US 9298905

I'll search for authoritative records on this patent number, including any CAFC 2026 activity.

Let me check for any Federal Circuit 2026 docket activity and the PTAB outcomes specific to the '905 patent.

Let me verify the statutory disclaimer and check for any Federal Circuit appeal naming the '905 patent.

US Patent 9,298,905 — Summary

Note on scope: I found no Federal Circuit docket entry in 2026 that names U.S. Patent 9,298,905 specifically. The 2026 Proxense Federal Circuit appeal reported in the press concerns a different patent in the same family — U.S. 8,886,954 — so I flag that as a likely source of confusion. The most significant 2026-relevant fact about the '905 patent is that it is no longer a live patent: Proxense statutorily disclaimed its entire term in October 2024.

Bibliographic data

Abstract

The patent describes systems and methods for verifying a user during authentication of an integrated device. In one embodiment, the system includes an integrated device and an authentication unit. The integrated device stores biometric data of a user and multiple codes/data values — including a device ID code uniquely identifying the device and a secret decryption value — in a tamper-proof format. When scan data is verified against the stored biometric data, the device wirelessly sends one or more codes including the device ID. The authentication unit receives and forwards the code(s) to an agent (trusted authority) for authentication, and receives back an access message indicating that the agent successfully authenticated the code(s) and allows the user to access an application.

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

The patent has 18 claims, with three independent claims: 1 (method), 9 (integrated device), and 13 (system).

• Claim 1 (method). Store, on an integrated device, a legitimate user's biometric data and an ID code. On receiving a biometric-verification request, take scan data from a biometric sensor, compare it to the stored biometric data, and — only if it matches — wirelessly send the ID code so a third-party trusted authority can compare it against previously registered ID codes that the authority itself maintains. Then, upon receiving an access message from that authority confirming the ID code was authenticated, allow the user to complete a financial transaction.

• Claim 9 (integrated device). A device with (a) persistent storage holding the user's biometric data and an ID code; (b) a validation module that receives biometric scan data, compares it to the stored biometric data, and sends the ID code for comparison by a third-party trusted authority against its registered ID codes; and (c) a radio frequency communication module that receives the authority's access message confirming authentication and permitting the user to complete a financial transaction.

• Claim 13 (system). Three cooperating parts: (a) an integrated hardware device that stores the legitimate user's biometric data and ID code and wirelessly transmits the ID code; (b) an authentication circuit that receives the ID code, forwards it to a third-party trusted authority for authentication, and receives an access message confirming authentication so the user may complete a financial transaction; and (c) the third-party trusted authority itself, storing a list of legitimate codes and deciding authentication by comparing the received ID code against that list.

Selected dependent claims: age verification registered with the ID code (cl. 2, 11); an indication that biometric verification succeeded sent with the ID code (cl. 3); biometric types including fingerprint, palm print, retinal, iris, hand geometry, facial, signature, voice (cl. 4, 16); device form factors such as mobile phone, tablet, laptop, mp3 player, gaming device, watch, key fob (cl. 5, 12, 15); access to a casino machine, keyless lock, ATM, web site, file, or financial account (cl. 7, 17); and a no-biometrics mode where the ID code is sent without a scan when the action does not require biometric verification (cl. 8). Claim 14 covers the device declining to send the ID code when scan data cannot be verified.

Drafting anomalies worth noting (interpreted literally, not corrected): claims 10–12 recite "The integrated device of claim 7," but claim 7 is directed to what the financial transaction includes — there is no integrated-device claim at 7 (it appears at 9). Likewise claims 14–18 recite "The system of claim 11," but the system claim is 13. These appear to be clerical dependency errors in the printed patent, and the Google Patents abstract text also contains artifacts such as "receive the ED code."

Legal status — this patent is dead

• Statutory disclaimer of the entire term. Proxense filed a disclaimer under 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a) for the entire term of the '905 patent, signed by James A. Zak, Esq. (Reg. No. 60190) and dated October 10, 2024. It was submitted in IPR2024-00776 ([Microsoft Corp.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Microsoft%20Corp.) v. Proxense LLC) as Patent Owner Exhibit 2009 alongside a Request for Adverse Judgment.
• IPR2024-00776 (Microsoft). Filed 2024-04-26; the Board granted Proxense's Request for Adverse Judgment prior to institution on 2024-11-12 under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b). Status: Adverse Judgment.
• Other PTAB adverse judgments listed for 9298905: IPR2024-01335, IPR2024-01328, and IPR2024-00234 (Google LLC v. Proxense LLC, with the same disclaimer as Exhibit 3003 dated Nov 1, 2024). IPR2021-01447 (Samsung) was not instituted on the merits.
• Ex parte reexamination 90/015,053, requested by Samsung Electronics America and filed June 8, 2022, challenged claims 1–18. This is the reexamination Proxense says the PTAB later stayed — the subject of the 2026 Federal Circuit appeal, though that appeal is captioned to U.S. 8,886,954 rather than the '905 patent.
• District court litigation naming the '905 patent: Proxense v. Samsung, No. 6:21-cv-00210 (W.D. Tex., filed Mar 5, 2021, Judge Albright); Proxense v. Microsoft, No. 6:23-cv-00319; Proxense v. Google, No. 6:23-cv-00320; plus W.D. Tex. cases 6:24-cv-00143 and 6:24-cv-00302. Google Patents also lists a family-level Darts-IP litigation link (family ID 36602354).

Uncertainty disclosures

1. I could not confirm a 2026 CAFC appeal docketed against the '905 patent itself. The April 2026 Proxense appellate opening brief reported by ip fray is tied to two IPR final written decisions on U.S. 8,886,954, which shares the title "Biometric personal data key (PDK) authentication."
2. The "anticipated expiration 2025-12-20" entry on the Google Patents page reflects a twenty-year term from the 2004 priority date and does not account for the October 2024 entire-term disclaimer, which cut the patent short.
3. The abstract wording in the Google Patents "Abstract" section contains OCR/parsing artifacts ("ED code," "costees"); the corresponding claim language is quoted above as printed, without correction.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 9298905 across litigation databases.

Let me gather more specifics on the individual cases and their outcomes.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 9,298,905 ("Biometric Personal Data Key (PDK) Authentication")

Note on scope: U.S. 9,298,905 (the "'905 patent") is one member of the Proxense, LLC patent family (priority Dec. 20, 2004; issued Mar. 29, 2016; inventor John J. Giobbi; assignee Proxense, LLC). Proxense has litigated the '905 patent alongside several sibling patents (e.g., U.S. 8,352,730; 8,886,954; 8,646,042; 9,679,289; 10,073,960). Below I list only matters in which the '905 patent specifically was identified as an asserted/challenged patent, not merely same-family matters.

---

A. District Court Litigation (asserting the '905 patent)

1. Proxense, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and [[Samsung Electronics America](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20America), Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20America%2C%20Inc.)

• Plaintiff: Proxense, LLC
• Defendants: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (Waco), Judge Alan D. Albright
• Case No.: 6:21-cv-00210-ADA
• Filed: March 5, 2021
• Patents asserted: '905 plus U.S. 8,352,730; 9,049,188; 9,235,700; 10,698,989
• Accused products: Samsung Pay (Galaxy smartphones/tablets/wearables)
• Status/Outcome: Resolved. Jury selection was canceled shortly before trial; the parties filed a stipulated dismissal with prejudice / consent judgment (reported 2023) with each side bearing its own fees/costs. No court ruling on validity or infringement. Settlement terms not disclosed.

2. Proxense, LLC v. Google LLC (Alphabet)

• Plaintiff: Proxense, LLC
• Defendant: Google LLC / Alphabet
• Jurisdiction: [W.D. Tex. (Waco), Judge Alan D. Albright](/courts/w-d-tex-waco-judge-alan-d-albright)
• Case No.: 6:23-cv-00320-ADA
• Filed: May 2, 2023
• Patents asserted: '905 plus U.S. 8,352,730; 8,886,954; 8,646,042; 9,679,289; 10,073,960
• Accused products: Google "universal passwordless architecture" (Google Identity/Identity Services; Android OS authenticator; Titan Security Key; Google Pay/Wallet)
• Status/Outcome: Settled — Google settled with Proxense in early 2025 (reported January 14, 2025).

3. Proxense, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation

• Plaintiff: Proxense, LLC
• Defendant: Microsoft Corporation
• Jurisdiction: W.D. Tex. (Waco), Judge Alan D. Albright
• Case No.: 6:23-cv-00319-ADA
• Filed: May 2, 2023 (AO 120 notice dated April 28, 2023)
• Patents asserted: '905 plus U.S. 8,352,730; 8,886,954; 8,646,042; 9,679,289; 10,073,960
• Accused products: Microsoft "Universal Passwordless Architecture" (Authenticator app, Windows Hello, Microsoft Identity/Entra; FIDO2 security keys)
• Status/Outcome: Litigation pursued through claim construction and infringement contentions (final infringement contentions served on the '905 patent); Microsoft filed multiple IPRs against the family (see Part B). Current disposition not confirmed from the sources retrieved — treat as pending/unresolved as of my search.

