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
`________________
`
`PATENT OWNER'S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Case No. CBM2018-00023
`U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`
`Page
`
`I.
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`OVERVIEW OF THE ’539 PATENT ............................................................ 5
`A.
`The ’539 Patent Specification ............................................................... 5
`B.
`The ’539 Patent Claims ......................................................................... 9
`C.
`Prosecution History of the ’539 Patent ............................................... 13
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................... 14
`III.
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 14
`V.
`THE ’539 PATENT DOES NOT QUALIFY AS A “COVERED
`BUSINESS METHOD PATENT” ................................................................ 15
`A.
`The Claims Are Not Directed to a “Financial Product Or
`Service” ............................................................................................... 16
`1.
`Dependent claims 5-8, 17-20, and 26-30 have been
`disclaimed and may not be considered in determining
`CBM eligibility. ........................................................................ 18
`The claimed systems are not limited to financial
`transactions. ............................................................................... 19
`The Claims Are Directed to a “Technological Invention” .................. 20
`1.
`The claimed inventions recite novel and inventive
`technological features that provide a technical solution to
`a technical problem. .................................................................. 21
`Petitioner fails to show the ’539 patent does not claim a
`“technological invention.” ........................................................ 24
`THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS OF THE ’539 PATENT ARE
`DIRECTED TO PATENT-ELIGIBLE SUBJECT MATTER ...................... 30
`A.
`The Claims Are Not Directed to an Abstract Idea .............................. 33
`B.
`The Claims Provide a Technical Innovation That Transforms
`Any Purported Abstract Idea Into a Patent-Eligible Application ....... 41
`VII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 44
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ....................................................................... 46
`
`2.
`
`2.
`
`B.
`
`VI.
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case No. CBM2018-00023
`U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`CASES
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l,
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) ........................................................................... passim
`Bascom Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility, LLC,
`827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .....................................................................42
`Bilski v. Kappos,
`561 U.S. 593 (2010)................................................................................ 31, 36
`Bloomberg L.P. v. Quest Licensing Corporation,
`CBM2014-00205 (PTAB Apr. 7, 2015) ....................................................3, 28
`Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc.,
`815 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................... 2, 16, 17
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016) ...................................................................................14
`Diamond v. Diehr,
`450 U.S. 175 (1981).......................................................................................42
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .............................................. 3, 26, 33, 35, 41
`E*Trade Fin. Corp. v. Droplets, Inc.,
`CBM2014-00123 (PTAB Oct. 30, 2014) ......................................................25
`Experian Mktg. Sol'ns, Inc. v. RPost Commc'ns Ltd.,
`CBM2014-00010 (PTAB Apr. 22, 2014) ............................................... 25, 28
`Facebook, Inc. v. Skky, LLC,
`Case CBM2016-00091 (PTAB Sept. 28, 2017) ............................................18
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc.,
`879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .................................................. 26, 39, 40, 41
`Guinn v. Kopf,
`96 F.3d 1419 (Fed. Cir. 1996) .......................................................................18
`Idexx Labs., Inc. v. Charles River Labs., Inc.,
`2016 WL 3647971 (D. Del. Jul. 1, 2016) ......................................................36
`In re Bilski,
`545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................42
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case No. CBM2018-00023
`U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`
`King Pharms., Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc.,
`616 F.3d 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .....................................................................42
`Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
`132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) ...................................................................................31
`McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc.,
`837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................ 34, 35, 36
`Plaid Tech. Inc., v. Yodlee, Inc.,
`CBM2016-00070 (PTAB Oct. 6, 2016) ................................................. 16, 17
`Research Corp. Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................33
`SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu,
`138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018) ...................................................................................31
`Secure Axcess, LLC v. PNC Bank Nat'l Ass'n,
`848 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`vacated as moot, 138 S. Ct. 1982 (U.S. May 14, 2018) ..................... 2, 16, 17
`Secured Mail Sols. v. Universal Wilde,
`873 F.3d 905 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ................................................................ 38, 42
`Smart Meter Techs., Inc. v. Duke Energy Corp.,
`2017 WL 2954916 (D. Del. July 11, 2017) ...................................................37
`Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chi. Transit Auth.,
`873 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .............................................................. 38, 39
`Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc.,
`841 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................... 2, 16, 17
`Vectra Fitness, Inc. v. TNWK Corp.,
`162 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .....................................................................18
`Yahoo! Inc. v. Almondnet, Inc.,
`CBM2017-00051 (PTAB Nov. 28, 2017) .......................................... 2, 16, 18
`
`STATUTARY AUTHORITIES
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ................................................................................... 1, 4, 30, 31, 40
`35 U.S.C. § 253 ........................................................................................................18
`35 U.S.C. § 324 .......................................................................................................... 4
`35 U.S.C. § 324(a) ...................................................................................................30
`37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a) .................................................................................................18
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case No. CBM2018-00023
`U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ..............................................................................................14
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301 ...................................................................................................28
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a) .............................................................................................1, 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b) ....................................................................... 3, 20, 24, 25, 28
`37 C.F.R. § 42.304(a) ...............................................................................................15
`AIA § 18 ...................................................................................................................27
`AIA § 18(a)(1) .........................................................................................................15
`AIA § 18(d) ................................................................................................................ 1
`AIA § 18(d)(1) .....................................................................................................3, 15
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`157 Con. Rec. S5402 (daily ed. September 8, 2011) (statement of Sen Kyl) .........27
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case No. CBM2018-00023
`U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`2201
`USR Disclaimer Filed August 17, 2018
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case No. CBM2018-00023
`U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The present petition (Paper No. 3, CBM2018-00023, hereinafter “Petition”)
`
`is one of three petitions filed by Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) challenging various
`
`claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539 (“the ’539 patent”). See also IPR2018-00811,
`
`IPR2018-00812. The Petition requests Covered Business Method (CBM) review of
`
`the ’539 patent and asserts that claims 1-38 (“Challenged Claims”) are
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See Petition at 1, 3, 49. Patent Owner
`
`disagrees and submits this Preliminary Response to the Petition requesting that the
`
`Board deny institution of CBM review.
`
`The Board should deny the petition and not institute CBM review of the
`
`’539 patent for at least three independent reasons.
`
`First, Petitioner fails to meet its burden of showing that the ’539 patent
`
`“claims… [an] apparatus for performing data processing or other operations used
`
`in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service.”
`
`AIA § 18(d)(1); 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a). Petitioner erroneously argues that the ’539
`
`patent is a CBM patent because it claims systems and methods that enable
`
`“transactions” between entities and a provider while also disclosing that the
`
`transactions “can be financial in nature.” Petition at 40 (emphasis added).
`
`Petitioner’s argument contradicts established Federal Circuit law, as a patent does
`
`not “become[] a CBM patent because its practice could involve” financial activity.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case No. CBM2018-00023
`U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`
`Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc., 841 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`
`(emphasis added). Instead, a CBM patent must include at least one claim that
`
`“require[s]… ‘finance-related activities.’” Secure Axcess, LLC v. PNC Bank Nat’l
`
`Ass’n, 848 F.3d 1370, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (emphasis added), vacated as moot,
`
`138 S. Ct. 1982 (U.S. May 14, 2018). The ’539 patent includes no such claim.1 To
`
`the contrary, the claimed systems and methods can be used to provide information
`
`to providers to enable transactions between the providers and entities for many
`
`non-financial transactions, such as transactions selectively providing authorized
`
`users with access to a person’s postal address, telephone number, medical records,
`
`job application information, tax information, and other confidential information.
`
`See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 7:57-63. Because there is nothing “explicitly or inherently
`
`financial” in any of its claims, the ’539 patent is not a CBM patent and the Petition
`
`should be denied. Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1340 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2016).
`
`1 For simplicity, PO has disclaimed dependent claims 5-8, 17-20, and 26-30.
`
`Ex. 2201. These now-disclaimed claims, which described possible applications of
`
`the inventions, are no longer included in the ’539 patent and may not be considered.
`
`See, e.g., Yahoo! Inc. v. Almondnet, Inc., CBM2017-00051, Paper 10, *14-15 (PTAB
`
`Nov. 28, 2017).
