IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`In re Post-Grant Review of:
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,949,880
`
`Issued: Sept. 7, 1999
`
`
`Inventors: Stephen M. Curry et al.
`
`
`Application No. 09/950,559
`
`
`Filed: Nov. 26, 1997
`
`
`For: TRANSFER OF VALUABLE
`
`INFORMATION BETWEEN
`
`A SECURE MODULE AND
`
`ANOTHER MODULE
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S.P.T.O.
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`) U.S. Class: 380/24
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`) FILED ELECTRONICALLY
`) PER 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(b)(1)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 321 AND
`§ 18 OF THE LEAHY-SMITH AMERICA INVENTS ACT
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 321 and § 18 of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act
`
`
`
`(“AIA”) and pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.300 et seq., PNC Bank, N.A., JP Morgan Chase
`
`& Co., and JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (collectively, “Petitioner”) hereby request
`
`post-grant review of claims 1-4 of U.S. Patent No. 5,949,880 (“the ’880 patent”),
`
`attached as Petition Exhibit 1001), purportedly now assigned to Maxim Integrated
`
`Products, Inc. (“Maxim”).
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`An electronic payment in the amount of $30,000.00 for the post-grant review
`
`fee specified by 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(b)(1)—comprising the $12,000.00 request fee and
`
`$18,000.00 post-institution fee—is being paid at the time of filing this petition. If
`
`there are any additional fees due in connection with the filing of this paper, please
`
`charge the required fees to our deposit account no. 06-0916.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .................................................................. 1
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ........................................................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Real Party-in-Interest .............................................................................. 3
`
`Related Matters ....................................................................................... 3
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel and Service Information ............................. 5
`C.
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ..................................................................... 6
`
`A.
`
`Background ............................................................................................ 6
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The ’880 Patent ............................................................................ 6
`
`Prosecution History ..................................................................... 8
`
`At Least One Challenged Claim Is Unpatentable .................................... 8
`
`The ’880 Patent Is a Covered Business Method Patent ........................... 9
`
`Claims 1-4 are Not Directed to a “Technological Invention” ................ 10
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The ’880 Patent does Not Claim a Novel and Unobvious
`Technological Feature ................................................................ 11
`
`The Patent does Not Solve a Technical Problem using a
`Technological Solution. .............................................................. 12
`
`E.
`
`Petitioner has been Sued for Infringement of the ’880 Patent and
`is Not Estopped ................................................................................... 13
`
`IV.
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED FOR
`EACH CLAIM CHALLENGED ............................................................... 13
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Claims for which Review Is Requested ................................................. 13
`
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge ........................................................... 13
`
`Claim Construction .............................................................................. 13
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`V.
`
`Broadest Reasonable Interpretation ............................................ 13
`1.
`CLAIMS 1-4 OF THE ’880 PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE ............. 16
`
`A.
`
`Claims 1-4 Are Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 ....................................... 16
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`The ’880 Patent is Unpatentably Abstract ................................... 17
`
`The Challenged Claims Recite Generic, Conventional, and
`Routine Technology ................................................................... 17
`
`Considered as a Whole, the Patent Claims are Directed to
`an Abstract Idea that Preempts Practical Applications ............... 21
`
`The ’880 Claims Fail the Machine or Transformation Test ......... 28
`
`B.
`
`Claims 1-4 Are Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 ...................................... 33
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Akiyama anticipates the challenged claims .................................. 33
`
`Ishiguro anticipates the challenged claims ..................................... 41
`
`Nakano anticipates the challenged claims .................................... 46
`
`C.
`
`Claims 1-4 Are Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 .................................. 65
`
`1.
