UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________________________________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________________________________
`
`
`
`Twilio Inc.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`TeleSign Corporation
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 9,300,792
`(filed April 3, 2015, issued March 29, 2016)
`
`Title: REGISTRATION, VERIFICATION AND NOTIFICATION SYSTEM
`
`__________________________________________________
`
`Covered Business Method Review No. 2016-00099
`
`_________________________________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Table of Contents
`
`1. 
`Argument Summary........................................................................................ 1 
`Background. .................................................................................................... 2 
`2. 
`3.  Matters Involving Related Patents. ................................................................. 3 
`4. 
`The ’792 patent. .............................................................................................. 4 
`4(A).  Background and context. ....................................................................... 4 
`
`5. 
`
`6. 
`7. 
`
`4(B).  Technical Problems Addressed. ............................................................ 5 
`
`4(C).  Technical Solutions Provided. ............................................................... 7 
`
`Claim Construction ......................................................................................... 9 
`5(A).  “notification event” ............................................................................... 9 
`
`5(B).  “verifying the telephone number” ......................................................... 9 
`
`Identification of the Disclaimed Claims and the “Remaining Claims.” ...... 10 
`Legal Authority regarding the Finance-Related Requirement. .................... 11 
`7(A).  The Board’s decision should not be based on disclaimed claims. ...... 11 
`
`7(B).  Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that a patent is a
`CBM patent, and whether that burden was carried can be the
`Board’s sole focus. .............................................................................. 12 
`
`7(C).  Determining whether a patent is a CBM patent turns on
`analyzing the “claims” in view of AIA § 18(d)(1). ............................. 13 
`
`7(D).  CBM review is not available for patents that claim generally
`useful technologies, and the Board may not rely on a standard
`to determine whether a patent is CBM patent based on claimed
`activity being merely “incidental to” or “complementary to” a
`financial activity. ................................................................................. 14 
`
`The lack of explicit or inherent finance-related
`7(D)(1). 
`terminology or limitations favors denying institution. ............. 15 
`7(D)(2). 
`Denying institution is proper where the claim
`limitations alone are not finance-related. .................................. 15 
`
`
`
`
`
`Page ii
`
`

`
`CBM review should not be instituted on patents
`7(D)(3). 
`applicable in both commercial and non-commercial
`contexts. .................................................................................... 16 
`7(E).  A “financial product or service” involves an agreement
`stipulating the movement of money or the way money is
`handled. ............................................................................................... 17 
`
`7(F).  Conferring a financial benefit is not sufficient to render patents
`eligible for CBM review. .................................................................... 17 
`
`7(G).  Non-limiting examples in the specification are not sufficient to
`convert claims of general applicability into finance-related
`claims. .................................................................................................. 18 
`
`7(H).  Proposing claim constructions that are not financial in nature
`weighs against finding that the claims are eligible for CBM
`review. ................................................................................................. 20 
`
`7(I).  The Board may not base its institution decision on arguments or
`evidence not raised by Petitioner or not properly in the Petition. ....... 21 
`
`8. 
`
`Petitioner has not carried its burden to show that the claimed subject matter
`is sufficiently finance-related to be eligible for CBM review. ..................... 22 
`8(A).  Petitioner has failed to carry its burden because its analysis is
`based on a standard rejected by the Federal Circuit. ........................... 22 
`
`8(B).  Petitioner has not shown that the claims are sufficiently finance
`related. ................................................................................................. 24 
`
`8(C).  Disclaimed claims 5 & 14 and 7 & 16 may not serve as a proper
`basis for CBM review. ........................................................................ 27 
`
`Not even disclaimed claims 5 & 14 would have
`8(C)(1). 
`rendered the ’792 patent eligible for CBM review. .................. 27 
`8(C)(2). 
`Not even disclaimed claims 7 and 16 would have
`rendered the ’792 patent eligible for CBM review. .................. 28 
`8(D).  The recited terms “service” and “notification event” are not
`finance-related. .................................................................................... 29 
`
`Petitioner has not shown that “service” is restricted
`8(D)(1). 
`to financial services; rather, it is general in nature. .................. 30 
`
`
`
`
`
`Page iii
`
`

