`
`DOCKET NO.: 1033300-00303US1
`Filed on behalf of Apple Inc.
`By: Monica Grewal, Reg. No. 40,056 (Lead Counsel)
`Ben Fernandez Reg. No. 55,172 (Backup Counsel)
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, MA 02109
`Email: monica.grewal@wilmerhale.com
`
` ben.fernandez@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`UNIVERSAL SECURE REGISTRY, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_________________________________________
`Case CBM2018-00022
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,530,137
`_________________________________________
`
`PETITION FOR COVERED BUSINESS METHOD REVIEW
`OF CLAIMS 1-12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,530,137
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`A. 
`B. 
`C. 
`D. 
`
`A. 
`B. 
`C. 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`II. 
`
`III. 
`IV. 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................... ii 
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................... iv 
`I. 
`MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1)) ..................... 3 
`Real Party-In-Interest ................................................................. 3 
`Related Matters .......................................................................... 3 
`Counsel ...................................................................................... 4 
`Service Information ................................................................... 5 
`BACKGROUND OF THE ’137 PATENT ...................................... 5 
`Priority ....................................................................................... 5 
`Brief Description of the ’137 Patent Disclosure ........................ 6 
`Prosecution History ................................................................... 8 
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL .................................................. 15 
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING (37 C.F.R. § 42.304(A)) .............. 16 
`Petitioner Has Standing And Is Not Estopped (37 C.F.R. §
`42.302) ..................................................................................... 16 
`The ’137 Patent Qualifies As A CBM Patent (37 C.F.R. §
`42.301) ..................................................................................... 17 
`1.  At Least One Claim Of The ’137 Patent Is A Method Or
`Corresponding System Used In The Practice,
`Administration, Or Management Of A Financial Product
`Or Service .......................................................................... 17 
`2.  The ’137 Patent Is Not Directed To A “Technological
`Invention” .......................................................................... 19 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`A. 
`
`B. 
`C. 
`
`A. 
`B. 
`C. 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,530,137
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EACH
`CHALLENGED CLAIM (37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b)) ........................ 25 
`Claims For Which Review Is Requested (37 C.F.R. §
`42.304(b)(1)) ............................................................................ 25 
`Statutory Grounds Of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b)(2)) 25 
`Standard For Granting A Petition For CBM Review .............. 26 
`PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS FOR CBM REVIEW
`(37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b)(3)) ............................................................. 26 
`Biometric Information (All Challenged Claims) ..................... 27 
`Secret Information ................................................................... 29 
`Authentication Information ..................................................... 30 
`CLAIMS 1-12 OF THE ’137 PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101 (37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b)(4)) ................... 32 
`Alice Step 1: The ’137 Patent Claims Are Directed to the
`Abstract Idea Of Verifying an Account Holder’s Identity
`Based On Codes And/Or Information Related to an Account
`Holder Before Enabling a Transaction .................................... 33 
`1. 
`Independent Claim 12 ....................................................... 34 
`2.  The Remaining Claims ...................................................... 40 
`Alice Step 2: The Remaining Limitations Of The ’137 Patent
`Claims Add Nothing Inventive To The Abstract Idea Of
`Verifying An Account Holder’s Identity Based On Codes
`And/Or Information Related To The Account Holder Before
`Enabling A Transaction ........................................................... 44 
`1. 
`Independent Claim 12 ....................................................... 46 
`2. 
`Independent Claim 1 ......................................................... 53 
`3.  Dependent Claims ............................................................. 54 
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................. 55 
`iii
`
`V. 
`
`VI. 
`
`VII. 
`
`VIII. 