`
`Nakano in combination with Akiyama renders the
`challenged claims obvious. ......................................................... 65
`VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 68
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases Page(s)
`Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada,
`771 F. Supp. 2d 1054 (E.D. Mo. 2011) ........................................................ 23, 27
`
`Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada,
`687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................... 26, 32
`
`In re Bilski,
`545 F.3d. 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ........................................................................... 25
`
`Bilski v. Kappos,
`130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010) .................................................................................passim
`
`Cardpool, Inc. v. Plastic Jungle, Inc.,
`No. C 12-04182, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9280 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2013) ......... 30
`
`Ex parte Cherkas,
`No. 2009-011287, 2010 WL 4219765 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 25, 2010) ........................ 27
`
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 28
`
`Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber,
`674 F.3d 1315,1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ..........................................................passim
`
`Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber,
`No. 2:06-cv-02335-AG-FMO, slip op. (C.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2008) .................... 31
`
`Diamond v. Diehr,
`450 U.S. 175 (1981) .......................................................................... 20, 25, 26, 33
`
`Fort Props., Inc. v. Am. Master Lease LLC,
`671 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .............................................................. 21, 30, 32
`
`Gottschalk v. Benson,
`409 U.S. 63 (1972) ............................................................................ 23, 24, 25, 31
`
`In re Grams,
`888 F.2d 835 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ................................................................ 23, 27, 30
`v
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................ 67
`
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
`132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) ...................................................................... 16, 22, 23, 25
`
`Parker v. Flook,
`437 U.S. 584 (1978) .....................................................................................passim
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 13
`
`In re Schrader,
`22 F.3d 290 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ........................................................................ 23, 27
`
`SiRF Tech., Inc. v. ITC,
`601 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................... 27
`
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC,
`722 f.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ........................................................................... 22
`
`Statutes
`
`AIA § 18 ............................................................................................................... 9, 10
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 .................................................................................................passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 .................................................................................................passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .................................................................................................passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 321 .................................................................................................... 5, 13
`
`35 U.S.C. § 324 .................................................................................................... 8, 67
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.300 ................................................................................................... 14
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301 ............................................................................................... 9, 10
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.302 ................................................................................................... 13
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,734 (Aug. 14, 2012) .................................................................. 9, 10
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756 (Aug. 14, 2012) ...................................................................... 11
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756 (Aug. 14, 2012) .................................................................... ..11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`Vii
`
`

`

`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Petition Exhibit 1001:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,949,880
`
`Petition Exhibit 1002:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,940,510
`
`Petition Exhibit 1003:
`
`Patent File History for U.S. Patent No. 5,940,510
`
`Petition Exhibit 1004:
`
`Patent File History for U.S. Patent No. 5,949,880
`
`Petition Exhibit 1005: Declaration of Steven Bristow
`
`Petition Exhibit 1006:
`
`PNC Fin. Servs. Grp., Inc. v. Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc., Case
`No. 2:12-cv-00089-JFC (W.D. Pa.), Docket No. 12, Maxim
`Integrated Products, Inc.’s Answer to Complaint for
`Declaratory Judgment and Counterclaims (Jun. 6, 2012)
`
`
`Petition Exhibit 1007: Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc. v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., Case
`No. 2:12-cv-01641-JFC (W.D. Pa.), Docket No. 1,
`Complaint for Patent Infringement (Oct. 1, 2012)
`
`
`Petition Exhibit 1008:
`
`PNC Fin. Servs. Grp., Inc. v. Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc., Case
`No. 2:12-cv-00089-JFC (W.D. Pa.), Docket No. 70, Order
`(Feb. 11, 2013)
`
`
`Petition Exhibit 1009: Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc. v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., Case
`No. 2:12-cv-01641-JFC (W.D. Pa.), Docket No. 9, Civil
`Docket for Case #: 4:12-cv-00619-RC-ALM (Nov. 8, 2012)
`
`Petition Exhibit 1010:
`
`In re Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc., Case No. 2:12-mc-00244,
`MDL No. 2354 (W.D. Pa.), Docket No. 691, Special
`Master’s Report and Recommendation Re: Claim
`Construction (Oct. 9, 2013)
`
`Petition Exhibit 1011:
`
`Dictionary.com definition of “Module”
`
`Petition Exhibit 1012:
`
`The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms,
`IEEE Press, Seventh Ed.
