Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`
`DOCKET NO.: 1033300-00306US2
`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 CBM2018-00025
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`_________________________________________
`
`PETITION FOR COVERED BUSINESS METHOD REVIEW
`OF CLAIMS 1-2, 4-11, 13-20, AND 22-26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`A. 
`B. 
`C. 
`D. 
`
`A. 
`B. 
`C. 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................ i 
`I. 
`MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1)) ..................... 2 
`Real Party-In-Interest ................................................................. 2 
`Related Matters .......................................................................... 2 
`Counsel ...................................................................................... 3 
`Service Information ................................................................... 4 
`BACKGROUND OF THE ’813 PATENT ...................................... 4 
`Priority ....................................................................................... 4 
`Brief Description of the ’813 Patent Disclosure ........................ 4 
`Prosecution History ................................................................... 7 
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL .................................................... 8 
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING (37 C.F.R. § 42.304(A)) ................ 8 
`Petitioner Has Standing And Is Not Estopped (37 C.F.R. §
`42.302) ....................................................................................... 8 
`The ’813 Patent Qualifies As A CBM Patent (37 C.F.R. §
`42.301) ....................................................................................... 9 
`1.  At least one claim of the ’813 patent is a method or
`corresponding system used in the practice, administration,
`or management of a financial product or service .............. 10 
`2.  The ’813 patent is not directed to a “technological
`invention” .......................................................................... 12 
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EACH
`CHALLENGED CLAIM (37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b)) ........................ 19 
`
`II. 
`
`III. 
`IV. 
`
`V. 
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`VI. 
`
`VII. 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`C. 
`
`A. 
`B. 
`C. 
`D. 
`E. 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`Claims For Which Review Is Requested (37 C.F.R. §
`42.304(b)(1)) ............................................................................ 19 
`Statutory Grounds Of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b)(2)) 19 
`Standard For Granting A Petition For CBM Review .............. 19 
`PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS FOR CBM REVIEW
`(37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b)(3)) ............................................................. 20 
`Biometric Input ........................................................................ 20 
`Secret Information ................................................................... 22 
`Authentication Information ..................................................... 22 
`Point-of-Sale Device ................................................................ 23 
`Secure Registry ........................................................................ 24 
`CLAIMS 1-2, 4-11, 13-20, AND 22-26 OF THE ’813 PATENT
`ARE UNPATENTABLE UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 (37 C.F.R. §
`42.304(b)(4)) .................................................................................. 25 
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications .............................. 25 
`1.  Ex-1115 - Jakobsson ......................................................... 25 
`2.  Ex-1116 - Maritzen ........................................................... 26 
`3.  Ex-1117 - Labrou .............................................................. 26 
`Ground 1: Claims 1, 2, 4-11, 13, 16-20, and 24 Are Obvious in
`View of Jakobsson and Maritzen ............................................. 27 
`1. 
`Independent Claim 1 ......................................................... 27 
`2.  Dependent Claim 2 ............................................................ 56 
`3.  Dependent Claim 4 ............................................................ 57 
`4.  Dependent Claim 5 ............................................................ 59 
`5.  Dependent Claim 6 ............................................................ 60 
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`6.  Dependent Claim 7 ............................................................ 63 
`7.  Dependent Claim 8 ............................................................ 64 
`8.  Dependent Claim 9 ............................................................ 65 
`9.  Dependent Claim 10 .......................................................... 66 
`10.  Dependent Claim 11 .......................................................... 69 
`11.  Dependent Claim 13 .......................................................... 70 
`12.  Independent Claim 16 ....................................................... 70 
`13.  Dependent Claim 17 .......................................................... 74 
`14.  Dependent Claim 18 .......................................................... 75 
`15.  Dependent Claim 19 .......................................................... 79 
`16.  Dependent Claim 20 .......................................................... 81 
`17.  Independent Claim 24 ....................................................... 82 
`Ground 2: Claims 14, 15, 22, 23, 25, and 26 Are Obvious in
`View of Jakobsson, Maritzen, and Labrou .............................. 87 
`1.  Dependent Claims 14, 15, 22, 23, 25, and 26 ................... 87 
`2.  Reasons to Combine Jakobsson, Maritzen, and Labrou ... 88 
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................. 93 
`VIII. 
