IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`In re Post-Grant Review of:
`)
`)
`
`) U.S. Class: 705/65
` U.S. Patent No. 6,105,013
`)
`
`)
`Issued: August 15, 2000
`)
`
`
`)
`Inventors: Stephen M. Curry et al.
`)
`
`
`)
`Application No. 09/041,190
`)
`
`
`)
`Filed: March 10, 1998
`) FILED ELECTRONICALLY
`
`
`For: METHOD, APPARATUS, SYSTEM ) PER 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(b)(1)
`
`AND FIRMWARE FOR SECURE
`)
`
`TRANSACTIONS
`)
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S.P.T.O.
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 1-6, 8-12, 14, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 6,105,013 (“the
`
`’013 patent,” Exhibit 1001), now purportedly 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 ........................................................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Real Party-in-Interest .............................................................................. 1
`
`Related Matters ....................................................................................... 1
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel and Service Information ............................. 4
`C.
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ..................................................................... 4
`
`A.
`
`Background ............................................................................................ 4
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The ’013 Patent ............................................................................ 4
`
`The Claims of the ’013 Patent ...................................................... 6
`
`Prosecution History of the ’013 Patent ........................................ 7
`
`At Least One Challenged Claim Is Unpatentable .................................... 9
`
`The ’013 Patent Is a Covered Business Method Patent ........................... 9
`
`Claims 1-6, 8-12, 14, and 15 Are Not Directed to a “Technological
`Invention” ............................................................................................ 11
`
`Petitioner Has Been Sued for Infringement of the ’013 Patent and
`Is Not Estopped ................................................................................... 13
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`IV.
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED FOR
`EACH CLAIM CHALLENGED ............................................................... 14
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Claims for which Review Is Requested ................................................. 14
`
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge ........................................................... 14
`
`Claim Construction .............................................................................. 14
`
`1.
`
`Broadest Reasonable Interpretation ............................................ 14
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`
`
`V.
`
`CLAIMS 1-6, 8-12, 14, AND 15 OF THE ’013 PATENT ARE
`UNPATENTABLE ...................................................................................... 19
`A.
`Claims 1-6, 8-12, 14, and 15 Are Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102
`and/or 103 ........................................................................................... 19
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`Hawkes anticipates claims 1-3, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, and 15 ............. 19
`Hawkes renders claims 1-3, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, and 15
`obvious ...................................................................................... 34
`Hawkes in combination with Cooper renders claims 4 and 10
`obvious ...................................................................................... 36
`Hawkes in combination with Hardware Hacker renders
`claim 5 obvious .......................................................................... 37
`
`Chorley anticipates claims 1-3, 6, 9, 11, 12, 14, and 15 .................. 38
`Chorley in combination with Hawkes renders claims 1-3, 6, 8,
`9, 11, 12, 14, and 15 obvious ...................................................... 55
`Chorley in combination with Cooper or in combination with
`Hawkes and Cooper renders claims 4 and 10 obvious ................... 57
`Chorley in combination with Hardware Hacker or in
`combination with Hawkes and Hardware Hacker renders
`claim 5 obvious .......................................................................... 57
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`Blandford anticipates claims 1-4, 6, 9, 10, 12, and 15 .................... 58
`Blandford in combination with Hardware Hacker renders
`claim 5 obvious .......................................................................... 70
`
`B.
`
`Claims 1-6, 8-12, 14, and 15 Are Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 ............ 71
`
`1.
`
`The ’013 Patent Claims are Directed to an Abstract Idea ........... 71
`
`2.
