UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`___________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________
`
`GOOGLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ALFONSO CIOFFI, MEGAN ELIZABETH ROZMAN,
`MELANIE ANN ROZMAN, AND MORGAN LEE ROZMAN
`Patent Owners
`
`___________
`
`CBM2017-00010
`Patent No. RE43,528
`___________
`
`PETITION FOR COVERED BUSINESS METHOD REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. RE43,528
`
`

`
`Petition for Covered Business Method Review of Patent No. RE43,528
`
`B.
`
`2.
`
`I.
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`Table of Contents ....................................................................................................... i
`Table of Authorities .................................................................................................iv
`List of Exhibits ....................................................................................................... vii
`Mandatory Notices Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ............................................................ix
`Real Party-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) .............................................ix
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) ......................................................ix
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)) ...................................ix
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)) ...............................................ix
`Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1
`Standing to Seek Covered Business Method Review .................................... 4
`A.
`Petitioner Has Been Sued for Infringement of the ’528 Reissue
`and Is Not Estopped ............................................................................. 4
`The ’528 Reissue Is a Covered Business Method Patent ..................... 5
`1.
`The ’528 Reissue Is Directed to a “Financial Product or
`Service” ...................................................................................... 5
`The ’528 Reissue Is Not Directed to a “Technological
`Invention” ................................................................................. 12
`a.
`The Challenged Claims Do Not Recite a
`Technological Feature That Is Novel and
`Nonobvious .................................................................... 12
`The Challenged Claims Do Not Solve a Technical
`Problem Using a Technical Solution ............................. 15
`Challenged Claims and Grounds for Challenge ................................. 17
`C.
`The Challenged Patent and Prosecution History .......................................... 18
`A.
`Effective Filing Date of the ’528 Reissue .......................................... 18
`B.
`The Original ’247 Patent .................................................................... 18
`C.
`The ’528 Reissue ................................................................................ 23
`D.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art .................................................... 28
`IV. Construction of Terms in the Challenged Claims ........................................ 28
`
`b.
`
`III.
`
`i
`
`

`
`Petition for Covered Business Method Review of Patent No. RE43,528
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`V.
`
`Claims 21-24, 30, 44, 64, and 67 Are Invalid for Violating the
`Recapture Rule of Section 251 [Ground 1] .................................................. 30
`A.
`Recapture Step 1: The Reissue Claims Are Broader Than the
`’247 Patent Claims Because They Cover a Single Processor ............ 32
`Recapture Step 2: Single Processor Was Surrendered During
`Prosecution of the ’247 Patent to Overcome Prior Art ...................... 33
`Recapture Step 3: Reissue Claims Are Not Materially
`Narrowed Relative to the Original Claims in an Aspect
`Relevant to the Surrendered Subject Matter of a Single
`Processor ............................................................................................ 35
`Overlooked Aspects: The Originally Filed Claims of the ’247
`Patent Encompassed All Embodiments ............................................. 37
`1.
`The Original Claims Covered the Figure 6 Embodiment ........ 38
`2.
`The Original Claims Covered Portable Devices and
`Cell Phones .............................................................................. 40
`VI. All Challenged Claims Are Invalid for Violating the Original Patent
`Requirement of Section 251 [Ground 2] ...................................................... 41
`A.
`The Original Patent Did Not “Clearly and Unequivocally”
`Disclose a First Web Browser Process Capable of Accessing
`Data on a Website As Claimed in the ’528 Reissue .......................... 42
`The Patent Owner’s Arguments in the Related Litigation Are
`Contradicted by the Intrinsic Record ................................................. 44
`VII. The Challenged Claims Are Not Enabled by the Specification
`[Ground 3] .................................................................................................... 48
`A.
`Claims 21-24, 30, 44, 64, and 67 Recite a Single-Processor
`Configuration That Is Not Enabled .................................................... 48
`All Challenged Claims Recite a First Web Browser Process
`Connected to the Internet and the First Memory Space, Which
`Is Not Enabled .................................................................................... 53
`VIII. The Challenged Claims Are Directed to Unpatentable Subject Matter
`[Ground 4] .................................................................................................... 54
`
`B.
`
`B.
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Petition for Covered Business Method Review of Patent No. RE43,528
`
`A.
`
`Alice Step 1: The Claims Are Directed to the Abstract Idea of
`Protecting Data by Isolating Software Threats in a Safe Space ......... 55
`Alice Step 2: The Asserted Claims Recite Conventional,
`Functional Elements That Fail to Add an Inventive Concept ............ 59
`IX. Conclusion .................................................................................................... 64
`
`B.
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Petition for Covered Business Method Review of Patent No. RE43,528
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Federal Court Cases
`Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com Inc.,
` 2016 WL 5335502 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 23, 2016) .............................................. 61, 62
`
`Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank,
` 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) ................................................................................ passim
`
`Antares Pharma, Inc. v. Medac Pharma Inc.,
` 771 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................... passim
`
`Catalina Marketing International, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc.,
` 289 F.3d 801 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .............................................................................30
`
`Cioffi v. Google, Inc.,
` 632 Fed.Appx. 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................... 29, 30
`
`Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
` 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................... 62, 63
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
` 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...........................................................................58
`
`FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Systems, Inc.,
` 2016 WL 5899185 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 11, 2016) ............................................... 56, 57
`
`Genentech, Inc. v. Novo Nordisk, A/S,
` 108 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ...........................................................................50
`
`Hester Industries, Inc. v. Stein, Inc.,
` 142 F.3d 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ...........................................................................37
`
`In re Clement,
` 131 F.3d 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ...........................................................................35
`
`In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC,
` 793 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ...........................................................................28
`
`In re Mostafazadeh,
` 643 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................................................................... passim
`
`iv
`
`