`
`9. 
`
`Petitioner has not shown that “notification event”
`8(D)(2). 
`is restricted to financial services and not general in
`nature. ........................................................................................ 31 
`Affirmative argument: the non-disclaimed claims are not sufficiently
`finance-related for the ’792 patent to be eligible for CBM review. ............. 34 
`9(A).  The Board should not consider disclaimed claims when
`deciding whether to institute CBM review. ........................................ 35 
`
`9(B).  The non-disclaimed claims are of general utility, making the
`’792 patent ineligible for CBM review. .............................................. 35 
`
`9(C).  The lack of explicit or inherent finance-related terminology or
`limitations favors denying institution. ................................................. 37 
`
`9(D).  The fact that the claims alone are not finance-related favors
`denying institution. .............................................................................. 38 
`
`9(E).  Because the invention is not limited to a financial context,
`institution should be denied. ................................................................ 39 
`
`9(F).  The non-disclaimed claims do not sufficiently relate to a
`“financial product or service” and are not directed to the
`movement or handling of money, indicating that the ’792 patent
`is not a CBM patent. ............................................................................ 40 
`
`9(G).  The specification confirms that any financial applicability
`mentioned
`is
`in
`the context of non-limiting examples,
`insufficient to qualify the ’792 patent for CBM review. ..................... 41 
`
`9(H).  Petitioner’s own assertions and proposed construction(s)
`undermine its insinuation that a “service” or “notification
`event” is inherently financially related. .............................................. 43 
`
`9(I).  Petitioner does not contend that the accused products and
`services are finance-related. ................................................................ 45 
`
`10.  Legal Authority on the “Technological Invention” requirement. ................ 45 
`10(A). 
`Patents directed to technological inventions are not
`eligible for CBM review. .................................................................... 45 
`
`10(B). 
`
`Petitioner bears the burden of showing that the ’792
`
`
`
`
`
`Page iv
`
`

`
`patent is not directed to a technological invention. ............................. 45 
`
`A Petition’s failure to analyze express claim elements
`10(C). 
`indicates that Petitioner did not sufficiently show that the
`claimed subject matter “as a whole” recites a technological
`feature. ................................................................................................. 46 
`
`The Petition must adequately demonstrate the claimed
`10(D). 
`subject matter does not solve a technical problem using a
`technical solution. ................................................................................ 47 
`
`its obviousness case are
`10(E). A petition’s arguments from
`insufficient
`to carry
`the petitioner’s burden on
`the
`technological-invention inquiry. ......................................................... 47 
`
`11. 
`
`Petitioner has not met its burden to show that the non-disclaimed claims are
`not directed to a technological invention. ..................................................... 48 
`11(A). 
`The Petition’s first-prong deficiency: CBM review
`should be denied because the Petition does not sufficiently
`analyze the claims “as a whole” as required. ...................................... 49 
`
`The Petition’s second-prong deficiency: Petitioner does
`11(B). 
`not sufficiently show that the Remaining Claims are not
`directed to solving a technical problem. ............................................. 53 
`
`12.  Affirmative argument: the non-disclaimed claims are directed to a
`“technological invention,” and thus, ineligible for CMB review. ................ 55 
`12(A). 
`In the ’792 patent, the claimed subject matter as a whole
`recites a technological feature that is novel and unobvious over
`the prior art. ......................................................................................... 56 
`
`In the ’792 patent, the claimed subject matter as a whole
`12(B). 
`solves a technical problem using a technical solution. ....................... 59 
`
`Problem. .......................................................................... 59 
`12(B)(1). 
`Solution. .......................................................................... 60 
`12(B)(2). 
`13.  Twilio has failed to carry its burden to show that the claims are directed to
`patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. .............................. 65 
`13(A). 
`Background ............................................................................... 65 
`
`
`
`
`
`Page v
`
`

