`
`Paper No. ____
`Filed: December 20, 2018
`
`
`Filed on behalf of: Visa Inc. and Visa U.S.A. Inc.
`By: Matthew A. Argenti (margenti@wsgr.com)
`Michael T. Rosato (mrosato@wsgr.com)
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`650 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________________
`
`VISA INC. and VISA U.S.A. INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`UNIVERSAL SECURE REGISTRY, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case CBM2019-00025
`Patent No. 8,577,813
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR COVERED BUSINESS METHOD REVIEW
`OF CLAIMS 1-2, 4-11, 13-20, AND 22-26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`Page
`TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................ i
`I.
`MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1)) .................... 3
`Real Party-In-Interest ................................................................. 3
`Related Matters .......................................................................... 3
`Counsel ....................................................................................... 4
`Service Information.................................................................... 5
`BACKGROUND OF THE ’813 PATENT ..................................... 5
`Priority ....................................................................................... 5
`Brief Description of the ’813 Patent Disclosure ........................ 6
`Prosecution History .................................................................. 10
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL ................................................. 10
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING (37 C.F.R. § 42.304(A)) ............. 11
`Petitioner Has Standing And Is Not Estopped (37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.302) .................................................................................. 11
`The ’813 Patent Qualifies As A CBM Patent (37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.301) .................................................................................. 11
`
`II.
`
`III.
`IV.
`
`A.
`B.
`C.
`D.
`
`A.
`B.
`C.
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`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 ............. 12
`
`2. The ’813 patent is not directed to a “technological
`invention” ......................................................................... 14
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EACH
`CHALLENGED CLAIM (37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b)) ....................... 20
`
`V.
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`
`
`VI.
`
`VII.
`
`
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`A.
`B.
`C.
`D.
`E.
`
`A.
`
`Claims For Which Review Is Requested (37 C.F.R. §
`42.304(b)(1)) ............................................................................ 20
`Statutory Grounds Of Challenge (37 C.F.R. §
`42.304(b)(2)) ............................................................................ 21
`Standard For Granting A Petition For CBM Review .............. 21
`PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS FOR CBM REVIEW
`(37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b)(3)) ............................................................ 22
`Biometric Input ........................................................................ 22
`Secret Information .................................................................... 24
`Authentication Information ...................................................... 24
`Point-of-Sale Device ................................................................ 25
`Secure Registry ........................................................................ 26
`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)) ................................................................................. 27
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications .............................. 27
`
`1. Ex-1213 – Maes ............................................................... 27
`
`2. Ex-1214 - Jakobsson ........................................................ 28
`
`3. Ex-1215 - Maritzen .......................................................... 28
`
`4. Ex-1216 - Labrou ............................................................. 29
`Ground 1: Claims 1-2, 4-5, 11, 13, 16-20, and 24 Are
`Obvious in View of Maes and Jakobsson ................................ 29
`
`B.
`
`1.
`
`Independent Claim 1 ........................................................ 30
`
`2. Dependent Claim 2 ........................................................... 55
`
`3. Dependent Claim 4 ........................................................... 56
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4. Dependent Claim 5 ........................................................... 58
`
`5. Dependent Claim 11 ......................................................... 59
`
`6. Dependent Claim 13 ......................................................... 60
`
`7.
`
`Independent Claim 16 ...................................................... 61
`
`8. Dependent Claim 17 ......................................................... 64
`
`9. Dependent Claim 18 ......................................................... 64
`
`10. Dependent Claim 19 ......................................................... 66
`
`11. Dependent Claim 20 ......................................................... 68
`
`C.
`
`12. Independent Claim 24 ...................................................... 69
`Ground 2: Claims 6-10 Are Obvious in View of Maes,
`Jakobsson, and Maritzen .......................................................... 72
`
`1. Dependent Claim 6 ........................................................... 72
`
`2. Reasons to Combine Maes, Jakobsson, and Maritzen ..... 74
`
`3. Dependent Claim 7 ........................................................... 78
`
`4. Dependent Claim 8 ........................................................... 79
`
`5. Dependent Claim 9 ........................................................... 80
`
`6. Dependent Claim 10 ......................................................... 82
`D. Ground 3: Claims 14, 15, 22, 23, 25, and 26 Are Obvious
`in View of Maes, Jakobsson, and Labrou ................................ 86
`
`1. Dependent Claims 14, 15, 22, 23, 25, and 26 .................. 86
`
`2. Reasons to Combine Maes, Jakobsson, and Labrou ........ 88
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................. 94
`VIII.