`
`The ’013 Patent Claims do not Recite “Significantly More”
`than the Abstract Idea ................................................................ 72
`VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 73
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`FEDERAL CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Bilski v. Kappos,
`130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010) ....................................................................................................... 71
`
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ........................................................................................ 71
`
`Dystar Textilfarben GMBH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co.,
`464 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ................................................................................. 35, 55
`
`Gottschalk v. Benson,
`409 U.S. 63 (1972) ............................................................................................................. 72
`
`In re Bilski,
`545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................................... 71
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) .................................................................. passim
`
`Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc.,
`485 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ................................................................................. 35, 55
`
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
`132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) .......................................................................................... 71, 72, 73
`
`Parker v. Flook,
`437 U.S. 584 (1978) ........................................................................................................... 72
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ...................................................................... 14
`
`FEDERAL STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ................................................................................................................. passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ................................................................................................................. passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................................................................................................. passim
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 321 ......................................................................................................................... 14
`35 U.S.C. § 321 ....................................................................................................................... ..14
`
`35 U.S.C. § 324 .................................................................................................................... 9, 73
`35 U.S.C. § 324 .................................................................................................................. .. 9, 73
`
`AIA § 18 ......................................................................................................................... 9, 11, 14
`AIA§18 ....................................................................................................................... ..9,11,14
`
`REGULATIONS
`REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.300 ................................................................................................................... 14
`37 C.F.R. § 42.300 ................................................................................................................. ..14
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301 ............................................................................................................... 9, 11
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301 ............................................................................................................. ..9, 11
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.302 .................................................................................................................... 13
`37 C.F.R. § 42.302 .................................................................................................................. ..13
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,734 (Aug. 14, 2012) .............................................................................. 10, 11
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,734 (Aug. 14,2012) ............................................................................ .. 10, 11
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756 (Aug. 14, 2012) ..................................................................................... 13
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756 (Aug. 14, 2012) ................................................................................... ..13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`Vi
`
`

`
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Petition Exhibit 1001:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,105,013
`
`Petition Exhibit 1002:
`
`Patent File History for U.S. Patent No. 6,105,013
`
`Petition Exhibit 1003:
`
`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 1004: 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 1005:
`
`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 1006: 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 1007:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,575,621
`
`Petition Exhibit 1008:
`
`Declaration of Henry N. Dreifus
`
`Petition Exhibit 1009:
`
`Petition Exhibit 1010:
`
`Petition Exhibit 1011:
`
`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)
`
`In re Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc., Case No. 2:12-mc-00244,
`MDL No. 2354 (W.D. Pa.), Docket No. 693, Correction to
`Special Master’s Report and Recommendation Re: Claim
`Construction (Oct. 15, 2013)
`
`P. L. Hawkes, D. W. Davies, and W. L. Price, Integrated
`Circuit Cards, Tags and Tokens, New Technology and
`Applications (1990)
`
`Petition Exhibit 1012:
`
`International Publication No. WO 93/11540 by Cooper et
`al.
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition Exhibit 1013:
`
`Don Lancaster, Hardware Hacker, July, 1993
`
`Petition Exhibit 1014:
`
`B. J. Chorley and W. L. Price, An Intelligent Token for
`Secure Transactions, Security and Protection in
`Information Systems: Proceedings of the Fourth IFIP TC
`11 International Conference on Computer Security,
`IFIP/Sec ‘86 (1989)
`
`Petition Exhibit 1015:
`
`International Publication No. WO 92/12485 by Robert
`Blandford
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 6,105,013
`
`The ’013 patent relates to a “module” used for “monetary” or “digital cash”
`
`transactions. Ex. 1001 at 1:24-29, 1:48-67, 7:62-12:34. As the patent acknowledges,
`
`conventional electronic hardware already existed for this purpose. Id. at 1:42-45.
`
`Nonetheless, the Examiner allowed the claims after they were amended to recite a “real
`
`time clock” and a “clock circuit.” Infra at Section III.A.3. But as detailed below, the prior
`
`art cited in this Petition discloses these “clock” limitations and all of the other
`
`limitations of the claims, rendering them invalid under §§ 102 and/or 103.
`
`The broad monetary “transaction” claims also suffer from other defects. For
`
`example, they fail to pass muster under § 101 because they fail to define an “inventive
`
`concept” that is not abstract. Infra at Section V.B.
`
`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 ’013 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-JFC (W.D. Pa.), see, e.g., Ex. 1003 at 10-11, and the lawsuit against JP
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`
`
`Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 6,105,013
`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. 1004 at 10-13.