`
`Petition Exhibit 1013:
`
`Dictionary.com definition of “Device”
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition Exhibit 1014:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,428,684 to Akiyama et al. (“Akiyama”)
`issued on Jun. 27, 1995.
`
`Petition Exhibit 1015:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,396,558 to Ishiguro et al. (“Ishiguro”)
`issued on March 7, 1995.
`
`Petition Exhibit 1016:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,839,504 to Nakano. (“Nakano”) issued
`on Jun. 13, 1989.
`
`ix
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 5,949,880
`
`By its own words, the ’880 patent relates to “transferring units of value”
`
`between a secure module and another module carrying a monetary equivalent.
`
`Ex. 1001, 1:25-28. The claims of the ’880 patent recite an even broader concept:
`
`“electronically transferring units of exchange” between generic “devices” and
`
`“modules.”
`
`According to the ’880 patent, the claimed devices and modules could be
`
`virtually anything. The patent explains that the claimed “device” could be formed
`
`from “any of an unlimited number” of components. Ex. 1001, 2:37-45. It also
`
`explains that the claimed “modules” can be incorporated into a token, a card, a ring, a
`
`computer, a wallet, or practically any object. Id. at 3:47-50; 4:34-38. The alleged
`
`invention of the ’880 patent thus comes down to using these non-descript devices and
`
`modules to perform the abstract concept of “transferring units of exchange.” A
`
`concept so broad that the claims recite nothing more than an abstract idea with
`
`routine and conventional components added. For these reasons, and as shown below,
`
`claims 1-4 of the ‘880 patent fail to satisfy the patent eligibility requirements of 35
`
`U.S.C. § 101.
`
`The claims are also overly broad with respect to the prior art. While the
`
`patent’s background recognizes that the prior art included credit cards, the patent
`
`wrongly concludes that a card’s magnetic strip could not enable the card to be used as
`
`cash. Ex. 1001, 1:30-45; Ex. 1005, 16 (magnetic strips were used to store cash in paper
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 5,949,880
`fair cards used by a number of transit systems). The patent then alleges to overcome
`
`this non-existent problem by inventing a “portable module [that] can be carried by a
`
`consumer, filled with electronic money at an add-money station, and be debited by a
`
`merchant when a product or service is purchased by the consumer.” Ex. 1001, 2:2-4.
`
`But as described below, the prior art already included portable devices able to carry
`
`cash equivalents. Infra at §§ V.B., V.C.
`
`The Examiner never considered this prior art during the original prosecution.
`
`Indeed, only seven prior art references were made of record before the Examiner
`
`issued a Notice of Allowability in the very first action. Ex. 1004 at 162. The allowed
`
`claims—never rejected by the Examiner—are essentially the same as those originally
`
`filed. The only clue to why the Examiner allowed the claims were her reasons for
`
`allowance, stating that the prior art did not disclose passing of “value datum” between
`
`the modules and device prior to discontinuing communications. Id. at 162 (stating
`
`“Neither Rosen (‘419) nor Rosen (‘280) discloses passing said second value datum
`
`from said second module to said electronic device; passing said second value datum
`
`from said electronic device to said first module; and discontinuing communication
`
`between said first module and said electronic device.”). The anticipatory prior art
`
`relied upon in this petition, however, discloses each of these limitations. The claims
`
`are thus invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, for the reasons below.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 5,949,880
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`The real parties-in-interest are PNC Bank, N.A. (a subsidiary of The PNC
`
`Financial Services Group, Inc.) (“PNC”) and JP Morgan Chase & Co. and JP Morgan
`
`Chase Bank, N.A., (collectively “JP Morgan”).
`
`B. Related Matters
`Following its purchase of the ’880 patent, Maxim has gone on to assert this
`
`patent against at least 17 different financial companies in various lawsuits. The lawsuit
`
`against PNC is captioned PNC Fin. Servs. Grp., Inc. v. Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc., Case
`
`No. 2:12-cv-00089-NBF (W.D. Pa.), see, e.g., Ex. 1006 at 12-13, and the lawsuit against
`
`JP Morgan is captioned Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc. v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., Case No.