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS ................................................................................. 94 
`
`
`C. 
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`CASES
`Apple Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.,
`842 F.3d 1229 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..................................................................... 18
`Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc.,
`815 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..................................................................... 19
`Dealersocket, Inc. v. Autoalert, LLC,
`CBM2014-00132, Paper No. 11 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 2014) ........................... 11
`Essociate, Inc. v. 4355768 Canada Inc.,
`No. 14-CV-0679-JVS, 2015 WL 4470139 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 11,
`2015) .............................................................................................................. 18
`Interthinx, Inc. v. Corelogic Solutions, LLC,
`CBM2012-00007, Paper No. 15 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2013)............................ 17
`Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.,
`CBM2012-00004, Paper No. 10 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 25, 2013)............................ 17
`Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.,
`CBM2012-00003, Paper No. 15 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 12, 2013) ..................... 13, 17
`Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.,
`CBM2012-00004, Paper No. 60 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2014)............................ 10
`Salesforce.com, Inc. v. Virtual Agility, Inc.,
`CBM2013-00024, Paper No. 16 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 19, 2013) .......................... 11
`SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, __ U.S. ___, No. 16-969 (Apr. 24, 2018) ................... 20
`Versata Development Group, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc.,
`793 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ..................................................... 9-13, 19, 21
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ............................................................................................ 20, 26, 99
`35 U.S.C. § 321 .................................................................................................... 1, 19
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`35 U.S.C. § 324 .................................................................................................. 20, 99
`REGULATIONS
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ..................................................................................................... 2, 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.300 ............................................................................................... 1, 21
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301 ......................................................................................... 9, 10, 12
`37 C.F.R. § 42.303 ................................................................................................... 10
`37 C.F.R. § 42.304 ................................................................................. 10, 19, 20, 26
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,735 (Aug. 14, 2012) ...................................................................... 10
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,764 (Aug. 14, 2012) ...................................................................... 21
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`157 Cong. Rec. S1360 (daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011) (Statement of Sen.
`Schumer) ........................................................................................................ 13
`
`
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`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 1-2, 4-11, 13-20, and
`
`22-26 (“challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813 (“’813 patent”).
`
`The ’813 patent is generally directed to system and methods for verifying an
`
`account holder’s identity before allowing access to his or her account to enable a
`
`transaction using a Point-of-Sale (“POS”) device. Indeed, the patent holder,
`
`Universal Secure Registry LLC, has described its patent in similar terms,
`
`purporting that the claimed system “can both securely identify the user, and
`
`separately authenticate and approve the user’s financial transaction requests made
`
`through a POS device.” Ex-1118, Plaintiff’s Answering Brief in Opposition to
`
`Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (“Opp.”), 3-4 (“To prevent unauthorized use of the
`
`Electronic ID Device, a user must first authenticate herself to the device to activate
`
`it for a financial transaction. The ’813 patent describes multiple ways to do this,
`
`including using a biometric input (e.g., fingerprint) and/or secret information (e.g.,
`
`a PIN).”).
`
`When the ’813 patent was filed, however, systems and methods that could
`
`both securely identify the user, and separately authenticate and approve the user’s
`
`financial transaction requests made through a POS device, were well known in the
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`art. In fact, the prior art is replete with disclosures of systems that perform user
`
`authentication and approve financial transactions in this manner.
`
`As further explained in this Petition, the device and methods claimed in the
`
`’813 patent were known in the art or obvious at the time the ’813 patent was filed.
`
`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 ’813 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 ’813 patent, against Apple’s Apple
`
`Pay functionality. See Ex-1103, Universal Secure Registry LLC v. Apple Inc. et
`
`al., No. 17-585-VAC-MPT (D. Del.), ECF No. 1, Complaint ¶2. The complaint
`
`was served on Petitioner on July 5, 2017.