`
`13(B). 
`
`Legal Authority regarding 35 U.S.C. § 101. ............................. 66 
`
`Instead of analyzing the actual claims, Twilio improperly
`13(C). 
`analyzes an over-generalization of the claims. ................................... 67 
`
`14.  Affirmative Argument: The claims are not directed to patent-ineligible
`subject matter. ............................................................................................... 72 
`14(A). 
`Step 1 – The claims are not directed to a patent-ineligible
`concept. ................................................................................................ 72 
`
`Step 2 - The claims include elements that confirm that
`14(B). 
`they are directed to a patent-eligible application. ............................... 77 
`
`15.  Twilio has not met its burden to show that the Remaining Claims are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Bennett in view of
`Campbell. ...................................................................................................... 80 
`15(A). 
`Legal Standard for Obviousness ............................................... 81 
`
`The Petition fails to show that Bennett teaches or
`15(B). 
`suggests the notification-event limitations. ......................................... 82 
`
`The Petition fails to propose a proper rationale for
`15(C). 
`combining Bennett with Campbell. ..................................................... 85 
`
`Dependent claims 2-4, 6, 8, 11-13, 15 and 17 are
`15(D). 
`patentable over the asserted combination of Bennett and
`Campbell for at least the same reasons as claims 1 and 10................. 86 
`
`15(E). The challenge to the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 should be
`denied under 35 U.S.C. 325(d). ........................................................... 86 
`
`16.  Conclusion .................................................................................................... 87 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page vi
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Undated List of Exhibits:
`
`Exhibit
`Number
`
`Document
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`Certified copy of the file wrapper and contents of the
`application (14/678,815) leading to U.S. Patent No.
`9,300,792.
`TeleSign Corp. v. Twilio, Inc., No. 15-3240 (C.D. Cal.
`March 9, 2016), ECF No. 123.
`Excerpt from Twilio’s home page (www.twilio.com), last
`accessed Nov. 21, 2016.
`http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fraud, last
`accessed Nov. 1, 2016.
`U.S. Patent Number 8,781,975 to Bennett. 1
`BBC News Article, “Tinder accounts spammed by bots
`masquerading as singles”,
`http://www.bbc.com/news/26850761, last accessed Nov.
`29, 2016.
`Technology Review Article, “Fake Persuaders”,
`https://www.technologyreview.com/s/535901/fake-
`persuaders/, last accessed Nov. 29, 2016.
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Note: Ex. 1003 is a prior printed publication of U.S. Pat. No. 8,781,975. See Ex.
`2005, “Prior Publication Data.” In two prior, related IPRs, Petitioner cited
`to the Bennett patent. Here, the CBM Petition cites to the publication. For
`the sake of simplicity, references herein to “Bennett” are intended to
