Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`
`
`DOCKET NO.: 1033300-00305US1
`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 CBM2018-00023
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`_________________________________________
`
`PETITION FOR COVERED BUSINESS METHOD REVIEW
`OF CLAIMS 1-38
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`II. 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................ i 
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................... iv 
`I. 
`MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1)) .......................... 3 
`A. 
`Real Party-In-Interest .................................................................. 3 
`B. 
`Related Matters ........................................................................... 3 
`C. 
`Counsel ........................................................................................ 5 
`D. 
`Service Information..................................................................... 5 
`BACKGROUND OF THE ’539 PATENT ........................................... 6 
`A. 
`Priority ........................................................................................ 6 
`B. 
`Brief Description of the ’539 Patent Disclosure ......................... 6 
`C. 
`Prosecution History ..................................................................... 9 
`III.  LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL ........................................................ 36 
`IV.  GROUNDS FOR STANDING (37 C.F.R. § 42.304(A)) ................... 37 
`A. 
`Petitioner Has Standing And Is Not Estopped (37 C.F.R. §
`42.302) ...................................................................................... 37 
`The ’539 Patent Qualifies As A CBM Patent (37 C.F.R. §
`42.301) ...................................................................................... 38 
`1. 
`At Least One Claim of The ’539 Patent Is A Method Or
`Corresponding System Used In The Practice,
`Administration, Or Management Of A Financial Product
`Or Service ....................................................................... 39 
`The ’539 Patent Is Not Directed To A “Technological
`Invention” ....................................................................... 41 
`
`B. 
`
`2. 
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`V. 
`
`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EACH
`CHALLENGED CLAIM (37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b)) ............................. 49 
`A. 
`Claims For Which Review Is Requested (37 C.F.R. §
`42.304(b)(1)) ............................................................................. 49 
`Statutory Grounds Of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b)(2)) .. 49 
`B. 
`Standard For Granting A Petition For CBM Review ............... 50 
`C. 
`VI.  PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS FOR CBM REVIEW (37
`C.F.R. § 42.304(b)(3)) ......................................................................... 50 
`A. 
`Provider (All Challenged Claims) ............................................ 51 
`B. 
`Entity (All Challenged Claims) ................................................ 52 
`C. 
`Time-Varying Multicharacter Code (All Challenged Claims) . 54 
`D. 
`Indication of the Provider (Claims 1-36) .................................. 55 
`E. 
`Account Identifying Information (All Challenged Claims)...... 56 
`F. 
`Biometric Information (Claims 12-15, 34-36) .......................... 58 
`G. 
`Secure Registry (All Challenged Claims) ................................. 60 
`VII.  CLAIMS 1-38 OF THE ’539 PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101 (37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b)(4)) ........................ 61 
`A.  Alice Step 1: The ’539 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 .................................................. 62 
`1. 
`Independent Claim 22 ..................................................... 63 
`2. 
`The Remaining Claims ................................................... 69 
`Alice Step 2: The Remaining Limitations Of The ’539 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 ............................................................ 74 
`
`B. 
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`1. 
`Independent Claim 22 ..................................................... 76 
`The Remaining Claims ................................................... 81 
`2. 
