UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`Boku, Inc. and Boku Account Services, Inc.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`Xilidev, Inc.
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 7,273,168
`Filing Date: October 8, 2004
`Issue Date: September 25, 2007
`Title: POINT-OF-SALE BILLING VIA HAND-HELD DEVICES
`
`
`
`
`Covered Business Method Review No. ______
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Page
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) .................... 1
`A.
`Real Parties-In-Interest under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ......................... 1
`B.
`Related Matters under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ..................................... 1
`C.
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) .................. 2
`D.
`Service Information .............................................................................. 3
`E.
`Power of Attorney ................................................................................ 4
`PAYMENT OF FEES - 37 C.F.R. § 42.203 ................................................ 4
`II.
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR COVERED BUSINESS METHOD
`REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.304 ........................................................ 4
`A. Grounds for Standing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.304(a) ............................. 4
`B.
`The ‘168 Patent is a “Covered Business Method Patent” .................... 5
`C.
`Claims 1-23 are Not Directed to a “Technological Invention” ............ 7
`D.
`Identification of Challenge under 37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b) and
`Statement of Precise Relief Requested ................................................ 8
`IV. SUMMARY OF THE ‘168 PATENT ......................................................... 9
`A.
`Brief Description of the ‘168 Patent .................................................... 9
`B.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art .................................................... 12
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.304(B)(3) ............. 12
`“Completing the Transaction Request” ........................................................ 13
`VI. CLAIM 17 OF THE ‘168 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE
`UNDER (PRE-AIA) 35 U.S.C. § 112, SECOND PARAGRAPH –
`GROUND 1. ................................................................................................. 14
`A.
`Legal Standard for Definiteness ......................................................... 14
`B.
`Claim 17 is Indefinite ......................................................................... 15
`1.
`The “Means For Completing the Transaction Request”
`Recitation of Claim 17 Invokes (pre-AIA) 35 U.S.C. §
`112, Sixth Paragraph. ............................................................... 15
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`2.
`
`The “Means For Completing the Transaction Request”
`Recitation of Claim 17 is Indefinite under (pre-AIA) 35
`U.S.C. § 112, Second Paragraph. ............................................. 17
`VII. CLAIMS 1-23 OF THE ‘168 PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101 – GROUND 2 .................................................... 22
`A.
`Legal Standard .................................................................................... 23
`B.
`The Alleged Point of Novelty in the ‘168 Patent is Confirming
`the Identity of a Purchaser to Avoid Fraud ........................................ 26
`The Alleged Point of Novelty in the ‘168 Patent is an
`Unpatentable Abstract Idea ................................................................ 28
`The Claims of the ‘168 Patent are Unpatentable Under Mayo .......... 30
`D.
`The Claims of the ‘168 Patent are Unpatentable Under Bilski .......... 32
`E.
`VIII. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 33
`
`
`C.
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit 1001: U.S. Patent No. 7,273,168 to Linlor (“the ‘168 patent”)
`
`List of Exhibits
`
`Exhibit 1002: File History of the ‘168 Patent
`
`Exhibit 1003: Declaration of Dr. Michael Shamos (“Shamos Dec.”)
`
`Exhibit 1004: Reserved
`
`Exhibit 1005: Reserved
`
`Exhibit 1006: Reserved
`
`Exhibit 1007: Reserved
`
`Exhibit 1008: Complaint filed in Xilidev, Inc. v. Boku, Inc. and Boku Account
`Services, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-02793-DMS-NLS
`
`Exhibit 1009: File Wrapper for U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/510,649
`
`Exhibit 1010: Philemon 1:18, Holy Bible, New International Version,
`http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philemon+1:18&int
`erface=print (last visited June 16, 2014)
`
`Exhibit 1011: Definition for “String”, Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Fifth
`Edition, pages 500-501 (2002).