`
`On August 25, 2017, Apple filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a
`
`Claim, asserting that the claims of the ’813 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.
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`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. §§ 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 counsel, to whom all correspondence should be directed.
`
`Lead Counsel: Monica Grewal (Reg. No. 40,056)
`
`Backup Counsel: Ben Fernandez (Reg. No. 55,172)
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`
`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 ’813 PATENT
`A.
`Priority
`Entitled “Universal Secure Registry,” the ’813 patent issued on November 5,
`
`2013 from an application filed on September 20, 2011. The ’813 patent is a
`
`continuation and a continuation-in-part of numerous U.S. applications, the earliest
`
`of which, App. No. 11/677,490 (now U.S. Patent No. 8,001,055 (Ex-1104)) was
`
`filed on February 21, 2007. The patent also claims priority to four provisional
`
`applications: Application Nos. 60/775,046 (Ex-1121), 60/812,279 (Ex-1122),
`
`60/859,235 (Ex-1123) and 61/031,529 (Ex-1124), the earliest of which was filed
`
`on February 21, 2006. The latest provisional application was filed on February 26,
`
`2008, and is the first application to disclose Figure 31.
`
`B.
`Brief Description of the ’813 Patent Disclosure
`The ’813 patent describes a secure database called a “Universal Secure
`
`Registry” (“secure registry”), which is “a universal identification system … used to
`
`selectively provide information about a person to authorized users.” Ex-1101, ’813
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`patent, 3:66-4:1. The patent states that the secure registry 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., 4:12-15. 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 a
`
`photograph. See id., 42:29-36, 12:19-31, Fig. 3. The patent does not, however,
`
`describe any new technology for generating, capturing, or combining such
`
`information. Ex-1102, Shoup-Decl. ¶24.
`
`Instead, the patent repeatedly emphasizes the generic nature of the secure
`
`registry database and its manner of implementation. The patent states that the
`
`secure registry database can be implemented in “a general-purpose computer
`
`system” using “a commercially available microprocessor” running “any …
`
`commercially available operating system.” Ex-1101, ’813 patent, 10:9-15. The
`
`alleged invention is also “not limited to a particular computer platform, particular
`
`processor, or particular high-level programming language.” Id., 10:58-60. The
`
`secure registry database itself “may be any kind of database” and communication
`
`with the database may take place over “any [network] protocol.” Id., 10:24-26,
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`11:24-28, Fig. 1. This generic database is encrypted using known methods, and
`
`may be accessed by providing information sufficient to verify the user’s identity.
`
`Id., 4:1-11; Ex-1102, Shoup-Decl. ¶25.
`
`In its complaint against Apple, USR identified ’813 patent claim 1 as
`
`“exemplary.” Claim 1, elements of which are included in, for example, Figure 31
`
`(shown below), claims “[a]n electronic ID device configured to allow a user to
`
`select any one of a plurality of accounts associated with the user to employ in a
`
`financial transaction.” Ex-1101, ’813 patent, 51:65-67. The claimed electronic ID
`
`device contains several generic components: (1) a biometric sensor that receives a
`
`biometric input from the user (367); (2) a user interface whereby a user can input
`
`secret information (such as a PIN code) and select the account he or she wants to
`
`access (364); (3) a communication interface that can communicate with the secure
`
`registry (366) and with a point of sale device (354) capable of communicating with
`
`the secure registry; and (4) a processor (not shown) that can grant access to the
`
`electronic ID device via authentication by biometric and/or secret information and
`
`generate encrypted authentication information from some combination of a
`
`nonpredictable value and the biometric and/or secret information to send to the
`
`secure registry. Id., 12:19-54; Ex-1102, Shoup-Decl. ¶26.
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`
`
`
`Ex-1101, ’813 patent, Fig. 31.
`
`C.
`Prosecution History
`The ‘813 patent was filed as U.S. Application No. 13/237,184 (“‘813
`
`application”) on September 20, 2011.