`VIII.  CONCLUSION ................................................................................... 84 
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS ................................................................................. 85 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc.,
`728 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ..................................................................... 79
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) ............................................................................passim
`Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.,
`842 F.3d 1229 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................... 48, 84
`Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.),
`687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ..................................................................... 81
`Bilski v. Kappos,
`561 U.S. 593 (2010)................................................................................passim
`Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc.,
`815 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..................................................................... 48
`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) ............................................................................. 67, 78
`buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
`765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ......................................................... 66, 76, 78
`CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty.,
`717 F.3d 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2013), aff’d, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) ............... 64, 70
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ......................................................... 67, 81, 82
`Data Distribution Techs., LLC v. BRER Affiliates, Inc.,
`No. 12-4878 JBS/KMW, 2014 WL 4162765 (D.N.J. Aug. 19,
`2014) .............................................................................................................. 84
`Dealersocket, Inc. v. Autoalert, LLC,
`CBM2014-00132, Paper No. 11 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 2014) ........................... 39
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`
`Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber,
`674 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ..................................................................... 84
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..................................................................... 74
`Essociate, Inc. v. 4355768 Canada Inc.,
`No. 14-CV-0679-JVS, 2015 WL 4470139 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 11,
`2015), aff’d sub nom. Essociate, Inc. v. Clickbooth.com, LLC,
`641 F. App’x 1006 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 243
`(2016) ............................................................................................................. 48
`In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.,
`496 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ..................................................................... 50
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co.,
`850 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ......................................................... 76-77, 81
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp.,
`838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................... 1-2
`Interthinx, Inc. v. Corelogic Solutions, LLC,
`CBM2012-00007, Paper No. 15 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2013)............................ 47
`IQS US Inc. v. Calsoft Labs Inc.,
`No. 16-CV-7774, 2017 WL 3581162 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 18, 2017) ....... 47, 72, 73
`Jericho Sys. Corp. v. Axiomatics, Inc.,
`No. 14-cv-2281, 2015 WL 2165931 (N.D. Tex. May 7, 2015),
`aff’d, 642 F. App’x 979 (Fed. Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S.
`Ct. 122 (2016) .......................................................................................... 66-67
`Joao Bock Transaction Sys., LLC v. Jack Henry & Assocs., Inc.,
`76 F. Supp. 3d 513 (D. Del. 2014), aff’d, 803 F.3d 667 (Fed.
`Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 1468 (2016) ..................................... 67-68
`Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.,
`CBM2012-00003, Paper No. 15 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 12, 2013) ..................... 41, 46
`Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.,
`CBM2012-00004, Paper 60 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2014) .................................. 39
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`
`Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.,
`CBM2012-00004, Paper No. 10 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 25, 2013)............................ 47
`LinkedIn Corp. v. AVMarkets Inc.,
`CBM2013-00025, Paper No. 30 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 10, 2014) .......................... 83
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
`132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) ............................................................................. 62, 75
`Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc.,
`811 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..................................................................... 81
`OIP Techs. Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`788 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ..................................................................... 79
`Salesforce.com, Inc. v. Virtual Agility, Inc.,
`CBM2013-00024, Paper No. 16 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 19, 2013) .......................... 39
`Secured Mail Sols. v. Universal Wilde,
`873 F.3d 905 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ....................................................... 2, 64, 65, 80
`SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`601 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ..................................................................... 82
`Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chi. Transit Auth.,
`873 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................... 2, 65, 66, 80, 81
`Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp.,
`839 F.3d 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 71
`(2017) ............................................................................................................. 67
`Tenon & Groove, LLC v. Plusgrade S.E.C.,
`No. 12-cv-1118, 2015 WL 82531 (D. Del. Jan. 6, 2015), report
`and recommendation adopted, No. 12-cv-1118, 2015 WL
`1133213 (D. Del. Mar. 11, 2015) .................................................................. 82
`
`TLI Comm’ns LLC v. AV Auto., L.L.C. (In re TLI Comm’ns LLC
`Patent Litig.),
`823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ....................................................................... 74
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC,
`772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ....................................................................... 80
`
`- vi -
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`Vehicle Intelligence & Safety LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC,
`635 F. App’x 914 (Fed. Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct.