4. Proxense, LLC v. Apple Inc.

• Plaintiff: Proxense, LLC
• Defendant: Apple Inc.
• Jurisdiction: W.D. Tex. (Waco), Judge Alan D. Albright
• Case No.: 6:24-cv-00143-ADA
• Filed: March 18, 2024
• Patents asserted: '905 plus U.S. 8,352,730; 8,886,954; 8,646,042; 10,698,989; 9,049,188
• Accused products: Apple Pay (Secure Enclave/Secure Element; Touch ID/Face ID)
• Status/Outcome: Ongoing. Apple's motion to transfer to N.D. Cal. was denied; claim construction and final infringement contentions proceeded (2024–2025). A Federal Circuit appeal, No. 25-2168 (Proxense, LLC v. Apple Inc.), was filed Sept. 30, 2025 (originating from related Apple IPRs).

5. W.D. Tex. Case No. 6:24-cv-00302

• The patent's Google Patents "litigation" panel lists a Western District of Texas case, 6:24-cv-00302, as involving this patent. I could not confirm the parties (plaintiff/defendant), filing date, or outcome from the sources retrieved. Flagging it as unverified rather than fabricating details.

---

B. PTAB (IPR) Proceedings Specifically on the '905 Patent

These are USPTO administrative proceedings, not district court litigation, but they are part of the enforcement record for this patent:

• Microsoft Corp. v. Proxense, LLC — IPR2024-00776 (Patent 9,298,905; Appl. 14/521,982). Filed April 26, 2024; Adverse Judgment, terminated Nov. 12, 2024 (Board granted Patent Owner's request for adverse judgment prior to institution).
• Google LLC v. Proxense, LLC — IPR2024-00234 (Patent 9,298,905). Filed Jan. 17, 2024; Adverse Judgment, terminated Nov. 1, 2024.
• Samsung — the patent page lists IPR2021-01447 (Not Instituted – Merits). Caution: I could not independently confirm that this Samsung IPR targeted the '905 patent specifically (vs. a sibling family patent), so treat it as tentative.

Note on "Adverse Judgment": In both Microsoft and Google IPRs, the Patent Owner requested adverse judgment (consistent with a statutory disclaimer of the challenged claims). The Board did not issue a merits invalidity ruling.

---

C. Related USPTO Ex Parte Reexamination of the '905 Patent (not litigation, but relevant)

• Control No. 90/015,053 — requested by Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (filed June 8, 2022; granted Aug. 2, 2022). On March 4, 2024, the examiner issued a Final Rejection rejecting claims 1, 3–10, and 12–18 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over U.S. 7,188,110 (Ludtke) in view of US 2003/0196084 (Okereke).

---

Summary

Bottom line: The '905 patent has been asserted by Proxense in at least four Western District of Texas actions (Samsung, Google, Microsoft, Apple), plus at least two PTAB IPRs and one ex parte reexamination. The Samsung and Google district-court cases settled; the Microsoft and Apple cases were still pending/unresolved per the sources retrieved. No court has issued a merits ruling of validity or infringement on the '905 patent's claims.

Caveats/limits: (1) I did not obtain a confirmable record for case 6:24-cv-00302 and have not identified its parties. (2) Some sources describe the Samsung IPR2021-01447 as implicating this patent, but that link is not confirmed. (3) Outcome statuses (especially Microsoft and Apple) may have changed after my sources were updated; verify against PACER/Docket Alarm and the PTAB portal before relying on them.

I'll pull what's available on each proceeding, then reconcile against the structured "no proceedings" block.

AIA Trial Proceedings — US 9,298,905

⚑ Contradiction flag (must be resolved by the reader). The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block supplied with this task states that the USPTO ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent, and directs that the default be "no PTAB activity on file." That default is wrong. Public PTAB records and the patent's own Google Patents litigation docket show five AIA trial proceedings on US 9,298,905. I am following the operating rule to prefer live search results and the previously generated section, both of which affirmatively list these proceedings. Treat the structured block as a stale ODP ingest, not as a statement that no IPRs exist. Do not tell a defendant there are no proceedings.

---

Proceedings overview

Five AIA trial proceedings have been filed against US 9,298,905 — all five Inter Partes Review (no PGR, no CBM): four terminated by adverse judgment following Proxense's statutory disclaimer of the entire patent term (IPR2024-00234, IPR2024-01335, IPR2024-00776, IPR2024-01328) and one institution denied on the merits (IPR2021-01447). No proceeding ever produced a merits Final Written Decision on validity; no claim was ever held patentable; and none of the five is now active.

Bottom line for a defendant: this is the best possible posture — better than "claims 1–5 canceled." On 2024-10-10 the patent owner filed a disclaimer under 35 U.S.C. § 253(a) / 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a) of "the entire term" of the '905 patent. All 18 claims — including the three independents (1, 9, 13) and every dependent claim, asserted or not — are gone as a matter of law. Proxense disclaimed rather than litigate after the Board instituted IPR2024-00234 and read "financial transaction" broadly enough to raise a § 112 written-description problem for its own claims. If a demand letter, licensing pitch, or infringement contention today cites the '905, it is citing a disclaimed patent. Move to dismiss with prejudice and quote the disclaimer.

Ordering caveat: I have ranked by practical impact. Note that no order in the '905 proceedings uses the express "claims are cancelled" / "constitutes a Final Written Decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a)" formulation that the Board used in the companion '730 patent proceedings (IPR2024-00775 / IPR2024-00232). The '905 orders say only that judgment is entered against Patent Owner "with respect to" the listed claims. The disclaimer itself, not the judgment wording, is the operative kill shot.

---

IPR2024-00234 — Google LLC and Apple Inc. v. Proxense, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2024-01-17
• Status: Terminated – Adverse Judgment (granted 2024-11-01)
• Judge panel: Thu A. Dang, Kevin F. Turner, David C. McKone (Judgment, Paper 16); docket listings also include Norman Beamer
• Petition grounds: Claims 1–7 and 9–18 challenged. Ground 1: § 103 obviousness over Ludtke (US 7,188,110) for claims 1, 3–7, 9, 10, 12–18; a second ground added Kon (US 2002/0046336 A1) to the Ludtke combination. Supporting declaration of Stephen Gray (Ex. 1003). Notably, claim 8 was never challenged in this proceeding.
• Institution decision: Instituted on 2024-07-23 (Paper 10). Proxense argued discretionary denial under Fintiv (all six factors) and § 325(d); Google responded with a stipulation (Ex. 1025) that it would not pursue in W.D. Tex. invalidity grounds based on the petition's grounds or references (Ludtke, Kon), which knocked out Fintiv factor 4, and the Board found the petition raised compelling merits on the disputed "third-party trusted authority" limitation.
• Final Written Decision: None. No merits ruling on any claim.
• Settlement / termination: Proxense filed a Request for Adverse Judgment on 2024-10-16 (Paper 15), citing its statutory disclaimer of the entire term filed 2024-10-10 (Ex. 3003), and stating the disclaimer rendered the proceedings moot. The Board granted the request on 2024-11-01 under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(2), entering judgment against Patent Owner "with respect to claims 1–7 and 9–18 of U.S. Patent No. 9,298,905 B1." The underlying strategic trigger, set out in the rule 132-type interview summary filed in the parallel reexam (Ex. 2016), was that the Board's institution decision apparently construed "financial transaction" in claims 1, 9 and 13 as encompassing merchant–customer transactions (e.g., a grocery store), a construction Proxense believed lacked § 112 written-description/enablement support — i.e., the claims as construed were invalid regardless of the prior art.
• Appeal: None. No Federal Circuit appeal of this termination; an adverse judgment entered at the patent owner's own request on a disclaimed patent is not an appealable merits ruling.
• Defensive value: This is the proceeding that killed the patent. The Board's own claim construction forced Proxense to choose between an adverse merits decision and disclaimer; it chose disclaimer. Exhibit 3003 in this file is the document to attach to a motion to dismiss.

---

IPR2024-01335 — Apple Inc. v. Proxense, LLC (joined to IPR2024-00234)

• Type: Inter Partes Review / joinder
• Filed: 2024-08-22 (petition; power of attorney and joinder motion filed same day)
• Status: Terminated – Adverse Judgment (same order as IPR2024-00234, 2024-11-01)
• Judge panel: Thu A. Dang, Kevin F. Turner, David C. McKone (plus Norman Beamer per docket listing)
• Petition grounds: Filed against the same claims as Google's petition (1–7 and 9–18), applying the same grounds of unpatentability (Ludtke, and Ludtke + Kon), with declaration of Stephen Gray. Included the Samsung IPR2021-01447 institution decision (Ex. 1007) and the '905 ex parte reexamination record as exhibits.
• Institution decision: Instituted and joined to IPR2024-00234 on 2024-10-08 (Board Order, Paper 14; the joinder decision's caption shows "Joined"). The Board allowed joinder because Apple's challenge duplicated Google's instituted grounds.
• Final Written Decision: None.
• Settlement / termination: Terminated by the same 2024-11-01 adverse judgment in the joined proceeding. Footnote 1 of that judgment states: "IPR2024-01335 has been joined with this proceeding."
• Appeal: None.
• Defensive value: For Apple, joinder was cheap insurance tied to Google's petition. Because it terminated by adverse judgment rather than an FWD, Apple obtained no merits adjudication — but none was needed, since the patent died by disclaimer. For a defendant, the takeaway is simply that Apple is not a source of independent invalidity findings on the '905.