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS ................................................................................ 95
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`Apple Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.,
`842 F.3d 1229 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..................................................................... 19
`Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc.,
`815 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..................................................................... 20
`Dealersocket, Inc. v. Autoalert, LLC,
`CBM2014-00132, Paper No. 11 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 2014) ........................... 13
`Essociate, Inc. v. 4355768 Canada Inc.,
`No. 14-CV-0679-JVS, 2015 WL 4470139 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 11,
`2015) ............................................................................................................. 19
`Interthinx, Inc. v. Corelogic Solutions, LLC,
`CBM2012-00007, Paper No. 15 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2013)............................ 18
`Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.,
`CBM2012-00004, Paper No. 10 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 25, 2013)............................ 18
`Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.,
`CBM2012-00003, Paper No. 15 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 12, 2013) ..................... 15, 18
`Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.,
`CBM2012-00004, Paper No. 60 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2014)............................ 12
`Salesforce.com, Inc. v. Virtual Agility, Inc.,
`CBM2013-00024, Paper No. 16 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 19, 2013) .......................... 13
`SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, __ U.S. ___, No. 16-969 (Apr. 24, 2018) .................... 21
`Versata Development Group, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc.,
`793 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ...................................... 11, 12, 14, 15, 20, 22
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ...................................................................................................... 3, 4
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 .................................................................................... 4, 5, 27, 28, 29
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................................................................... 4, 5, 27, 94
`35 U.S.C. § 321 .................................................................................................... 1, 20
`35 U.S.C. § 324 .................................................................................................. 21, 94
`Leahy-Smith America Invents Act
`Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) ..................................... 1, 11, 12, 21
`REGULATIONS
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ..................................................................................................... 3, 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.300 ............................................................................................... 1, 22
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301 ....................................................................................... 11, 12, 14
`37 C.F.R. § 42.302 ................................................................................................... 11
`37 C.F.R. § 42.303 ................................................................................................... 11
`37 C.F.R. § 42.304 ...........................................................................11, 20, 21, 22, 27
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,735 (Aug. 14, 2012) ...................................................................... 11
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,764 (Aug. 14, 2012) ...................................................................... 22
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`157 Cong. Rec. S1360 (daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011) (Statement of Sen.
`Schumer) ........................................................................................................ 14
`
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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-1217, 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
`
`art. In fact, the prior art is replete with disclosures of systems that perform user
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`authentication and approve financial transactions in this manner. For example,
`
`Maes discloses a user device (PDA device 10) that can authenticate a user based on
`
`a PIN or biometric input and communicates with a POS device to authenticate and
`
`approve the user’s financial transaction. Ex-1213, Maes, Abstract (“The PDA
`
`includes a modem, a serial port ... so as to provide direct communication capability
`
`with peripheral devices (such as POS and ATM terminals)...the local mode of
`
`operation is performed by providing the PDA with biometric data and selecting
`
`one of the pre-enrolled credit cards that are stored in the PDA. Upon biometric
`
`verification, the Universal Card is written with the selected card information,
`
`which is then used to initiate a consumer transaction.”).
`
`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.
`
`This petition is filed with a motion for joinder with CBM2018-00024, in
`
`which Apple Inc. (“Apple”) filed a petition on May 3, 2018 requesting cancellation
`
`of the challenged claims of the ’813 patent. The Board instituted trial in
`
`CBM2018-00024 on November 20, 2018. Here, Visa proposes the same grounds
`
`of unpatentability as in CBM2018-00024 and relies on the same analysis and
`
`evidence.
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`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 Visa Inc. and
`
`Visa U.S.A. Inc. (together, “Visa” or “Petitioner”) are 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-1203, Universal Secure Registry LLC v. Apple Inc. et
`
`al., No. 17-585-VAC-MPT (D. Del.), ECF No. 1, Compl. ¶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.
`
`In addition to the Motion to Dismiss, Apple is filing the following petitions
`
`for CBM/IPR:
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Asserted Patent
`
`CBM/IPR
`
`Statutory Grounds
`
`CBM2018-00022
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`U.S. 9,530,137
`
`IPR2018-00808
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`U.S. 9,100,826
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`IPR2018-00810
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103
`
`CBM2018-00023
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`U.S. 8,856,539
`
`IPR2018-00811
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`CBM2018-00024
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`U.S. 8,577,813
`
`CBM2018-00025
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`CBM2018-00026
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Additionally, Visa has filed the following petitions for IPR:
`
`Asserted Patent
`
`CBM/IPR
`
`Statutory Grounds
`
`U.S. 8,856,539
`
`U.S. 9,530,137
`
`IPR2018-01350
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`IPR2018-01351
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`IPR2019-00174
`(Requesting joinder to
`IPR2018-00809)
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00175
`(Requesting joinder to
`IPR2018-00810)
`
`IPR2019-00176
`(Requesting joinder to
`IPR2018-00813)
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103
`
`U.S. 9,100,826
`
`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: Matthew A. Argenti (Reg. No. 61,836), Backup Counsel: Michael T.