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,530,137
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) .................................................................................passim
`Apple Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.,
`842 F.3d 1229 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................... 24, 55
`Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.),
`687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 52
`Bilski v. Kappos,
`561 U.S. 593 (2010) .....................................................................................passim
`Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc.,
`815 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 25
`Blue Spike, LLC v. Google Inc.,
`No. 14-CV-01650-YGR, 2015 WL 5260506 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 8,
`2015), aff’d, 669 F. App’x 575 (Fed. Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 137
`S. Ct. 2246 (2017) ............................................................................................... 38
`buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
`765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................... 37, 46
`CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd.,
`717 F.3d 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2013), aff’d 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) ........................... 34
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .................................................................... 38, 52
`Data Distrib. Tech., LLC v. BRER Affiliates, Inc.,
`No. 12-4878, 2014 WL 4162765 (D.N.J. Aug. 19, 2014) .................................. 56
`Dealersocket, Inc. v. Autoalert, LLC,
`CBM2014-00132, Paper No. 11 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 2014) ................................ 18
`Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber,
`674 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 55
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,530,137
`Digitech Image Tech., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc.,
`758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 49
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 43
`Essociate, Inc. v. 4355768 Canada Inc.,
`No. 14-679, 2015 WL 4470139 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2015) ................................ 24
`In re Bilski,
`545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................ 45
`
`
`In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.,
`496 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 27
`In re TLI Comm’ns LLC Patent Lit.,
`823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 43
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co.,
`850 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .............................................................. 46, 52, 54
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp.,
`838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 1
`Interthinx, Inc. v. Corelogic Solutions, LLC,
`CBM2012-00007, Paper No. 15 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2013) ................................. 23
`IQS US Inc. v. Calsoft Labs Inc.,
`No. 16-7774, 2017 WL 3581162 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 18, 2017) ......................... 42, 43
`Jericho Sys. Corp. v. Axiomatics, Inc.,
`No. 14-cv-2281, 2015 WL 2165931 (N.D. Tex. May 7, 2015),
`aff’d, 642 Fed. App’x 979 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................ 37
`Joao Bock Transaction Sys., LLC v. Jack Henry & Assocs., Inc.,
`76 F. Supp. 3d 513 (D. Del. Dec. 15, 2014), aff’d, 803 F.3d 667
`(Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................................................................... 38
`Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.,
`CBM2012-00003, Paper No. 15 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 12, 2013) .......................... 20, 23
`Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.,
`CBM2012-00004, Paper No. 10 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 25, 2013) ........................... 23-24
`v
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,530,137
`
`Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.,
`CBM2012-00004, Paper No. 60 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2014) ................................. 18
`LinkedIn Corp. v. AVMarkets Inc.,
`CBM2013-00025, Paper No. 30 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 10, 2014) ............................... 54
`Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.,
`132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) .................................................................................. 32, 44
`Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc.,
`811 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 52
`OIP Tech. Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`788 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 50
`Salesforce.com v. Virtual Agility, Inc.,
`CBM2013-00024, Paper No. 16 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 19, 2013) ............................... 18
`Secured Mail Sols. v. Universal Wilde,
`873 F.3d (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................. 2, 35, 36, 51, 52
`SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n
`601 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................... 53
`Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chi. Transit Auth.,
`873 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .................................................... 2, 36, 37, 51, 52
`Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp.,
`839 F.3d 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 37
`Tenon & Groove, LLC v. Plusgrade S.E.C.,
`No. 12-cv-1118, 2015 WL 82531 (D. Del. Jan. 6, 2015) ................................... 53
`Ultramercial, Inc., v. Hulu, LLC,
`772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................ 51
`Vehicle Intelligence & Safety LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC,
`635 F. App’x 914 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ..................................................................... 43
`Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.,
`793 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ...................................................................passim
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,530,137
`
`Federal Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 101 .................................................................................................passim
`35 U.S.C. § 102 .......................................................................................................... 4
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ...................................................................................................... 4, 9
`35 U.S.C. § 112(b) ..................................................................................................... 8
`35 U.S.C. § 321 .................................................................................................... 1, 26
`35 U.S.C. § 324 ........................................................................................................ 56
`35 U.S.C. § 324(a) ................................................................................................... 26
`AIA § 18 ............................................................................................................... 1, 26
`AIA § 18(a)(1)(B) .................................................................................................... 16
`AIA § 18(a)(1)(E) .................................................................................................... 17