`
`2:12-cv-01641-JFC (W.D. Pa.), see, e.g., Ex. 1007 at 13-15.
`
`The courts have since consolidated many of the lawsuits into a multidistrict
`
`litigation pending in the W. D. of Pennsylvania, captioned In re Maxim Integrated Prods.,
`
`Inc., Case No. 2:12-mc-00244, MDL No. 2354 (“Maxim MDL”). See, e.g., Ex. 1008; Ex.
`
`1009.
`
`In addition to the lawsuits against PNC and JP Morgan, Maxim has also
`
`asserted the ’880 patent in Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. v. Branch Banking and Trust Co.,
`
`4:12‐cv‐00369‐RAS (E.D. Tex.), and in the following lawsuits (as transferred for MDL
`
`purposes):
`
` KeyCorp v. Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc., No. 2:12-cv-00860-JFC
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 5,949,880
` Vanguard Grp., Inc. v. Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc., No. 2:12-cv-00862-JFC
`
` Jack Henry & Assocs., Inc. v. Maxim Integrated Prods., No. 2:12-cv-00863-JFC
`
` Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc. v. Comerica Inc., No. 2:12-cv-00869-JFC
`
` Fidelity Brokerage Servs. LLC v. Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc., No. 2:12-cv-00871-JFC
`
` Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc. v. First United Bank & Trust Co., No. 2:12-cv-00876-JFC
`
` Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc. v. Starbucks Corp., No. 2:12-cv-00877-JFC
`
` Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc. v. Expedia, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-00878-JFC
`
` Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc. v. Capital One Fin. Corp., No. 2:12-cv-00879-JFC
`
` Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc. v. Bank of the West, No. 2:12-cv-00880-JFC
`
` Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc. v. Groupon, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-00881-JFC
`
` Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc. v. Union Bank, N.A., No. 2:12-cv-00882-JFC
`
` Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc. v. Southwest Airlines, Co., No. 2:12-cv-00883-JFC
`
` Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. v. Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc., No. 2:12-cv-00887-JFC
`
` Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc. v. QVC, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-00891-JFC
`
` Clairmail Inc. v. Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc., No. 2:12-cv-00923-NBF
`
` Branch Banking & Trust Co. v. Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc., No. 2:12-cv-00945-JFC
`
` BMO Harris Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc., No. 2:12-cv-01538-JFC
`
` Deutsche Bank AG v. Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc., No. 2:12-cv-01604-JFC
`
` Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc. v. Citigroup, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-01628-JFC
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 5,949,880
` Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc. v. Target Corp., No. 2:12-cv-01629-JFC
`
` Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc. v. Wells Fargo & Co., No. 2:12-cv-01639-JFC
`
` Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc. v. Bank of Am. Corp., No. 2:12-cv-01640-JFC
`
` Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc. v. U.S. Bancorp, No. 2:12-cv-01642-JFC
`
` Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc. v. Walmart Stores, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-01643-JFC
`
`Further, the ’880 patent is subject to a petition for post-grant review under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 321 and § 18 of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, CBM2013-00059, filed on
`
`September 16, 2013.
`
`C.
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel and Service Information
`
`Lead Counsel
`Lionel M. Lavenue
`Reg. No. 46,859
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
`Garrett & Dunner, LLP
`Two Freedom Square
`11955 Freedom Drive
`Reston, VA 20190-5675
`Telephone: 571.203.2750
`Facsimile: 571.203.2777
`E-mail: PNC-JPMorgan-
`MaximCBMs@finnegan.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Backup Counsel
`Timothy J. May
`Reg. No. 41,538
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
`Garrett & Dunner, LLP
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20001-4413
`Telephone: 202.408.4447
`Facsimile: 202.408.4400
`E-mail: PNC-JPMorgan-
`MaximCBMs@finnegan.com
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 5,949,880
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`A.
`
`Background
`1.