`generally refer to Ex. 1003; but substantive comments should also be
`applicable to Ex. 2005.
`
`
`
`
`
`Page vii
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Table of Authority:
`
`Short Cite
`
`CBM2014-00032
`
`CBM2014-00083
`
`CBM2014-00084
`
`CBM2014-00101
`
`Full Cite
`PNC Fin. Servs. Group, Inc. v. Intellectual
`Ventures I LLC, CBM2014-00032 (PTAB May 22,
`2014) (Paper 13)
`Motorola Mobility LLC v. Intellectual Ventures I
`LLC, CBM2014-00083 (PTAB Aug. 6, 2014)
`(Paper 17)
`Motorola Mobility LLC v. Intellectual Ventures I
`LLC, CBM2014-00084 (PTAB Sept. 23, 2014)
`(Paper 21)
`GSI Commerce Solutions, Inc. v. Lakshmi
`Arunachalam, CBM2014-00101 (PTAB Oct. 7,
`2014) (Paper 10)
`CBM2014-00149 Par Pharm. Inc. et al. v. Jazz Pharm., Inc.,
`CBM2014-00149 (PTAB Jan. 13, 2015) (Paper 12)
`Salesforce.com, Inc. v. Applications in Internet
`Time LLC, CBM2014-00162 (PTAB Feb. 2, 2015)
`(Paper 11)
`Bloomberg L.P., et al. v. Quest Licensing Corp.,
`CBM2014-00205, 2015 Pat. App. LEXIS 3515
`(PTAB April 7, 2015) (Paper 16)
`Bloomberg L.P., et al. v. Quest Licensing Corp.,
`CBM2014-00205 (PTAB June 17, 2015) (Paper 18)
`Google Inc. v. SimpleAir, Inc., CBM2015-00019,
`2014 Pat. App. LEXIS 9082 (PTAB May 19, 2015)
`(Paper 11)
`Google Inc. v. SimpleAir, Inc., CBM2015-00020,
`2015 Pat. App. LEXIS 6076 (PTAB May 19, 2015)
`(Paper 11)
`CBM2015-00046 Apple, Inc. v. ContentGuard Holdings, Inc.,
`CBM2015-00046 (PTAB June 3, 2015) (Paper 12)
`
`CBM2014-00162
`
`CBM2014-00205
`(Paper 16)
`
`CBM2014-00205
`(Paper 18)
`
`CBM2015-00019
`
`CBM2015-00020
`
`
`
`
`
`Page viii
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00077
`
`CBM2015-00107
`
`CBM2015-00162
`
`CBM2015-00164
`
`CBM2015-00171
`
`Full Cite
`Short Cite
`CBM2015-00075 Tagged, Inc. v. Gonzalez, CBM2015-00075 (PTAB
`Aug. 20, 2015) (Paper 8)
`ServiceNow, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`CBM2015-00077 (PTAB Sept. 17, 2015) (Paper
`12)
`ServiceNow, Inc. v. BMC Software, Inc.,
`CBM2015-00107 (PTAB Sept. 11, 2015) (Paper
`12)
`CBM2015–00108 ServiceNow, Inc. v. Hewlett–Packard, Co.,
`CBM2015–00108, (PTAB Oct. 8, 2015) (Paper 10)
`CBM2015-00112 PNC Bank NA, et al. v. Parus Holdings, Inc.,
`CBM2015-00112 (PTAB Nov. 9, 2015) (Paper 11)
`CBM2015-00116 Emnos USA Corp. v. Dunnhumby Ltd., CBM2015-
`00116 (PTAB Nov. 10, 2015) (Paper 8)
`Emnos USA Corp. v. Dunnhumby Ltd., CBM2015-
`00162, 2015 Pat. App. LEXIS 12587 (PTAB Dec.
`30, 2015) (Paper 7)
`Qualtrics, LLC v. OpinionLab, Inc., CBM2015-
`00164, 2016 Pat. App. LEXIS 1265 (PTAB Feb. 3,
`2016) (Paper 8)
`Great West Casualty Co. et al. v. Intellectual
`Ventures II LLC, CBM2015-00171, 2016 Pat. App.
`LEXIS 1268 (PTAB Feb. 9, 2016) (Paper 10)
`AT&T Mobility LLC v. Intellectual Ventures II,
`LLC, CBM2015-00185 (PTAB May 4, 2016)
`(Paper 10)
`CBM2016-00003 Qualtrics, LLC v. OpinionLab, Inc., CBM2016-
`00003 (PTAB April 13, 2016) (Paper 9)
`CBM2016-00016 CoreLogic, Inc. v. Boundary Solutions, Inc.,
`CBM2016-00016 (PTAB May 24, 2016) (Paper 9)
`Sally Beauty Holdings, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures
`I LLC, CBM2016-00030 (PTAB Aug. 2, 2016)
`(Paper 8)
`
`CBM2015-00185
`
`CBM2016-00030
`
`
`
`
`
`Page ix
`
`

