Prior art

The most relevant prior art for US patent 6993658, as detailed in the patent document itself, focuses on authentication systems. While the patent text mentions the SecurID product by RSA Security Inc. as related art, it distinguishes itself by utilizing personal communication devices (mobile phones or pagers) for token delivery, rather than a dedicated SecurID card.

Based on the publicly available information, a direct list of prior art citations within US patent 6993658 for anticipation analysis (35 U.S.C. § 102) would require accessing the full USPTO file wrapper for the patent, which is beyond the scope of this tool. However, the PTAB proceedings (specifically IPR2023-00425) indicate prior art references that were successfully used to challenge the patent's claims.

Here's an overview of the prior art mentioned in relation to the PTAB challenge against US6993658:

• US Patent 6,052,789 (Abadi)

  • Publication/Filing Date: While the exact filing date isn't immediately available, the publication date of US Patent 6,052,789 is April 18, 2000.
  • Brief Description: This patent likely describes aspects of computer security or authentication systems, given its use in challenging a two-factor authentication patent.
  • Potentially Anticipates Claim(s): Claims 1-7 of US6993658B1. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) found a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-7 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness) over combinations of prior art, including Abadi. While the specific anticipation arguments under § 102 are not explicitly detailed in the public snippets, its inclusion in the obviousness challenge indicates its relevance to the core inventive concepts of US6993658.

• US Patent Application Publication 2002/0069363 (Monk)

  • Publication/Filing Date: The publication date for US Patent Application Publication 2002/0069363 is June 6, 2002.
  • Brief Description: Similar to Abadi, this reference likely describes technology related to authentication or secure communication, contributing to the obviousness arguments against US6993658.
  • Potentially Anticipates Claim(s): Claims 1-7 of US6993658B1. The PTAB considered Monk in its finding that claims 1-7 were likely unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Note on Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102) vs. Obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103):
Anticipation under § 102 requires that every element of a claim be found, either explicitly or inherently, in a single prior art reference. Obviousness under § 103 allows for combining multiple prior art references to demonstrate that the claimed invention would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. The PTAB's findings in IPR2023-00425 indicate that claims 1-7 were found unpatentable as obvious over combinations of prior art including Abadi and Monk, rather than explicitly anticipated by a single reference. A full anticipation analysis would require a detailed claim-by-claim comparison against the complete text of each prior art document.

Additional Information from the Patent Description Regarding Related Art:

The patent itself describes the existing state of the art, which provides context for its novelty:

• Traditional User ID and Password Systems: The patent notes that secure systems traditionally used a user ID and password pair for authentication, often leading to issues with easy-to-guess passwords or users writing down complex passwords.
• SecurID product by RSA Security Inc.: The patent acknowledges the SecurID product as a two-factor authentication process involving a user passcode (first factor) and a SecurID card (second factor) that generates unpredictable, one-time access codes. The patent distinguishes itself by aiming to achieve similar benefits using a device users already carry, such as a mobile phone or pager, instead of a dedicated SecurID card.

To conduct a comprehensive anticipation analysis, the full text of US patent 6,052,789 (Abadi) and US Patent Application Publication 2002/0069363 (Monk), along with any other prior art cited by the examiner during prosecution or by the petitioners in the IPRs, would need to be thoroughly reviewed against each element of claims 1-7 of US6993658.