`
`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. 1005; Ex.
`
`1006.
`
`In addition to the lawsuits against PNC and JP Morgan, Maxim has also asserted
`
`the ’013 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
`
` 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
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 6,105,013
` 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
`
` 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 6,105,013
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel and Service Information
`
`C.
`
`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: 202.408.4400
`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: timothy.may@finnegan.com
`
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`A.
`
`Background
`1.
`The ’013 patent relates to a “module” used for “monetary” or “digital cash”
`
`The ’013 Patent
`
`transactions. Ex. 1001 at 1:24-29, 1:48-67, and 7:62-12:34. A block-diagram of the
`
`module 10 is shown in the patent’s Figure 1 (reproduced below):
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`
`Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 6,105,013
`
`
`
`As shown, module 10 includes a microprocessor 12, a math coprocessor 18, a
`
`memory circuit 20, an input/output circuit 26, and a real time clock 14. Id. at 2:34-42.
`
`Given the well-known nature of the components, the patent does not describe them
`
`beyond their basic functions or preferences. Infra at Section III.D. The thrust of the ’013
`
`patent’s description is on how module 10 can be used in certain types of transactions.
`
`For example, the patent explains how module 10 can be used as a digital cash dispenser,
`
`how module 10 can be replenished with cash, and how module 10 can transfer cash to
`
`another module. Ex. 1001 at 7:63-12:34.
`
`In providing these explanations, the ’013 patent articulates how a service provider
`
`(bank) prepares module 10 for an end user. Ex. 1001 at 9:22-39. The end user then uses
`
`module 10 to purchase goods or services from a merchant. Id. at 9:40-44. During
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 6,105,013
`transactions, module 10 encrypts and decrypts a packet or certificate that is exchanged
`
`with the merchant. Id. at 9:40-60. According to the ’013 patent, a transaction’s certificate
`
`simply contains basic data describing the transaction, such as when the transaction took
`
`place via a “true-time stamping” function. Id. at 30:12-25.
`
`2.
`The ’013 patent has sixteen claims. As mentioned above, Petitioner requests
`
`The Claims of the ’013 Patent
`
`review of claims 1-6, 8-12, 14, and 15. Of these, only claims 1 and 9 are independent.
`
`While dependent claim 14 is explicitly limited to “digital cash transactions,” the two
`
`independent claims are broader ― e.g., claim 1 is directed to “predetermined functions,”
`
`while claim 9 is directed to “a transaction program.” Ex. 1001 at 30:35-54, 31:13-25,
`
`32:14-17. Other elements of these claims relate to basic, well-known computing
`
`components. In full, claims 1 and 9 recite:
`
`A microcontroller based secure transaction integrated
`1.
`circuit comprising:
`a microcontroller core;
`a math coprocessor connected to said microcontroller core, said
`math coprocessor being for handling complex mathematics of
`encryption and decryption;
`memory circuitry which can be programmed by a service provider
`to enable said microcontroller based secure transaction integrated circuit
`to perform predetermined functions on behalf of the service provider
`and for the benefit of an end user, said memory circuitry being
`connected to said microcontroller core;
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 6,105,013
`an input/output circuit, connected to said microcontroller core,
`for exchanging information with a device external to said
`microcontroller based secure transaction integrated circuit; and
`a real time clock, connected to said microcontroller core, for
`providing a time measurement for time stamping a predetermined
`function.
`
`A secure transaction integrated circuit comprising:
`9.
`a microcontroller core;
`a memory circuit, in communication with said microcontroller
`core, for storing a transaction program;
`a modular exponentiation accelerator circuit, in communication
`with said microcontroller core, for performing encryption and
`decryption calculations;
`an input/output circuit, in communication with said
`microcontroller core, for receiving and transmitting data information
`with another electronic device; and
`a clock circuit for measuring time and providing time stamp
`information responsive to functions being performed by said
`microcontroller core.
`3.
