Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`
`DOCKET NO.: 1033300-00307US1
`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 CBM2018-00026
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`_________________________________________
`PETITION FOR COVERED BUSINESS METHOD REVIEW
`OF CLAIMS 1-26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`II. 
`
`Page
`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 ........................................................................... 4 
`C. 
`Counsel ........................................................................................ 5 
`D. 
`Service Information..................................................................... 5 
`BACKGROUND OF THE ’813 PATENT ........................................... 6 
`A. 
`Priority ........................................................................................ 6 
`B. 
`Brief Description of the ’813 Patent Disclosure ......................... 6 
`C. 
`Prosecution History ..................................................................... 9 
`D. 
`Rejection of Patent Family Members Under §101 ................... 17 
`III.  LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL ........................................................ 21 
`IV.  GROUNDS FOR STANDING (37 C.F.R. § 42.304(A)) ................... 21 
`A. 
`Petitioner Has Standing And Is Not Estopped
`(37 C.F.R. § 42.302) ................................................................. 21 
`The ’813 Patent Qualifies As A CBM Patent
`(37 C.F.R. § 42.301) ................................................................. 22 
`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 ....................................................................... 23 
`The ’813 Patent Is Not Directed To A “Technological
`Invention” ....................................................................... 25 
`i. 
`The ’813 patent claims include only conventional
`technology components that were well known in
`the art. ................................................................... 25 
`
`B. 
`
`2. 
`
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`ii. 
`
`V. 
`
`B. 
`
`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`The ’813 patent does not solve a technical problem
`with a technical solution. ...................................... 30 
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED FOR
`EACH CHALLENGED CLAIM (37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b)) ................. 32 
`A. 
`Claims For Which Review Is Requested
`(37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b)(1)) ........................................................ 32 
`Statutory Grounds Of Challenge
`(37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b)(2)) ........................................................ 32 
`Standard For Granting A Petition For CBM Review ............... 33 
`C. 
`VI.  PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS FOR CBM
`REVIEW (37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b)(3)) .................................................. 33 
`A. 
`Biometric Input (All Challenged Claims) ................................. 34 
`B. 
`Secret Information ..................................................................... 36 
`C. 
`Authentication Information ....................................................... 37 
`D. 
`Point-of-Sale Device ................................................................. 39 
`E. 
`Secure Registry (All Challenged Claims) ................................. 41 
`VII.  CLAIMS 1-26 OF THE ’813 PATENT ARE
`UNPATENTABLE UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101 (37 C.F.R. §
`42.304(b)(4)) ....................................................................................... 42 
`A. 
`Alice Step 1: The ’813 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 .................................................. 44 
`1. 
`Independent Claim 1 ....................................................... 44 
`2. 
`The Remaining Claims ................................................... 52 
`Alice Step 2: The Remaining Limitations Of The ’813 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 ............................................................ 58 
`1. 
`Independent Claim 1 ....................................................... 61 
`
`B. 
`
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`2. 
`Independent Claims 16 and 24 ....................................... 67 
`Dependent Claims ........................................................... 67 
`3. 
`VIII.  CONCLUSION ................................................................................... 69 
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS ........................................................................................... 70 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International,
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) .................................................................................passim
`Apple Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.,
`842 F.3d 1229 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................... 31, 67
`
`Bancorp Services., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada
`(U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................... 64
`Bilski v. Kappos,
`561 U.S. 593 (2010) .....................................................................................passim
`Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc.,
`815 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 32
`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) ......................................................................................... 48, 62
`buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
`765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................... 47, 59
`CLS Bank International v. Alice Corporation Pty.,
`717 F.3d 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .................................................................... 44, 52
`CyberSource Corporation v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .............................................................. 48, 64, 66
`Data Distribution Technologies v. Brer Affiliates, Inc., No. 12-4878,
`2014 WL 4162765 (D.N.J. Aug. 19, 2014) ........................................................ 67
`Dealersocket, Inc. v. Autoalert, LLC,
`CBM2014-00132, Paper No. 11 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 2014) ................................ 24
`
`
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`
`Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber,
`674 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 67
`Digitech Image Technologies, LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc.,
`758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 57
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation,
`No. 2015-1244, 2016 WL 2756255 (Fed. Cir. May 12, 2016) ........................... 54
`Essociate, Inc. v. 4355768 Canada Inc.,
`No. 14-CV-0679-JVS, 2015 WL 4470139 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 11,
`2015) ................................................................................................................... 31
`In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc.,
`496 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 33
`
`In re TLI Communications LLC Patent Litgation v. AV Automotive,
`L.L.C., 823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. May 17, 2016) .................................................. 54
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC, v. Erie Indemnity Co.,
`850 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .............................................................. 56, 59, 64
`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. 16 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2013) ................................. 30
`IQS US Inc. v. Calsoft Labs Incorporated,
`No. 16-CV-7774, 2017 WL 3581162 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 18, 2017) ............ 30, 55, 56
`Jericho Systems Corporation v. Axiomatics, Inc.,
`No. 14-cv-2281, 2015 WL 2165931 (N.D. Tex. May 7, 2015),
`aff’d, 642 Fed. App’x 979 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................ 47
`
`Joao Bock Transaction Systems, LLC v. Jack Henry & Associates,
`Inc., 76 F. Supp. 3d 513 (D. Del. 2014), aff’d, 803 F.3d 667 (Fed.