`
`Rosato (Reg. No. 52,182).
`
`D.
`
`Service Information
`
`Email: margenti@wsgr.com; mrosato@wsgr.com
`
`Post and hand delivery address: WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI PC, 650
`
`Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050.
`
`Telephone: 650-493-9300; Facsimile: 650-493-6811.
`
`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
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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-1204)), was
`
`filed on February 21, 2007. The patent also claims priority to four provisional
`
`applications: Application Nos. 60/775,046 (Ex-1220), 60/812,279 (Ex-1221),
`
`60/859,235 (Ex-1222) and 61/031,529, (Ex-1123), the earliest of which was filed
`
`on February 21, 2006. The latest provisional was filed on February 26, 2008, and
`
`is the first application to disclose Fig. 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-1201, ’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,
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`
`describe any new technology for generating, capturing, or combining such
`
`information. Ex-1202, 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-1201, ’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,
`
`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-1202, Shoup-Decl. ¶25.
`
`In its complaint against Apple and Visa, USR identified ’813 patent claim 1
`
`as “exemplary.” Claim 1, elements of which are included in, for example, Fig. 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-1201, ’813 patent, 51:65-67. The claimed electronic ID
`
`device contains several generic components: (1) a biometric sensor that receives a
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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-1202, Shoup-Decl. ¶26.
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BIOMETRIC
`SENSOR
`
`UNIVERSAL SECURE REGISTRY
`
`
`
`DISPLAY
`
`DISPLAY
`
`360
`
`360
`
`Ex-1201,’813 patent, Fig. 31.
`Ex-1201,’813 patent, Fig. 31.
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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. See Ex-1202, Shoup-Decl.
`
`¶¶2736.
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the relevant field or art (“POSITA”) 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 POSITA, 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-1202, Shoup-Decl. ¶¶37-38.
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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). Visa satisfies the standing requirement because USR sued
`
`Visa for infringement of the ’813 patent on May 21, 2017. See Ex-1203, Universal
`
`Secure Registry, LLC v. Apple Inc. et al., No. 17-585-VAC-MPT (D. Del.), ECF
`
`No. 1, Complaint.
`
`Further, Visa 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, Visa 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.
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`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
`
`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, 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, 1325. As such, the correct inquiry “is not
`
`whether the claimed invention only has application in business contexts, but
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`
`
`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, 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, 11-12 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 2014).
`
`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-1201, ’813
`
`patent at 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, 22-26. Ex-1202, Shoup-Decl. ¶42.
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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”). Ex-1202, Shoup-Decl.
`
`¶43.
`
`2.
`
`The ’813 patent is not directed to a “technological
`invention”
`
`A patent that otherwise qualifies as a CBM patent is nevertheless excluded
`
`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, 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
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`patent do not meet either prong of the technological invention exclusion. Ex-1202,
`
`Shoup-Decl. ¶44.
`
`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, 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
`
`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,
`
`1326.
`
`The only arguably technological elements of the challenged claims are as
`
`follows:
`
`’813 Patent Claim Well-Known Technological Features
`
`1
`
`2, 4
`
`Electronic ID device, biometric sensor,
`user interface, communication
`interface, processor, POS terminal,
`secure registry.
`
`No additional technological features
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`Memory
`
`6-11, 13-15
`
`No additional technological features
`
`16
`
`17
`
`User interface, communication
`interface, interface with POS terminal,
`processor (implied), secure registry
`
`Memory
`
`18-20, 22-23
`
`No additional technological features
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`Electronic ID device, POS terminal,
`processor (implied), secure registry
`
`User interface
`
`No additional technological features
`
`Ex-1202, Shoup-Decl. ¶45.
`
`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-1201 ’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
`
`input, the communication interface communicates, and the secure registry database
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`stores and controls access to conventional information such as a user’s financial or
`
`medical records. See, e.g., Ex-1201, ’813 patent, claim 16 (limitations reciting
`
`standard computer and networking functions “authenticating,” “activating,”
`
`“generating,” “receiving,” and “communicating”). Ex-1202, Shoup-Decl. ¶46
`
`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-
`
`1201, ’813 patent, 10:1-11:28. Ex-1202, Shoup-Decl. ¶47.
`
`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-1208, Response After Non-Final Rejection,
`
`3-8 (amending claim to add conventional access restriction (i.e., biometric or secret
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`information authorization) to use of processor); Ex-1211, Response After Final
`
`Action, 2-7 (rolling limitation of claim 2 requiring communication with generic
`
`POS device into claim 1). Ex-1202, Shoup-Decl. ¶48.
`
`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, 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, 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 pr
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