`
`Petition for Covered Business Method Review of Patent No. RE43,528
`
`In re Youman,
` 679 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................... 35, 37
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp.,
` 2016 WL 5539870 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 30, 2016) .....................................................57
`
`Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. JP Morgan Chase & Co.,
` 2015 WL 1941331 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 28, 2015) .....................................................58
`
`Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc.,
` 790 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ...........................................................................58
`
`Landmark Technology, LLC v. Assurant, Inc.,
` 2015 WL 4388311 (E.D. Tex. July 14, 2015) .....................................................61
`
`LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc.,
` 2016 WL 3974203 (Fed. Cir. July 25, 2016) ......................................................60
`
`Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc.,
` 481 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ...........................................................................52
`
`MagSil Corp. v. Hitachi Global Storage Techs, Inc.,
` 687 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ...........................................................................49
`
`MBO Laboratories, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.,
` 602 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ...........................................................................31
`
`Open Text S.A. v. Box, Inc.,
` 78 F. Supp. 3d 1043 (N.D. Cal. 2015) .................................................................61
`
`Preservation Wellness Techs. LLC v. Allscripts Healthcare Solutions,
` 2016 WL 2742379 (E.D. Tex. May 10, 2016) ....................................................58
`
`Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp.,
` 2016 WL 6068920 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 17, 2016) .............................................. passim
`
`United States Industrial Chemicals, Inc. v. Carbide & Carbon Chemicals
`Corp.,
` 315 U.S. 668 (1942) ............................................................................................41
`
`Versata Development Group, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc.,
` 793 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................................... passim
`
`v
`
`

`
`Petition for Covered Business Method Review of Patent No. RE43,528
`
`Federal Statutory Authorities
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ........................................................................................................17
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ........................................................................................................17
`
`35 U.S.C. § 251 ........................................................................................... 17, 24, 41
`
`35 U.S.C. § 282 ........................................................................................................31
`
`35 U.S.C. § 321(b) ...................................................................................................31
`
`35 U.S.C. § 324(a) ...................................................................................................... 4
`
`Federal Rules and Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b) ..............................................................................................28
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b) ..............................................................................................12
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.302(a) ................................................................................................ 4
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,734-35 (Aug. 14, 2012) ................................................................... 5
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756 (Aug. 14, 2012)................................................................ 12, 15
`
`vi
`
`