`Cir. 2015) ............................................................................................................ 48
`
`Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co.,
`CBM2012-00003, Paper No. 15 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 12, 2013) .......................... 25, 30
`- v -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co.,
`CBM2012-00004, Paper No. 10 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 25, 2013) ................................. 30
`Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co.,
`CBM2012-00004, Paper No. 60 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2014) ................................. 23
`LinkedIn Corp. v. AVMarkets Inc.,
`CBM2013-00025, Paper No. 30 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 10, 2014) ............................... 66
`Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.,
`132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) ............................................................................ 42, 43, 55
`Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Services Inc.,
`811 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 64
`OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`788 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 62
`Salesforce.com v. Virtual Agility, Inc.,
`CBM2013-00024, Paper No. 16 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 19, 2013) ................................. 3
`SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, __ U.S. ___, No. 16-969 (Apr. 24, 2018) ................... 33
`Secured Mail Solutions LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc.,
`873 F.3d 905 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .................................................................. 2, 45, 63
`SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n,
`601 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................... 65
`Smart Systems Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Authority,
`873 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ................................................................ 2, 46, 63
`Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corporation,
`839 F.3d 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 7
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC,
`772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................ 63
`Vehicle Intelligence and Safety LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC,
`635 F. App’x 914 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ..................................................................... 55
`
`
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`Versata Development Group, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc., SAP AG,
`793 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ...................................................................passim
`Federal Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 101 .................................................................................................passim
`35 U.S.C. § 321 .................................................................................................... 1, 32
`35 U.S.C. § 324 .................................................................................................. 33, 68
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 1.102(c)(1) ............................................................................................ 10
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) ............................................................................................... 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ................................................................................................ 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)-(4) .......................................................................................... 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.300 ..................................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b) ................................................................................................ 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301 ................................................................................................... 22
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a) ............................................................................................... 23
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b) .............................................................................................. 25
`37 C.F.R. § 42.302 ................................................................................................... 21
`37 C.F.R. § 42.302(a) ............................................................................................... 22
`37 C.F.R. § 42.302(b) .............................................................................................. 22
`37 C.F.R. § 42.303 ................................................................................................... 22
`37 C.F.R. § 42.304(A).............................................................................................. 21
`37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b) .............................................................................................. 32
`
`
`
`
`
`- vii -
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b)(1) .......................................................................................... 32
`37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b)(2) .......................................................................................... 32
`37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b)(3) .......................................................................................... 33
`37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b)(4) .......................................................................................... 42
`77 Fed. Reg. 48734 (2012) ...................................................................................... 22
`77 Fed. Reg. 48735 (2012) ...................................................................................... 22
`77 Fed. Reg. 48764 (2012) ...................................................................................... 34
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- viii -
`
`

`

`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 1-26 (“challenged
`
`claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813 (“’813 patent”).
`
`Verification of an account holder’s identity before allowing access to his or
`
`her account to enable a transaction is a practice as old as banking and commerce
`
`itself. Whether by use of confidential information, or simply by recognizing a
`
`person’s physical characteristics, financial institutions and merchants have always
`
`needed a way to confirm that the person seeking to access an account is entitled to
`
`do so. For example, financial institutions have long required customers to provide
`
`Social Security Numbers, birth dates, and other personal information before
`
`discussing account information over the telephone. Similarly, presentation of
`
`photo identification to the bank teller has long been a prerequisite for making an
`
`account withdrawal.