---

IPR2024-00776 — [Microsoft Corp.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Microsoft%20Corp.) v. Proxense, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2024-04-26 (per structured/portal filing data). Flag: the Board's 2024-11-12 adverse-judgment order recites that Microsoft filed two petitions on "August 20, 2024" — a date that conflicts with the 2024-04-26 filing date and with the paper numbering (this petition is Paper 2; the Preliminary Response is Paper 8). I report both and do not pick one; the 2024-04-26 date is the better-supported one.
• Status: Adverse Judgment (pre-institution). No institution date; termination date 2024-11-12.
• Judge panel: Thu A. Dang, Kevin F. Turner, David C. McKone (Judgment, entered by APJ Turner)
• Petition grounds: Challenged claims 1, 3–7, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 15–18. The petition relied on the Declaration of Patrick G. Traynor, Ph.D. (Ex. 1003) and an exhibit set including Burger (US 2005/0050367), Robinson (US 2003/0177102), Barrus (US 8,977,860), Blom (US 7,681,050), Orsini (US 2004/0049687) and Kwan (US 2002/0147658), plus the Samsung IPR2021-01447 institution decision (Ex. 1007) and the '905 ex parte reexamination file. Because no institution decision issued, the Board never identified or endorsed specific grounds — I do not state a ground chart the Board never adopted.
• Institution decision: None sought / none rendered. Proxense filed a Patent Owner Preliminary Response (Paper 8); the Board expressly recorded in the 2024-11-12 judgment that "[n]o Decision on Institution has been made in either proceeding."
• Final Written Decision: None.
• Settlement / termination: Proxense filed a Request for Adverse Judgment on 2024-11-06 (Paper 9), on the basis of the statutory disclaimer filed 2024-10-10 disclaiming the entire term of the '905 patent (Ex. 2009), and cross-referencing the earlier adverse judgment in IPR2024-00234, Paper 16 at 2 (2024-11-01). The Board granted the request on 2024-11-12, entering judgment against Patent Owner under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b) with respect to claims 1, 3–7, 9, 10, and 12–18. With the combined scope of IPR2024-00776 and IPR2024-01328, claims 2, 8, 11 and 14 were never placed at issue by Microsoft.
• Appeal: None.
• Defensive value: Microsoft — the defendant in the lead W.D. Tex. case, No. 6:23-cv-00319 — obtained termination of the '905 without ever reaching institution. Exhibit 2009 is the clean, unredacted statutory disclaimer (signed /James A. Zak, Esq./, Reg. No. 60190, dated 2024-10-10; entire term box checked; 100% ownership interest).

---

IPR2024-01328 — Microsoft Corp. v. Proxense, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2024-08-20 (per the Board's own 2024-11-12 order; Microsoft's second petition). Flag: the Board's order describes both Microsoft petitions (Paper 2, IPR2024-00776 and Paper 3, IPR2024-01328) as filed on August 20, 2024 — internally inconsistent with the 2024-04-26 filing data for IPR2024-00776.
• Status: Adverse Judgment (pre-institution), terminated 2024-11-12.
• Judge panel: Thu A. Dang, Kevin F. Turner, David C. McKone (same judgment as IPR2024-00776)
• Petition grounds: Challenged claims 1, 3–7, 9, 10, and 12–18 — a slightly different claim set from Microsoft's first petition (this one reaches claim 18 and not claim 13's siblings in the same pattern; neither petition reaches claims 2, 8, 11 or 14).
• Institution decision: None. The judgment records that no institution decision had been made.
• Final Written Decision: None.
• Settlement / termination: Terminated by the same 2024-11-12 adverse judgment entered jointly in IPR2024-00776 and IPR2024-01328, on the basis of the entire-term statutory disclaimer (Ex. 2001 in this file). Judgment entered against Patent Owner with respect to claims 1, 3–7, 9, 10, and 12–18.
• Appeal: None.
• Defensive value: Microsoft filed twice (presumably a second-petition strategy against discretionary denial timing); the second petition became moot before institution. It confirms that Microsoft never obtained a merits holding on the '905, and that the patent terminated solely by disclaimer.

---

IPR2021-01447 — [Samsung Electronics America, Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20America%2C%20Inc.) v. Proxense, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2021-08-26
• Status: Institution Denied (Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review, 35 U.S.C. § 314; Decision mailed 2022-02-28, Paper 12)
• Judge panel: Kevin F. Turner (writing), Justin T. Arbes, David C. McKone (docket listings also include Thu A. Dang)
• Petition grounds: Challenged claims 1–12 under 35 U.S.C. § 311(a). Samsung argued plain and ordinary meaning for all terms and identified no term requiring construction. Art relied on included Scott, Lapsley, Berardi, plus Okereke and Robinson on the "access message" point. Filed alongside four sibling Samsung petitions (IPR2021-01438, -01439, -01444, -01448) targeting other Proxense patents asserted in Proxense v. Samsung, No. 6:21-cv-00210 (W.D. Tex.).
• Institution decision: Denied on 2022-02-28. The decisive issue was claim construction, not the merits of the art: Proxense offered, and the Board adopted, a construction of "third-party trusted authority" as "a trusted authority that is an entity separate from the parties to a transaction" (also framed as "separate from the principal parties to a transaction"). Applying that construction, the Board found Samsung's primary references did not teach or suggest the limitation, and therefore that Samsung had not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim. Samsung had also argued § 325(d) and Fintiv should not defeat institution; the Board did not need to reach discretionary denial.
• Final Written Decision: None (institution denied).
• Settlement / termination: Terminated 2022-02-28 by the denial. No settlement.
• Appeal: No Federal Circuit appeal of the denial by Samsung (a denial of institution is non-appealable under 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) in any event).
• Defensive value: This is the only proceeding that ever engaged the merits, and it ended in the patent owner's favor. But its value has evaporated: the Board's construction of "third-party trusted authority" is now cited against patentability — the parallel ex parte reexamination 90/015,053 relied on it, and Proxense ultimately disclaimed rather than litigate under it. Samsung's second bite — the ex parte reexam filed 2022-06-08 — is what actually forced the patent's death (see next steps).

---

Strategic summary

Claim status. Every claim of US 9,298,905 is disclaimed — claims 1–18, no survivors. The formal claim-level posture of the IPRs, for the record: the Google/Apple proceedings (IPR2024-00234 + 01335) placed claims 1–7 and 9–18 at issue and judgment was entered against Proxense on exactly that set; the Microsoft proceedings (IPR2024-00776 + 01328) placed claims 1, 3–7, 9, 10, 12–18 at issue, with judgment on that set. Claims 2, 8, 11 and 14 were never tested by any petitioner — claim 8 in particular went unchallenged everywhere, and claims 2, 11 and 14 are the "wrong dependency" claims discussed in the prior section. None of that matters now: the declaration under 35 U.S.C. § 253(a) of the entire term operated on all 18 claims, and a statutory disclaimer is treated as though the disclaimed subject matter never existed — it is not a narrowing, it is an extinction, and it is irrevocable.

Estoppel landscape. For a defendant today, IPR estoppel is largely academic. No petitioner obtained a § 318(a) Final Written Decision on the merits; the Board's '905 orders entered judgment under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b) at Proxense's request and do not contain the "claims are cancelled / constitutes a Final Written Decision" language the Board used in the companion '730 proceedings (IPR2024-00775 and IPR2024-00232, both 2025-04-28). So § 315(e)(2) estoppel against Google, Apple or Microsoft is doubtful on these files. But the § 42.73(d)(3) estoppel runs against the Patent Owner, not the petitioners: Proxense may not take any action inconsistent with these judgments or obtain claims not patentably distinct from them. For any other defendant, there is no IPR estoppel to worry about and no patent left to invalidate — the correct defense is mootness/disclaimer, not invalidity. Grounds you would need (Ludtke, Kon, Burger, Robinson, Barrus, Blom, Orsini, Kwan, Scott, Lapsley) remain fully available in ex parte reexam and district court, but you should not need them.

Pattern signals. The subject-matter pattern is unmistakable. Multiple large petitioners ran parallel campaigns — Samsung (2021), then Microsoft, Google and Apple (2024) — coordinated around a multi-patent W.D. Tex. campaign by Proxense (6:21-cv-00210; 6:23-cv-00319; 6:23-cv-00320; 6:24-cv-00143; 6:24-cv-00302). Unlike several other matters in this family, no defensive aggregator appears in the '905 file — the IPR2024-* petitioners are all operating companies, and the Unified Patents entries on the Google Patents page are docket-aggregation links, not Unified as petitioner. The patent owner's conduct pattern is consistent and notable: repeat abandonment-by-disclaimer across the family — the '905 (2024-10-10) and the '730 (2025-04-15) were both surrendered by adverse judgment rather than defended on the merits, and the '905 disclaimer was expressly tied to the ex parte reexamination 90/015,053 interview summary. No CAFC appeal names the '905 patent. The April 2026 Proxense appellate opening brief (Proxense v. Apple / Microsoft, concerning IPR2024-00233 and IPR2024-00846 on U.S. 8,886,954 and related claims) does not reach the '905 — consistent with the uncertainty disclosure in the prior section.

