
`21 or the claims that depend therefrom for at least the reasons stated
`
`above.
`
`B. Pestoni does not anticipate the ‘860 patent because Pestoni
`fails to disclose establishing a connection with a verified
`web service and requesting an identification reference from
`the communications console.
`
`
`Pestoni also fails to anticipate the ‘860 patent for not disclosing
`
`
`
`establishing a connection with a verified web service to request and
`
`receive an identification reference. Pestoni’s deficiency in this respect,
`
`however, is more pronounced than DeMello. Sony relies on both a
`
`“content license request” and a “join-domain request” as disclosure of
`
`the “receiving a digital content access request” step of claim 1 of the ‘860
`
`patent. (Petition at 31.) But any overlap between Pestoni and the ‘860
`
`patent ends after comparing receipt and authentication of the verification
`
`token.
`
`
`
`First, Sony argues that the communications console (“a
`
`combination of a graphic user interface (GUI) and an Application
`
`Programmable Interface (API)” (‘860 patent, 14:53-55)) is inherent in
`
`Pestoni. (Petition at 29-30.) Second, Sony admits that the same
`
`connection supports Pestoni’s receipt of both the verification token and
`
`  
`
`20  
`
`EWS-005420
`
`

`

`identification reference, arguing that the disclosure of a simultaneous
`
`receipt could be split into multiple acts (albeit over the same connection).
`
`(Id. at 30-32.) Third, Sony admits that Pestoni altogether lacks a
`
`“Request module” corresponding to 108 in Figure 1 of the ‘860 patent,
`
`as Pestoni merely receives what Sony identifies as the identification
`
`reference. (Petition at 33.) This is in contrast to the ‘860 patent, which
`
`establishes a connection with a verified web service that requests the
`
`identification reference from the communications console. (‘860 patent,
`
`14:51-15:2.)
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`Sony relies on the same disclosure in Pestoni to meet the ‘860
`
`patent’s limitation of “establishing a connection with a verified web
`
`service” for each of independent claims 1, 9 and 11. (Petition at 41 &
`
`44.) Therefore, Pestoni does not anticipate claims 1, 9 and 11 of the ‘860
`
`patent or the claims that depend therefrom for at least the reasons stated
`
`above.
`
`II.
`
`Sony is unlikely to prevail on the asserted obviousness grounds
`because none of the proffered combinations cure the failure of
`the prior art to establish a connection with a verified web
`service as claimed in the ‘860 invention.
`
`
`
`  
`
`21  
`
`EWS-005421
`
`

`

`No inter partes review should be instituted because Sony is not
`
`likely to succeed on the asserted section 103 grounds. Neither Wiser nor
`
`Cooper discloses establishing a connection with a verified web service
`
`after a verification token has been authenticated. (Petition at 55
`
`(incorporating DeMello and Pestino disclosure).) Therefore, no
`
`combination of DeMello, Pestino, Wiser, and Cooper discloses, teaches,
`
`suggests, or otherwise renders obvious the invention claimed in the ‘860
`
`patent.
`
`Conclusion
`
`
`
`William Grecia respectfully requests that the Board decline to
`
`institute proceedings under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Patrick D. Richards/
`Patrick Richards
`Registration No. 48,905
`Richards Patent Law P.C.
`233 S. Wacker Drive 84th Floor
`Chicago, IL 60606
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`  
`
`Dated: March 11, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`22  
`
`EWS-005422
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that on this 11th day of March 2015, a copy of this
`
`Preliminary Response, including its supporting exhibits (2001-2003) has
`
`been served in its entirety by Express Mail on the following counsel of
`
`record for Petitioner:
`
`Paul Haughey
`Kilpatrick, Townsend & Stockton LLP
`Two Embarcadero Center, Eighth Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`phaughey@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Patrick D. Richards/
`Patrick Richards
`Registration No. 48,905
`Richards Patent Law P.C.
`233 S. Wacker Drive 84th Floor
`Chicago, IL 60606
`
`Dated: March 11, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`  
`
`EWS-005423
`
`