`AIA § 18(d)(1) ......................................................................................................... 17
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 1.102(e) ................................................................................................... 8
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(d) .................................................................................................. 56
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) ............................................................................................... 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ................................................................................................ 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ................................................................................................ 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ................................................................................................ 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) ................................................................................................ 56
`37 C.F.R. § 42.63(e) ................................................................................................. 56
`37 C.F.R. § 42.300 et seq. .......................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b) .............................................................................................. 27
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,530,137
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301 ................................................................................................... 17
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a) ............................................................................................... 17
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b) .............................................................................................. 20
`37 C.F.R. § 42.302 ................................................................................................... 16
`37 C.F.R. § 42.302(a) ............................................................................................... 16
`37 C.F.R. § 42.302(b) .............................................................................................. 17
`37 C.F.R. § 42.303 ................................................................................................... 17
`37 C.F.R. § 42.304(A).............................................................................................. 16
`37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b) .............................................................................................. 26
`37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b)(1) .......................................................................................... 26
`37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b)(2) .......................................................................................... 26
`37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b)(3) .......................................................................................... 27
`37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b)(4) .......................................................................................... 32
`77 Fed. Reg. 48734 (2012) ...................................................................................... 17
`77 Fed. Reg. 48735 (2012) ...................................................................................... 17
`77 Fed. Reg. 48764 (2012) ...................................................................................... 27
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,530,137
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 321, Section 18 of the Leahy-Smith America
`
`Invents Act (“AIA”), and 37 C.F.R. § 42.300 et seq., the undersigned hereby
`
`requests covered business method (“CBM”) review of claims 1-12 (“challenged
`
`claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,530,137 (“’137 patent”).
`
`Verification of an account holder’s identity before allowing access to his or
`
`her account to enable a transaction is a practice as old as banking and commerce
`
`itself. Whether by use of confidential information, or simply by recognizing a
`
`person’s physical characteristics, financial institutions and merchants have always
`
`needed a way to confirm that the person seeking to access an account is entitled to
`
`do so. For example, financial institutions have long required customers to provide
`
`Social Security Numbers, birth dates, and other personal information before
`
`discussing account information over the telephone. Similarly, presentation of
`
`photo identification to the bank teller has long been a prerequisite for making an
`
`account withdrawal.
`
`The law is now well settled that the combination of such a longstanding and
`
`fundamental economic practice with nothing more than conventional computer,
`
`network, and database technology is ineligible for patent protection under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 101. See, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2356
`
`(2014) (computerized method for “exchanging financial obligations” found
`
`invalid); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,530,137
`Cir. 2016) (computerized method for classifying emails in a database invalid);
`
`Secured Mail Sols. v. Universal Wilde, 873 F.3d, 905 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (method for
`
`affixing a barcode to securely verify the contents of packages was an abstract
`
`idea); Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chi. Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2017) (method for conducting localized bank card transactions at mass transit
`
`stations was an abstract fundamental economic practice).
`
`The claims of the ’137 patent do not describe a technological invention, a
`
`new or improved machine, or a patent-eligible subject matter. Instead, all claims
`
`are directed to the abstract concept of using an “identification system” called a
`
`“Universal Secure Registry” (“USR”) to verify an account holder’s identity
`
`based on codes and/or information related to the account holder before
`
`enabling a transaction. Indeed, the patent holder, Universal Secure Registry,
`
`LLC, characterized the alleged novelty similarly when it asserted that the ’137
`
`patent “provides an improved mobile transaction approval system providing both
`
`local and remote authentication while reducing the risk of interception of the user's
`
`sensitive information. Ex-1013, Plaintiff’s Answer Brief in Opposition to
`
`Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (“Opp.”), 10.
`
` Rather than claim any technological improvement in the computer,
`
`database, or network for identifying an account holder, the claims implement this
`
`abstract concept using wholly conventional computer technology operating in
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,530,137
`conventional ways. The patent describes the USR, for example, as a generic
`
`“information system” (e.g., ’137 patent, 4:8-11) comprising “any kind of database”
`
`(e.g., ’137 patent, 12:1-3) that can contain data such as a user’s credit card number,
`
`medical records, and other sensitive information. Id., 13:42-52. The claims do not
`
`contain a single improvement to the functioning of any computer, database, or
`
`network component, or provide any inventive implementation details. Therefore,
`
`the claims do not recite any inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract
`
`idea into patent eligible subject matter.