---

Recommended next steps

1. Stop treating this as a live patent. Attach the statutory disclaimer to any responsive pleading rather than filing an IPR. Best sources: Ex. 2009 in IPR2024-00776 and Ex. 3003 in IPR2024-00234 — both are the same 2024-10-10 instrument disclaiming "the entire term," signed by James A. Zak, Esq., Reg. No. 60190.
2. Seek dismissal with prejudice, and don't accept dismissal of "asserted claims" only. The W.D. Tex. record in Proxense v. Microsoft (No. 6:23-cv-00319, Dkt. 95, filed 2025-05-09) is a directly reusable template: Microsoft argued that when a patentee disclaims all asserted claims the court is divested of jurisdiction because the dispute is moot (Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 721, 726 (2013)), and that Proxense's offer to dismiss only the asserted claims was "insufficient and erroneous." Link: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67312721/95/proxense-llc-v-microsoft-corporation/
3. Cite the Board's § 42.73(d)(3) estoppel language against any attempted revival. In the sibling '730 proceedings the Board ordered that Proxense "shall not take any action inconsistent with this adverse judgment, including obtaining in any patent a claim that is not patentably distinct from the cancelled claims." The '905 orders use thinner language, but the disclaimer alone suffices.
4. Check the ex parte reexamination 90/015,053. Requested by Samsung Electronics America and filed 2022-06-08, it challenged claims 1–18 and is the proceeding whose 2024-10-10 interview summary is cited in Proxense's own adverse-judgment request as the reason for the disclaimer. It is not an AIA trial and therefore falls outside this section's count, but it is the causal event behind all four 2024 terminations — pull the file if you need the Patent Owner's own explanation of why the patent was abandoned.
5. No milestones to track. There are no active proceedings on US 9,298,905, no pending Federal Circuit appeal naming it, and its anticipated expiration (2032-12-20 per docket pages / 2025-12-20 per Google Patents' twenty-year calculation) is irrelevant because the term ended on the disclaimer. If you find a fresh PTAB or CAFC docket naming '905, treat it as anomalous and verify against PTAB E2E before relying on it.

Sources for verification: IPR2024-00234 institution decision (Paper 10, 2024-07-23) and adverse judgment (Paper 16, 2024-11-01) at https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2024-00234/Google_LLC_v._Proxense_LLC/ · IPR2024-00776 adverse-judgment record and statutory disclaimer at https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2024-00776/Microsoft_Corporation_v._Proxense_LLC/ · IPR2024-01335 docket at https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2024-01335/Apple_Inc._v._Proxense_LLC/ · IPR2021-01447 docket and institution decision at https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2021-01447/SAMSUNG_ELECTRONICS_AMERICA_INC_v._Proxense_LLC/ · case-status roll-ups at https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2024-00776

I'll research the assignment chain for US 9,298,905. Let me start with the USPTO assignment records and associated entity research.

Let me dig into the specific assignment records and Proxense corporate history.

Let me retrieve the full assignment abstract of title and the correspondent details.

Assignment & Ownership Reconstruction — US 9,298,905

Source note. The USPTO Assignment Center / Assignment Search interface (assignment.uspto.gov, assignmentcenter.uspto.gov) was not directly retrievable in this session, but the Patent Assignment Abstract of Title for application 14/521,982 (patent 9,298,905) is reproduced verbatim inside Petitioner's Exhibit 1022 (Microsoft's ex parte reexamination request exhibit package, filed in IPR2024-00846 and IPR2024-00776). I rely on that reproduction, cross-checked against Google Patents legal events, the PTAB docket, and the W.D. Tex. complaints. Where a field could not be confirmed, I say so rather than fill it in.

---

Inventors

John J. Giobbi — sole named inventor. Address of record: Bend, Oregon.

• Employer at time of filing (the 2014 continuation): Proxense, LLC. Giobbi is the founder and CEO of Proxense (per the Proxense v. Microsoft complaint, ¶27: "John Giobbi is the founder and CEO of Proxense… a named inventor on approximately 200 patents"). He was previously a Senior Vice President at WMS Gaming and founder/President of Prelude Technology Corp. and InPen.
• Employer at the 2004 priority date: The parent application 11/314,199 was filed 2005-12-20 with Proxense as applicant/assignee; Giobbi was already the principal of Proxense at that time.
• Unusual-pattern check: The classic "inventors depart the original assignee within 12 months of filing" precursor to a fire-sale is absent — and structurally cannot occur here, because the sole inventor is the owner-operator of the assignee. There is no inventor-vs-assignee divergence to track. The relevant anomaly is the reverse: a single founder-inventor accumulating a ~200-patent portfolio personally through one closely held LLC, then converting that LLC into an assertion vehicle (see below).

---

Original assignee

Proxense, LLC — 689 NW Stonepine Drive, Bend, Oregon 97703 (address as recorded on the assignment and as stated in Proxense's PTAB mandatory notices). Recorded as assignee on 2015-01-29 (Reel 034843/0145).

• Primary line of business: wireless authentication / "Personal Digital Key" (PDK) technology — proximity-based detection, biometric user/device authentication, secure element, and mobile payment ("ProxPay"). The company describes 2004–2012 as an active R&D period in which it "developed and commercialized fundamental technologies" and "employ[ed] over thirty engineers," investing "many millions of dollars" (Proxense v. Hyundai/KIA/Genesis complaint, ¶¶25–26).
• Did it ship a product embodying the claims? This is the important nuance for NPE analysis. Proxense's own complaints assert historical product development, but I found no evidence of an ongoing commercial product line, and its own 2016 solicitation states it held "no current licenses" and had "never engaged in any patent enforcement litigation" at that time. After roughly 2012 the company's visible activity is patent prosecution and, from 2021, serial litigation. Treat "shipped products embodying the claims" as historically claimed but not currently demonstrable.
• Current status: Operating as a licensing/enforcement entity (functionally an NPE), not dissolved and not in bankruptcy. It is the named plaintiff in a growing family of suits and is classified by Unified Patents as "NPE (Small Company)" in its PTAB records (e.g., IPR2024-00776, Patent Owner field).

---

Assignment timeline

The Abstract of Title reproduces Assignment 1, and I identified no further recorded assignments for this patent. A key caveat: the retrieved reproduction truncates the running count at the heading "Total Assignments:" with the numeric value not captured in the excerpt, and I could not re-query Assignment Center before this session ended. On the available evidence, however, the chain terminates at Proxense — Proxense has continuously asserted "sole and exclusive owner[ship]" of the patent family in every filing through 2024, and it filed the October 2024 statutory disclaimer as patent owner, which is consistent with no intervening transfer.

• Executed c. 2015-01 / recorded 2015-01-29 — Reel 034843/0145 (Pages: 3; Mailed 2015-01-30)
  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)
  • Assignor: Giobbi, John J.
  • Assignee: Proxense, LLC, 689 NW Stonepine Drive, Bend, Oregon 97701
  • Correspondent: Not captured in the retrieved abstract excerpt. For context only — not a confirmed assignment correspondent — the prosecution firm of record for this application was Patent Law Works LLP (Greg Sueoka, 201 South Main Street, Suite 250, Salt Lake City, UT 84111; the Rule 312 amendment was signed by Matthew M. Holmes, Reg. No. 65,160). I flag this as a lead, not a finding; the assignment was likely recorded through the same firm, but I cannot confirm the recorded correspondent without the Assignment Center entry itself.
  • Context: Initial inventor-to-company assignment — the standard first-link conveyance, consistent with the inventor being the company founder. No reorg, no securitization, no third-party transfer.

No assignment to any third-party LLC, no security agreement, no merger, no release, and no defensive-aggregator transfer appears in the record. On the printed record this is a one-link chain ending at the original assignee. That is itself a finding: the entity asserting the patent is the entity that has held it since the inventor signed it over.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership and assertion of US 9298905
    2004 : Priority filing by Giobbi
    2005 : Parent application filed
    2014 : Continuation filed
    2015 : Assigned to Proxense LLC
    2016 : Entire portfolio offered for sale
    2021 : First infringement suit filed
    2024 : Entire term disclaimed

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. There is no post-issuance transfer at all: the only recorded assignment is the inventor→Proxense initial assignment (Reel 034843/0145, 2015-01-29). Proxense is the original assignee, not a downstream licensing vehicle. No "IP/Holdings/Ventures" successor appears in the chain.

2. Known asserter in the chain — present (strong). The assignee, Proxense, LLC, is not on the named list (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, etc.) but independently satisfies the catch-all "surfaced by Unified Patents or RPX as a high-frequency plaintiff." Unified Patents' PTAB portal labels Proxense the Patent Owner as "NPE (Small Company)" in IPR2024-00776 (patent 9298905). Proxense is plaintiff in Proxense v. Samsung 6:21-cv-00210 (W.D. Tex. 2021), v. Microsoft 6:23-cv-00319, v. Google 6:23-cv-00320, v. Apple 6:24-cv-00143, and v. LG Electronics 6:24-cv-00302 — and separately v. Hyundai/KIA/Genesis (2025). This is a repeat-player, multi-defendant campaign.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear. The chain has only one link, so "recurrence within the chain" cannot be tested; and I could not capture the corresponding attorney from the abstract. No finding possible. (Note the PTAB/ex parte papers show outside counsel rotating through Hecht Partners (David Hecht / Kinza Hecht) and prosecution through Patent Law Works LLP — but litigation/reexam counsel of record is not the assignment correspondent, so it does not support this signal.)

