Sfor Rebuttal transcript -
*Please note that this may have minor errors, however every attempt was made to be as close to exact as spoken by the parties involved in oral arguments.
SFOR: Thank you, your honor. I want to start with the fact that where you have to draw the line. Because as this court has noted, if you draw it at too high a level of generality- exception swallows the rule.
And, and, my opponent suggested that these claims are not about user identification but that fails to recognize the critical feature of these claims.
And I want to just point to several points where that is clear. In this specification; column 2, lines 20-22, it says that the pro.... the technical problem is addressed is that the hacker is in a self-authenticating environment - in other words the hacker appears......
Judge: That’s true. He-He was wrong about that! But uh, the fact is that in the non-computer context we have the same problem with the same solution.
SFOR. Well your honor, as, as, as I think the court, the case that says this best is the recent case we did not cite, its Data- um, Engine Technologies v Google 906 F-3rd 999 , uh, 2018. Uh, which was, came down after briefing.
It cleared that it’s not sufficient just to be able to trace to some, uh, real world analogy- it has to be an apposite one. And here the preschool analogy one is not apposite because in order to actually practice these claims, in every instance when anybody, even if they are on the permitted list comes to pick up the child you would have to call that person’s cell phone which they would have to have in hand to be able to verify that they are in fact the person on the list and an authenticated used- that never happens. So all they are doing is like waving their hands , something looks like it, it’s the precise problem.....
Judge: It sure sounds like something that happens pretty frequently in the real world in the era before computers. Take, take example someone picking cash from a bank with a note from the depositor. And the bank decides to call the depositor on a land line and asks if the person picking it up is an authorized to pick it up. You, you can come up with lots of examples of this dual channel , uh, utility.
SFOR: But once again your honor, what that doesn’t do is authenticate that the person who’s there is in fact the employee as opposed to someone who is masquerading as the employee. And this goes back to....
Judge: But, but you are claiming every method of ident.., authentication, uh, without limit, isn’t that the problem and I think part of the foundation for the decision that this was abstract?
SFOR: Your Honor, what, what, is critical is that these claims- because they reach out- the, the, the separate authentication channel, you can reach out to a cellphone or PDA that’s already identified in the database, and they reach out and the person who answers it has to give back predetermined information .
This is along a second channel so it’s not somebody sitting in the access channel that may have got it before. That is a significantly higher degree of certainty the user is who....
Judge: But, but, in the bank example, the bank example is they put the guy on the phone, I want to listen to his voice to see if this is the, the person that I sent. Voice recognition , same deal.
SFOR: Your Honor, again, the fact that you could conceive of a system in the real world, in the brick and mortar system, uh, that is not sufficient , that was true in [DVR] where you could conceive of a store within a store , but that wasn’t the problem that was being addressed and it didn’t work they same way. In DVR as here, there is the interception you bring it over to the other system -
I just want to say- Quote, this is, um 9, uh, #12 lines 28-33- that reflect, that in a computer network system, in a corporate system, everybody has their user ID and password. Verifying that they are an authenticated user in that sort of first level way is not that significant. What is that significant is verifying - and this is what it says- Authentication of the person seeking access is the most significant!
And that is what these claims do, they improve the other systems by providing a completely physically separate authentication process using all of these elements: the interception device, the security computer, the, ah, subscriber database, the authentication channel that’s completely physically separate - shares no facilities with the access channel. To a pre-determined number where the user has to pre..., input back in, back through the authentication channel, pre-determined data including biometric data.
That system provides a level of, it may be true that no system can give 100% certainty that the user is the user. This system improves it. It’s true in Ancora as well, it wasn’t absolutely, you know, impenetrable, but here as well, what you have done is improve dramatically the security and the ability to identify the user as the user.
At the very least that is what the specification says is true, whether that is or is not factually true is something that should be determined as a matter of fact on remand. Thank you very much.
Judge: Thank you, thank you both. The case is taken under submission
Thank you for your support!