`
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Accenture Global Services GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc.,
`720 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .................................................................... 24, 30
`
`Applied Med. Res. Corp. v. U.S. Surgical Corp.,
`448 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .......................................................................... 17
`
`B. Braun Med., Inc. v. Abbott Labs,
`124 F.3d 1419 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .......................................................................... 18
`
`Bancorp Servs., LLC v Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada,
`687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .............................................................. 26, 31, 33
`
`Bilski v. Kappos,
`130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010) .................................................................................passim
`
`CLS Bank Int'l v. Alice Corp.,
`717 F.3d 1269 (Fed.Cir.2013) ...................................................................... 25, 31
`
`CyberSource Corp. v Retail Decisions, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .............................................................. 25, 32, 33
`
`Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber,
`674 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................... 23, 30
`
`Diamond v. Chakrabarty,
`447 U.S. 303 (1980) ............................................................................................ 23
`
`In re Donaldson Co.,
`16 F.3d 1189 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ............................................................................ 17
`
`Ethicon, Inc. v. United States Surgical Corp.,
`135 F.3d 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .......................................................................... 16
`
`Exxon Research and Eng’g Co. v. United States,
`265 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .......................................................................... 15
`
`In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig.,
`639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 18
`
`-iv-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
`132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) .................................................................................passim
`
`Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc.,
`545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 18
`
`Noah Sys. Inc. v. Intuit Inc.,
`675 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................... 17, 18
`
`O.I. Corp. v. Tekmar Co. Inc.,
`115 F.3d 1576,1583 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ................................................................. 16
`
`Personalized Media Commc’ns v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`161 F.3d 696 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ............................................................................ 15
`
`Research Corp. Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................ 23
`
`S3 Inc. v. nVIDIA Corp.,
`259 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .......................................................................... 17
`
`Seal-Flex, Inc. v. Athletic Track and Court Constr.,
`172 F.3d 836 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (Rader, J., concurring) ....................................... 16
`
`SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`601 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................... 25
`
`In re Van Geuns,
`988 F.2d 1181 (Fed. Cir. 1993) .......................................................................... 13
`
`Xilidev, Inc. v. Boku, Inc. and Boku Account Services, Inc. et al.,
`Case No. 3:13-cv-02793-DMS-NLS .................................................................... 1
`
`Xilidev, Inc. v. Danal, Inc. et al.,
`Case No. 3:13-cv-02799-AJB-BLM ..................................................................... 1
`
`York Prod., Inc. v. Central Tractor Farm & Family Ctr.,
`99 F.3d 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ............................................................................ 16
`
`In re Zletz,
`893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ...................................................................... 12, 13
`
`
`
`
`
`-v-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C.,
`§ 101 .............................................................................................................passim
`§ 112, ¶ 2 ......................................................................................................passim
`§ 112, ¶ 6 ....................................................................................................... 15, 16
`§ 322(a)(1) ............................................................................................................ 4
`
`America Invents Act .............................................................................................. 1, 6
`
`M.P.E.P.,
`§ 2181 (I)(B) ................................................................................................. 15, 16
`§ 2181 (I)(C) ....................................................................................................... 16
`
`Patent Act. ................................................................................................................ 23
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R.,
`§ 1.104(c)(3) ....................................................................................................... 27
`
`37 C.F.R.,
`§ 42 ........................................................................................................................ 1
`§ 42.8(A)(1) ........................................................................................................... 1
`§ 42.8(b)(1) ........................................................................................................... 1
`§ 42.8(b)(2) ........................................................................................................... 1
`§ 42.8(b)(3) ........................................................................................................... 2
`§ 42.10(b) .............................................................................................................. 4
`§ 42.15(b) .............................................................................................................. 4
`§ 42.203 ................................................................................................................. 4
`§ 42.300(b) .......................................................................................................... 12
`§ 42.301(a) ........................................................................................................ 5, 7
`§ 42.301(b) ............................................................................................................ 7
`§ 42.302 ................................................................................................................. 4
`§ 42.302(a) ............................................................................................................ 4
`§ 42.302(b) ............................................................................................................ 4
`§ 42.304 ................................................................................................................. 4
`§ 42.304(a) ............................................................................................................ 4
`§ 42.304(b) ............................................................................................................ 8
`§ 42.304(b)(3) ..................................................................................................... 12
`
`157 Cong. Rec. S1364. (daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011) ....................................................... 6
`
`
`-vi-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48734, 48735 (August 14, 2012) .................................................. 5, 7, 8
`
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Fifth Edition ........................................................ 29
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-vii-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,273,168
`Attorney Docket No. BOKU-001/01US 321239-2002
`
`Through counsel, real parties-in-interest Boku, Inc. and Boku Account
`
`Services, Inc. (collectively, "Petitioner" or “Boku”) hereby petition for Covered
`
`Business Method (CBM) review under Section 18(a) of the Leahy-Smith America
`
`Invents Act (AIA) and 37 C.F.R. § 42 of claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 7,273,168
`
`(Ex. 1001) (“the ‘168 patent”), and asserts that it is more likely than not that at
`
`least one of the claims challenged in the instant petition is unpatentable.