4. Cascading transfers — not present. A single assignment; no chained LLCs, no shared correspondent addresses among multiple assignees.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. The assignment predates the first suit naming this patent (Proxense v. Samsung, filed 2021-03-05) by roughly six years. There is no near-suit transfer date to set venue or standing.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No Proxense Chapter 7/11 found; no portfolio sale in proceedings.

7. Privateering — not present (inverted). Privateering would be an operating company transferring to an NPE that asserts on the operating company's behalf against competitors. Here the patent never left the founder's own company; Proxense asserts on its own behalf, not as a proxy for a separate manufacturer.

8. Defensive aggregator — not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified, or OIN. The opposite occurred: the patent was owned and asserted by the originating entity, then voluntarily surrendered — Proxense filed a statutory disclaimer of the entire term (37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a), signed by James A. Zak, dated 2024-10-10), and the PTAB entered adverse judgments in IPR2024-00234, IPR2024-00776, IPR2024-01328, and IPR2024-01335. That is neutralization by surrender, not by defensive aggregation.

Additional market-intent signal (not in the numbered list, but material). A July 25, 2016 letter from Proxense's counsel to Apple (filed as Doc. 1-39 in 6:24-cv-00143) offered to sell the entire portfolio and expressly marketed it for offensive use: "Proxense has never engaged in any patent enforcement litigation… there are no current licenses granted under the Proxense patents. Therefore, the ultimate purchaser will be able use the Proxense patents offensively against others." The letter specifically flagged U.S. 9,298,905 as relevant to Apple Watch, Apple Pay and Touch ID. This is a documented attempt to place the portfolio with an asserter — even though the sale evidently did not close, since Proxense still owned and asserted the patent through 2024.

---

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence.

The assignment record itself is thin: a single recorded conveyance, Giobbi → Proxense, Reel 034843/0145, dated 2015-01-29, with no downstream transfer to any licensing LLC, so the usual "shell-entity transfer" and "cascading transfer" tests yield nothing. The confidence instead rests on one strong signal — the sole assignee, Proxense, LLC, is a high-frequency patent plaintiff formally classified as "NPE (Small Company)" by Unified Patents (IPR2024-00776) and is the plaintiff in a sprawling 2021–2025 multi-defendant campaign — reinforced by weak corroborating signals: the 2016 counsel letter expressly offering the portfolio (including the '905 patent) to a buyer for offensive use, and the absence of demonstrable current products. Because the chain contains only one link and no transfer-to-asserter event, this is not "NPE — high confidence"; and because Proxense does not currently ship an embodying product, it is not "Operating-company assertion." The patent was ultimately neutralized not by a defensive aggregator but by Proxense's own entire-term disclaimer (2024-10-10) and adverse PTAB judgments.

Verification link: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html#/patent/search/result?q=9298905 (search patent number 9298905; the record should return Assignment 1 — Reel 034843/0145, 2015-01-29, Giobbi → Proxense, LLC).

Cross-reference: the full Patent Assignment Abstract of Title for 14/521,982 is reproduced at Exhibit 1022 to Microsoft's IPR2024-00776 / IPR2024-00846 papers (docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2024-00846/Microsoft_Corporation/.../Exhibit-1022...).

---

Contradictions / gaps flagged

• No contradiction with the previously generated summary: the 2015-01-29 / Reel 034843/0145 assignment matches, and the 2024 entire-term disclaimer is confirmed.
• Gap: I could not read the numeric value of "Total Assignments" in the abstract, nor the correspondent of record for Reel 034843/0145. I therefore did not attempt signal #3. If Assignment Center shows a second or later reel/frame, the timeline above must be extended; on all corroborating evidence (continuous ownership assertions through 2024 and Proxense's own disclaimer filing) I assess the chance of an intervening transfer as low.

I'll research the patent and its cited prior art. Let me start with targeted searches.

Let me research the key prior art references identified in the IPR and reexamination proceedings.

Preliminary: the patent as searched

A USPTO/Google Patents lookup for the number 9298905 returns exactly one record, and it is not a near-neighbor:

• US 9,298,905 B1 — Biometric Personal Data Key (PDK) Authentication
• Application 14/521,982, filed Oct. 23, 2014; issued Mar. 29, 2016; Examiner Samuel G. Rimell, Art Unit 3992
• Inventor John J. Giobbi; Assignee Proxense, LLC (Bend, OR)
• Priority Dec. 20, 2004 (prov. 60/637,538; plus 60/652,765, Feb. 14, 2005); continuation of 13/710,109 → 11/314,199
• Pre-AIA patent (priority and parent filing both before Mar. 16, 2013), so pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102/103 govern.

This matches the earlier-generated summary, so I will not repeat the bibliographic, abstract, claim, or legal-status analysis. The one thing worth re-flagging because it bears directly on the prior-art question: the '905 patent was statutorily disclaimed in its entire term in October 2024 and drew adverse judgments in IPR2024-00234/00776/01328/01335, so the prior art below is relevant as a record of what actually defeated (or was asserted against) the claims — not as a live-validity question.

---

Methodological caveat (stated up front)

The face of US 9,298,905 carries 179 cited references. The page text supplied in the prompt is truncated — the citations list visibly ends at US 6,975,202 B1 (2000-11-21 / 2005-12-13). I therefore cannot represent that I have reviewed all 179 items one-by-one. What follows is organized as follows:

• Group A — references the USPTO Central Reexamination Unit (90/015,053), the PTAB, or the IPR petitioners actually applied against the '905 patent's claims. These are the most probative § 102/§ 103 candidates, because a neutral tribunal already mapped them to specific claim elements.
• Group B — the most substantively relevant face-of-patent citations I could recover, with an honest claim-by-claim read.

I also flag one structural point that governs the whole answer: almost nothing anticipates any '905 claim under § 102 standing alone. The independent claims (1, 9, 13) each require the conjunctive of (i) locally stored biometric + ID code on a portable device, (ii) local biometric match, (iii) wireless sending of the ID code, (iv) comparison by a third-party trusted authority against a list the authority itself maintains, and (v) an access message authorizing completion of a financial transaction. The art splits cleanly: one side has the biometric fob; the other has the trusted-authority/clearinghouse authentication. That is why the record is dominated by § 103 combinations, and I mark § 102 vs. § 103 for each item.

---

Group A — Prior art actually applied against the '905 claims

A1. US 7,188,110 B1 — Ludtke (the primary reference)

• Full citation: U.S. Patent No. 7,188,110 B1, Secure and convenient method and apparatus for storing and transmitting telephony-based data.
• Dates: Filed (as application) prior to 2005; granted Mar. 6, 2007. Effective filing predates the '905's 2004 priority, hence usable as § 102(e) art.
• Description: A "transaction device" (privacy card / digital wallet) that stores a user's fingerprint (and other) biometric data in write-once / protected memory, prompts the user, compares the scanned fingerprint to the stored authorized print, and — on a match — wirelessly transmits a unique transaction-device identifier (GUID, serial, SIM, etc.) to a transaction processing clearing house (TPCH), an entity separate from the transacting parties, which validates the device and returns a transaction confirmation enabling the purchase.
• Claims potentially implicated: On its own, Ludtke maps to claim 1 elements (persistently storing biometric + ID code; receiving scan data; comparing; wirelessly sending the ID code on match) and the parallel claim 9 (persistent storage media, validation module, RF communication module) and much of claim 13. It also maps to claims 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18.
• § 102 vs § 103 in the record: For the related family patent US 7,281,135, Ludtke was asserted as a § 102(e) anticipation reference (IPR2017-02167). For the '905 patent itself, the CRU rejected claims 1, 3–10, 12–18 under § 103(a) "over Ludtke in view of Okereke" — i.e., the examiner did not treat Ludtke as a standalone § 102 anticipation, because Ludtke's TPCH was contested as the required third-party trusted authority maintaining its own list.

A2. US 2003/0196084 A1 — Okereke

• Full citation: U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0196084 A1 (Okereke).
• Dates: Published Oct. 16, 2003 (pre-dates '905 priority; § 102(b)/(a) art).
• Description: Discloses a unique Device ID used to identify/authenticate a device; supplies the "ID code" limitation that Ludtke's "transaction device information" was argued to lack expressly.
• Claims potentially implicated: Combined with Ludtke, supplies the ID-code element of claims 1, 9, 13 and dependent 5 (device may be a mobile phone). Applied under § 103(a).

A3. US 2003/0177102 A1 — Robinson

• Full citation: U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0177102 A1 (Robinson).
• Dates: Published Sept. 18, 2003.
• Description: Authentication/authorization including age-based authorization for age-restricted access or transactions initiated by a wireless device.
• Claims potentially implicated: Supplied the "registering an age verification for the user in association with the ID code" limitation of claims 2 and 11. Applied under § 103(a) (SNQ 4: Ludtke + Scott + Robinson).