`The ’880 patent relates to “transferring units of value between a . . . secure
`
`The ’880 Patent
`
`module and another module used for carrying a monetary equivalent.” Ex. 1001, 1:25-
`
`28. The patent’s background alleges that a conventional credit card was not
`
`satisfactory because the magnetic strip did not allow the card to be used as cash. Ex.
`
`1001, 1:39-45.
`
`The patent alleges to overcome this by inventing a “portable module [that] can
`
`be carried by a consumer, filled with electronic money at an add-money station, and
`
`be debited by a merchant when a product or service is purchased by the consumer.”
`
`Id. at 2:2-4. In other words, rather than obtaining physical money from an ATM,
`
`putting it in your wallet, and using it to pay for goods, the patent discloses obtaining
`
`electronic money from an ATM, putting it in a digital wallet, and using it to pay for
`
`goods. For example, during prosecution of U.S. Patent No. 5,940,510 (“the ’510
`
`patent”) (Ex. 1002), the ’880 patent’s parent, the purported invention was broadly
`
`characterized as allowing “a user to carry the portable module and install digital
`
`money equivalents into the module” so that the user could then “spend or cash the
`
`portable digits” at locations having a portable module reader. Ex. 1003 (’510 patent
`
`file history), 224-25 (Amendment of Nov. 9, 1998).
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 5,949,880
`The claims of the ’880 patent broadly claim the concept of “transferring units
`
`of exchange.” In the words of the claims, the concept of “electronically transferring
`
`units of exchange” is defined as being between generic “devices” and “modules.”
`
`Specifically, claim 1 recites the following:
`
`1. A method for electronically transferring units of exchange
`between a first module and a second module, comprising the steps of:
`
`a. initiating communication between said first module and an
`electronic device;
`
`b. passing a first value datum from said first module to said
`electronic device;
`
`c. passing said first value datum from said electronic device to said second
`module;
`
`d. performing a mathematical calculation on said first value datum
`thereby creating a second value datum;
`
`e. passing said second value datum from said second module to
`said electronic device;
`
`f. passing said second value datum from said electronic device to said first
`module;
`
`g. storing said second value datum in said first module; and
`
`h. discontinuing communication between said first module and
`said electronic device.
`
`Ex. 1001, 24:47-67.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 5,949,880
`According to the ’880 patent, the devices and modules could be virtually
`
`anything. Indeed, the ’880 patent states that the claimed “device” could be “any of an
`
`unlimited number” of devices, such as “a personal computer, an add-a-fare machine
`
`at a train or bus station (similar to those in today’s District of Columbia Metro
`
`stations [at the time the patent was filed]), a turn style, a toll booth, a bank’s terminal,
`
`. . .” Id. at 2:37-45.
`
`As to the “modules,” the ’880 patent explains that these can be incorporated
`
`into a token, a card, a ring, a computer, a wallet, a key fob, a badge, jewelry, a stamp,
`
`or practically any object that can be grasped and/or articulated by a user of the object.
`
`Id. at 3:47-50; 4:34-38.
`
`2.
`The application that lead to the ’880 patent was filed on November 26, 1997 as
`
`Prosecution History
`
`a divisional of U.S. Patent Application No. 08/594,975, filed on January 31, 1996. In
`
`response to the filed divisional application, the Examiner immediately allowed the
`
`claims without issuing any rejections and with only seven prior art references made of
`
`record. See Ex. 1004.
`
`At Least One Challenged Claim Is Unpatentable
`
`B.
`As further detailed below, claims 1-4 of the ’880 patent are invalid under at
`
`least one or more of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, and 103. For the reasons set forth below,
`
`and as required by 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), it is more likely than not that at least one of the
`
`claims of the ’880 patent is unpatentable.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 5,949,880
`C. The ’880 Patent Is a Covered Business Method Patent
`The AIA defines a CBM patent as “a patent that claims a method or
`
`corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or other operations used in
`
`the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service . . . .”