`Claim 1 of the ’013 patent corresponds to application claim 32, and claim 9 of
`
`Prosecution History of the ’013 Patent
`
`the ’013 patent corresponds to application claim 41. During prosecution, claims 32 and
`
`41 read as follows:
`
`32. A microcontroller based secure transaction integrated
`circuit comprising:
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 6,105,013
`
`a microcontroller core;
`a math coprocessor connected to said microcontroller core, said
`math coprocessor being for handling complex mathematics of
`encryption and decryption;
`memory circuitry which can be programmed by a service provider
`to enable said microcontroller based secure transaction integrated circuit
`to perform predetermined functions on behalf of the service provider
`and for the benefit of an end user, said memory circuitry being
`connected to said microcontroller core; and
`an input/output circuit, connected to said microcontroller core,
`for exchanging information with a device external to said
`microcontroller based secure transaction integrated circuit, and for
`obtaining electrical energy to power at least a portion of said
`microcontroller based secure transaction integrated circuit.
`Ex. 1002 at pp. 200-01.
`41. A secure transaction integrated circuit comprising:
`a microcontroller core;
`a memory circuit, in communication with said microcontroller
`core, for storing a transaction program;
`a modular exponentiation accelerator circuit, in communication
`with said microcontroller core, for performing encryption and
`decryption calculations; and
`an input/output circuit, in communication with said
`microcontroller core, for receiving and transmitting data information
`with another electronic device.
`
`Id. at p. 203.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 6,105,013
`The Examiner, however, found these claims to be anticipated by multiple prior
`
`art references. Id. at pp. 220-27 (Examiner applying SGS-Thomson Microelectronics
`
`publication ST16xF74 and European Patent Application Pub. No. EP0458306, both of
`
`which describe the well-known hardware components often used in cryptographic
`
`applications).
`
`In response, claim 32 was amended to recite a “real time clock,” and claim 41 was
`
`amended to recite a “clock circuit.” Ex. 1002, pp. 231-35. While the claimed clocks were
`
`very well-known in the art, infra at Section V.A., the Examiner apparently found these
`
`“clock” amendments sufficient to allow the claims. Indeed, following the amendments,
`
`the Examiner allowed the claims. Ex. 1002, pp. 245-46.
`
`At Least One Challenged Claim Is Unpatentable
`
`B.
`As further detailed below, claims 1-6, 8-12, 14, and 15 of the ’013 patent are
`
`invalid under one or more of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, and 103. For the reasons set forth
`
`below, it is more likely than not that at least one claim of the ’013 patent is unpatentable.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 324(a).
`
`C. The ’013 Patent Is a Covered Business Method Patent
`The AIA defines a CBM patent as any patent having claims directed to
`
`“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 Office has stated that “financial product or service” should be “interpreted
`
`broadly,” encompassing patents “claiming activities that are financial in nature, incidental
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 6,105,013
`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). And
`
`this Board has explained that the 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). Under this guidance, the ’013 patent undeniably
`
`qualifies as a CBM patent.
`
`Claims 1-6, 8-12, 14, and 15 of the ’013 patent relate to monetary matters. As the
`
`patent itself states, “the present invention relates to an electronic module . . . capable of
`
`passing information back and forth between a service provider’s equipment via a secure,
`
`encrypted technique so that money and other valuable data can be securely passed
`
`electronically.” Ex. 1001 at Abstract (emphasis added); see also id. at 1:26-29 (“The
`
`module can be configured to . . . authorize monetary transactions.”) (emphasis added). These
`
`statements comport with the ’013 patent’s disclosed embodiments, which describe
`
`digital cash or funds transfers. See, e.g., id. at 7:62-12:34. Indeed, claim 14 expressly refers
`
`to “digital cash transactions.” Id. at 32:14-17.
`
`The litigation behavior of patent owner Maxim is even more telling. It has sued at
`
`least 17 financial companies and represented in district court litigations that defendants’
`
`mobile banking applications infringe the ’013 Patent. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 at 10; Ex. 1004 at
`
`10; supra at Section II.B. Maxim cannot now deny that the ’013 patent is subject to a
`
`CBM proceeding.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 6,105,013
`D. Claims 1-6, 8-12, 14, and 15 Are Not Directed to a “Technological
`Invention”
`
`The AIA excludes “patents for technological inventions” from the definition of
`
`CBM patents. AIA § 18(d)(1). To determine whether 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. Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents--Definitions of
`
`Covered Business Method Patent and Technological Invention; Final Rule, 77 Fed. Reg.