`
`Petition for Covered Business Method Review of Patent No. RE43,528
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`U.S. Patent No. RE43,528 (“’528 Reissue”)
`
`Prosecution history of U.S. Application No. 12/720,147, which led
`to the issuance of the ’528 Reissue (“File History”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,484,247 (“’247 Patent”)
`
`Prosecution history of U.S. Application No. 10/913,609, which led
`to the issuance of the ’247 Patent (“’247 Patent File History”)
`
`Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement, Case No. 2:13-cv-103,
`E.D. Texas (“Complaint”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,578,140 (“Policard”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,192,477 (“Corthell”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/002673 (“Narin”)
`
`Prosecution history of U.S. Application No. 13/757,684, which is a
`reissue continuation of U.S. Pat. No. RE43,987, which is a reissue
`continuation of U.S. Pat. No. RE43,103, which is a reissue of the
`’247 Patent (“’684 Application File History”)
`
`Patent Local Rule 4-3 Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing
`Statement excluding exhibits (“Joint Claim Const. Statement”)
`
`Plaintiff’s Reply Memorandum In Support of Opening Claim
`Construction Brief (“PO Reply Claim Const. Brief”)
`
`Claim Construction Memorandum and Order (“Claim Const.
`Order”)
`
`Excerpts from transcript of deposition of H. E. Dunsmore dated June
`17, 2014 (“2014 Dunsmore Dep.”)
`
`Excerpts from transcript of deposition of H. E. Dunsmore dated
`October 10, 2016 (“2016 Dunsmore Dep.”)
`
`vii
`
`

`
`Petition for Covered Business Method Review of Patent No. RE43,528
`
`Exhibit
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`Description
`
`Excerpts from Expert Declaration of H.E. (“Buster”) Dunsmore
`(“Dunsmore Claim Const. Decl.”)
`
`Excerpts from Expert Report of Professor H. E. Dunsmore
`(“Dunsmore Report”)
`
`Excerpts from transcript of deposition of Alfonso Cioffi dated June
`26, 2014 (“June 2014 Cioffi Dep.”)
`
`Excerpts from transcript of deposition of Alfonso Cioffi dated
`November 7, 2014 (“Nov. 2014 Cioffi Dep.”)
`
`Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary, 5th ed. 2002 (“Computer
`Dictionary”)
`
`Joint Notice of Agreed Construction
`
`Declaration of Daniel Callaway in Support of Petition for Covered
`Business Method Review
`
`Declaration of Michael Kogan, Ph.D. Regarding U.S. Patent No.
`RE43,528 in Support of Petition for Covered Business Method
`Review (“Kogan Decl.”)
`
`viii
`
`

`
`Petition for Covered Business Method Review of Patent No. RE43,528
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`
`Real Party-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`
`The real party-in-interest is Google Inc. (“Petitioner”). Petitioner
`
`understands and believes that U.S. Patent No. RE43,528 (the “’528 Reissue”) is
`
`owned by Alfonso Cioffi, Megan Elizabeth Rozman, Melanie Ann Rozman, and
`
`Morgan Lee Rozman (collectively referred to as “Patent Owners”).
`
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`
`The Petitioner is aware of the following pending matter related to the ’528
`
`Reissue: Cioffi, et al. v. Google Inc., 2:13-cv-00103 (E.D. Tex.).
`
`The ’528 Reissue is a reissue patent based on U.S. Patent No. 7,484,247 (the
`
`“’247 Patent”). Petitioner is concurrently filing a CBM petition challenging each
`
`of the following related patents that are also reissues of the ’247 Patent: U.S.
`
`Patent No. RE43,500; U.S. Patent No. RE43,529; and U.S. Patent No. RE43,103.
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3))
`
`Petitioner appoints James L. Day (Reg. No. 72,681) of Farella Braun +
`
`Martel LLP as lead counsel and appoints Daniel Callaway (Reg. No. 74,267) of
`
`Farella Braun + Martel LLP as back-up counsel. An appropriate Power of
`
`Attorney is being filed concurrently herewith.
`
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4))
`
`Service of any documents to lead and back-up counsel can be made via
`
`ix
`
`