`
`AIA § 18(d)(1); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.301. The USPTO noted that the AIA’s legislative
`
`history demonstrates that “financial product or service” should be “interpreted
`
`broadly,” encompassing patents “claiming activities that are financial in nature,
`
`incidental to a financial activity or complementary to a financial activity.” Transitional
`
`Program for Covered Business Method Patents--Definitions of Covered Business
`
`Method Patent and Technological Invention; Final Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,734, 48,735
`
`(Aug. 14, 2012). This Board has explained that based on the legislative history “[t]he
`
`term financial is an adjective that simply means relating to monetary matters.” SAP
`
`Am., Inc. v. Versata Dev. Grp., Inc., CBM2012-00001, Paper 36 at 23 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 9,
`
`2013).
`
`Claims 1-4 of the ’880 patent relate, expressly, to “units of exchange” and
`
`“monetary” matters. Indeed, claim 2 recites that the “first value datum represents a
`
`monetary equivalent.” Ex. 1001, 25:1-2. The patent further states that the disclosed
`
`method is “useful for enabling a user to fill a portable module with a cash equivalent and
`
`to spend the cash equivalent at a variety of locations.” Id. at Abstract. The patent also
`
`explains that “[t]he portable module can be used as a cash equivalent when buying
`
`products and services in the market place.” Id. at 1:63-65. See also id. at 1:25-28, 1:52-54, 2:1-
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 5,949,880
`5, 2:35-37; 2:66-3:2. Each of the ’880 patent’s disclosed embodiments also describes
`
`transferring digital money or value used as payment. See id. at 7:13-8:25, 8:31-9:16. The
`
`Office apparently agreed that the patent relates to monetary matters, classifying the
`
`patent in class 705/39 (“Including funds transfer or credit transaction”) and class
`
`705/42 (“Remote banking (e.g., home banking)”) and searching class 705/40 (“Bill
`
`distribution or payment”). See id. at [52], [58].
`
`The litigation behavior of patent owner Maxim is even more telling. It has sued
`
`over 17 financial services entities and represented in district court litigations that
`
`defendants’ mobile banking applications infringe the ’880 patent. See, e.g., supra at
`
`§ II.B. Maxim cannot now deny that the ’880 patent is subject to a CBM proceeding.
`
`D. Claims 1-4 are Not Directed to a “Technological Invention”
`The AIA excludes “patents for technological inventions” from the definition
`
`of CBM patents. AIA § 18(d)(2). To determine when a patent is for a technological
`
`invention, “the following will be considered on a case-by-case basis: whether the
`
`claimed subject matter as a whole recites a technological feature that is novel and
`
`unobvious over the prior art; and solves a technical problem using a technical
`
`solution.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.301. To institute a CBM post-grant review, a patent need only
`
`have one claim directed to a CBM, and not a technological invention, even if the
`
`patent includes additional claims. 77 Fed. Reg. at 48736; see also SAP, CBM2012-
`
`00001, Paper 36 at 26. Because the claims of the ’880 patent fail to recite a novel and
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 5,949,880
`unobvious technological feature and fail to recite a technical solution to a technical
`
`problem, the patent is not for a technological invention.
`
`1.
`
`The ’880 Patent does Not Claim a Novel and Unobvious
`Technological Feature
`
`The four challenged claims recite “modules” and a “device” incidental to
`
`“passing” value information, such as a “monetary equivalent.” These claimed
`
`“modules” and “devices” are generic and can consist of known technology. Supra at
`
`§ III.A.1. Indeed, they are anticipated by the prior art. Infra at § V.B. The mere
`
`recitation of “known technologies” or reciting the “use of known prior art
`
`technology to accomplish a process or method, even if that process or method is
`
`novel and nonobvious” will “not typically render a patent a technological invention.”
`
`See, e.g., Office Patent Trial Practice Guide; Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,764 (Aug. 14,
`
`2012); see also Apple Inc. v. Sightsound Techs., LLC, CBM2013-00019, Paper 17 at 14-16
`
`(P.T.A.B. Oct. 8, 2013); see also Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.,
`
`CBM2012-00002, Paper 10 at 7-8 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 25, 2013).