`
`Full Cite
`Short Cite
`CBM2016-00037 Plaid Technologies Inc. v. Yodlee, Inc., et al.,
`CBM2016-00037 (PTAB Aug. 16, 2016) (Paper 9)
`BMC Software, Inc. v. zIT Consulting GMBH,
`CBM2016-00044 (PTAB Aug. 23, 2016) (Paper
`10)
`
`CBM2016-00044
`
`
`
`All emphasis in all quotations herein has been added unless otherwise
`
`indicated.
`
`
`
`
`
`Page x
`
`

`
`
`
`1.
`
`Argument Summary.
`
`The Board should deny the Petition’s institution request because Petitioner
`
`has failed to carry its burden to demonstrate that the claims of the ’792 patent are
`
`sufficiently2 finance-related to qualify for CBM review. Namely, the Petition fails
`
`to show that the ’792 patent meets the statutory definition of a “covered business
`
`method patent” and that it is “directed to methods and apparatuses of particular
`
`types and with particular uses ‘in the practice, administration, or management of a
`
`financial product or service.’”3 In the fewer than two pages allocated to make its
`
`finance-related argument, Petitioner:
`
` bases its analysis on a CBM-patent-determination standard that has
`been rejected by the Federal Circuit;
`
` improperly focuses on non-limiting examples in the specification
`instead of properly showing that the claims are sufficiently finance-
`related;
`
`2 Use of language such as “sufficiently” or “adequately” is not intended as any sort
`of admission (tacit or otherwise) that the non-disclaimed claims include
`terminology that is even partly finance-related (as used in the context of
`determining CBM-review eligibility). Rather, Patent Owner uses these
`terms of degree because they reflect the terminology generally used in the
`case law and other authority.
`3 Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 20764, *13 (Fed.
`Cir. Nov. 21, 2016) (quoting AIA § 18(d)).
`
`Page 1
`
`

`
`
`
` relies heavily on disclaimed claims;
`
` intimates that the claims recite terms they do not;
`
` does not cite any authority to support its positions beyond initially
`citing non-binding comment responses in the CBM “final rules”; and
`
` includes proposed claim constructions that undermine its assertion
`that certain terms (namely, “notification event”) are finance-related.
`
`Although Petitioner’s failure to carry its burden is sufficient to preclude
`
`CBM review, this Preliminary Response affirmatively argues that none of the
`
`disclaimed claims are review-eligible. None of the claims recite any product or
`
`service particular to a financial institution or include language that is financial in
`
`nature; and in particular, Section 9 sets forth nine bases explaining why the
`
`claimed subject matter is not sufficiently finance-related to be eligible for CBM
`
`review.
`
`Additionally, in addressing only two of the total limitations in the
`
`independent claims, Petitioner fails to adequately show that the ’792 patent is 1)
`
`not directed to a novel and nonobvious technological invention or 2) does not
`
`provide a technical solution to a technical problem. It is and it does.
`
`Finally, the ’792 patent is not directed to patent-ineligible subject matter and
`
`is not obvious as contended in the Petition. Petitioner’s request should be denied.
`
`2.
`
`Background.
`
`The parties are competing technology companies. Patent Owner TeleSign—
`
`Page 2
`
`

`
`
`
`based in Los Angeles—provides account security solutions to help increase online
`
`security and to prevent fraudsters from creating fake online registrations (including
`
`fake website accounts). Petitioner Twilio is based in San Francisco and describes
`
`itself as a “cloud communications platform”; as reflected by the following
`
`screenshot from its homepage, Twilio offers three general categories of products
`
`and services: voice/video, messaging, and authentication.4
`
`
`
`3. Matters Involving Related Patents.5
`Petitioner previously sought inter partes review of two parent patents that
`
`share a common specification with the ’792 patent in IPR2016-00450 and
`
`IPR2016-00451. The Board denied both requests, which were based on the
`
`substantively same primary reference (“Bennett”) that Petitioner relies on again in
`
`its current Petition.6 Petitioner requested rehearing on the denials, but the Board
`
`
`4 Ex. 2003 at 1.
`5 The Petition summarizes related matters on its page 3.
`6 IPR2016-00450 at Paper 17 (PTAB July 8, 2016); IPR2016-00451 at Paper 17
`(PTAB July 8, 2016). Technically, the prior proceedings cited to the
`Bennett patent (Ex. 2005) instead of its counterpart publication (Ex. 1003).
`
`Page 3
`
`