`
`Petition for Covered Business Method Review of Patent No. RE43,528
`
`hand-delivery to Farella Braun + Martel LLP, 235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor,
`
`San Francisco, California, 94104. Petitioner consents to electronic service to the
`
`following email addresses: jday@fbm.com, dcallaway@fbm.com, and
`
`calendar@fbm.com.
`
`x
`
`

`
`Petition for Covered Business Method Review of Patent No. RE43,528
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner Google Inc. respectfully requests covered business method
`
`(“CBM”) review of claims 1, 5, 8, 21-24, 30, 44, 64, and 67 of the ’528 Reissue.
`
`(Ex. 1001). The ’528 Reissue describes and claims a secure web browser for uses
`
`that include Internet banking. The claimed invention permits a computer user to
`
`communicate with a bank host computer securely even when malware is running
`
`on the user’s computer. The system is intended to protect data, such as passwords,
`
`credit card numbers, and bank account numbers, from malware that would
`
`otherwise access and potentially steal the data. The claimed invention purports to
`
`protect sensitive data by employing two computer processes – (1) a first process
`
`with access to the sensitive data that is shielded from malware and (2) a second
`
`isolated process that cannot access sensitive data, but is used to run code that
`
`contains potential malware.
`
`The original ’247 Patent, from which the challenged patent reissued, claimed
`
`a computer architecture that separated sensitive data from malware by isolating
`
`each to physically separate electronic data processors. The first processor had
`
`access to a first memory space containing the sensitive data, while the second
`
`processor was used to download and run Internet content, potentially including
`
`malware, using a second memory space. This second processor and second
`
`memory space were effectively a separate computer system intended to isolate
`
`1
`
`

`
`Petition for Covered Business Method Review of Patent No. RE43,528
`
`malware. Because the first processor and associated memory space with the
`
`sensitive data was physically isolated from the second processor, any malware
`
`downloaded from the Internet to the second processor would be isolated from and
`
`unable to access the sensitive data. The original patent described and claimed this
`
`hardware-based invention.
`
`Instead of the hardware-based architecture described in the patent
`
`specification, the ’528 Reissue claims recite a software-based approach in which
`
`two “web browser processes” separate sensitive data from malware by giving one
`
`web browser process access to the data and using the other to execute malware. In
`
`most of the reissue claims, these two web browser processes run on the same
`
`computer processor, although such a configuration is never disclosed in the
`
`specification. The reissue claims are effectively divorced from the original patent
`
`specification, which has rendered the claims unpatentable for a number of different
`
`reasons.
`
`For instance, most of the claims violate the rule against “recapture” that
`
`applies to reissue claims. The applicants amended the claims of the original ’247
`
`Patent to expressly require at least two processors to distinguish the claims from
`
`cited prior art. By amending the claims to overcome single-processor prior art, the
`
`applicants surrendered any single-processor configuration. But most of the claims
`
`of the ’528 Reissue have recaptured a single-processor configuration by reciting
`
`2
`
`

`
`Petition for Covered Business Method Review of Patent No. RE43,528
`
`“at least one electronic data processor.” Section 251 of the Patent Act prohibits
`
`exactly this type of recapture of surrendered claim scope, and the single-processor
`
`claims of the ’528 Reissue therefore are invalid.
`
`Section 251 also limits any reissue patent to “the invention disclosed in the
`
`original patent.” This creates a higher bar for written description support than
`
`would have applied for claims in the original patent. Indeed, it is not enough that
`
`reissue claims’ limitations may have been suggested by the specification, which is
`
`shared between the ’528 Reissue and the ’247 Patent. Rather, under Section 251,
`
`the specification must “clearly and unequivocally” disclose the basis for the reissue
`
`claims. The ’528 Reissue fails the “original patent” requirement because its claims
`
`recite a “first web browser process” that is both “capable of accessing data of a
`
`website via the network” and also “accessing data contained in the first memory
`
`space.” But the common patent specification provides no clear and unequivocal
`
`support for either of these claimed features.
`
`In addition, because the ’528 Reissue does not explain to one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art how to protect the system file when using the claimed single-
`
`processor configuration – which requires a software solution that is not described
`
`in the specification – the reissue claims violate the enablement requirement of
`
`Section 112. The specification also fails to enable the claim limitations requiring a
`
`“first web browser process” that is used to download web data, including malware,
`
`3
`
`

