VERY key point that WAS NOT discussed in Oral argument is underlined below. The basis of what we heard today was from the below Briefs and what the Judges are reviewing. Does this sound familiar? The below excerpt is from SA's written 5/07/2018 response. Care to read more? Use the below link...
The patent claims in this appeal are directed to “out-of-band authentication,” an idea StrikeForce describes as using “two completely separate communication channels to verify a person’s identification.” Br. at 3. This idea is not specific to computers ; it also applies to non-computer communication channels such as paper mail, telephone calls, and human messengers . For example, a parent may ask a relative to pick up a child from preschool. The relative may go to the school on behalf of the parent and convey the parent’s request. To confirm whether the information from the relative is authentic, i.e., whether the parent truly asked the relative to pick up the child, an administrator may call the parent. Thus, the preschool performs out-of-band authentication .
Knobbe Martens 5/07/2018 83-page Response:
https://jumpshare.com/v/qGPBC944xOGw8FIn1o6B
What was Ropes & Gray's written response to that statement?
REPLY ARGUMENT
SecureAuth’s Response ignores the innovative way the Asserted Claims address a particular problem arising from the anonymous nature of modern communications systems—namely, a hacker impersonating an authorized user by using stolen credentials to try to remotely access protected data in a “self-authenticating environment .” Appx32 (2:20-22).
The claimed solutions present a specific technological innovation by using separate access and authentication channels and intercepting and re-routing access requests such that all authentication activity occurs in the isolated authentication channel . Contrary to SecureAuth’s suggestions, this solution is far narrower than the general concept of “out-of-band” authentication.
The patents’ specification—which, for purposes of SecureAuth’s motion, must be taken as true—specifically disparages and distinguishes conventional “in-band” and partially “out-of-band” authentication systems and explains why the claimed architecture overcomes the problems associated with those systems. Specifically, to attack StrikeForce’s completely out-of-band system, a hacker would need to breach two channels simultaneously; it also offers a less costly, tokenless system that could use fixed identifiers, including individualized biometric data. Because the Asserted Claims claim a novel security system for performing completely out-of-band authentication in a specific way that overcomes technological problems in the prior art, these claims are not abstract under Alice step one .
SecureAuth relies on a false analogy between the Asserted Claims and a fictional “preschool security system.” But that analogy is directed to a fundamentally different problem, and a genuinely analogous system would be nonsensical in the real world. SecureAuth’s use of hindsight to concoct a fictional and unworkable pre-computer “analogy” to map onto the claims’ limitations cannot substitute for careful review of the claims.
SecureAuth’s Alice step two arguments also fail. Precedent prohibits defining the claims at a high level of abstraction for step one, but then at step two treating the “idea” more narrowly, as though it already subsumed the invention’s novel features. But that is precisely what the district court did and what SecureAuth invites this Court to do. Whether at step one or step two, the analysis must acknowledge the innovative manner in which the claims arrange otherwise generic components to create a novel system that overcomes the problems in existing systems . Moreover, to the extent necessary, the Court should address claim construction. Relatedly, a court cannot, as SecureAuth urges, hold unpatentable the entirety of the Asserted Claims on the basis of a single claim, claim 53, that, as mischaracterized by SecureAuth, omits critical inventive features found in other asserted claims.
That is precisely what the district court did. The court acknowledged that the limitations StrikeForce identifies would be innovative, but focused exclusively on claim 53, which it read as not having those limitations. On appeal, SecureAuth does not dispute that other claims (e.g., claims 1 of the ’599 and ’701 patents) have those limitations —and StrikeForce maintains they are present in claim 53 as well. To the extent necessary to resolve patentability of other claims, the district court on remand must resolve such claim construction disputes .