`
`at 48,736. Because the claims of the ’013 patent fail to define a novel and unobvious
`
`technological feature and fail to recite a technical solution to a technical problem, the
`
`patent is not for a technological invention.
`
`The claims of the ’013 patent do not recite a novel and unobvious technological
`
`feature. The claims and original prosecution history compel this conclusion. Here, none
`
`of the patent’s thirteen challenged claims recites any specialized technological feature,
`
`but rather only basic, well-known computing components. For example, independent
`
`claim 1 recites a microcontroller based secure transaction integrated circuit comprising
`
`“a microcontroller core,” “a math coprocessor,” “memory circuitry,” “an input/output
`
`circuit,” and “a real time clock.” Similarly, independent claim 9 recites a secure
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`
`Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 6,105,013
`transaction integrated circuit comprising “a microcontroller core,” “a memory circuit,”
`
`“a modular exponentiation accelerator circuit,” “an input/output circuit,” and “a clock
`
`circuit.” The claims simply list these components of a computer, with minimal
`
`recitations of the function they perform or how they are interconnected.
`
`All of the claimed components were well-known many years before the claimed
`
`priority date of the ’013 patent. Ex. 1008 at ¶¶ 13-17, infra at Section V.A. In fact, the
`
`components were so well known that the patent’s specification did nothing more than
`
`name the components’ basic functions, see, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 2:51-52 (“clock circuitry 14 .
`
`. . provides a continuously running real time clock”) and 2:53-57 (“coprocessor will
`
`handle the complex mathematics of RSA encryption and decryption”), or express
`
`preferences for certain commonly-available versions of the components, see, e.g., id. at
`
`2:48-50 (“microprocessor 12 is preferably an 8-bit microprocessor, but could be 16, 32,
`
`64, or any operable number of bits”) and 3:41-45 (“One of ordinary skill will
`
`understand that there are many comparable variations of the module design. For
`
`example, volatile memory can be used, or an interface other than a one-wire could be
`
`used.”).
`
`The Rules for CBM proceedings instruct that conventional and routine hardware
`
`of the type claimed by the ’013 patent is not enough to render a patent a technological
`
`invention. “Mere recitation of known technologies, such as computer hardware,
`
`communication or computer networks, software, memory, computer-readable storage
`
`medium, scanners, display devices or databases, or specialized machines, such as an
`12
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 6,105,013
`ATM or point of sale device,” or “[r]eciting 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, 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); Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., CBM2012-00002, Paper 10 at 7-8
`
`(P.T.A.B. Jan. 25, 2013).
`
`Finally, the patent fails to solve a technical problem using a technological solution.
`
`For example, the patent states that “[m]onetary transactions using the module 10 and
`
`digital certificates are somewhat more complicated because digital data, unlike Federal
`
`Reserve notes, can be copied and duplicated easily.” Ex. 1001 at 9:14-17. But the patent
`
`as a whole solves no “technical problem” because there was no technical problem to begin with:
`
`those of ordinary skill already knew how to prevent undesirable copying and duplication
`
`of digital data. See infra at Section V.A.
`
`E.
`
`Petitioner Has Been Sued for Infringement of the ’013 Patent and Is
`Not Estopped
`
`Petitioner has been sued for infringement of claims 1-6, 8-12, 14, and 15 of the
`
`’013 patent. Ex. 1003 at 10-11; Ex. 1004 at 10-13. 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.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`
`Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 6,105,013
`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 1-6, 8-12, 14, and 15 of the ’013 patent, and the cancellation of these claims as
`
`unpatentable.
`
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge
`
`B.
`Petitioner requests that claims 1-6, 8-12, 14, and 15 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.
`Claim terms are given their ordinary and accustomed meaning as understood by
`
`Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
`
`one of o