`
`Accordingly, for the reasons presented in this petition, the Board should
`
`review and cancel all claims of the ’137 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 101.
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1))
`A. Real Party-In-Interest
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), Petitioner certifies that Apple Inc.
`
`(“Apple” or “Petitioner”) is the real party-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters
`The ’137 patent is owned by Universal Secure Registry, LLC (“USR” or
`
`“Patent Owner”). On May 21, 2017, USR sued Apple and Visa in the District of
`
`Delaware, asserting four patents, including the ’137 patent, against Apple’s Apple
`
`Pay functionality. See Ex-1003, Universal Secure Registry, LLC v. Apple Inc. et
`
`al., No. 17-585 (D. Del.), ECF No. 1, Complaint, ¶ 2. The complaint was served on
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,530,137
`July 5, 2017 on Petitioner. All four asserted patents are directed to verifying an
`
`account holder’s identity based on codes and/or information related to the account
`
`holder before enabling a transaction.
`
`On August 25, 2017, Apple filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a
`
`Claim, asserting that the asserted claims of the ’137 patent are unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 because they are directed to the abstract idea of “verifying an
`
`account holder’s identity based on codes and/or information related to the account
`
`holder before enabling a transaction.” That motion remains pending.
`
`In addition to the Motion to Dismiss, Apple is filing the following petitions
`
`for CBM/IPR:
`
`Asserted Patent
`
`CBM/IPR
`
`Statutory Grounds
`
`U.S. 9,530,137
`
`
`U.S. 9,100,826
`
`U.S. 8,856,539
`
`
`U.S. 8,577,813
`
`
`CBM
`IPR
`IPR
`IPR
`IPR
`CBM
`IPR
`IPR
`CBM
`CBM
`CBM
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103
`35 U.S.C. § 101
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`35 U.S.C. § 101
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`C. Counsel
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3)-(4), Petitioner identifies the following
`
`lead and backup counsels, to whom all correspondence should be directed.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,530,137
`
`Lead Counsel: Monica Grewal (Reg. No. 40,056)
`
`Backup Counsel: Ben Fernandez (Reg. No. 55,172)
`
`D.
`Service Information
`Email: monica.grewal@wilmerhale.com; ben.fernandez@wilmerhale.com;
`
`Post and hand delivery address: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, 60
`
`State Street, Boston, MA 02109.
`
`Telephone: (617) 526-6223; Facsimile: (617) 526-5000.
`
`Petitioner consents to electronic service.
`
`II. BACKGROUND OF THE ’137 PATENT
`A.
`Priority
`Entitled “Universal Secure Registry,” the ’137 patent issued on December
`
`27, 2016 from an application filed on February 9, 2016. The ’137 patent is a
`
`continuation of U.S. Application No. 14/814,740, which was filed on July 31, 2015
`
`(published as U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 20160155121A1 (Ex-1004), and is part of a long
`
`line of continuation applications including U.S. Application No. 14/027,860 (now
`
`Pat. No. 9,100,826), U.S. Application No. 13/621,609 (now Pat. No. 8,538, 881),
`
`U.S. Application No. 13/168,556 (No Pat. No. 8,271,397), and U.S. Application
`
`No. 11/677,490 (now Pat. No. 8,001,055). The patent also claims priority to three
`
`provisional applications: 60/775,046, filed on February 21, 2006 (Ex. 1016),
`
`60/812,279, filed on June 9, 2006 (Ex. 1017), and 60/859,235, filed on November
`
`15, 2006, (Ex. 1018).
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,530,137
`B.
