`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION,
`
`
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`NADER ASGHARI-KAMRANI and KAMRAN ASGHARI-KAMRANI,
`
`Patent Owners
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 8,266,432
`
`Case CBM2016-00064
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S ADDITIONAL BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop: PATENT BOARD
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`P.O. Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trial CBM2016-00064
`
`Secure Axcess, LLC v. PNC Bank Nat’l Ass’n et al., No. 2016-1353 (Fed. Cir.
`
`Feb. 21, 2017) (“Secure Axcess”) clarified the standard for instituting “covered
`
`business method” (“CBM”) review. This paper solely addresses whether the ‘432
`
`Patent qualifies for CBM review with regard to the “financial product or service”
`
`prong in light of Secure Axcess. As detailed below, Secure Axcess establishes that
`
`the Decision to Institute the subject CBM reviews was incorrect. Accordingly,
`
`Patent Owner respectfully requests that Board immediately terminate the subject
`
`CBM reviews. Doing so is in the interest of justice since the CBM clouds the Patent
`
`Owner’s otherwise settled patent rights, while continuing to consume substantial
`
`resources of the Patent Owner and the Petitioner.
`
`
`
`a. The ‘432 Patent does Not Claim the Method or System Used in ...
`
`In Secure Axcess, the court emphasized that, to qualify for CBM review, a
`
`patent must contain at least one claim to the effect that the method or apparatus is
`
`“used in the practice . . . of a financial product or service” as properly construed;
`
`and that the written description alone cannot substitute for what may be missing in
`
`the patent “claims,” and therefore does not in isolation determine CBM eligibility.
`
`Secure Axcess at pp. 12-15 (emphasis added).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,631,191 (“the ‘191 patent”) involved in Secure Axcess does
`
`not claim a method or system used in the practice of a financial product or service.
`
`See claims 1 and 17. However, the written description of the ‘191 Patent contains
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trial CBM2016-00064
`
`implementations that are financial in nature. Secure Axcess at 4. For example, the
`
`‘191 Patent discloses, “… the system contemplates the use, sale or distribution of
`
`any goods, services or information over any network… .” Col. 11, lines 17-21
`
`(emphasis added). Additionally, it discloses that the system can include a
`
`“customer,” a “merchant,” a “bank,” wherein “[e]ach participant is equipped with a
`
`computing system to facilitate online commerce transactions.” Col. 11, lines 22-31
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`
`
`As in Secure Axcess, the ‘432 Patent discloses implementations that are
`
`financial or non-financial. For example, the ‘432 Patent discloses authenticating a
`
`user to access restricted web sites using a digital identity (e.g., col. 2, line 67-col 3,
`
`line 1 and col. 3, lines 32-33) and to access a restricted web site to buy services or
`
`products (e.g., col. 5, lines 5-7). And, just as in the Secure Axcess, the claims of the
`
`‘432 Patent lack any recitation of financial terminology or activity. For instance,
`
`claim 1 of the ‘432 Patent recites a method “for authenticating a user during an
`
`electronic transaction between the user and an external entity” and requires each
`
`recited method step to be performed “during the transaction” as characterized by the
`
`Board. Institution Decision, paper 14, p. 7.
`
`In the subject CBMs, similar to the error committed by the Board in Secure
`
`Axcess,
`
`the Board’s claim
`
`interpretation only focused on
`
`the
`
`financial
`
`implementations disclosed in the ’432 Patent, disregarding the non-financial
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trial CBM2016-00064
`
`implementations, and concluded that the Specification consistently describes the
`
`“electronic transaction between the user and an external-entity” in a financial context
`
`for purchasing goods or services in e-commerce. Id. However, the claimed use (i.e.,
`
`“authenticating a user during an electronic transaction”) is not a financial activity or
`
`service when given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
`
`Specification. The proper construction of the term “transaction” is “an electronic
`
`transaction between the user and the external entity.” PO Response, at 7. Thus, the
`
`term “transaction” or “during the transaction” does not require sales of goods or
`
`services, and is not otherwise financial in nature.