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case No. CBM2018-00023
`U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`
`Second, Petitioner fails to meet its burden of showing that the ’539 patent is
`
`not a patent for a “technological invention[].” AIA § 18(d)(1), 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.301(a). The Petition mischaracterizes the problem to be solved and the ’539
`
`patent’s claimed solution. The Petition instead focuses on individual hardware
`
`elements, ignoring the Federal Circuit’s guidance that software can also be
`
`technological. See, e.g., Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2016). And the Petition fails to meaningfully address “the claimed subject
`
`matter as a whole.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b) (emphasis added). In fact, the Petition
`
`barely addresses the actual claim language at all. These are fatal flaws that warrant
`
`denial of the Petition. See, e.g., Bloomberg L.P. v. Quest Licensing Corporation,
`
`CBM2014-00205, Paper 16, *9 (PTAB Apr. 7, 2015) (denying institution because
`
`petitioner “failed to assess the claims as a whole…and has instead focused on
`
`certain individual elements”). When viewed as a whole and in light of the
`
`specification, the claimed subject matter of the ’539 patent involves a novel and
`
`inventive technological feature that provides an improved technical solution to a
`
`technical problem specifically arising in distributed electronic transactions: how to
`
`verify the identity of an entity and enable an electronic transaction between the
`
`entity and a provider without the entity providing personal information to the
`
`provider. For this reason as well, the ’539 patent is not a CBM patent, and the
`
`Petition should be denied.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case No. CBM2018-00023
`U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`
`Third, although the Board should not reach the defective Petition’s asserted
`
`invalidity ground, Petitioner also fails to meet its burden of showing that any
`
`Challenged Claim of the ’539 patent is “more likely than not” (35 U.S.C. § 324(a))
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Petition sets forth only a superficial
`
`analysis that mischaracterizes the invention, oversimplifies or outright ignores key
`
`limitations of the claims, and fails to fully consider the claim elements as an
`
`ordered combination. Moreover, Petitioner never contends that any claim presents
`
`any risk of preemption, “the concern that drives” all Section 101 jurisprudence.
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014). In fact, the
`
`’539 patent presents no risk of preemption because the claimed inventions are not
`
`directed to a fundamental or long-prevalent practice, but to a specific, concrete,
`
`technological solution providing entity identity verification and transaction
`
`enablement using a time-varying multicharacter code that minimizes the risk of
`
`exposing the entity’s personal information to unauthorized parties. As a result, the
`
`’539 patent is directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`Accordingly, the Board should deny the Petition because the ’539 patent is
`
`ineligible for CBM review and because Petitioner has failed to show that it is more
`
`likely than not that any Challenged Claim of the ’539 patent is directed to
`
`unpatentable subject matter.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case No. CBM2018-00023
`U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF THE ’539 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`The ’539 Patent Specification
`
`The ’539 patent provides a unique and highly secure anonymous identification
`
`system that uses a time-varying multicharacter code for both verifying the identity
`
`of an entity and also enabling transactions between the entity and a provider without
`
`requiring the entity to share personal or otherwise sensitive information with the
`
`provider. See Ex. 1001 at 2:64-3:1, 3:24-27, 12:19-54. As one non-exclusive
`
`example, the system, referred to as a Universal Secure Registry (USR) system,
`
`allows a person to purchase goods from a brick and mortar or online merchant
`
`without publicly providing credit card information to the merchant for fear that the
`
`credit card information may be stolen or used fraudulently. See Ex. 1001 at 3:44-54.
`
`As another example, the USR system may be used by a patient to supply “insurance
`
`data, medical history data, and other appropriate medical information to a medical
`
`provider, once that medical provider has been established as an authorized recipient
`
`[of such data].” See Ex. 1001 at 3:55-60. Other non-financial applications are also
`
`described such as, but not limited to, using the USR system to provide job
`
`application information to select potential employers authorized by the job applicant.
`
`See Ex. 1001 at 10:58-66.