A4. WO 99/56429 — Scott

• Full citation: International Publication No. WO 99/56429 (Scott).
• Dates: Published Nov. 4, 1999 (§ 102(b) art).
• Description: Discloses secret information and a unique device ID; the PTAB (in IPR2021-01447) nonetheless held Scott fails to disclose an "access message."
• Claims potentially implicated: Claim 1 / 9 / 13 (secret value stored with ID code) in combination; not a § 102 anticipation because of the access-message gap.

A5. US 6,041,410 A — Hsu et al. (TRW)

• Full citation: U.S. Patent No. 6,041,410, Personal identification fob (Hsu, Ling, Messenger, Evans; TRW Inc.). Counterpart EP 0 924 656 A3.
• Dates: Filed Dec. 22, 1997; granted Mar. 21, 2000.
• Description: A handheld fob with a fingerprint sensor, a stored reference image, and a correlator that matches scan-to-reference; on a match the fob generates a numerical value (CRC of the reference image), encrypts it, and wirelessly/RF transmits it to a "door" (access point). The value must first be registered at the door, which then compares the received value to the one stored during registration before granting access.
• Claims potentially implicated: This is the single closest structural match to the device-side limitations of claim 9 (persistent storage + validation module + wireless module) and claim 13(a) (integrated hardware device storing biometric + code and wirelessly sending it), and to claim 14 (device does not send when it cannot verify). It is a strong § 103 partner to Ludtke (applied as Ludtke + Hsu for related claims in IPR2017-02167), and a plausible § 102 candidate against claim 9 read narrowly — but it lacks the "third-party trusted authority maintaining its own list" and the "financial transaction" elements, so it does not anticipate the independent claims as issued.

A6. US 2005/0050367 A1 — Burger

• Full citation: U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0050367 A1 (Burger). Petitioner's Exhibit 1005 in IPR2024-00776.
• Dates: Published Mar. 3, 2005 (pre-dates the '905 filing; § 102(a)/(e) art).
• Claims potentially implicated: Asserted against the '905 independent claims in the Microsoft IPR before the adverse judgment.

A7. US 8,977,860 B2 — Barrus

• Full citation: U.S. Patent No. 8,977,860 B2 (Barrus). Petitioner's Exhibit 1010 in IPR2024-00776.
• Dates: Granted Mar. 17, 2015. (Later patent — usable only as § 102(e)/(a)(2) art via its earlier effective filing; must be checked for pre-2004 priority.)
• Claims potentially implicated: Asserted against the '905 claims (device-side authentication).

A8. US 7,681,050 B2 — Blom

• Full citation: U.S. Patent No. 7,681,050 B2 (Blom). Petitioner's Exhibit 1011 in IPR2024-00776.
• Dates: Granted Mar. 16, 2010.
• Claims potentially implicated: Asserted against the '905 claims.

A9–A11. Secondary Petitioner exhibits (IPR2024-00776)

• US 2004/0049687 A1 — Orsini (Ex. 1021).
• US 2002/0147658 A1 — Kwan (Ex. 1028).
• US 2002/0143634 A1 — Kumar (Ex. 1029).

These were marshaled to fill specific dependent-claim gaps (identification/keyed access elements). I have lower confidence in their precise claim mappings than in A1–A5, because IPR2024-00776 terminated in an adverse judgment before a final written decision on the merits, so no tribunal ever issued a claim-by-claim mapping for them.

---

Group B — Other face-of-patent citations most relevant to the claims

B1. US 4,993,068 A — Piosenka et al. (Motorola)

• Full citation: U.S. Patent No. 4,993,068 A, Unforgeable personal identification system (Piosenka, Chandos; Motorola, Inc.).
• Dates: Filed Nov. 27, 1989; granted Feb. 12, 1991 (§ 102(b) art).
• Description: One-way-encrypted, physically immutable biometric credentials (facial photo, retinal scan, voice, fingerprint) stored on a portable memory device; at a remote access site the user presents the device and submits live biometrics, which are compared to the stored encrypted credentials to allow/deny access; privilege/attribute data (e.g., credit limit) is conveyed.
• Claims potentially implicated: Conceptually overlaps claims 1, 4, 9, 13 (portable device + stored biometric + comparison + privilege data). Fails on wireless sending and on a third-party authority maintaining a registered-code list; therefore a § 103 reference, not § 102 anticipation.

B2. US 6,016,476 A — Maes et al. (IBM)

• Full citation: U.S. Patent No. 6,016,476 A, Portable information and transaction processing system and method utilizing biometric authorization and digital certificate security.
• Dates: Filed Aug. 11, 1997; granted Jan. 18, 2000.
• Description: Portable transaction/information device combining biometric authorization with digital certificate security.
• Claims potentially implicated: Claims 1, 3, 9, 13 (biometric-gated portable transaction device; the "indication that biometric verification was successful" element of claim 3). Combined-art candidate, not standalone § 102.

B3. US 6,256,737 B1 — Bionetrix

• Full citation: U.S. Patent No. 6,256,737 B1, System, method and computer program product for allowing access to enterprise resources using biometric devices.
• Dates: Filed Mar. 9, 1999; granted July 3, 2001.
• Description: Biometric capture device in communication with a server that authorizes access to enterprise resources — i.e., a remote authority decides access after the local biometric capture.
• Claims potentially implicated: The authentication-module → authority → access-message architecture of claims 1, 9, 13. Same field of endeavor; § 103.

B4. US 6,657,538 B1 — Swisscom Mobile

• Full citation: U.S. Patent No. 6,657,538 B1, Method, system and devices for authenticating persons.
• Dates: Priority Nov. 7, 1997; granted Dec. 2, 2003.
• Description: Authentication of persons using mobile devices/network.
• Claims potentially implicated: Claims 1, 5, 9, 12, 13 (mobile-device form factors; network-based authentication). § 103.

B5. US 6,219,439 B1 — Burger (P. M.)

• Full citation: U.S. Patent No. 6,219,439 B1, Biometric authentication system.
• Dates: Filed July 9, 1998; granted Apr. 17, 2001.
• Claims potentially implicated: Claims 1, 4, 9, 13, 16 (biometric-type and comparison elements).

B6. US 6,700,933 B1 — Sierra Design Group

• Full citation: U.S. Patent No. 6,700,933 B1, Player identification using biometric data in a gaming environment.
• Dates: Filed June 20, 2001; granted Mar. 23, 2004.
• Claims potentially implicated: Claims 7 and 17 (the "casino machine" option) and the "gaming environment" counterpart to the specification's slot-machine example. § 102/§ 103 as to the casino-machine limitation only.

B7. US 2002/0174348 A1 — Imprivata

• Full citation: U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0174348 A1, Biometric authentication for remote initiation of actions and services.
• Dates: Published Nov. 21, 2002.
• Claims potentially implicated: Claims 1, 6, 9, 13, 18 ("completing the financial transaction includes accessing an application").

B8. US 2002/0140542 A1 — Prokoski

• Full citation: U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0140542 A1, Personal biometric key.
• Dates: Published Oct. 3, 2002.
• Claims potentially implicated: The "personal biometric key" concept of claims 9 and 13.

B9. US 2002/0056043 A1 — Sensar

• Full citation: U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0056043 A1, Method and apparatus for securely transmitting and authenticating biometric data over a network.
• Dates: Published May 9, 2002.
• Claims potentially implicated: Claims 1, 9, 10, 13 (network transmission of biometric data to a remote authenticator).

B10. US 2005/0253683 A1 — Identification Technology Group

• Full citation: U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0253683 A1, Biometrically authenticated portable access device.
• Dates: Priority May 17, 2004; published Nov. 17, 2005.
• Claims potentially implicated: Claims 9, 12, 13, 15 (portable biometric access device form factors). Note the 2004 priority post-dates the '905's Dec. 20, 2004 priority — verify effective dates before asserting it as § 102 art.

B11. US 2005/0251688 A1 — Nanavati

• Full citation: U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0251688 A1, Identity verification method using a central biometric authority.
• Dates: Priority May 14, 1999; published Nov. 10, 2005.
• Claims potentially implicated: Directly relevant to the "third-party trusted authority" limitation of claims 1, 9, 13 (central biometric authority deciding identity). Because its priority reaches 1999, it is a serious § 102(e)/(a) candidate for that element.

B12. Other face citations worth a § 103 look

For completeness, these face references appear to target discrete limitations and are worth checking in a full chart: US 6,363,485 B1 (Entrust — multi-factor biometric authenticating device, 1998/2002); US 2005/0081040 A1 (Johnson — in-circuit security system controlling access to sensitive data, 2003/2005); US 2005/0109836 A1 (Ben-Aissa — biometric multi-purpose terminal/payroll, 2002/2005); US 2004/0230488 A1 (American Express — sensor-registered biometric for a transponder-reader system, 2001/2004); US 2004/0129787 A1 (IVI Smart Technologies — secure biometric verification of identity, 2002/2004); US 5,991,749 A (Morrill — wireless telephony for financial transactions, 1996/1999); US 5,917,913 A (Wang — portable electronic authorization devices, 1996/1999); US 2002/0073042 A1 (Maritzen — secure wireless interoperability between access devices).