`
`Petition for Covered Business Method Review of Patent No. RE43,528
`
`and additionally has access to the first memory space containing the system file.
`
`The ’528 Reissue claims are also invalid under Section 101. The challenged
`
`claims are directed to the abstract idea of protecting important computer data by
`
`isolating software threats to a safe space. The claims simply apply this abstract
`
`idea to generic computer components and functions followed by the aspirational
`
`instruction to protect certain data or files. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea
`
`and add no inventive concept – they are invalid under Section 101.
`
`Thus, this petition sets forth a prima facie case that at least one of the patent
`
`claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). Therefore,
`
`CBM review should be instituted and the challenged claims of the ’528 Reissue
`
`should be canceled.
`
`II.
`
`STANDING TO SEEK COVERED BUSINESS METHOD REVIEW
`
`A.
`
`Petitioner Has Been Sued for Infringement of the ’528 Reissue
`and Is Not Estopped
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.302(a), Petitioner certifies that it has been sued
`
`for infringement of the ’528 Reissue and therefore satisfies the standing
`
`requirement to seek CBM review. Complaint at 6-7 (Ex. 1005). The lawsuit
`
`remains pending.
`
`Petitioner further certifies that the ’528 Reissue is available for CBM review
`
`and that Petitioner is not barred or otherwise estopped from requesting such review
`
`on the grounds identified in this petition.
`
`4
`
`

`
`Petition for Covered Business Method Review of Patent No. RE43,528
`
`B.
`
`The ’528 Reissue Is a Covered Business Method Patent
`
`Under Section 18 of the AIA, the Board may institute a CBM review
`
`proceeding for any patent that qualifies as a CBM patent. AIA § 18(a)(1)(E). The
`
`AIA provides a two part definitional test to determine whether a patent is a CBM
`
`patent. The claimed invention (i) must be directed to a “financial product or
`
`service” and (ii) must not be a “technological invention.” AIA § 18(d)(1). The
`
`’528 Reissue meets both requirements.
`
`1.
`
`The ’528 Reissue Is Directed to a “Financial Product or
`Service”
`
`The ’528 Reissue claims are directed to a “financial product or service.”
`
`The phrase “financial product or service” is to be “interpreted broadly” to
`
`encompass patents “claiming activities that are financial in nature, incidental to a
`
`financial activity or complementary to a financial activity.” Versata Development
`
`Group, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,734-35 (Aug. 14, 2012)). The patent claims themselves need not
`
`explicitly recite particular financial terms to qualify as a CBM patent. See Google
`
`v. ContentGuard Holdings, CBM2015-00040, Paper 9 at 8 (PTAB June 24, 2015)
`
`(rejecting argument that a CBM patent must “recite explicitly a financial product
`
`or service”). It is also not required that the claims be “limited to finance-related
`
`activities, such as a financial transaction, without also encompassing other kinds of
`
`activity.” Southside Bancshares, Inc. v. St. Isidore Research, LLC, CBM2016-
`
`5
`
`