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1)
`A. Real Parties-In-Interest under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`Boku, Inc. and Boku Account Services, Inc. are the real parties-in-interest
`
`for the instant petition. Boku Account Services, Inc. is a subsidiary of Boku, Inc.
`
`B. Related Matters under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`Boku, Inc. and Boku Account Services, Inc. have been sued by Patent
`
`Owner for infringement of the ‘168 patent in Xilidev, Inc. v. Boku, Inc. and Boku
`
`Account Services, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-02793-DMS-NLS. See, Ex. 1008.
`
`This lawsuit was filed in the Southern District of California (San Diego) on
`
`November 25, 2013 and is on-going. As of the filing date of this petition, only
`
`claims 1, 12, and 17-19 have been asserted in the lawsuit. In addition, on
`
`November 26, 2013 in the same court, Patent Owner separately sued Danal, Inc.
`
`for infringement of the ‘168 patent: Xilidev, Inc. v. Danal, Inc. et al., Case No.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,273,168
`Attorney Docket No. BOKU-001/01US 321239-2002
`
`3:13-cv-02799-AJB-BLM. The case has settled, although the action has not yet
`
`been dismissed.
`
`This Petition is also related to a CBM review petition filed by Petitioners on
`
`May 27, 2014, which has been assigned case no. CBM2014-00140 (“the ‘140
`
`Petition”). The § 112 arguments in the instant Petition were originally included in
`
`the ‘140 Petition. The Board issued a “Notice of Filing Date Accorded to the
`
`Petition” (Paper No. 4) requiring the Petitioners change the font of the ‘140
`
`Petition. To comply with page limits Petitioners deleted these 112 arguments from
`
`the revised ‘140 petition, which was re-filed on the same date as the instant
`
`petition. The ‘140 Petition is still pending and has not yet been instituted by the
`
`Board.
`
`There are no other related matters that the Petitioner is aware of at the time
`
`of filing the instant petition.
`
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`Petitioner provides the following designation of counsel.
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`Frank Pietrantonio (Reg. No. 32,289)
`Cooley LLP
` ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel: (703) 456-8567
`Fax: (202) 842-7899
`
`
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`Drew Koning (Reg. No. 60,764)
`Cooley LLP
` ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel: (858) 550-6129
`Fax: (202) 842-7899
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,273,168
`Attorney Docket No. BOKU-001/01US 321239-2002
`
`fpietrantonio@cooley.com
`
`D.
`As identified in the attached Certificate of Service, a copy of the instant
`
`dkoning@cooley.com
`
`Service Information
`
`petition, in its entirety, including all Exhibits and a power of attorney, is being
`
`served by EXPRESS MAIL® to the address of the attorney or agent of record for
`
`the owner of record of the ‘168 patent, Xilidev, Inc. (“Patent Owner” or
`
`“Xilidev”), as well as Patent Owner’s litigation counsel and its Registered Agent.
`
`Petitioners choose to serve the litigation counsel and Registered Agent in
`
`addition to the correspondence address of record for several reasons. First,
`
`Petitioners understand that the litigation counsel is currently Patent Owner’s
`
`counsel for matters related to the ‘168 Patent. Second, Petitioners are unaware that
`
`the firm at the correspondence of record (which has not been active in the ‘168
`
`Patent case since 2007) has any involvement whatsoever with the ‘168 Patent and
`
`in the currently pending litigation between Boku and Patent Owner. For at least
`
`these reasons, the Petition and corresponding documents were also served on
`
`Patent Owner’s litigation counsel and on Patent Owner’s Registered Agent, as
`
`these were deemed the best addresses to effect service.
`
`Boku may be served at the lead counsel address provided in Section I.C. of
`
`this Petition, and consents to electronic service by email at the addresses above.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,273,168
`Attorney Docket No. BOKU-001/01US 321239-2002
`
`Power of Attorney
`
`E.
`A power of attorney is being filed with the designation of counsel in
`
`accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b).