`
`
`
`denied both of them as well.7 Bennett was also disclosed during prosecution of the
`
`Application leading to the ’792 patent.8
`
`4.
`
`The ’792 patent.
`
`The ’792 patent is entitled “Registration, verification and notification
`
`system.”
`
`4(A). Background and context.
`Fraud is a broad concept “commonly understood as dishonesty calculated for
`
`advantage.”9 In the ’792 patent, fraud takes the form of fake online registrations
`
`and includes dishonest fraudsters trying to register for and obtain an online user
`
`account with a website using false information for their advantage. This sort of
`
`fraud “can compromise the intended purpose of the registration, create a breach of
`
`security and constitute fraud on the web-site owners.”10 It also includes attempting
`
`to obtain access to an existing account or other information that the fraudster is not
`
`authorized to access—also not inherently financial.
`
` Today, fake online
`
`registrations are a major problem. Some larger companies are besieged with
`
`
`7 See IPR2016-00450 at Paper 29 (PTAB Nov. 15, 2016); IPR2016-00451 at Paper
`28 (PTAB Nov. 15, 2016).
`8 Pet. 11 (“. . . Bennett was raised in an IDS . . .”) (citing Ex. 1024).
`9 Ex. 2004.
`10 Ex. 1001 at 1:58-60.
`
`Page 4
`
`

`
`
`
`attempts to create millions of fake accounts per day, which is a drain on
`
`technological resources such as server processing, database administration, and
`
`searching speed. Social media website Facebook, for example, may have over 14
`
`million accounts that are “fakes created for spam” or other undesired purposes.11
`
`4(B). Technical Problems Addressed.
`The ’792 patent addresses a multifaceted problem:
`
`1. in an online environment, potential registrants often register using
`false information;12
`
`2. permitting fraudulent online registrations can create a breach of
`security;13
`
`3. security measures need to be rapidly and reliably deployed while still
`providing “an additional layer of security”14; and
`
`4. legitimate users do not learn about unauthorized activity or attempted
`activity soon enough to address it.15
`
`These problems are rooted in computer technology. Brick-and-mortar stores
`
`allow for face-to-face interactions. Online presences do not. Thus, determining
`
`whether remotely provided digital information over the Internet is accurate was
`
`11 Ex. 2006 at 5.
`12 Ex. 1001 at 1:56-58.
`13 Ex. 1001 at 1:58-60.
`14 Ex. 1001 at 8:45-47; 2:17-25.
`15 Ex. 1001 at 1:61-2:8.
`
`Page 5
`
`

`
`
`
`(and is) a problem—a significant technological problem. A key aspect of fraud
`
`explained in the specification relates to identifying potentially fraudulent website
`
`registrations, which is applicable to all manner of websites.16
`
`The problem is inherently technological because it stems from the rise of the
`
`Internet and the anonymity of communicating via remote network connections.
`
`Parties exchange data online without being physically present. Information is
`
`received electronically. Users desire to create online registrations. But users can
`
`provide false registration information.17 And allowing fraudulent (or fake)
`
`registrations could “compromise the intended purpose of the registration” and lead
`
`to security breaches.18 But then again, attempting to separate legitimate requests
`
`from fraudulent attempts could take so long that it is not practical. For legitimate
`
`users, the problem of notifying them of unauthorized activity or attempted activity
`
`
`16 The title of the patent includes “Registration.” The specification (including
`claims and references to prior applications) refer to some form of
`“registration,” “registrant,” “register” or the like 326 times (a word search of
`“regist” yields 326 hits). Both independent claims recite “completing a
`registration of the user based on” recited information. Ex. 1001 at claims 1
`and 10.
`17 Ex. 1001 at 1:56-58.
`18 Ex. 1001 at 1:58-60.
`
`Page 6
`
`