`
`FIG. 1 depicts one possible embodiment of the USR system:
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case No. CBM2018-00023
`U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`
`The USR system’s main unit 12, which may be connected to a wide area network,
`
`includes a database 24 that stores data entries 30 related to different people or
`
`entities. Ex. 1001 at 7:11-13; 7:40-41. Each entry 30 may contain different types of
`
`information such as, but not limited to, validation information, access information,
`
`publicly available information, address information, credit card information,
`
`medical information, job application information, and/or tax information. Ex. 1001
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case No. CBM2018-00023
`U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`
`at 7:57-63. “The validation information [32] is information about the user of the
`
`database to whom the data pertains and is to be used by the USR software 18 to
`
`validate that the person attempting to access the information is the person to whom
`
`the data pertains or is otherwise authorized to receive it.” Ex. 1001 at 8:10-14. In
`
`particular, the validation information 32 contains information that enables the USR
`
`software 18 to validate a person that has presented the system with a one-time
`
`nonpredictable code uniquely associated with the user. See Ex. 1001 at 8:17-35. The
`
`access information 34 allows “different levels of security to attach to different types
`
`of information stored in the entry 30” so that the user can specify which particular
`
`individuals or companies can have access to what specific data such as credit card
`
`numbers, medical information, and tax information. See Ex. 1001 at 8:62-9:11.
`
`Utilizing such access information 34, the USR system determines whether the party
`
`requesting access to a specific type of data stored at the database 24 first has
`
`rights/permission to access the data before enabling access to it. See Ex. 1001 at
`
`10:40-52; FIG. 6 (604, 606).
`
`FIG. 15, shown below, depicts just one possible example of how the USR
`
`system may be used. The non-limiting, non-exclusive example illustrates “a process
`
`for enabling the user to provide specific information to a party, such as medical staff
`
`in an emergency room.” Ex. 1001 at 16:26-28.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case No. CBM2018-00023
`U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`
`For instance, if a user desires to provide information to a party, the user may enter a
`
`secret code in an electronic ID device and provide the electronic ID code to the party
`
`(1502). Ex. 1001 at 16:28-30. The party then in turn transmits the electronic ID code
`
`and a party code associated with the party to the USR (1504). See id. at 16:28-37.
`
`The USR system then determines if the code is valid (1506), and if it is, the USR
`
`accesses the user’s information in the database and makes it accessible (1508). See
`
`id. at 16:38-41.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case No. CBM2018-00023
`U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`
`Hence, the USR system provides a secure anonymous identification system
`
`that uses a time-varying multicharacter code for both verifying the identity of an
`
`entity and also enabling transactions between the entity and a provider, such as a
`
`merchant, without requiring the entity to share personal or otherwise sensitive
`
`information with the provider. In one case, this allows a user to purchase goods or
`
`services from a merchant without providing the merchant the user’s credit card
`
`number. Advantageously, the USR system also allows such secure transactions to
`
`be transparent to the credit card company and thus requires no or minimal
`
`cooperation from the credit card company to implement. As another example, a
`
`user may obtain medical treatment from a medical care provider without having to
`
`directly supply the medical care provider her medical history, which may not be
`
`with the patient herself.
`
`B.
`
`The ’539 Patent Claims
`
`The ’539 patent includes 38 claims, of which claims 1, 22, 37, and 38 are
`
`independent. The four independent claims of the ’539 patent are reproduced below:
`
`A secure registry system for providing information to a
`1.
`provider to enable transactions between the provider and entities with secure
`data stored in the secure registry system, the secure registry system
`comprising:
`a database including secure data for each entity, wherein each entity is
`associated with a time-varying multicharacter code for each entity having
`secure data in the secure registry system, respectively, each time-varying
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case No. CBM2018-00023
`U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`
`multicharacter code representing an identity of one of the respective entities;
`and
`
`a processor configured to receive a transaction request including at
`least the time-varying multicharacter code for the entity on whose behalf a
`transaction is to be performed and an indication of the provider requesting
`the transaction, to map the time-varying multicharacter code to the identity
`of the entity using the time-varying multicharacter code, to execute a
`restriction mechanism to determine compliance with any access restrictions
`for the provider to secure data of the entity for completing the transaction
`based at least in part on the indication of the provider and the time-varying
`multicharacter code of the transaction request, and to allow or not allow
`access to the secure data associated with the entity including information
`required to enable the transaction based on the determined compliance with
`any access restrictions for the provider, the information including account
`identifying information, wherein the account identifying information is not
`provided to the provider and the account identifying information is provided
`to a third party to enable or deny the transaction with the provider without
`providing the account identifying information to the provider.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 18:29-60.