`
`II.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES - 37 C.F.R. § 42.203
`
`This petition for CBM review requests review of 23 claims of the ’168
`
`patent and is accompanied by a payment of $35,150, which includes a $12,750
`
`CBM Review Petition Fee (i.e., $12,000 for 20 claims and an additional $750 for 3
`
`claims in excess of 20 claims) and a $22,400 Post-Institution Fee (i.e., $18,000 for
`
`15 claims and an additional $4,400 for 8 claims in excess of 15 claims). See 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.15(b). Thus, this petition meets the fee requirements under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 322(a)(1).
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR COVERED BUSINESS METHOD REVIEW UNDER 37
`C.F.R. § 42.304
`A. Grounds for Standing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.304(a)
`Petitioner certifies that the ‘168 patent is eligible for CBM review (see
`
`Sections III.B and III.C below) and further certifies that Petitioner meets the
`
`eligibility requirements set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.302. As discussed in Section I.B
`
`of this petition, Boku has been sued by Patent Owner for infringement of the ‘168
`
`patent in the aforementioned litigation. 37 C.F.R. § 42.302(a). Boku is also not
`
`barred or otherwise estopped from challenging the claims on the grounds identified
`
`within the instant petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.302(b).
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,273,168
`Attorney Docket No. BOKU-001/01US 321239-2002
`
`The ‘168 Patent is a “Covered Business Method Patent”
`
`B.
`A covered business method patent is defined 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 …” 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a). The term “financial product or
`
`service” should be “interpreted broadly” and “encompass 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, 77 Fed. Reg. 48734, 48735 (August 14, 2012)(“CBM Final
`
`Rules”)(internal quotes omitted).
`
`Independent claims 1, 12, 17 and 18 are directed to covered business
`
`methods and qualify the ‘168 patent for CBM review. Independent claims 1 and
`
`18, in particular, are directed to methods of authenticating or completing a
`
`transaction, which are clearly activities that are “financial in nature, incidental to a
`
`financial activity or complementary to a financial activity.” CBM Final Rules at
`
`48735. Independent claims 1 and 18 also specifically recite “receiving … a
`
`transaction request associated with one or more products and a payment amount”
`
`(claim 1), “completing the transaction request by authorizing deduction of a
`
`transaction amount from the user account maintained by [a] payment source”
`
`(claim 1), “receiving an authorization code … indicating that the payment source
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,273,168
`Attorney Docket No. BOKU-001/01US 321239-2002
`
`authorized deduction of the payment amount from a payment source” (claim 18),
`
`and “deducting a transaction amount from the payment source” (claim 18). Ex.
`
`1001. The activities of receiving and processing transaction requests and deducting
`
`payment from an account are the epitome of a financial activity. Independent
`
`claims 12 and 17 include similar recitations, although these claims are drafted in a
`
`system claim format.1
`
`The specification of the ‘168 patent further supports the notion that the
`
`claimed invention is directed to financial activity. The title of the ‘168 patent –
`
`“Point-of-Sale Billing via Hand-Held Devices” – is itself suggestive of financial
`
`activity, as billing is necessary and incidental to a financial transaction.
`
`
`1 Petitioner asserts that Congress intended system claims to qualify for CBM
`
`review. For example, during the passage of the America Invents Act, Senator
`
`Schumer clarified that “[t]he phrase ‘method or corresponding apparatus’ is
`
`intended to encompass, but not be limited to, any type of claim contained in a
`
`patent, including, method claims, system claims, [and] apparatus claims… A
`
`patent qualifies as a covered business method patent regardless of the type or
`
`structure of claims contained in the patent.” 157 Cong. Rec. S1364. (daily ed. Mar.
`
`8, 2011). Thus, independent claims 12 and 17 are also directed to covered business
`
`methods.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,273,168
`Attorney Docket No. BOKU-001/01US 321239-2002
`
`Additionally, the “Background of the Invention” section of the ‘168 patent
`
`discloses that the “invention relates to systems and methods for completing
`
`transactions” and that the “[c]onvenient completion of financial transactions using
`
`hand-held devices continues to gain increasing popularity among consumers.” Ex.
`
`1001, 1:12-17]. Discussions of financial activity can easily be found throughout the
`
`‘168 patent.