`
` After several rejections over prior art, the examiner issued a Notice of
`
`Allowance on March 19, 2013. See Ex-1212, Notice of Allowance. The ’813
`
`patent subsequently issued on November 5, 2013.
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`A person of ordinary skill in the relevant field or art is a hypothetical person
`
`to whom an expert in the relevant field could assign a routine task with reasonable
`
`confidence that the task would be successfully carried out. The level of skill in the
`
`art is evidenced by prior art references. The prior art demonstrates that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the relevant field or art, at the time the ’813 patent was effectively
`
`filed, would have a Bachelor’s Degree in electrical engineering, computer science,
`
`or a related scientific field, and approximately two years of work experience in the
`
`computer science field including, for example, operating systems, database
`
`management, encryption, security algorithms, and secure transaction systems,
`
`though additional education can substitute for less work experience and vice versa.
`
`See Ex-1102, Shoup-Decl. ¶¶37-38.
`
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING (37 C.F.R. § 42.304(A))
`A.
`Petitioner Has Standing And Is Not Estopped
`(37 C.F.R. § 42.302)
`A party has standing to bring a CBM review proceeding against a patent if
`
`the party has been sued for infringement of the patent. AIA § 18(a)(1)(B); 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.302(a). Apple satisfies the standing requirement because USR sued
`
`Apple for infringement of the ’813 patent on May 21, 2017. See Ex-1103,
`
`Universal Secure Registry, LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 17-585-VAC-MPT (D. Del.),
`
`ECF No. 1, Compl.
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`Further, Apple is not estopped from challenging the claims on the grounds
`
`identified in this petition, and has not been party to any other post-grant review of
`
`the challenged claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.302(b). Additionally, Apple certifies
`
`that it complies with the timing requirements set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.303.
`
`B.
`
`The ’813 Patent Qualifies As A CBM Patent
`(37 C.F.R. § 42.301)
`Section 18(d)(1) of the AIA “on its face covers a wide range of finance-
`
`related activities,” Versata Development Group, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc., 793
`
`F.3d 1306, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2015), including “activities that are financial in nature,
`
`incidental to a financial activity or complementary to a financial activity,”
`
`Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents—Definitions of
`
`Covered Business Method Patent and Technological Invention, 77 Fed. Reg.
`
`48,734, 48,735 (Aug. 14, 2012). Under Section 18 of the AIA, the Board may
`
`institute a CBM review proceeding for any patent that qualifies as a CBM patent.
`
`See AIA § 18(a)(1)(E). Section 18 of the AIA defines a “covered business
`
`method” as a claim that both (1) claims 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) is not directed to a
`
`technological invention. See id. § 18(d)(1); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a). The
`
`’813 patent satisfies both requirements for at least the reasons set forth below.
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`1.
`
`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`At least one claim of the ’813 patent is a method or
`corresponding system used in the practice, administration,
`or management of a financial product or service
`A patent qualifies for CBM review as long as “the subject matter of at least
`
`one claim is directed to a covered business method.” Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v.
`
`Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., CBM2012-00004, Paper No. 60 at 6 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23,
`
`2014). As the Federal Circuit explained in Versata, “the definition of ‘covered
`
`business method patent’ is not limited to products and services of only the financial
`
`industry, or to patents owned by or directly affecting the activities of financial
`
`institutions such as banks and brokerage houses. The plain text of the statutory
`
`definition contained in § 18(d)(1) . . . on its face covers a wide range of finance-
`
`related activities.” Versata, 793 F.3d at 1325. As such, the correct inquiry “is not
`
`whether the claimed invention only has application in business contexts, but
`
`whether the claimed invention is a method or apparatus for performing data
`
`processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management
`
`of a financial product or service.” Salesforce.com, Inc. v. Virtual Agility, Inc.,
`
`CBM2013-00024, Paper No. 16 at 14-15 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 19, 2013) (emphasis
`
`added). The claims should be read in light of the specification when making this
`
`determination. See Dealersocket, Inc. v. Autoalert, LLC, CBM2014-00132, Paper
`
`No. 11 at 11-12 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 2014).