`
`Petition for Covered Business Method Review of Patent No. RE43,528
`
`00027, Paper 28 at 11 (PTAB Aug. 1, 2016) (rejecting argument that claims “must
`
`cover only financial transactions, and not other kinds of transactions”; emphasis in
`
`original). “Rather, the patent claims must only be broad enough to cover a
`
`financial product or service.” Informatica Corp. v. Protegrity Corp., CBM2015-
`
`00021, Paper 38 at 18 (PTAB May 31, 2016) (quoting legislative history of AIA);1
`
`see also Southside Bancshares, CBM2016-00027, Paper 28 at 11 (specification
`
`showed claim language “is broad enough in scope to encompass a financial
`
`activity”); T. Rowe Price Investment Services, Inc. v. Secure Axcess, LLC,
`
`CBM2015-00027, Paper 31 at 10-11 (PTAB June 13, 2016) (rejecting arguments
`
`that “none of the claims mentions a financial product or service” and “the claimed
`
`method and apparatus aid businesses in general”). The ’528 Reissue meets this
`
`requirement because its claims cover and imply using a secure web browser in the
`
`specification’s Internet banking embodiment, which is indisputably a financial
`
`activity.
`
`Patent Owner’s expert witness in the related litigation confirmed in sworn
`
`testimony that the challenged claims of the ’528 Reissue cover an Internet banking
`
`embodiment disclosed in the patent. 2016 Dunsmore Dep. at 274:10-22, 278:13-
`
`279:3 (claims that recite a “first web browser process that can access website data
`
`via the network” cover Internet banking embodiment) (Ex. 1014). While a patent
`
`1 All emphasis is added unless otherwise indicated.
`
`6
`
`

`
`Petition for Covered Business Method Review of Patent No. RE43,528
`
`need have only one claim directed to a covered business method to be eligible for
`
`review (see Informatica, CBM2015-00021, Paper 38 at 17), all of the challenged
`
`claims here are tied to a specific financial activity described in the ’528 Reissue.
`
`In particular, the specification describes a “preferred embodiment of the
`
`present invention” in which data is encrypted by a first process and sent to a
`
`second process to be passed on to the Internet. ’528 Reissue at 17:22-56. The
`
`specification further explains that encryption is used to protect user files or
`
`“sensitive user interface data” (id. at 17:1-4), which would include passwords,
`
`bank account numbers, credit card numbers, etc. Id. at 16:38-42 (malware is
`
`capable of stealing “important user information” such as “passwords, bank
`
`account numbers, social security numbers, driver’s license numbers, credit
`
`account numbers, etc.”), 17:39-41 (“A user 160 may wish to encrypt just a portion
`
`of the data destined for the network, such as passwords, credit card numbers,
`
`etc.”).
`
`The specification further explains that “data desired to be protected is
`
`encrypted prior to sending the data to processor P2 140, which may be running one
`
`or more malware processes.” ’528 Reissue at 17:22-25. Because “processor P2
`
`140 does not have visibility to the decryption keys,” it is “unable to decrypt the
`
`data” and therefore the data is protected from malware executing on the second
`
`processor. Id. at 17:25-27. The encrypted data is sent to the “network interface
`
`7
`
`

`
`Petition for Covered Business Method Review of Patent No. RE43,528
`
`device,” which can send the encrypted data “over the network for decryption by
`
`another computer system, including, for example, an internet banking host
`
`computer.” Id. at 17:27-31. The specification confirms that this embodiment is
`
`financial in nature because it protects financial information, such as bank account
`
`numbers, and other personal information to prevent theft of “money or securities,
`
`etc.” Id. at 16:42-44 (“Theft of such personal information could result in the theft
`
`of actual assets (money or securities, etc.) or perhaps used for identity theft, among
`
`other malicious intents.”).
`
`All challenged claims cover and imply the use of the ’528 Reissue’s Internet
`
`banking embodiment. Patent Owner and Patent Owner’s own expert witness in the
`
`related litigation agree. Patent Owner’s expert witness testified under oath that
`
`claims of the ’528 Reissue cover the Internet banking embodiment so long as the
`
`claims include a “first web browser process that can access website data via the
`
`network.” 2016 Dunsmore Dep. at 271-21:272:5, 274:10-22, 278:13-279:3
`
`(Ex. 1014). All of the challenged claims include this limitation. Kogan Decl. ¶
`
`115 (Ex. 1022). The Patent Owner has also affirmatively asserted that the Internet
`
`banking embodiment is within the scope of all the challenged claims. See, e.g., PO
`
`Reply Claim Const. Brief at 7 (“Plaintiffs’ claims were intentionally directed
`
`towards Figure 1, and the embodiment disclosed in column 17 that teaches using
`
`the first process in some instances to communicate with the Internet, such as when
`
`8
`
`