`
`22. A method for providing information to a provider to enable
`transactions between the provider and entities who have secure data stored in
`a secure registry in which each entity is identified by a time-varying
`multicharacter code, the method comprising:
`receiving a transaction request including at least the time-varying
`multicharacter code for an entity on whose behalf a transaction is to take
`place and an indication of the provider requesting the transaction;
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case No. CBM2018-00023
`U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`
`mapping the time-varying multicharacter code to an identity of the
`entity using the time-varying multicharacter code;
`determining compliance with any access restrictions for the provider
`to secure data of the entity for completing the transaction based at least in
`part on the indication of the provider and the time-varying multicharacter
`code of the transaction request;
`accessing information of the entity required to perform the transaction
`based on the determined compliance with any access restrictions for the
`provider, the information including account identifying information;
`providing the account identifying information to a third party without
`providing the account identifying information to the provider to enable or
`deny the transaction; and
`enabling or denying the provider to perform the transaction without
`the provider's knowledge of the account identifying information.
`
`Id. at 20:4-31.
`
`37. A secure registry system for providing information to a
`provider to enable transactions between the provider and entities with secure
`data stored in the secure registry system, the secure registry system
`comprising:
`a database including secure data for each entity, wherein each entity is
`associated with a time-varying multicharacter code for each entity having
`secure data in the secure registry system, respectively, each time-varying
`multicharacter code representing an identity of one of the respective entities,
`wherein the database is configured to permit or deny access to information
`on the respective entity using the time-varying multicharacter code; and
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case No. CBM2018-00023
`U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`
`a processor configured to receive the time-varying multicharacter
`code for the entity on whose behalf a transaction is to be performed,
`configured to map the time-varying multicharacter code to the identity of the
`entity to identify the entity, configured to execute a restriction mechanism to
`determine compliance with any access restrictions for the provider to at least
`one portion of secure data for completing the transaction and to store an
`appropriate code with each such portion of secure data, configured to obtain
`from the database the secure data associated with the entity including
`information required to enable the transaction, the information including
`account identifying information, and configured to provide the account
`identifying information to a third party to enable or deny the transaction
`without providing the account identifying information to the provider.
`
`Id. at 21:25-22:13.
`
`38. A secure registry system for providing information to a
`provider to enable transactions between the provider and entities with secure
`data stored in the secure registry system, the secure registry system
`comprising:
`a database including secure data for each entity, wherein each entity is
`associated with a time-varying multicharacter code for each entity having
`secure data in the secure registry system, respectively, each time-varying
`multicharacter code representing an identity of one of the respective entities;
`and
`
`a processor configured to receive the time-varying multicharacter
`code for the entity on whose behalf a transaction is to be performed,
`configured to map the time-varying multicharacter code to the identity of the
`entity without requiring further information to identify the entity, configured
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case No. CBM2018-00023
`U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`
`to access from the database secure data associated with the entity including
`information required to enable the transaction, the information including
`account identifying information, and configured to provide the account
`identifying information to a third party to enable or deny the transaction
`without providing the account identifying information to the provider, and
`wherein enabling or denying the transaction without providing account
`identifying information to the provider includes limiting transaction
`information provided by the secure registry system to the provider to
`transaction approval information.
`
`Id. at 22:14-22:40.
`
`C.
`
`Prosecution History of the ’539 Patent
`
`The ’539 patent issued on October 7, 2014 from U.S. Application
`
`No. 11/768,729 (“’729 Application”) filed on June 26, 2007. The ’729 Application
`
`is a continuation application of U.S. Application No. 09/810,703 filed on March
`
`16, 2001, now U.S. Patent No. 7,237,117.
`
`The ’539 patent was subject to a thorough examination by Examiners
`
`Beemnet Dada and Thomas Gyorfi. See Exs. 1005-1025. During prosecution, the
`
`Applicant and the Examiners discussed the application and prior art in detail, both
`
`through paper submissions and telephonic interviews. See Exs. 1005-1024. Claim
`
`amendments were made to further distinguish the invention from the prior art.