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`All claims of the ’813 patent meet these requirements. For example,
`
`independent claims 1 and 24 (and those that depend from them) disclose a device
`
`and method for providing or denying access to information related to a user stored
`
`in a secure database in the context of a “financial transaction.” Ex-1101, ’813
`
`patent, claims 1 and 24. The specification defines a financial transaction as
`
`including “transactions conducted on-line or at a point of sale using credit or debit
`
`accounts, banking transactions, purchases or sales of investments and financial
`
`instruments or generally the transfer of funds from a first account to a second
`
`account.” Id., 43:6-12. Similarly, dependent claims 7, 13-14, 17, 20, 22-23, and
`
`25-26 all explicitly recite financial transactions, user account numbers, purchases,
`
`and/or selection of products or services. See id., claims 7, 13-14, 17, 20, 22-23,
`
`and 25-26. And all independent claims recite a “point of sale” device. See id.,
`
`claims 1-2, 4-11, 13-20, and 22-26.
`
`Moreover, the patent specification makes clear that the “accounts” recited in
`
`all patent claims can be financial in nature. See, e.g., id., 6:66-7:1 (“In still another
`
`aspect, a user device is configured to allow a user to select any one of a plurality of
`
`accounts associated with the user to employ in a financial transaction.”); 7:47-50
`
`(“authorizing the POS device to initiate a financial transaction involving a transfer
`
`of funds to or from the account selected by the user when the encrypted
`
`authentication information is successfully authenticated”).
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`The ’813 patent is not directed to a “technological
`invention”
`A patent that otherwise qualifies as a CBM patent is nevertheless excluded
`
`2.
`
`from CBM review if it is directed to a “technological invention”—i.e., if “the
`
`claimed subject matter as a whole” (1) “recites a technological feature that is novel
`
`and unobvious over the prior art” and (2) “solves a technical problem using a
`
`technical solution.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b); Versata, 793 F.3d at 1326. Only
`
`“those patents whose novelty turns on a technological innovation over the prior art
`
`and are concerned with a technical problem which is solved with a technical
`
`solution and which requires the claims to state the technical features which the
`
`inventor desires to protect” should be excluded from CBM review. 157 Cong.
`
`Rec. S1360, S1364 (daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011) (Statement of Sen. Schumer). The
`
`claims of the ’813 patent do not meet either prong of the technological invention
`
`exclusion.
`
`i. The ’813 patent claims include only conventional
`technology components that were well known in the
`art.
`The first prong of the test analyzes whether the differences between the
`
`claimed invention and the prior art are technological features. See Liberty Mut.
`
`Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., CBM2012-00003, Paper No. 15 at 12-13
`
`(P.T.A.B. Feb. 12, 2013). The Federal Circuit has affirmed the USPTO’s listed
`
`characteristics that, if found, would preclude a finding of a “technological
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`invention”: (1) mere “recitation of known technologies”; (2) “reciting the use of
`
`known prior art technology”; and (3) “combining prior art structures to achieve the
`
`normal, expected, or predictable result of that combination.” Versata, 793 F.3d at
`
`1326.
`
`The only arguably technological elements of the challenged claims are as
`
`follows:
`
`’813 Patent Claim Well-Known Technological Features
`
`Independent Claim 1
`
`Electronic ID device, biometric sensor,
`
`user interface, communication
`
`interface, processor, POS terminal,
`
`secure registry.