`
`
`
`(such as altering account information)19 in time for it to be addressed existed.
`
`As reflected in more modern literature and consistent with the specification
`
`of the ’792 patent: “Fake accounts operated by low-paid humans or automated
`
`software have become good business, too. They are used to inflate follower counts,
`
`to push spam or malware, and even to skew political discourse. The tactic appears
`
`to be pervasive and growing in sophistication.”20
`
`4(C). Technical Solutions Provided.
`The inventors responded to the technological problems above with
`
`technological solutions. The ’792 patent contemplates a computing system that
`
`employs software to implement or perform a “verification and notification
`
`method.” Ex. 1001 at claims 1 and 10. The solution, as a whole, reduces
`
`fraudulent online registrations in a rapid manner using a combination of hardware
`
`and software to effect a verification and notification method implemented by a
`
`computing system that helps verify the accuracy of registration information—
`
`completing a registration based on a verified telephone number. Ex. 1001 at
`
`Abstract, 2:29-41, 5:3-7, 12:41-13:2, 13:23-14:17.
`
`Information is received from a user via a computing interface (such as an
`
`online web registration form) presented to the user attempting to access a service.
`
`19 Ex. 1001 at 3:2-3.
`20 Ex. 2007 at 1.
`
`Page 7
`
`

`
`
`
`Id. at 2:42-43, 4:51-55, 5:28-29, 5:57-60, 6:27-29, 7:9-13, 7:47-51, 8:8-12, 9:7-9,
`
`12:43-46, 13:27-30. The received information can include a telephone number
`
`associated with the user. Id. at 4:55-58, 5:28-29, 6:27-29, 7:9-13, 9:9-13, 12:45-
`
`46, 13:29-30. The telephone number is verified; for example, using a verification
`
`code is sent in real time21 to the user, such as via SMS. Id. at Abstract, 7:15-18,
`
`9:25-28, 9:33-35. A verification code submitted by the user is received via the
`
`computing interface. Id. at 4:63-65; 12:52-53, 13:36-37. The telephone number is
`
`deemed verified if the submitted verification code is the same as the communicated
`
`verification code. Id. at 7:1-7, 12:54-53, 14:1-3.
`
`Registration of the user is completed based on the received information and
`
`verified telephone number, which enables the user to access the service the user
`
`was attempting to access. Id. at Abstract, 9:37-43, 12:57-60, 14:4-7. A record of
`
`notification events is maintained. Id. at Abstract, 2:66-3:3, 12:61-63, 14:8-10. The
`
`notification events are associated with actions to be acknowledged by the user. Id.
`
`at Abstract, 10:66-11:10, 12:61-63, 14:8-10. When an indication is received that a
`
`notification event has occurred, a message indicating the occurrence of the
`
`notification event is transmitted. Id. at Abstract, 3:4-10, 10:2-4; 12:64-67, 14:11-
`
`14. An acknowledgement of an action associated with the notification event is
`
`
`21 See Section 5(B).
`
`Page 8
`
`