Here is the link for more information on R&G's 6/04/2018 41-page Appeal Response to SA :
https://jumpshare.com/v/aQMvkVJwf68GCqreotGS
As well as R&G's 6/11/2018 393-page Support Documentation Appeal Response to SA:
https://jumpshare.com/v/tDD65VB293l4so6Q8f3Y
This is R&G's initial 3/26/2018 174-page Appeal Brief: https://jumpshare.com/v/v16tJSqFzFgZ5JTVkOpH
The patent claims in this appeal are directed to “out-of-band authentication,” an idea StrikeForce describes as using “two completely separate communication channels to verify a person’s identification.” Br. at 3. This idea is not specific to computers ; it also applies to non-computer communication channels such as paper mail, telephone calls, and human messengers . For example, a parent may ask a relative to pick up a child from preschool. The relative may go to the school on behalf of the parent and convey the parent’s request. To confirm whether the information from the relative is authentic, i.e., whether the parent truly asked the relative to pick up the child, an administrator may call the parent. Thus, the preschool performs out-of-band authentication .
Knobbe Martens 5/07/2018 83-page Response:
https://jumpshare.com/v/qGPBC944xOGw8FIn1o6B
What was Ropes & Gray's written response to that statement?
REPLY ARGUMENT
SecureAuth’s Response ignores the innovative way the Asserted Claims address a particular problem arising from the anonymous nature of modern communications systems—namely, a hacker impersonating an authorized user by using stolen credentials to try to remotely access protected data in a “self-authenticating environment .” Appx32 (2:20-22).
The claimed solutions present a specific technological innovation by using separate access and authentication channels and intercepting and re-routing access requests such that all authentication activity occurs in the isolated authentication channel . Contrary to SecureAuth’s suggestions, this solution is far narrower than the general concept of “out-of-band” authentication.
The patents’ specification—which, for purposes of SecureAuth’s motion, must be taken as true—specifically disparages and distinguishes conventional “in-band” and partially “out-of-band” authentication systems and explains why the claimed architecture overcomes the problems associated with those systems. Specifically, to attack StrikeForce’s completely out-of-band system, a hacker would need to breach two channels simultaneously; it also offers a less costly, tokenless system that could use fixed identifiers, including individualized biometric data. Because the Asserted Claims claim a novel security system for performing completely out-of-band authentication in a specific way that overcomes technological problems in the prior art, these claims are not abstract under Alice step one .
SecureAuth relies on a false analogy between the Asserted Claims and a fictional “preschool security system.” But that analogy is directed to a fundamentally different problem, and a genuinely analogous system would be nonsensical in the real world. SecureAuth’s use of hindsight to concoct a fictional and unworkable pre-computer “analogy” to map onto the claims’ limitations cannot substitute for careful review of the claims.
SecureAuth’s Alice step two arguments also fail. Precedent prohibits defining the claims at a high level of abstraction for step one, but then at step two treating the “idea” more narrowly, as though it already subsumed the invention’s novel features. But that is precisely what the district court did and what SecureAuth invites this Court to do. Whether at step one or step two, the analysis must acknowledge the innovative manner in which the claims arrange otherwise generic components to create a novel system that overcomes the problems in existing systems . Moreover, to the extent necessary, the Court should address claim construction. Relatedly, a court cannot, as SecureAuth urges, hold unpatentable the entirety of the Asserted Claims on the basis of a single claim, claim 53, that, as mischaracterized by SecureAuth, omits critical inventive features found in other asserted claims.
That is precisely what the district court did. The court acknowledged that the limitations StrikeForce identifies would be innovative, but focused exclusively on claim 53, which it read as not having those limitations. On appeal, SecureAuth does not dispute that other claims (e.g., claims 1 of the ’599 and ’701 patents) have those limitations —and StrikeForce maintains they are present in claim 53 as well. To the extent necessary to resolve patentability of other claims, the district court on remand must resolve such claim construction disputes .
Here is the link for more information on R&G's 6/04/2018 41-page Appeal Response to SA :
https://jumpshare.com/v/aQMvkVJwf68GCqreotGS
As well as R&G's 6/11/2018 393-page Support Documentation Appeal Response to SA:
https://jumpshare.com/v/tDD65VB293l4so6Q8f3Y
This is R&G's initial 3/26/2018 174-page Appeal Brief: https://jumpshare.com/v/v16tJSqFzFgZ5JTVkOpH
7