`2390 (2016) .............................................................................................. 74-75
`Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.,
`793 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 2510
`(2016) .....................................................................................38, 39, 41, 42, 48
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 101 .................................................................................................passim
`35 U.S.C. § 102 .......................................................................................... 5, 9, 10, 12
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .................................................................................................passim
`35 U.S.C. § 112 .................................................................................................. 13, 14
`35 U.S.C. § 321 .................................................................................................... 1, 49
`35 U.S.C. § 324 .................................................................................................. 50, 85
`Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) § 18 .............................. 1, 37, 38, 39, 49
`REGULATIONS
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ..................................................................................................... 3, 5
`37 C.F.R § 42.24 ...................................................................................................... 88
`37 C.F.R. § 42.300 ............................................................................................... 1, 50
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301 ............................................................................................. 38, 41
`37 C.F.R. § 42.302 ................................................................................................... 37
`37 C.F.R. § 42.303 ................................................................................................... 37
`37 C.F.R. § 42.304 ................................................................................. 37, 49, 50, 61
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48, 756 (Aug. 14,
`2012) .............................................................................................................. 50
`
`- vii -
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents—
`Definitions of Covered Business Method Patent and
`Technological Invention, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,734 (Aug. 14, 2012) ................... 38
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- viii -
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`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 1-38 (“challenged
`
`claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539 (“’539 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. Pty. Ltd. 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. 8,856,539
`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 ’539 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 ‘539
`
`patent “provides an anonymous identification system that allows user verification
`
`without requiring the user to share personal information with whomever is
`
`requesting verification, e.g., allows a person to purchase goods without publicly
`
`providing credit card information to the merchant, for fear that the credit card
`
`information may be stolen or used fraudulently.” Ex-1029, Pl.’s Answering Br. in
`
`Opp’n to Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss (“Opp.”) at 17, Universal Secure Registry LLC v.
`
`Apple Inc., No. 17-cv-00585-VAC-MPT (D. Del. Sept. 29, 2017), ECF No. 30.
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`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 conventional
`
`ways. The patent describes the USR, for example, as a generic “information
`
`system” (e.g., Ex-1001, ’539 patent at 5:30) comprising “any kind of database”
`
`(e.g., id. at 6:18) that can contain data such as a user’s credit card number, medical
`
`records, and other sensitive information. Id. at 3:44-63. The claims do not contain
`
`a single improvement to the functioning of any computer, database, or network
`
`component, nor do they 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 ’539 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 ’539 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
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`Delaware, asserting four patents, including the ’539 patent, against Apple’s Apple
`
`Pay functionality. See Ex-1003, Compl. at ¶ 2, Universal Secure Registry LLC v.
`
`Apple Inc., No. 17-cv-00585-VAC-MPT (D. Del. May 21, 2017), ECF No. 1
`
`(“USR Compl.”). 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 ’539 patent are unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 because they are directed to the abstract idea of “verify[ing] an
`
`account holder’s identity based on codes and/or information related to the account
`
`holder before enabling a transaction.” Defs.’ Opening Br. at 2, Universal Secure
`
`Registry LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 17-cv-00585-VAC-MPT (D. Del. Aug. 25, 2017),
`
`ECF No. 17. 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
`
`IPR
`
`IPR
`
`IPR
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. 8,856,539
`
`
`
`U.S. 8,577,813
`
`
`
`IPR
`
`CBM
`
`IPR
`
`IPR
`
`CBM
`
`CBM
`
`CBM
`
`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`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
`
`C. Counsel
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)-(4), Petitioner identifies the following
`
`lead and backup counsels, to which all correspondence should be directed.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`
`II. BACKGROUND OF THE ’539 PATENT
`A.
`Priority
`Entitled “Universal Secure Registry,” the ’539 patent issued on October 7,
`
`2014 from an application filed on June 26, 2007. The ’539 patent is a continuation
`
`of U.S. Application No. 09/810,703, which was filed on March 16, 2001 (now U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,237,117, Ex-1004).
`
`B.
`Brief Description of the ’539 Patent Disclosure
`The ’539 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.” Ex-1001, ’539 patent at 3:5-9. 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. at
`
`3:22-24. 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
`
`“tokens,” (2) “secret user code”, like a PIN or password, and/or (3) a user’s
`
`“biometric identification,” such as fingerprints, voice prints, an iris or facial scan,
`
`DNA analysis, or a photograph. See id. at 4:4-12, 8:17-47, Fig. 3. The patent does
`
`not, however, describe any new technology for generating or combining such
`
`information. Ex-1002, Shoup-Decl., ¶22.