`
`Further, the term “external entity” is not recited as a financial product or
`
`service in the claims but as a party for example having a restricted website that
`
`requires user authentication before allowing access or offering its product or service,
`
`and thus does not constitute the required recitation of the use of the claimed
`
`authentication method in a financial product or service. Also, the term “user” is not
`
`recited as a financial product or service but as a party that uses the claimed
`
`authentication method. More importantly, the term “external entity” which can be a
`
`financial institution and the term “user” which can be a customer like in Secure
`
`Axcess have no weight to consider because the court held that the authentication
`
`method of Secure Axcess that “could be used by various institutions that include a
`
`financial institution, among others, does not mean a patent on the invention qualifies
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trial CBM2016-00064
`
`under the proper definition of a CBM patent.” See Secure Axcess, at 5 and 21. Under
`
`this proper construction, the ‘432 Patent claims the computerized authentication
`
`method which is a prerequisite for an electronic transaction like the authentication
`
`method of Secure Axcess. Therefore, the ‘432 Patent does not explicitly or implicitly
`
`claim the use of the claimed method in the practice of a financial product or service.
`
`
`
`b. The Claimed Authentication Method and System are Not a Financial
`
`Product or Service but Incidental or Complementary to a Financial Activity
`
`In clarifying what types of uses that qualify a patent for CBM review, Secure
`
`Axcess chose not to set forth “talismanic words.” Id. at p. 19. Rather, Secure Axcess
`
`held, “When properly construed in light of the written description, the claim need
`
`only require one of a ‘wide range of finance-related activities,’ examples of which
`
`can be found in the cases which we have held to be within the CBM provision.” Id.,
`
`referencing Versata, 793 F.3d at 1312–13, 1325–26; Blue Calypso, 815 F.3d at
`
`1339–40; and SightSound, 809 F.3d at 1315–16.
`
` When instituting the CBM review of the ‘191 Patent, the Board
`
`acknowledged that the patent is directed to authenticating web pages. Based on its
`
`disclosure of financial activities and real-world use by financial institutions, the
`
`Board concluded that the ‘191 Patent qualified for CBM review. Secure Axcess at
`
`8-9. However, Secure Axcess held that the claimed use of authenticating web pages
`
`is incidental to the financial activity disclosed in the ‘191 Patent. Further, Secure
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trial CBM2016-00064
`
`Axcess held that patent claims that are merely incidental or complementary to
`
`financial activities or services are not in the scope of the CBM statute. Id. at 17-18.
`
`The claims of the ‘432 Patent are unlike the “wide range of finance-related
`
`activities which the courts have held to be within the CBM provision.” For example,
`
`the claims in Versata determined a product price, the claims in Blue Calypso
`
`provided a peer-to-peer advertising system with a recitation of financial term in
`
`nature such as “subsidy”, and the claims recite in SightSound movement of money
`
`between financially distinct entities. Differently,
`
`the ‘432 Patent claims
`
`authenticating a user, which is similar to authenticating a web page, which Secure
`
`Axcess determined to be merely incidental or complementary to a financial activity.
`
`As discussed supra, the claims in the ‘191 Patent and the ‘432 Patent similarly do
`
`not recite any use in the financial activities described in their respective
`
`Specifications. Instead, the claimed authentication method merely could be used by
`
`financial institutions, among others. Therefore, as held in Secure Axcess, the
`
`potential or actual use of the Patent Owner’s invention in financial or non-financial
`
`activities as described in the Specification does not make the ‘432 Patent eligible for
`
`CBM review.
`
`Consequently, the subject CBM reviews are not in accordance with the AIA
`
`and Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board terminate the CBM reviews.
`
`Respectfully submitted, /Jae Youn Kim/ Counsel for PO, March 30, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trial CBM2016-00064
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)(4), this is to certify that I caused to be served
`
`a copy of the foregoing “PATENT OWNER’S ADDITIONAL BRIEF” for Covered
`
`Business Method Review (CBM2016-00064) of U.S. Patent 8,266,432 via electronic
`
`mail on March 30, 2017 to the Petitioner’s counsel of record at the following email
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_/Jae Youn Kim/_________
`
`Jae Youn Kim
`
`NOVICK, KIM & LEE, PLLC
`
`3251 Old Lee Highway Suite 404
`
`Fairfax, VA 22030
`
`
`
`Tel: 1-703-745-5495
`
`Fax: 1-703-563-9748
`
`skim@nkllaw.com
`
`addresses:
`
`
`W. Karl Renner, Lead Counsel
`
`Thomas A. Rozylowicz, Back-up Counsel
`
`Timothy W. Riffe
`
`CBM36137-0007CP2@fr.com
`
`PTABInbound@fr.com
`
`rozylowicz@fr.com
`
`riffe@fr.com
`
`
`
`Date: March 30, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`