`Brief Description of the ’137 Patent Disclosure
`The ’137 patent describes a secure database called a “Universal Secure
`
`Registry,” which is “a universal identification system … used to selectively
`
`provide personal, financial or other information about a person to authorized
`
`users.” ’137 patent, 4:8-11. The patent states that the USR database is designed to
`
`“take the place of multiple conventional forms of identification” when conducting
`
`financial transactions to minimize the incidence of fraud. E.g., id., 4:23-25. The
`
`patent states that various forms of information can be stored in the database to
`
`verify a user’s identity and prevent fraud: (1) algorithmically generated codes, such
`
`as a time-varying multicharacter code or an “uncounterfeitable token,” (2) “secret
`
`information” like a PIN or password, and/or (3) a user’s “biometric information,”
`
`such as fingerprints, voice prints, an iris or facial scan, DNA analysis, or even a
`
`photograph. See id., 14:1-7, 14:21-40, 44:54-61, Fig 3. The patent does not,
`
`however, describe any new technology for generating or combining such
`
`information. Ex-1002, Shoup-Decl., ¶ 22.
`
`Instead, the patent emphasizes that the USR database can be implemented in
`
`“a general-purpose computer system” using “a commercially available
`
`microprocessor” running “any commercially available operating system.” Id.,
`
`11:45-52. The alleged invention is also “not limited to a particular computer
`
`platform, particular processor, or particular high-level programming language.”
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,530,137
`Id., 12:34-36. The USR database itself “may be any kind of database” and
`
`communication with the database may take place over a generic “wide area
`
`network, such as the Internet.” Id., 12:1-3, 11:27-31, Fig. 1. Transactions to and
`
`from the database are encrypted using known methods, and access restrictions for
`
`users are implemented using known cryptographic methods. Id., 4:11-22; see also
`
`id., 13:4-11. The database itself is also encrypted. Id., 3:66-4:3; Ex-1002, Shoup-
`
`Decl., ¶ 23.
`
`In its complaint against Apple, USR identified ’137 patent claim 12 as
`
`exemplary of the other claims of the patent. Claim 12 is a “system for
`
`authenticating a user for enabling a transaction.” Id., 46:55-56. The claimed
`
`system comprises a first device including a biometric sensor, a first processor, and
`
`a wireless transceiver configured to perform the following operations: (1)
`
`authenticate a user based on secret information, (2) retrieve or receive biometric
`
`information from a user, (3) authenticate a user based on that biometric
`
`information, (4) in response to the biometric authentication, generate signals
`
`including first authentication information, an indicator of biometric authentication,
`
`and a time-varying value, (5) transmit the signals to a second device, and (6) if the
`
`second device confirms authentication, receive from the second device an
`
`enablement signal to enable or not enable a transaction. Id., 46:55-47:14; Ex-1002,
`
`Shoup-Decl., ¶ 24.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,530,137
`In addition to the requirements of claim 12, Claim 1 affirmatively claims a
`
`second device including a second processor, which receives a signal from the first
`
`device that includes the indication of biometric information and the first
`
`authentication information. Ex-1002, Shoup-Decl., ¶ 25.
`
`C.
`Prosecution History
`The ’137 patent was filed as U.S. Application No. 15/019,660 (the ’137
`
`application) on February 9, 2016 claiming priority to three provisional
`
`applications, the earliest of which was filed on February 21, 2006. The patent
`
`owner filed a Request for Prioritized Examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.102(e) with
`
`the application on February 9, 2016. See Ex-1005, ’137 Patent File History, Track
`
`One Request.
`
`The examiner granted the Request for Prioritized Examination under Track
`
`One on March 22, 2016. See Ex-1006, ’137 Patent File History, Track One
`
`Request Granted. All claims in the application issued as the same numbered claim
`
`in the application. (For example, reference to “application claim 1” corresponds
`
`with issued claim 1, “application claim 2” corresponds to issued claim 2, etc.) The
`
`examiner issued a Non-Final Rejection on April 15, 2016. See Ex-1007, ’137
`
`Patent File History, 04/15/2016 Non-Final Rejection. The examiner rejected
`
`claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) for indefiniteness based on the structure of
`
`the claims. Id., 4-5.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,530,137
`The examiner also rejected claims 1-2 and 5-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
`
`obvious over U.S. Patent App. Pub. 20020178364 (“Weiss”) in view of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,819,219 (“Bolle”), explaining that Weiss “does not directly disclose a
`
`wireless transceiver and wireless signal; and a biometric sensor configured to
`
`capture a first biometric information of the user,” but it would have been obvious
`
`“to modify Weiss’ invention by incorporating the wireless technology as taught by
`
`Bolle.” Id., 6-14.