`
`The law is now well settled that the combination of such a longstanding and
`
`fundamental economic practice with nothing more than conventional computer,
`
`network, and database technology is ineligible for patent protection under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 101. See, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2356
`
`(2014) (computerized method for “exchanging financial obligations” found
`
`invalid); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed.
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`Cir. 2016) (computerized method for classifying emails in a database invalid);
`
`Secured Mail Solutions LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc., 873 F.3d 905 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2017) (method for affixing a barcode to securely verify the contents of packages
`
`was an abstract idea); Smart Systems Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Trans. 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); Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“fundamental economic
`
`practice” of hedging risk in commodities market found invalid).
`
`The claims of the ’813 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 ’813
`
`patent system “can both securely identify the user, and separately authenticate and
`
`approve the user's financial transaction requests made through a POS device.” Ex.
`
`1013, Plaintiff’s Answering Brief in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
`
`(“Opp.”) at 3-4.
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`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., ‘813 patent at 3:66) comprising “any kind of database” (e.g., ‘813
`
`patent at 10:24) that can contain data such as a user’s credit card number, medical
`
`records, and other sensitive information. Id. at 4:12-20. The claims do not contain
`
`a single improvement to the functioning of any computer, database, or network
`
`component, or provide any inventive implementation details. Therefore, the claims
`
`do not recite any inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into
`
`patent eligible subject matter.
`
`Accordingly, for the reasons presented in this petition, the Board should
`
`review and cancel all claims of the ’813 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.
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`
`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-1003, Universal Secure Registry, LLC v. Apple Inc. et
`
`al., No. 17-585-VAC-MPT (D. Del.), ECF No. 1, Compl. at ¶ 2. The complaint
`
`was served on Petitioner on July 5, 2017. 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 ’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.
`
`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
`
`- 4 -
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`

`

`
`
`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. 8,577,813
`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)
`
`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. 8,577,813
`
`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. Ex-1001. 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-1004))
`
`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 of which was filed 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” (“USR”), which is “a universal identification system … used to
`
`selectively provide personal, financial or other information about a person to
`
`authorized users.” Ex-1001, ’813 patent at 3:66-4:1. The patent states that the
`
`USR database is designed to “take the place of conventional forms of
`
`identification” when conducting financial transactions to minimize the incidence of
`
`fraud. E.g., id. at 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)
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`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. at 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-1002, Shoup-Decl. ¶ 22.
`
`Instead, the patent emphasizes that the USR database can be implemented in
`
`“a general-purpose computer system” using “a commercially available
`
`microprocessor” running “any … commercially available operating system.” Ex-
`
`1001, ’813 patent at 10:9-15. The alleged invention is also “not limited to a
`
`particular computer platform, particular processor, or particular high-level
`
`programming language.” Id. at 10:58-60. The USR database itself “may be any
`
`kind of database” and communication with the database may take place over “any
`
`[network] protocol.” Id. at 10:24-26, 11:24-28, 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. at 4:1-11. Ex-1002,
`
`Shoup-Decl. at ¶ 23.
`
`In its complaint against Apple, USR identified ’813 patent claim 1 as
`
`“exemplary” of the other claims of the patent. Ex-1003, USR Compl. at ¶ 43.
`
`Claim 1, which is described by, for example, Figure 31, claims “an electronic ID
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`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-1003 at ¶ 43;
`
`Ex-1001 at 51:65-67. The claimed electronic ID device contains several
`
`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 independently 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. Ex-1001 at 12:19-54; Ex-1002, Shoup-Decl. at ¶ 24.
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`
`
`
`Ex-1001, ’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. The ’813 application claimed priority back
`
`to the four provisional applications, Provisional Application No. 60/775,046, filed
`
`on February 21, 2006 (Ex. 1020), Provisional Application No. 60/812,279, filed on
`
`June 9, 2006 (Ex. 1021), Provisional Application No. 60/859,235, filed on
`
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`November 15, 2006 (Ex. 1022), and Provisional Application No. 61/031,529, filed
`
`on February 26, 2008.