`
`Since the claims of the ‘168 patent are directed to financial activity, the
`
`patent is eligible for CBM review.
`
`C. Claims 1-23 are Not Directed to a “Technological Invention”
`The CBM patent definition excludes “patents for technological inventions.”
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a). Whether or not a patent qualifies as a “technological
`
`invention” depends on the following factors, which are considered on a case-by-
`
`case basis: (a) “whether the claimed subject matter as a whole recites a
`
`technological feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior art”, and (b)
`
`whether the claimed subject matter as a whole “solves a technical problem using a
`
`technical solution.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b).
`
`The CBM Final Rules make clear that “[m]ere 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 ATM or point of sale device”
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,273,168
`Attorney Docket No. BOKU-001/01US 321239-2002
`
`does not typically render a patent a technological invention. CBM Final Rules at
`
`48764.
`
`No technological feature is recited in the ‘168 patent claims. The ‘168 patent
`
`claims refer to hand-held devices, transaction databases, and point-of-sale devices,
`
`generic hardware that was neither novel nor unobvious on the effective filing date
`
`of the ‘168 patent but, the alleged invention concerns preventing fraudulent
`
`transactions by introducing an authorization code that verifies that a purchaser has
`
`the funds to complete a purchase. That code is not inherently a technological
`
`invention, nor is the process by which it is generated and verified. Ex. 1001, 2:1-4.
`
`For at least this reason, the ‘168 patent claims fail to satisfy the first prong of the
`
`two-part test. As for the second prong of the test, the claims are not directed to a
`
`technical problem at all. They are directed to modifying the amount and type of
`
`information exchanged in a financial transaction to reduce fraud.
`
`D.
`
`Identification of Challenge under 37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b) and
`Statement of Precise Relief Requested
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board initiate CBM review of claims
`
`1-23 of the ‘168 patent on the grounds set forth in the table below, and requests
`
`that each of the claims be found unpatentable. An explanation of how claims 1-23
`
`are unpatentable under the statutory grounds is identified below. Additional
`
`explanation and support for each ground of rejection is set forth in the Declaration
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,273,168
`Attorney Docket No. BOKU-001/01US 321239-2002
`
`of Dr. Michael Shamos (Ex. 1003) (“Shamos Dec.”), which was originally filed in
`
`the ‘140 Petition and is re-filed here in the instant petition.
`
`Ground
`
`1
`
`2
`
`‘168 Patent
`Claim(s)
`17
`
`1-23
`
`Basis for Challenge and Applicable Statutory Ground
`
`Indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, Second Paragraph
`Unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to
`Non-Statutory Subject Matter
`
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF THE ‘168 PATENT
`A. Brief Description of the ‘168 Patent
`The ‘168 patent, titled “Point-Of-Sale Billing via Hand-Held Devices,”
`
`describes a system and method that allows for the purchase of products and
`
`services using a hand-held device. E x. 1001, Abstract. As shown below in FIG. 1
`
`of the ‘168 patent, the system can include the hand-held device 120 (operated by
`
`the consumer), a payment resolution module 110, a payment authorization source
`
`130, a transaction database 140 and a confirmation device 150 located at the point-
`
`of-sale.
`
`During operation, when a consumer desires to purchase a product (or
`
`service) from a merchant, the hand-held device 120 connects with the payment
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,273,168
`Attorney Docket No. BOKU-001/01US 321239-2002
`
`resolution module 110, and initiates a transaction request by selecting the desired
`
`product (or service) for purchase and then sending this selection request to the
`
`payment resolution module 110. Ex. 1001 at 3:14-28; see also, FIG. 4; FIG. 3
`
`(items 310 and 320) and corresponding description at 7:26-46 (“a desired product
`
`is identified by entering a product identification code or by navigating a series of
`
`menus using the hand-held device 120”); and 1:43-50. The payment resolution
`
`module 110 then “transmits a verification of the selected product to the hand-held
`
`device 120.” Ex. 1001 at 3:25-28. In some embodiments, the payment resolution
`
`module 110 may also send “availability, price, product description, and/or other
`
`product related information” back to the hand-held device 120. Ex. 1001 at 1:50-
`
`54.