`
`
`
`Dependent Claims 2, 4 No additional technological features
`
`Dependent Claim 5
`
`Memory
`
`Dependent Claims 6-
`
`No additional technological features
`
`11, 13-15
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`Independent Claim 16 User interface, communication
`
`interface, interface with POS terminal,
`
`processor (implied), secure registry
`
`Dependent Claim 17
`
`Memory
`
`Dependent Claims 18-
`
`No additional technological features
`
`20, 22-23
`
`Independent Claim 24
`
`Electronic ID device, POS terminal,
`
`processor (implied), secure registry
`
`Dependent Claim 25
`
`User interface
`
`Dependent Claim 26
`
`No additional technological features
`
`
`
`
`Under these guidelines, the ’813 patent fails to disclose a “technological
`
`feature” because the claimed features—an electronic ID device (comprising a user
`
`interface, communication interface, and processor), database implementing an
`
`identity verification system and a POS device/terminal—were well known as of the
`
`patent’s February 26, 2008 priority date (as the patent admits) and are implemented
`
`in a conventional manner (as the patent admits). Ex-1101 ’813 patent, 43:54-44:7.
`
`That is, the processor performs standard data operations such as comparing data,
`
`performing calculations, and executing commands, the user interface accepts user
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`input, the communication interface communicates, and the secure registry database
`
`stores and controls access to conventional information such as a user’s financial or
`
`medical records. See, e.g., Ex-1101, ’813 patent, claim 16 (limitations reciting
`
`standard computer and networking functions “authenticating,” “activating,”
`
`“generating,” “receiving,” and “communicating”).
`
`The named inventor did not claim to have invented a new computer,
`
`processor, database, or Internet system. Instead, he leveraged known technology to
`
`claim methods for verifying an account holder’s identity based on codes and/or
`
`information related to the account holder before enabling a transaction. Indeed, the
`
`’813 patent concedes that the claimed invention is not tied to any particular
`
`technology, and can be implemented in “a general purpose computer system” using
`
`“a commercially available microprocessor” running “any other commercially
`
`available operating system” and that the secure registry database itself “may be any
`
`kind of database,” which can communicate using “any [network] protocol.” Ex-
`
`1101, ’813 patent, 10:1-11:28.
`
`The ’813 prosecution history provides further evidence that the ’813 claims
`
`are not technically distinguishable from the prior art. For example, the
`
`amendments made to overcome prior art during prosecution were all non-technical
`
`in nature and the claims were ultimately allowed based on a non-technical
`
`distinction over the prior art. See Ex-1108, ’813 Patent File History, 12/17/2012
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`Amendment/Req. Reconsideration After Non-Final Rejection, 3-8 (amending
`
`claim to add conventional access restriction (i.e., biometric or secret information
`
`authorization) to use of processor); Ex-1111, ’813 Patent File History, 03/07/2013
`
`Response After Final Action, 2-7 (rolling limitation of claim 2 requiring
`
`communication with generic POS device into claim 1).
`
`ii. The ’813 patent does not solve a technical problem with
`a technical solution.
`The ’813 patent also fails the second prong of the technological invention
`
`test because it does not solve a technical problem with a technical solution. This
`
`prong requires a review of the patent’s specification to determine what problem the
`
`claimed invention purportedly solves. See Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive
`
`Cas. Ins. Co., CBM2012-00003, Paper No. 15 at 14-15 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 12, 2013).
`
`If the problem is non-technical, the patent does not meet the technological
`
`invention exception. See Interthinx, Inc. v. Corelogic Solutions, LLC, CBM2012-
`
`00007, Paper No. 15 at 18 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2013). Moreover, where the
`
`specification recognizes that technology known in the art could be used to reach
`
`the desired result, the patent does not solve a technical problem with a technical
`
`solution. See, e.g., Liberty Mut., CBM2012-00004, Paper No. 10 at 8 (P.T.A.B.
`
`Jan. 25, 2013).
`
`The ’813 patent states at the outset that it is directed to a system for
`
`“authenticating identity or verifying the identity of individuals and other entities
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`seeking access to certain privileges and for selectively granting privileges and
`
`providing other services in response to such identifications/verifications.” Ex-
`
`1101, ’813 patent, 1:36-46 (describing the “field of invention”). How to control
`
`access to information stored in a particular location is a problem as old as society
`
`itself. Although humans have more recently employed computers to make identity
`
`verification more precise and transactions more secure, the underlying problem of
`
`ensuring that people conducting transactions are who they claim to be is inherently
`
`n