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`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.” Ex-
`
`1001, ’539 patent at 5:63-6:17. The alleged invention is also “not limited to a
`
`particular computer platform, particular processor, or particular high-level
`
`programming language.” Id. at 6:51-53. The USR database itself “may be any
`
`kind of database,” and communication with the database may take place over “any
`
`[network] protocol.” Id. at 6:18-20, 7:12-22, 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., 3:9-15. The database itself
`
`is also encrypted. Id. 5:56-58. Ex-1002, Shoup-Decl., ¶23.
`
`In ¶ 65 of its complaint against Apple, USR identified ’539 patent claim 22
`
`as “exemplary” of the other claims of the patent. Claim 22, which is described by,
`
`for example, Figure 8 (shown below), is a “method for providing information to a
`
`provider [merchant] to enable transactions between the provider and entities
`
`[purchaser] that have secure data stored in a [USR] in which each entity is
`
`identified by a time-varying multicharacter code.” Id. at 20:4-8. The claimed
`
`method includes six steps, which are also depicted in Figure 8: (1) the database
`
`receives a request (e.g., from a merchant) that includes the “time-varying
`
`multicharacter code” for the entity (e.g., a credit card customer) whose account
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`data is stored in the USR (804); (2) comparing and matching the time varying
`
`multicharacter code for that customer with a time varying multicharacter code
`
`stored in the database (806); (3) determining whether the merchant is in
`
`compliance with any access restrictions on that customer’s account (not explicitly
`
`shown); (4) accessing the relevant information regarding the customer’s account if
`
`the merchant is in compliance (808); (5) providing the customer’s account
`
`identifying information (e.g., credit card account number) to a third party that will
`
`determine whether to authorize the transaction (808); and (6) authorizing or
`
`declining the transaction without providing the credit card account number to the
`
`merchant (810/812/814). Id. at 12:19-54; Ex-1002, Shoup-Decl., ¶24.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`
`C.
`Prosecution History
`The ’539 patent was filed as U.S. Application No. 11/768,729 (“’539
`
`application”) on June 26, 2007. The ’539 application claims priority, as a
`
`continuation application, to U.S. Application No. 09/810,703, now U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,237,117 (“’117 patent”), which issued on June 26, 2007.
`
`The examiner issued a Non-Final Rejection on July 20, 2009. See Ex-1005,
`
`’539 Patent File History, 07/20/2009 Non-Final Rejection. The examiner rejected
`
`application claims 1-3, 5-19, and 21-30 (issued claims 1-2, 4-11, 22-23, and 25-33)
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6,941,271 (“Soong”).
`
`Id. at 2-3. The examiner also rejected application claims 4 and 20 (issued claims 3
`
`and 24) under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Soong in view of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 5,398,285 (“Borgelt”). Id. at 5-6 (explaining that Soong teaches the
`
`system/method and Borgelt “teaches a system wherein the multicharacter code is
`
`encrypted and transmitted by the entity, and the system is configured to decrypt the
`
`multicharacter code with a public key of the entity”).
`
`Patent Owner responded to the Non-Final Rejection on November 20, 2009.
`
`See Ex-1006, ’539 Patent File History, 11/20/2009 Response to Office Action.
`
`Patent Owner canceled application claims 6, 7, 17, 22, and 23 without prejudice or
`
`disclaimer. Id. at 8. Patent Owner amended application claims 1, 3-5, 8, 9, 11, 13,
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`16, 21, and 28 (issued claims 1, 2-4, 5, 7, 9, 22, 25, and 31). Id. Claim 16 (which
`
`resulted in allowed claim 22), for example, was amended as follows:
`
`16. (Currently Amended) A method for providing
`
`a service to entities who have secure data stored in a
`
`secure registry in which each entity is identified by a
`
`multicharacter code, the service provided by a service
`
`provider, the method comprising:
`
`receiving the multicharacter code for an entity on
`
`whose behalf the services are to be provided;
`
`mapping the multicharacter code to information
`
`required by the service provider in order to provide the
`
`services;
`
`providing the information to a third party without
`
`providing the information to the service provider; and
`
`using the corresponding information to enable the
`
`service provider to provideperform the service without
`
`the service provider's knowledge of the information.