`
`
`
`received from the user. Id. at Abstract, 13:1-2, 14:14-15.
`
`5.
`
`Claim Construction
`5(A). “notification event”
`IPR2016-00451 involved a parent patent (U.S. 8,687,038) that shares a
`
`common specification with the instant patent. There, the Board determined that
`
`the BRI of “notification event” was “an event that results in the user being notified
`
`that the event occurred.”22 The specification teaches, for example, that “[u]pon the
`
`occurrence of a previously established notification event, the registrant is notified
`
`….”23
`
`For purposes of this IPR, Patent Owner does not dispute the Board’s
`
`rationale in IPR2016-00451, its construction for “notification event,” or that that
`
`construction applies to the claims of the ’792 patent.
`
`5(B). “verifying the telephone number”
`The BRI of “verifying the telephone number” should be “verifying, in real-
`
`time, the telephone number.” “Even under the broadest reasonable interpretation,
`
`
`22 Twilio Inc. v. TeleSign Corp., IPR2016-00451 at 7 (PTAB July 8, 2016) (Paper
`17). Also, the Board reached a similar result in IPR2016-00450, which
`involved another parent patent (8,462,920). (The main difference is that the
`‘920 patent refers to a “registrant” instead of “user.”)
`23 Ex. 1001 at 3:4-6; See also Ex. 1001 at Abstract, 2:19-23, 2:29-33, 10:66-11:2.
`
`Page 9
`
`

`
`
`
`the Board’s construction cannot be divorced from the specification and the record
`
`evidence.”24 “Above all, the broadest reasonable interpretation must be reasonable
`
`in light of the claims and specification.”25 In PPC Broadband, the Board failed “to
`
`account for how the claims themselves and the specification inform the ordinarily
`
`skilled artisan as to precisely which ordinary definition the patentee was using.”26
`
`The specification expressly states that the “method of telephone verification,
`
`in real-time, provides an additional layer of security.” Ex. 1001 at 8:45-46. Given
`
`the specification, an ordinary skilled artisan would appreciate that substantially
`
`immediately upon receiving the user’s telephone number, the process of sending a
`
`verification code begins such that it is to be received by the user who is trying to
`
`register. This would allow the registration process to continue as the user is
`
`attempting to register.
`
`6.
`
`Identification of the Disclaimed Claims and the “Remaining Claims.”
`
`Patent Owner disclaimed claims 3, 5, 7, 12, 14, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`
`24 Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`(internal quotations and citations omitted).
`25 PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Communs. RF, LLC, 815 F.3d 747, 755
`(Fed. Cir. 2016) (emphasis in original).
`26 PPC Broadband, 815 F.3d at 752.
`
`Page 10
`
`

`
`
`
`253.27 Thus, as used herein, the term “Remaining Claims” refers to claims 1-2, 4,
`
`6, 8-11, 13, 15, 17-18.
`
`7.
`
`Legal Authority regarding the Finance-Related Requirement.
`7(A). The Board’s decision should not be based on disclaimed claims.
`Claims that have been statutorily disclaimed are viewed as though they never
`
`existed, and thus, are not properly considered when deciding whether to institute
`
`CBM review. “A statutory disclaimer under 35 U.S.C. § 253 has the effect of
`
`canceling the claims from the patent and the patent is viewed as though the disclaimed
`
`claims had never existed in the patent.” Guinn v. Kopf, 96 F.3d 1419, 1422 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1996). “[A] patent owner may file a statutory disclaimer of one or more challenged
`
`claims to streamline the proceedings. Where no challenged claims remain, the
`
`Board would terminate the proceeding. Where one or more challenged claims
`
`remain, the Board's decision on institution would be based solely on the
`
`remaining claims.” Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756,
`
`48,764-65 (Aug. 14, 2012) (quoted and relied upon in, e.g., CBM2015-00020,
`
`2015 Pat. App. LEXIS 6076, *2) (“As explained above, we do not consider any
`
`grounds challenging claims 19, 24, 27, 33, and 34, which Patent Owner statutorily
`
`disclaimed.”).
`
`Board opinions agree that “[d]isclaimed claims should not be consulted
`
`27 Ex. 2001 at 380.
`
`Page 11
`
`

`
`
`
`when determining whether the patent is a covered business method patent under
`
`AIA §18(d)(1).” CBM2016-00016 at 7 (also citing CBM2015-00185 at 7-10
`
`(“[W]e agr