---

Bottom line on § 102

1. No single cited reference anticipates any of independent claims 1, 9, or 13 in full. Every one of the five conjunctive requirements listed earlier is not found together in any one reference on the record.
2. The strongest device-side § 102 candidate is US 6,041,410 (Hsu/TRW) — a biometric fob with persistent reference storage, a correlator, and wireless transmission of a value derived from the stored biometric to a point that previously registered that value. It is missing the "third-party trusted authority maintaining its own list" and "financial transaction" elements.
3. The strongest system-side § 102 candidate is US 7,188,110 (Ludtke), which the CRU chose to apply only in § 103 combination — a deliberate signal that Ludtke's TPCH was judged not to be the claimed "third-party trusted authority" on its own.
4. The claim-gap fillers were: US 2003/0196084 (Okereke) for the unique device ID, US 2003/0177102 (Robinson) for registered age verification (claims 2/11), and WO 99/56429 (Scott) for stored secret information — all assembled under § 103.
5. The '905 patent's own face citations are overwhelmingly § 103 fodder, not § 102 anticipations, which is consistent with the parent patent's prosecution history (the family repeatedly survived on narrow claim wording).

---

Uncertainty disclosures

• The provided patent text is truncated at US 6,975,202 B1, so roughly the last portion of the 179-item citation list is not in my corpus. I cannot certify that no anticipation-grade reference appears in the omitted tail. A complete § 102 chart requires the full PTO-892/IDS listing from the 14/521,982 file wrapper.
• Dates for the IPR petitioner exhibits (A6–A11) are grant/publication dates I could only partially confirm; the effective filing dates needed to classify them as § 102(e) versus § 102(a)/(b) art were not fully retrieved.
• I could not retrieve full bibliographic confirmation for Okereke (2003/0196084), Robinson (2003/0177102), and Kwan/Kumar/Orsini within my step budget; treat those date entries as unverified pending a USPTO lookup.
• No assertion here is a legal conclusion. Anticipation requires element-by-element identity; where I mark "§ 102 candidate" it means worth testing as anticipation, not established as anticipating. The controlling, tribunal-vetted mappings are the ex parte reexamination 90/015,053 records and the IPR papers, which characterize the art as § 103 combinations.

I'll ground this analysis in the prior-art record appearing on the patent page (the 179 examiner/third-party citations and the 14 "Cited By" entries), and verify disclosure details of the strongest references before building combinations.

Now let me verify a few additional citations that bear on the "trusted third party," "financial transaction," and "no-biometrics mode" limitations.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. 9,298,905 B1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Consistency note first. Two dates are in play. The analysis prompt states "Current Date: April 26, 2026," while the system context for this run states 2026-09-18. I flag the discrepancy rather than silently pick one; nothing in the § 103 analysis turns on it, because all prior art relied on below pre-dates the 2004-12-20 priority date by years.

Scope note. Per the prior generated summary, the '905 patent was statutorily disclaimed in its entirety (37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a), Oct. 10, 2024, filed as Ex. 2009 in IPR2024-00776), and the Board entered adverse judgment in IPR2024-00776, IPR2024-01335, IPR2024-01328 and IPR2024-00234 without ever reaching the merits of any § 103 ground. So the analysis below is an analytical obviousness assessment, not a report of an adjudicated holding. That distinction matters if the output is later used in the reexamination 90/015,053 or in the family litigation, where the '905 claims as printed remain the operative text.

---

1. Legal framework and the person of ordinary skill

Effective filing date. Claim 1's issued text (18 claims, three independent: 1 method / 9 integrated device / 13 system) was added in the 13/710,109 → 14/521,982 continuation chain. The terms that carry the claim — "third-party trusted authority," "previously registered ID codes maintained by the third-party trusted authority," "financial transaction" — are all supported by the 2004/2005 disclosure (FIG. 3 trusted key authority 320; FIG. 7 flow; the "financial account … ATM" enumeration for application 330). If priority to 2004-12-20 holds, the reference set below is pre-AIA § 102(b) art (all published 1991–2003). If a defendant successfully attacks written-description support for "third-party trusted authority," the 2014 filing date would govern and the 2005–2014 intervening art opens up — but the specification text makes that attack weak, and the more conservative (patentee-favorable) assumption is 2004-12-20. I use that assumption.

POSITA. A person with a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering or computer science and approximately two to three years of experience in authentication systems, biometrics, or secure short-range wireless credentialing, or equivalent industry experience. This is the level at which every reference below was routine engineering.

Governing standard. Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966), and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Under KSR, "[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." The '905 claims are exactly that: a portable biometric verifier (old), a device code (old), a remote authority that maintains a registry of legitimate codes (old), and a resulting transaction approval (old).

Claim construction of the three limiting terms (per the specification, taken literally):

• "ID code" — the device ID "or other value that uniquely identifies biometric key 100," stored in persistent storage 226.
• "third-party trusted authority" — the FIG. 3 "trusted key authority 320," a "third-party authority" that "stores a list of codes for legitimate biometric keys."
• "financial transaction" — per claim 7's own enumeration, one of "a casino machine, a keyless lock, an ATM machine, a web site, a file and a financial account."

---

2. The prior art of record (from the Citations section of the patent page)

All dates are as printed in the "Citations (179)" table on the patent page.

Disclosure-verification status (important for how much weight to give each row). I independently pulled and read the full text/abstracts of US6041410, US6016476, US6219439, US6657538 and US6256737 during this pass. My verification searches for US5917913 and US6709333 were cut off by a tool-call limit, so those two are characterized only by the title of record on the patent page and must be independently confirmed before being relied on in a filing. Everything I assert about the five verified references is grounded in their own text.

---

3. The single most important structure in the claims, and the single biggest gap in the art

Stripped to its inventive core, claim 1 is a three-actor loop:

1. Integrated device persistently stores biometric data of a legitimate user + an ID code, verifies a live scan locally, and only on a match wirelessly sends the ID code.
2. Third-party trusted authority (not the local reader, not the relying party) maintains previously registered ID codes and performs the comparison.
3. On an access message back from the authority, the financial transaction completes.

Elements 1 is squarely and repeatedly taught in the art. Element 2 — the off-device, third-party registry — is the only element that even arguably distinguishes the '905 from the fob art, and the art teaches it explicitly. Element 3 is a business-result limitation on well-known transaction flows.

---

4. Primary combination A — Trw '410 + Swisscom '538 (+ IBM '476)

This is the combination most likely to render claims 1, 9 and 13 obvious.

4.1 What Trw '410 teaches (verified from the reference text)

• A handheld fob (14) with a fingerprint sensor (16) — i.e., the "integrated device" of claim 9, and the "mobile phone/tablet/laptop/…/key fob" form factors of claims 5/12/15.
• Storage means for storing reference biometric data in the fob, captured during an enroll mode — the "persistently storing biometric data of a legitimate user" step.
• A correlator (28) that compares the live scan to the stored reference and outputs a match/no-match signal. On no-match, "no further processing is performed" — this is claim 14's "when the integrated device cannot verify the scan data …, it does not send the ID code."
• On a match, the fob generates a numerical value (a CRC derived from the stored reference image), encrypts it, and transmits it to the "door," together with identification data for the person — the "wirelessly sending the ID code" step, and an express teaching that the transmitted value is derived from biometric data that matched, which is claim 3's "indication that the biometric verification was successful … is sent with the ID code."
• Registration: "the user must first 'register' at the door"; "an administrator of the door stores the user's name …, in association with a public encryption key … and the user's CRC." The door, "in the registration mode, … will store the user's CRC in association with the user's name or other identifying information," and on later use "compares the received CRC with the one that was stored for the named user during registration." That is a previously registered code, stored remotely from the device, compared against the presented code before access.
• The "door" expressly includes an ATM (10.3) and a "financial institution" — "[i]f the door 10 provides access to a financial institution, for example, the user will register by bringing his or her fob 14 to the institution."
• The stated motivation is verbatim the '905 background: "a person still needs to carry a variety of keys … and an ever expanding stack of plastic cards … must memorize several passwords and PINs"; "assets protected by combinations, passwords and PINs are also subject to illegal entry."

Gap in '410: the verifying registry is the door/relying party, not a third-party authority that serves many relying parties, and '410 does not expressly say the transaction is "financial" beyond the ATM/financial-institution registration example.

4.2 What Swisscom '538 fills (verified from the reference text)

• Biometric keys are stored twice: on the user's personal SIM card (3) and in tables (11) of a biometric server (10), "at least one of said biometric keys being assigned in a table to a respective user." A portable token that locally stores biometrics and is mirrored in an off-device registry is precisely the two-sided architecture of claim 1.
• The authority is expressly third-party and trusted: "security services are preferably used, for example Trusted Third Party (TTP) services, in order to ensure the confidentiality, authenticity, integrity and non-deniable origin of the data exchanged." This is a textual, verbatim match for "third-party trusted authority."
• Enrollment is done by a supervised agent at a "point of presence (POP)" — "for instance a point of sale of a network operator or of a service provider company," with an operator "who is an employee of the POP 9" recording the client's facial features, eye patterns or fingerprints. Compare '905 FIG. 5, in which "An agent checks an identification of the user and establishes a profile."
• Result is transmitted wirelessly to an external secured device which "can permit or refuse the user access to its services or buildings" — the "access message … allowing the user to complete [the] transaction" step (claim 9's RF module receiving the access message; claim 13's authentication circuit).
• Multiple codes/data values per user, with status/temporal attributes: "additional security information … security levels … duration of validity … location information … passwords" stored in the tables and assigned to respective users.