`
`Petition for Covered Business Method Review of Patent No. RE43,528
`
`performing encrypted Internet banking.”) (Ex. 1011). All of the claims are at
`
`least “incidental or complementary to a financial activity” (i.e., Internet banking).
`
`See Versata, 793 F.3d at 1325; see also 2016 Dunsmore Dep. at 271:21-272:5
`
`(confirming that “the claimed invention can be used to protect sensitive financial
`
`information”) (Ex. 1014). Thus, the claims contain specific language, identified
`
`by the Patent Owner’s own expert, that directly ties the challenged claims to and
`
`implies the use of an embodiment for conducting a financial activity.
`
`In addition, dependent claim 8 explicitly recites the steps of “encrypting
`
`data” in the first process, “transferring the encrypted data” to the second process,
`
`and then “transferring” it again to the “network interface device” just as the
`
`specification describes in the context of a preferred embodiment for Internet
`
`banking. ’528 Reissue at 18:56-62 (Ex. 1001). Thus, claim 8 (and therefore claim
`
`1 from which it depends) is tied to and implies the use of the banking embodiment
`
`and is, at least, “broad enough to cover a financial product or service” for this
`
`further reason as well. See Informatica, CBM2015-00021, Paper 38 at 18.
`
`The Board has found similar patents directed to protecting data related to
`
`banking eligible for CBM review. For example, in Informatica v. Protegrity the
`
`challenged patent recited claims directed to “processing of data to be protected.”
`
`CBM2015-00021, Paper 38 at 5-7. The Board rejected the Patent Owner’s
`
`argument that there was “not a single word in any single claim of the [challenged
`
`9
`
`

`
`Petition for Covered Business Method Review of Patent No. RE43,528
`
`patent] that is purportedly directed to a financial product or service,” because it is
`
`not necessary to show “literal recitation of terms of data processing of financial
`
`products or services.” Id. at 18. The Board focused on statements in the patent
`
`specification explaining that “protection attributes” (recited in the claims) are
`
`“used to protect against unauthorized access of a data portion in a database” and
`
`“that banking is a field where protection against unauthorized access to databases
`
`that are used for administering and storing sensitive information is desired.” Id.
`
`The ’528 Reissue is similarly directed to protecting data from unauthorized access
`
`(by malware in this case) while sending that data to an “internet banking host
`
`computer.” ’528 Reissue at 17:22-48 (Ex. 1001). As the Board stated in
`
`Informatica: “Banking is a financial activity.” CBM2015-00021, Paper 38 at 18.
`
`The Board in that case also relied on extrinsic evidence that the “data items” to be
`
`protected would include “credit card numbers and social security numbers” as well
`
`as “credit card PIN numbers.” Id. The ’528 Reissue specification explicitly
`
`describes protecting similar “data” including “passwords, bank account numbers,
`
`social security numbers, driver’s license numbers, credit card numbers, etc.”
`
`’528 Reissue at 16:38-42; see also id. at 17:39-41, 4:13-15 (Ex. 1001).
`
`Similarly, in T. Rowe Price v. Secure Axcess the Board found a “patent
`
`relate[d] to authenticating data, such as a web page,” to be a CBM patent.
`
`CBM2015-00027, Paper 31 at 4. The challenged claims in that matter did not
`
`10
`
`

`
`Petition for Covered Business Method Review of Patent No. RE43,528
`
`recite any financial terms. Id. at 7-8. The Board explained, however, that the
`
`“written description of the [challenged] patent discloses a need by financial
`
`institutions to ensure customers are confident that the financial institution’s web
`
`page is authentic” and “discloses alternative embodiments of the invention as being
`
`used by financial institutions.” Id. at 11. The Board rejected the pa