`
`The examiner also rejected claims under the non-statutory doctrine of double
`
`patenting. Id., 15. The examiner rejected application claims 1 and 12 as double
`
`patenting of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 8,001,055 (“Weiss ’055”) and rejected
`
`application claims 1-12 as double patenting of claims 21-40 of co-pending U.S.
`
`App. No. 14/814,740. Id.
`
`The examiner also noted two other prior art references in the conclusion of
`
`the Non-Final Rejection that were pertinent to the disclosure. Id., 17.
`
`Conclusion
`
` The prior art made of record and not relied upon is
`
`considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
`
`• US 20030139984 ("Seigel"): This invention is
`
`related to implementing a cashless and clerkless
`
`transaction comprises gathering product information,
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,530,137
`gathering personal information (e.g. a credit card
`
`number) and capturing biometric information from the
`
`individual seeking to purchase a product. The biometric
`
`information is used to authenticate the identity of the
`
`individual. Biometric information that is captured during
`
`the purchasing process is compared to stored biometric
`
`data about the customer. After a match is confirmed
`
`between the stored biometric data and the captured
`
`biometric data the sales transaction will be permitted.
`
`• US 20030074568 Al ("Kinsella"): This invention
`
`is related to biometric devices, and more particularly to
`
`stand-alone biometric devices that can be registered to
`
`operate with one or more remote computer systems. Even
`
`more particularly, the invention is related to biometric
`
`devices that internally authenticate the identity of a user
`
`using biometric information; once the user is
`
`authenticated, the device is allowed to securely interface
`
`with a remote computer system. No biometric
`
`information about the user need be passed to the remote
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,530,137
`computer system because the entire biometric
`
`authentication process may be done on the device itself.
`
`Patent Owner filed a Terminal Disclaimer Request on July 15, 2016. See
`
`Ex-1008, ’137 Patent File History, 07/15/2016 Terminal Disclaimer-Filed. The
`
`request limited the term of the ’137 application to both U.S. App. No. 14/814,740
`
`and U.S. Patent No. 8,001,055 (“Weiss ’055”). Id. The request was electronically
`
`granted automatically on the same day.
`
`Patent Owner responded to the Non-Final Office Action on July 15, 2016.
`
`See Ex-1009, ’137 Patent File History, 07/15/2016 Amendment/Req.
`
`Reconsideration After Non-Final Reject. Patent Owner amended application
`
`claims 1-4, 6-7, and 10-12. Id. The amendments to exemplary claim 12 are shown
`
`below.
`
`12. (Currently Amended) A system for
`
`authenticating a user for enabling a transaction, the
`
`system comprising:
`
`a first device including:
`
`a biometric sensor configured to capture a first
`
`biometric information of the user;
`
`a first processor programmed to: 1) authenticate a
`
`user of the first device based on secret information, 2)
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,530,137
`retrieve or receive first biometric information of the user
`
`of the first handheld device, 3) authenticate the user of
`
`the first device based on the first biometric, and 4)
`
`generate one or more signals including first
`
`authentication information, an indicator of biometric
`
`authentication of the user of the first handheld device,
`
`and a time varying value[,]; and
`
`wherein generating occurs responsive to valid
`
`authentication of the first biometric;
`
`a first wireless transceiver coupled to the first
`
`processor and programmed to wirelessly transmit the one
`
`or more signals to a second device for processing;
`
`wherein generating the one or more signals occurs
`
`responsive to valid authentication of the first