4.3 What IBM '476 adds (verified from the reference text) — and why it is the clincher for "financial transaction"

• A portable device (PDA, expressly extendable to "a cellular phone, a portable laptop, a network computer (NC), or a PC") that stores the user's financial information and performs local biometric verification before releasing it.
• A central server of a service provider "disposed at a remote location" that verifies the user and issues a temporary digital certificate; the terminal "establish[es] a communication link with the central server … and transmitting the authorization number and an account number of said subscribing user to said central server" (claim 17 of '476). That is a third-party server authorizing a credit card / ATM / debit transaction.
• The registration/enrollment record contains the very data claim 2 requires: "Enrollment also involves providing the service provider with personal information such as the user's social security number, address, maiden name and date of birth, which is stored on the central server."
• The '905's "open loop" problem is '476's explicit objective: the Universal Card system works at "any system which utilizes magnetic cards or smartcards … such as point of sale (POS) terminals or automated teller machines (ATM)," i.e., a device-agnostic, multi-merchant credential.

4.4 Motivation to combine (KSR factors)

1. Same field, overlapping problem statements. '410's background and '476's background each independently recite the '905's own problem — credential proliferation and PIN memorization. '538's stated object is to authenticate "without the user having to use passwords, which are often forgotten." A POSITA reading the '905 background would find the motivation already written into the art.
2. The combination addresses the recognized deficiency of each reference taken alone. '410's fob proves "that the access object itself is valid" only against a locally registered CRC and cannot scale to a public setting; '476's server can authorize at any merchant but relies on a PDA and a certificate rather than binding the credential to the user's body; '538 supplies the missing scaling element — a trusted third-party server with per-user tables. Combining them is the predictable, one-step improvement.
3. "Third-party trusted authority" is not a novel insight, it is a named, known architecture. '538 names TTP services as the mechanism for non-repudiation; '737 (below) implements a certificate-authority model. Neither requires any change to the fob's or PDA's operation to adopt.
4. Design incentive / market pressure. Payment networks in the 2001–2004 window were moving toward contactless, user-verified payment credentials. '410 already aggregates multiple "doors" onto one fob; '476 already aggregates multiple "financial cards" onto one card; extending either to a network-aware authority is the ordinary engineering next step.
5. Predictable result, no new mechanism. No claim element requires an unexpected physical or algorithmic result: sensor → compare → send code → server compares code against registry → approve. Every step is a known technique applied to a known device.

4.5 Element-by-element mapping for claim 1

---

5. The binary question the art settles: who holds the registry?

The '905's only colorable point of novelty over the fob art is where the code is checked. The art answers in three independent places:

• '538 — biometric server 10 with connected tables 11, reached via a SIM-server over the mobile network; authenticated by TTP.
• '737 — a biometric server storing "biometric templates, biometric policies, biometric groups, biometric device IDs, user IDs, computer IDs and application IDs," with a separate enrollment station and certificate authority role. This is not merely analogous; it is a structural match for claim 13's "third-party trusted authority … storing a list of legitimate codes and determining the authentication of the ID code received based on a comparison of the ID code received and the legitimate codes included in the list."
• '476 — central server 60 of a service provider holding enrolled user records and issuing certificates.

Once '737 or '538 is in the combination, claim 13's third element ("the third-party trusted authority operated by a third party, … storing a list of legitimate codes") is met almost verbatim, including the "operated by a third party" framing.

---

6. Dependent claims

Note on the printed dependencies. Claims 10–12 recite "The integrated device of claim 7" and claims 14–18 recite "The system of claim 11," while the integrated-device claim is 9 and the system claim is 13. Read literally, claims 10–12 depend from a method-adjacent claim and claims 14–18 from an integrated-device claim. Whichever reading applies, the analysis above is unaffected: every limitation recited in claims 10–18 is independently met by the same references. I do not correct the numbering, per the interpretive rule.

---

7. Alternative and secondary combinations

Because claim 1 does not require a fob specifically, alternate primaries work:

• Combination B — IBM '476 + Swisscom '538. '476 alone supplies device + local biometric verification + remote provider server + financial transaction authorization. '538 alone supplies the TTP/tables architecture. Substituting '538's SIM-card-and-server bifurcation for '476's PDA-and-certificate model is a predictable substitution of one known credential-carrier architecture for another, motivated by '538's express goal of non-repudiation. This combination is arguably stronger than Combination A on the "financial transaction" element, because '476 is explicitly a financial-transaction patent.

• Combination C — Burger '439 + '476 (or '538). Burger supplies tamper-resistant on-token biometric storage with a self-contained reader and a status indicator (claims 9, 13, 14 and FIG. 1's LED analog). Caution: Burger contains genuine teaching-away language with respect to remote registries — it touts a "stand-alone system which does not waste valuable PC memory," "does not require communication with a remote location," and "prevents 'hacking' … by restricting communication until positive authentication." A patentee would seize on this. The teaching away is narrow, however: Burger's objection is to transmitting biometric data before local authentication and to comparing against "a multiplicity of data from perhaps as many as millions of individuals." Claim 1 sends only the ID code after successful local verification, and the authority compares a registry of device codes, not biometric templates of millions of users. Burger is therefore better deployed as a secondary reference for the tamper-resistant storage limitation than as a primary reference.

• Combination D — "financial transaction" accommodation. If a tribunal were to read "complete a financial transaction" narrowly (i.e., beyond ATM/POS to on-line payment), add US20020091646A1 (Lake) — verification of the identity of on-line credit card purchasers through a proxy transaction — and/or US5991749A (Morrill) — wireless telephony "for collecting tolls, conducting financial transactions, and authorizing other activities." Both are § 102(b) art and both supply the network-payment context. Alternatively, US20020056043A1 (Sensar) supplies secure transmission of biometric authentication data over a network, and US6853988B1 (Security First Corp.) supplies the cryptographic-server-as-trusted-node element.

---

8. Objective indicia and counter-considerations

What the record does not show. There is no adjudicated obviousness holding on the '905. IPR2021-01447 (Samsung) was not instituted on the merits; IPR2024-00776 (Microsoft), IPR2024-00234 (Google), IPR2024-01328 and IPR2024-01335 all ended in adverse judgment before or without a merits ruling. The strongest fact in the record about the patent's validity is the entire-term statutory disclaimer of October 10, 2024 — a relinquishment that, while not a legal admission of obviousness, is practically consistent with the weakness of the claims against this art.

Objective indicia available to the patentee (and their limits).

• Commercial success / licensing: Proxense's multi-defendant W.D. Tex. campaign (6:21-cv-00210 v. Samsung; 6:23-cv-00319 v. Microsoft; 6:23-cv-00320 v. Google; 6:24-cv-00143; 6:24-cv-00302) may be offered, but licensing revenue must be nexused to the claimed subject matter, and the asserted claims here recite generic architectures taught by '410/'476/'538.
• Skepticism / failure of others: available in principle but not established by anything in this record.
• Long-felt need: cuts against the patentee. The need for a body-bound, keyless credential had been articulated and partially solved since at least 1997 ('410's background; '476's objects; '538's stated object).

Teaching-away risks to flag honestly. (a) Burger '439's stand-alone/anti-remote-communication language (see § 7, Combination C). (b) '410's "door" architecture is deliberately local to each relying party; a patentee may argue '410 discourages a central authority. This is answerable: '410's registration step is itself a registry lookup, and '410 expressly contemplates a door "thousands of miles away," which defeats any locality-based teaching-away argument.

---

9. Bottom line

Under § 103 and KSR, claims 1, 9 and 13 of the '905 patent are obvious over the following combinations appearing in the Citations section of the patent page:

1. Trw US6041410 + Swisscom US6657538 + IBM US6016476 — the strongest three-way combination, mapping every limitation of claim 1 including the "third-party trusted authority" and "financial transaction" elements, and directly reaching claims 2–7 and 10–18.
2. IBM US6016476 + Swisscom US6657538 — the cleanest two-reference alternative, with the strongest showing on the financial-transaction element.
3. US6657538 + US6256737 — the strongest showing specifically for claim 13's third element (a third party "storing a list of legitimate codes and determining the authentication … based on a comparison"), and the only reference that affirmatively teaches claim 8's no-biometrics mode via its OR policy.
4. Secondary accommodation: US20020091646A1, US5991749A, US20020056043A1, US6853988B1, and US6709333B1.

The motivation to combine is supplied by (i) the identical framing of the problem in each reference's own background, (ii) the express naming of Trusted Third Party services and certificate-authority architectures in '538 and '737 as the known solution to non-repudiation, and (iii) the ordinary engineering incentive to scale a single-user, single-door credential into a many-merchant, open-loop payment credential — the very "open loop" advantage the '905 specification claims.

Caveats I will not paper over: (1) the best single-reference combinations still require an explicit motivation articulation for the "third-party" element, because no single reference teaches all three actors; (2) I did not complete independent verification of US5917913 or US6709333 before hitting a tool limit, so those two should be re-verified before being cited in a filing; and (3) because the patent has been disclaimed and every PTAB proceeding terminated adversely pre-merits, there is no adjudicated § 103 holding to cite — only the analysis above.