Reads like really good news !
======================================
DUO SECURITY INC., CENTRIFY CORP.,
AND TRUSTWAVE HOLDINGS, INC.,
Petitioner,
v.
STRIKEFORCE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Patent Owner.
B. The Patent Office Has Already Considered and Rejected Arguments
Similar to Those in the Petition ........................................................... 11
A. Petitioner’s Proposed Claim Constructions Improperly Exclude
Embodiments Disclosed in the ’698 Patent ........................................ 14
B. Petitioner’s Proposed Claim Constructions Improperly Limit “Out-ofBand”
to “Separate Facilities”
1. Petitioner fails to explain why a POSITA would have turned to
multi-channel authentication to allegedly solve the problem of
implementing a higher security system .................................... 25
2. Petitioner’s proposed combination is based on impermissible
hindsight .................................................................................... 32
3. Petitioner ignores Feigen’s statements that teach away from
Petitioner’s combination ........................................................... 34
B. Petitioner’s Obviousness Arguments Rely Primarily on Its Expert’s
Conclusory Testimony about the State of the Art ............................... 37
C. Petitioner Relies on Expert Testimony that Merely Parrots the Petition
Without Providing Further Elaboration .............................................. 41
IPR2017-01041
U.S. Patent No. 8,484,698
ii
V. THERE IS NO REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD PETITIONER WOULD
PREVAIL ON ITS CONTENTION THAT THE PROPOSED
THREE-REFERENCE COMBINATION OF FEIGEN IN VIEW OF
BULFER AND FALK RENDERS THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS
OBVIOUS UNDER GROUND 1.................................................................. 45
A. Petitioner Fails to Articulate Clearly the Proposed Combination ....... 46
B. Petitioner Fails to Show that the Proposed Combination of Feigen,
Bulfer, and Falk Discloses Every Limitation of the Challenged Claims
under Ground 1 .................................................................................... 50
1. Petitioner fails to establish that the proposed combination
would have disclosed or rendered obvious all the limitations of
Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 51
(a) Petitioner fails to show that the proposed combination would
have disclosed or rendered obvious “receiving at an interception
device in a first channel a login identification demand to access
a host computer also in the first channel” (claim 1) ............ 51
(b) Petitioner fails to articulate clearly what portions of the prior art
it relies on and how these portions are combined to show
“verifying the login identification” (claim 1[c]) ....................... 53
(c) Petitioner fails to show that the proposed combination would
have disclosed or rendered obvious “receiving at a security
computer in a second channel the demand for access and the
login identification” (claim 1[d]) .............................................. 54
2. Petitioner fails to establish that the proposed combination
would have rendered obvious all the limitations of claim 48 ... 56
(a) Petitioner fails to show that the proposed combination would
have disclosed or rendered obvious a “first software module on
an Internet-connected web server” (claim 48) ..................... 56
(b) Petitioner fails to show that the proposed combination would
have disclosed or rendered obvious a “second software module
on a security computer different than the web server, wherein
the security computer is in an authentication channel” (claim
48[e]) ..................................................................................
***There is much more to this ruling, but its obvious that "The Petitioner" failed in most every point they were trying to make! LOL!
SFOR CONTINUES TO MOVE FORWARD IN LITIGATION AGAINST INFRINGERS, WITH SETTLEMENTS COMING OUR WAY SOON!!! JUST IMHO!!!
======================================
DUO SECURITY INC., CENTRIFY CORP.,
AND TRUSTWAVE HOLDINGS, INC.,
Petitioner,
v.
STRIKEFORCE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Patent Owner.
B. The Patent Office Has Already Considered and Rejected Arguments
Similar to Those in the Petition ........................................................... 11
A. Petitioner’s Proposed Claim Constructions Improperly Exclude
Embodiments Disclosed in the ’698 Patent ........................................ 14
B. Petitioner’s Proposed Claim Constructions Improperly Limit “Out-ofBand”
to “Separate Facilities”
1. Petitioner fails to explain why a POSITA would have turned to
multi-channel authentication to allegedly solve the problem of
implementing a higher security system .................................... 25
2. Petitioner’s proposed combination is based on impermissible
hindsight .................................................................................... 32
3. Petitioner ignores Feigen’s statements that teach away from
Petitioner’s combination ........................................................... 34
B. Petitioner’s Obviousness Arguments Rely Primarily on Its Expert’s
Conclusory Testimony about the State of the Art ............................... 37
C. Petitioner Relies on Expert Testimony that Merely Parrots the Petition
Without Providing Further Elaboration .............................................. 41
IPR2017-01041
U.S. Patent No. 8,484,698
ii
V. THERE IS NO REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD PETITIONER WOULD
PREVAIL ON ITS CONTENTION THAT THE PROPOSED
THREE-REFERENCE COMBINATION OF FEIGEN IN VIEW OF
BULFER AND FALK RENDERS THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS
OBVIOUS UNDER GROUND 1.................................................................. 45
A. Petitioner Fails to Articulate Clearly the Proposed Combination ....... 46
B. Petitioner Fails to Show that the Proposed Combination of Feigen,
Bulfer, and Falk Discloses Every Limitation of the Challenged Claims
under Ground 1 .................................................................................... 50
1. Petitioner fails to establish that the proposed combination
would have disclosed or rendered obvious all the limitations of
Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 51
(a) Petitioner fails to show that the proposed combination would
have disclosed or rendered obvious “receiving at an interception
device in a first channel a login identification demand to access
a host computer also in the first channel” (claim 1) ............ 51
(b) Petitioner fails to articulate clearly what portions of the prior art
it relies on and how these portions are combined to show
“verifying the login identification” (claim 1[c]) ....................... 53
(c) Petitioner fails to show that the proposed combination would
have disclosed or rendered obvious “receiving at a security
computer in a second channel the demand for access and the
login identification” (claim 1[d]) .............................................. 54
2. Petitioner fails to establish that the proposed combination
would have rendered obvious all the limitations of claim 48 ... 56
(a) Petitioner fails to show that the proposed combination would
have disclosed or rendered obvious a “first software module on
an Internet-connected web server” (claim 48) ..................... 56
(b) Petitioner fails to show that the proposed combination would
have disclosed or rendered obvious a “second software module
on a security computer different than the web server, wherein
the security computer is in an authentication channel” (claim
48[e]) ..................................................................................
***There is much more to this ruling, but its obvious that "The Petitioner" failed in most every point they were trying to make! LOL!
SFOR CONTINUES TO MOVE FORWARD IN LITIGATION AGAINST INFRINGERS, WITH SETTLEMENTS COMING OUR WAY SOON!!! JUST IMHO!!!
3