`
`Next, the payment resolution module 110 authenticates the consumer to
`
`ensure that the consumer is authorized to make the purchase on the hand-held
`
`device 120. Ex. 1001 at 3:29-45; see also, FIG. 3 (item 330) and FIG. 5. For
`
`example, the ‘168 patent describes using a personal identification code (Abstract),
`
`biometrics (Ex. 1001 at 7:17-21), caller ID (Ex. 1001 at 7:48-52), or a serial
`
`number of the hand-held device 120 (id.) to identify the consumer for
`
`authentification purposes. See, also, Ex. 1001 at 5:19-34.
`
`After the consumer is authenticated, the payment resolution module 110
`
`transmits “information identifying the user, along with the product information,
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,273,168
`Attorney Docket No. BOKU-001/01US 321239-2002
`
`such as the price of the product requested,” to the payment authorization source
`
`130. Ex. 1001 at 3:46-49. The “payment authorization source 130” can be, for
`
`example, a financial institution such as a credit card company. Ex. 1001 at 3:52-55.
`
`In return, the payment authorization source 130 sends the payment resolution
`
`module 110 “either an authorization or denial” for the requested charge amount.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 3:62-65.
`
`In some embodiments, the payment resolution module 110 is configured to
`
`generate an authorization code for the approved transactions. Ex. 1001 at 4:10-12.
`
`The authorization code can then be stored at the transaction database 140 along
`
`with other transaction-related information. Ex. 1001 at 4:13-26. The payment
`
`resolution module 110 also sends this authorization code to the hand-held device
`
`120 for future use. Ex. 1001 at 4: 27-39.
`
`At the point of sale, the consumer is required by the merchant to provide the
`
`authorization code. Id. The authorization code can be entered into the confirmation
`
`device 150 by either the consumer or the merchant. Ex. 1001 at 4:40-50. The
`
`confirmation device 150 then “communicates with the transaction database 140 to
`
`confirm that the sales transaction has been authorized.” Id. For example, as shown
`
`in FIG. 8 of the ‘168 patent, the transaction database 140 can search for a stored
`
`authorization code that matches the authorization code entered at and received
`
`from the confirmation device 150. Ex. 1001 at 11:16-25. When a matching code is
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,273,168
`Attorney Docket No. BOKU-001/01US 321239-2002
`
`found, the transaction database 140 can send the code to the confirmation device
`
`150 where it is again compared against the previously entered authorization code.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 11:26-28; see also, FIG. 8 (item 830). If the confirmation device 150
`
`determines that the codes match, then the transaction is authorized and the
`
`consumer may collect the products or services s/he purchased. Ex. 1001 at 11:52-
`
`67. Shamos Dec., Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 15-24.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`B.
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) in the field of the ‘168
`
`patent in October 2003 (i.e., the presumed effective filing date of the ‘168 patent)
`
`would have been someone with an undergraduate degree in computer science or
`
`with equivalent work experience. In addition that person would have at least two
`
`years of experience with electronic payment systems, including familiarity with
`
`databases and integration with interactive voice response software. See, Shamos
`
`Dec., Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 11-14.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b)(3)
`A claim subject to CBM review is given its “broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.300(b). This means that the words of the claim are given their plain
`
`meaning unless that meaning is inconsistent with the specification. In re Zletz, 893
`
`F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The “broadest reasonable construction” standard
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,273,168
`Attorney Docket No. BOKU-001/01US 321239-2002
`
`also requires the Board to refrain from importing a particular embodiment from the
`
`written description into the claim if the claim language is broader than the
`
`embodiment. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
`
`This Petition shows that the claims of the ‘168 patent are indefinite or
`
`directed to non-statutory subject matter when the challenged claims are given their
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification.2 Except as
`
`expressly set out below, Petitioner construes the language of the claims to have its
`
`plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`“Completing the Transaction Request”
`
`Independent claim 1 recites “completing the transaction request.”
`
`Independent claim 17 recites “completing the transaction request” as well as a
`
`“means for completing the transaction request”. This “means for” recitation will
`
`be addressed separately in Sect. VI below.
`
`The ‘168 patent is largely silent about what it means to complete the
`
`transaction request. Figure 3 at 320 refers to “transmitting the transaction request.”
`
`Then, the last step in Fig. 3 refers to “[verifying the] authorization code at the point
`
`of sale.” Ex. 1001. Claim 1 refers to “receiving a transaction request” and then
`