B )
*Please note that this may have minor errors, however every attempt was made to be as close to exact as spoken by the parties involved in oral arguments.
SFOR: Thank you, your honor. I want to start with the fact that where you have to draw the line. Because as this court has noted, if you draw it at too high a level of generality- exception swallows the rule.
And, and, my opponent suggested that these claims are not about user identification but that fails to recognize the critical feature of these claims.
And I want to just point to several points where that is clear. In this specification; column 2, lines 20-22, it says that the pro.... the technical problem is addressed is that the hacker is in a self-authenticating environment - in other words the hacker appears......
Judge: That’s true. He-He was wrong about that! But uh, the fact is that in the non-computer context we have the same problem with the same solution.
SFOR. Well your honor, as, as, as I think the court, the case that says this best is the recent case we did not cite, its Data- um, Engine Technologies v Google 906 F-3rd 999 , uh, 2018. Uh, which was, came down after briefing.
It cleared that it’s not sufficient just to be able to trace to some, uh, real world analogy- it has to be an apposite one. And here the preschool analogy one is not apposite because in order to actually practice these claims, in every instance when anybody, even if they are on the permitted list comes to pick up the child you would have to call that person’s cell phone which they would have to have in hand to be able to verify that they are in fact the person on the list and an authenticated used- that never happens. So all they are doing is like waving their hands , something looks like it, it’s the precise problem.....
Judge: It sure sounds like something that happens pretty frequently in the real world in the era before computers. Take, take example someone picking cash from a bank with a note from the depositor. And the bank decides to call the depositor on a land line and asks if the person picking it up is an authorized to pick it up. You, you can come up with lots of examples of this dual channel , uh, utility.
SFOR: But once again your honor, what that doesn’t do is authenticate that the person who’s there is in fact the employee as opposed to someone who is masquerading as the employee. And this goes back to....
Judge: But, but you are claiming every method of ident.., authentication, uh, without limit, isn’t that the problem and I think part of the foundation for the decision that this was abstract?
SFOR: Your Honor, what, what, is critical is that these claims- because they reach out- the, the, the separate authentication channel, you can reach out to a cellphone or PDA that’s already identified in the database, and they reach out and the person who answers it has to give back predetermined information .
This is along a second channel so it’s not somebody sitting in the access channel that may have got it before. That is a significantly higher degree of certainty the user is who....
Judge: But, but, in the bank example, the bank example is they put the guy on the phone, I want to listen to his voice to see if this is the, the person that I sent. Voice recognition , same deal.
SFOR: Your Honor, again, the fact that you could conceive of a system in the real world, in the brick and mortar system, uh, that is not sufficient , that was true in [DVR] where you could conceive of a store within a store , but that wasn’t the problem that was being addressed and it didn’t work they same way. In DVR as here, there is the interception you bring it over to the other system -
I just want to say- Quote, this is, um 9, uh, #12 lines 28-33- that reflect, that in a computer network system, in a corporate system, everybody has their user ID and password. Verifying that they are an authenticated user in that sort of first level way is not that significant. What is that significant is verifying - and this is what it says- Authentication of the person seeking access is the most significant!
And that is what these claims do, they improve the other systems by providing a completely physically separate authentication process using all of these elements: the interception device, the security computer, the, ah, subscriber database, the authentication channel that’s completely physically separate - shares no facilities with the access channel. To a pre-determined number where the user has to pre..., input back in, back through the authentication channel, pre-determined data including biometric data.
That system provides a level of, it may be true that no system can give 100% certainty that the user is the user. This system improves it. It’s true in Ancora as well, it wasn’t absolutely, you know, impenetrable, but here as well, what you have done is improve dramatically the security and the ability to identify the user as the user.
At the very least that is what the specification says is true, whether that is or is not factually true is something that should be determined as a matter of fact on remand. Thank you very much.
Judge: Thank you, thank you both. The case is taken under submission
Thank you for your support!
B )
4