`
`In an attempt to refute the examiner’s rejections under § 102 in view of
`
`Soong, Patent Owner argued that Soong discloses access to a site computer
`
`through the use of login IDs and passwords requiring that “the user seeking access
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`to a patient’s records [have] knowledge of the information needed to login and gain
`
`access.” Id. at 9. Patent Owner emphasized the limitations of application claims 1
`
`and 16, shown below.
`
`Applicants respectfully assert that Soong does not
`
`anticipate independent claims 1 and 16, as amended
`
`herein. Claim 1 recites “a secure registry system for
`
`providing information to a service provider to enable the
`
`service provider to provide services to entities with
`
`secure data stored in the secure registry system,
`
`comprising ... a processor configured to receive, from the
`
`service provider, the multicharacter code for the entity on
`
`whose behalf services are to be provided, configured to
`
`map the multicharacter code to information required to
`
`provide the services where the information is unknown to
`
`the service provider, to provide the information to a third
`
`party to enable a transaction without providing the
`
`information to the service provider.” (Emphasis added.)
`
`Claim 16 recites a “method for providing a service to
`
`entities who have secure data stored in a secure registry
`
`in which each entity is identified by a multicharacter
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`code, the service provided by a service provider, the
`
`method comprising: receiving the multicharacter code for
`
`an entity on whose behalf the services are to be provided;
`
`mapping the multicharacter code to information required
`
`to provide the services; providing the information to a
`
`third party without providing the information to the
`
`service provider; and using the information to enable the
`
`service provider to provide the service without the
`
`service provider's knowledge of the information.”
`
`(Emphasis added.)
`
`Patent Owner argued that based upon the above reasoning, all dependent
`
`claims from application claims 1 and 16 (issued claims 1 and 22) were patentable
`
`for at least the same reasons. Id.
`
`In an attempt to refute the § 103 rejections over Soong in view of Borgelt,
`
`Patent Owner argued that “Borgelt alone or in proper combination with Soong”
`
`does not teach the limitations emphasized above in refuting the rejection under §
`
`102. Id. at 9-10. Patent Owner provided the same underlined emphasis in the
`
`claim limitations to support the argument. Id.
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`Patent Owner also added application claims 31-40 (issued claims 12-15, 28,
`
`and 34-36). Id. at 6-7. Patent Owner argued that “neither Soong nor Borgelt even
`
`refer to biometric information.” Id. at 10.
`
`The examiner issued a Final Rejection on February 3, 2010. See Ex-1007,
`
`’539 Patent File History, 02/03/2010 Final Rejection. The examiner rejected all
`
`claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for lack of written description because the
`
`limitations “unknown to the service provider” and “. . . provide the service without
`
`the service provider’s knowledge of the information” represented a negative claim
`
`limitation. Id. at 3.
`
`Patent Owner filed a Response After a Final Office Action on May 3, 2010.
`
`See Ex-1008, ’539 Patent File History, 05/03/2010 Response After Final Action.
`
`Patent Owner canceled application claims 8, 31, and 40 without prejudice or
`
`disclaimer. Id. at 9. Patent Owner amended application claims 1-5, 9-16, 18-21,
`
`24-30, 32, 34, 36, and 39 (issued claims 1-4, 5-11, 13, 15, 22-25, 26-33, and 36).
`
`Claim 16 (which was allowed as claim 22) was amended as follows:
`
` 16. (Currently Amended) A method for providing
`
`a service to entities who have secure data stored in a
`
`secure registry in which each entity is identified by a
`
`time-varying multicharacter code, the service provided
`
`by a service provider, the method comprising:
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`receiving the time-varying multicharacter code for
`
`an entity on whose behalf the services are to be provided;
`
`mapping the time-varying multicharacter code to
`
`information required to provide the services, the
`
`information includin