`
`Each step of method claim 1 also fails to require any new technology. Indeed,
`
`each step falls into one of three categories: (i) communicating data (e.g., initiating
`
`communications, passing, and discontinuing communications), (ii) performing a
`
`mathematical calculation, or (iii) storing data. The ’880 patent discloses that each of
`
`these can be performed using known technology:
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 5,949,880
` The communication technology was known. Ex. 1001 at 2:54-58 (“[T]he
`
`means for communicating 106 is not limited to a single wire connection [but] could be
`
`multiple wires, a wireless communication system, infrared light, any electromagnetic means, a
`
`magnetic technique, or any other similar technique.”); Id. at 4:14-24 (“[A] variety of
`
`technologies can be used to interface the portable module 102 to another electronic device. . . .
`
`Thus, the interface circuit 214 can be a single wire, multiple wire, wireless,
`
`electromagnetic, magnetic, light, or proximity, interface circuit.”).
`
` The technology for performing mathematical calculations was known.
`
`See id. at 7:61-65; 8:62-65 (discussing that element 108 can perform addition or
`
`subtraction), 4:34-38 (discussing that element 108 can be a computer).
`
` The technology for storing data was known. Id. at 4:66-5:4 (“The memory
`
`circuitry 20 may contain both read-only-memory and non-volatile random-
`
`access-memory. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand
`
`that volatile memory, EPROM, SRAM and a variety of other types of memory
`
`circuitry might be used to create an equivalent device.”).
`
`2.
`
`The Patent does Not Solve a Technical Problem using a
`Technological Solution.
`
`The ’880 patent also fails to solve a technical problem using a technological
`
`solution. To the contrary, the patent attempts to solve a financial problem: “[T]here is
`
`a need for an electronic system that allows a consumer to fill an electronic module
`
`with a cash equivalent in the same way a consumer fills his wallet with cash.” Ex. 1001
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 5,949,880
`at 1:52-54. Indeed, the patent’s claimed solution involves no new technology and was
`
`already known. Supra at § I; infra at § V.B.; Ex. 1005, ¶¶ 15-16.
`
`For the reasons above, the ’880 patent is directed to a covered business method
`
`but not directed to a technological invention.
`
`E.
`
`Petitioner has been Sued for Infringement of the ’880 Patent and is
`Not Estopped
`
`Petitioner has been sued for infringement of claims 1-4 of the ’880 patent.
`
`Supra at § II.B. Petitioner is not estopped from challenging the claims on the grounds
`
`identified in the petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.302(b). Petitioner has not been party to any
`
`other post-grant review of the challenged claims.
`
`IV. STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EACH
`CLAIM CHALLENGED
`A.
`Petitioner respectfully requests review under 35 U.S.C. § 321 and AIA § 18 of
`
`Claims for which Review Is Requested
`
`claims 1-4 of the ’880 patent, and the cancellation of these claims as unpatentable.
`
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge
`
`B.
`Petitioner requests that claims 1-4 be cancelled as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 101, 102, and 103. The claim construction, reasons for unpatentability, and specific
`
`evidence supporting this request are detailed below.
`
`C.
`
`Claim Construction
`1.
`
`Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 5,949,880
`Claim terms are given their ordinary and accustomed meaning as understood
`
`by one of ordinary skill in the art. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2005) (en banc). A patent claim subject to post-grant review receives the
`
`“broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
`
`it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b). The following terms and phrases from the claims
`
`of the ’880 patent require construction under these principles for this post-grant
`
`review proceeding. The broadest reasonable interpretation should be applied to any
`
`claim terms not addressed below.
`
`In the concurrent MDL, the Special Master issued recommendations on claim
`
`construction.1 Ex. 1010. Although Petition has incorporated these recommendations
`
`into the constructions below, Petitioner’s validity challenges do not depend on these
`
`constructions. Indeed, the claims, however construed, ar