`
`With the filing, the Patent Owner included International Search Reports
`
`from three PCT applications as part of the Information Disclosure Statement. See
`
`Ex-1005, ‘813 Patent File History, 09/20/2011 Documents Submitted With 371
`
`Applications at 1, 8, 25.
`
`On September 26, 2011, the Patent Owner filed a Petition to Make Special
`
`Based on Age for Advancement of Examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.102(c)(1).
`
`See Ex-1006, ‘813 Patent File History, 09/26/2011 Petition Automatically Granted
`
`by EFS. The petition was automatically granted. Id.
`
`The examiner issued a Non-Final Rejection on August 15, 2012. See Ex-
`
`1007, ‘813 Patent File History, 08/15/2012 Non-Final Rejection. The examiner
`
`rejected application claims 1-2, 4-6, and 13-20 (issued claims 1, 2-4, 11-18) under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by U.S. Patent App. Publication 20020178364
`
`(“Weiss”). Id. at 3. The examiner also rejected application claim 3 under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Weiss in view of U.S. Patent App. Publication
`
`20040117302 (“Weichart”) (explaining that although Weiss does not explicitly
`
`teach a POS system with a magnetic strip reader and a converter device to emulate
`
`the output, Weichart includes the missing limitations). Id. at 8.
`
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`The examiner rejected application claim 7 (issued claim 5) under § 103 as
`
`obvious over Weiss in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,819,219 (“Bolle”), explaining that
`
`Bolle “teaches a memory stores information employed by the device to
`
`authenticate the biometric received by the biometric sensor.” Id. at 9.
`
`The examiner rejected application claims 8-12 (issued claims 6-10) under §
`
`103 as obvious over Weiss in view of Bolle and further in view of Official Notice.
`
`Id. at 10. The reasoning of the Official Notice is included below:
`
`The Examiner takes Official Notice it is well
`
`known in the art a mismatch or non-matched biometric
`
`reading not belonging to the rightful user provides a
`
`negative result which prevents access. It would have been
`
`obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`the invention was made to modify the devices as
`
`disclosed by Weiss/Bolle Combination by incorporating
`
`a measure which prevents access when biometric
`
`readings do not match as taught by Official Notice in
`
`order to increase security to personal equipment and
`
`information.
`
`Id. The examiner also rejected claims under the non-statutory doctrine of double
`
`patenting. Id. at 13.
`
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`Patent Owner responded to the Non-Final Office Action on December 17,
`
`2012. See Ex-1008, ‘813 Patent File History, 12/17/2012 Response to Non-Final
`
`Office Action. Patent Owner amended the specification to properly reference the
`
`newly issued ‘220 patent. Id. at 2.
`
`Patent Owner canceled application claim 3 “without prejudice or
`
`disclaimer.” Id. at 9. Patent Owner also amended application claims 1-2, 4-5, 9,
`
`12-16, and 20 (issued claims 1, 2-3, 7, 10-14, and 18). Id. at 3. Claim 1 (also
`
`issued claim 1) was amended as follows:
`
`1. (Currently Amended) An 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, comprising:
`
`a biometric sensor configured to receive a
`
`biometric input provided by the user;
`
`a user interface configured to receive a user input
`
`including secret information known to the user and
`
`identifying information concerning an account selected
`
`by the user from the plurality of accounts;
`
`a communication interface link configured to
`
`communicate with a secure registry; and
`
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`a processor coupled to the biometric sensor to
`
`receive information concerning the biometric input, the
`
`user interface and the communication interface link, the
`
`processor being programmed to activate the electronic ID
`
`device based on successful authentication by the
`
`electronic ID device of at least one of the biometric input
`
`and the secret information, the processor also being
`
`programmed such that once the electronic ID device is
`
`activated the processor is configured to generate a
`
`nonpredictable value and to generate encrypted
`
`authentication information from the non-predictable
`
`value, the identifying information, and at least one of
`
`information derived from at least a portion of the
`
`biometric input, and the secret information, and to
`
`communicate the encrypted authentication information
`
`via the communication interface link to the secure
`
`registry.
`
`Patent Owner argued that the amendment traversed Weiss because the prior
`
`art does not “teach or suggest the generation of authentication information from the
`
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`non-predictable value, information derived from at least a portion of the biometric
`
`input, and the secret information.” Id. at 9.
`
`The examiner issued a Final Offi