`
`Ultimately, Examiner Gyorfi allowed the claims of the ’539 patent (Ex. 1025 at 5;
`
`Ex. 1028 at 5.) over a large body of cited prior art. See Ex. 1001 at 1-3.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case No. CBM2018-00023
`U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’539 patent at the time of
`
`the invention would have a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering
`
`and/or computer science, and three years of work or research experience in the fields
`
`of secure transactions and encryption, or a Master's degree in electrical engineering
`
`and/or computer science and two years of work or research experience in related
`
`fields. Patent Owner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art is similar
`
`to that of the Petition, but requires further and more specialized education and/or
`
`experience with the complex technology of the ’539 patent. See Petition at 15-16.
`
`The positions set forth in this Preliminary Response would be the same under either
`
`parties’ proposal.
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Claim terms in an IPR are given their broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`(“BRI”) in view of the specification in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
`
`see also Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142 (2016).
`
`Petitioner identifies seven terms that purportedly require construction.
`
`Petition at 50-61. Patent Owner contends construction of these seven terms is not
`
`necessary to resolve the matters raised by this Preliminary Response. Moreover,
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case No. CBM2018-00023
`U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`
`Patent Owner submits that its silence as to the constructions provided by the Petition
`
`should not be construed as an acceptance of these constructions by Patent Owner,
`
`and as such Patent Owner reserves the right to later dispute these constructions and
`
`to offer its own constructions to these terms if ever so desired.
`
`V.
`
`THE ’539 PATENT DOES NOT QUALIFY AS A “COVERED
`BUSINESS METHOD PATENT”
`
`Covered business method review is available only for patents that: (1) claim
`
`“a method or corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or other
`
`operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial
`
`product or service;” and (2) are not “technological inventions.” AIA § 18(a)(1) &
`
`(d)(1); 37 C.F.R. § 42.301. The burden falls on the petitioner to show in the
`
`petition that the challenged patent meets these requirements. See 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.304(a) (“The petitioner must demonstrate that the patent for which review is
`
`sought is a covered business method patent.”). Petitioner wholly fails to show that
`
`either requirement is met. In fact, the ’539 patent’s claims are not directed to a
`
`financial product or service, and the claimed inventions are technological in nature.
`
`Thus, the ’539 patent fails to meet either part of the statutory test for CBM
`
`eligibility, and the Petition should be denied without consideration of the asserted
`
`invalidity grounds.
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case No. CBM2018-00023
`U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`
`A.
`
`The Claims Are Not Directed to a “Financial Product Or Service”
`
`The AIA provides a “narrow statutory definition” of patents that are eligible
`
`for CBM review. Unwired Planet, 841 F.3d at 1381. In particular, “CBM patents
`
`are limited to those with claims that are directed to methods and apparatuses of
`
`particular types and with particular uses ‘in the practice, administration, or
`
`management of a financial product or service.’” Id. at 1382 (emphasis added).
`
`“Necessarily, the statutory definition of a CBM patent requires…a claim that
`
`contains…a financial activity element.” Secure Axcess, 848 F.3d at 1381 (a claim
`
`must “require…‘finance-related activities.’”). If there is “nothing explicitly or
`
`inherently financial in the construed claim language,” a patent does not meet the
`
`statutory definition under AIA Section 18(d)(1) and institution of CBM review
`
`must be denied. Blue Calypso, 815 F.3d at 1340; see also, e.g., Plaid Tech. Inc., v.
`
`Yodlee, Inc., CBM2016-00070, Paper 8, *12-13 (PTAB Oct. 6, 2016) (collecting
`
`consistent PTAB decisions and denying institution because claims had “no explicit
`
`or inherent finance-related terminology or limitations”); Yahoo, CBM2017-00051,
`
`Paper 10, *15-16 (denying institution because petitioner had not “shown
`
`sufficiently that [any] claim term is a financial activity element”).
`
`Such is the case here. There is nothing explicitly or inherently financial in
`
`the claims of the ’539 patent. Petitioner’s reliance on the term “transaction” in the
`
`claims as the statutory basis for CBM review of the ’539 patent impermissibly
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case No. CBM2018-00023
`U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`
`expands the scope of CBM review, and ignores Federal Circuit precedent that
`
`squarely contradicts Petitioner’s broad interpretation of the law. Petitioner’s
`
`contention that AIA Section 18(d)(1) covers patents claiming activities that are
`
`“incident