`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`––––––––––
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`––––––––––
`
`MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`JOHN D’AGOSTINO
`Patent Owner
`
`––––––––––
`
`Case IPR2014-00543
`(Patent 8,036,988)
`
`Title: System and Method for Performing Secure Credit Card Transactions
`
`
`––––––––––
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Page
`
`Introduction .................................................................................................. 1
`
`Claim Construction ...................................................................................... 1
`
`Cohen Discloses “A Payment Category That at Least Limits Transactions
`to a Single Merchant” ................................................................................... 5
`
`Cohen Discloses “A Payment Category That at Least Limits Transactions
`to One or More Merchants” ......................................................................... 9
`
`Cohen Discloses Defining a Payment Category Before Generating the
`Transaction Code .......................................................................................11
`
`Conclusion ..................................................................................................15
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`PETITIONER’S UPDATED LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`Exhibit 1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,036,988
`
`Exhibit 1002 File History for U.S. Patent No. 8,036,988
`
`Exhibit 1003 File History for U.S. Reexamination No. 90/012,517
`
`Exhibit 1004 U.S. Patent No. 6,422,462 (“Cohen”)
`
`Exhibit 1005 U.S. Patent No. 6,636,833 (“Flitcroft”)
`
`Exhibit 1006 U.S. Patent No. 5,826,243 (“Musmanno”)
`
`Exhibit 1007 Complaint in D’Agostino v. MasterCard, Inc. et al. (13-cv-0738)
`
`Exhibit 1008 Declaration of Jack D. Grimes, Ph.D.
`
`Exhibit 1009 Excerpts from Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary,
`Second Edition
`
`Exhibit 1010 U.S. Patent No. 6,064,987 (“Walker”)
`
`Exhibit 1011 U.S. Patent No. 5,283,829 (“Anderson”)
`
`Exhibit 1012
`
`ISO 8583 Financial Transaction Card Originated Messages –
`Interchange Message Specifications (1992) (“ISO 8583”)
`
`Exhibit 1013 File History for U.S. Patent No. 7,840,486
`
`Exhibit 1014 Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) 3/7/14 CBM Decision
`for U.S. Patent No. 8,036,988
`
`Exhibit 1015 Patent Owner’s 12/24/13 Preliminary Response to Petitioner’s
`Request for CBM Patent Review of the ‘988 Patent
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`Exhibit 1016 U.S. Provisional App. No. 60/079,884 (“’884 Provisional)
`
`Exhibit 1017 U.S. Provisional App. No. 60/099,614 (“’614 Provisional)
`
`Exhibit 1018 U.S. Provisional App. No. 60/098,175 (“’175 Provisional)
`
`Exhibit 1019 U.S. Provisional App. No. 60/092,500 (“’500 Provisional)
`
`Exhibit 1020 Statement Regarding Prior or Concurrent Proceedings (37 C.F.R. §
`1.565)
`
`Exhibit 1021 Examiners “Statement of Reasons for Patentability and/or
`Confirmation”
`
`Exhibit 1022 Patent Owner’s 09/11/14 E-mail to Petitioner
`
`Exhibit 1023 Petitioner’s 09/11/14 E-mail to Patent Owner
`
`Exhibit 1024 U.S. Census Bureau, “Statistics of U.S. Businesses Employment
`and Payroll Summary: 2012”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Patent Owner’s Response attempts to distinguish the claims of the ‘988
`
`patent from Cohen by presenting three principal arguments. Patent Owner
`
`contends that Cohen does not disclose: (1) a payment category that limits
`
`transactions to a single merchant; (2) a payment category that limits transactions to
`
`one or more merchants; and (3) defining a payment category that places limitations
`
`on a transaction code before generating the transaction code. Response at 1-2.
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments, however, are premised on claim constructions already
`
`rejected by the Board in its Decision to Institute (“ID”). ID at 6-10. Because
`
`Cohen explicitly discloses each of the limitations at issue, as properly construed
`
`by the Board, all claims of the ‘988 patent are unpatentable and should be
`
`canceled.
`
`II. Claim Construction
`
`Patent Owner and its declarant1 premise their arguments on flawed claim
`
`constructions that are divorced from the broadest reasonable interpretation standard
`
`applicable to this proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`
`
`1 Edward L. Gussin’s testimony should be given no weight because his opinions
`
`are based on flawed claim constructions previously rejected by the Board, and
`
`because he lacks the minimum qualifications that he concedes are required of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art. Ex. 2007 ¶ 30; Ex. 1008 ¶ 18.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`Regarding “generating a transaction code,” Patent Owner argues that this
`
`term must be read to require that the “transaction code” be “indicative” of not just
`
`“a specific credit card account” but also “a payment category.” Response at 5, 7-9.
`
`As the Board found, however, this may be a preferred embodiment, but it is
`
`certainly not required. ID at 7. Patent Owner’s argument that the Board’s
`
`construction
`
`is
`
`incorrect because
`
`it purportedly “excludes” a preferred
`
`embodiment” (p. 9) is meritless. The Board’s construction properly includes
`
`within the scope of the claim the embodiment where the “transaction code” is
`
`indicative of a payment category. Thus, this embodiment is not “exclud[ed]” at all.
`
`Claim differentiation also counsels against Patent Owner’s construction requiring
`
`indication of a payment category. Claim 5, for example, would be superfluous if
`
`Patent Owner’s construction were adopted.
`
`Patent Owner’s additional argument that this term should be broadened to
`
`cover either a “credit card account or a debit card account” (pp. 5-7) is both
`
`irrelevant and meritless. First, Patent Owner does not explain how this revised
`
`construction would alter the outcome in this proceeding. Second, the argument is
`
`belied by the claims themselves, all of which are expressly limited to methods for
`
`“secure credit card purchases.” Ex. 1001 (emphasis supplied).
`
`Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “defining at least one payment
`
`category” is also flawed as it improperly avoids giving any meaning to the term
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`“payment category,” instead merely repeating that disputed term in its proposed
`
`construction. Response at 9-12. Moreover, Patent Owner’s construction, which
`
`requires “specifying the limit of a payment category,” fails to apply the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation standard. Nothing in the claim or specification requires
`
`that a payment category necessarily include “the limit” applicable to that category.
`
`Indeed, such a requirement would render claim 38 nonsensical, as that claim
`
`requires that a payment category be “further limited” by provided transaction
`
`details. Therefore, the claimed “payment category” does not necessarily include
`
`the applicable limits. Those limits can come later.
`
`Similarly, the Patent Owner’s argument regarding “particular merchant” is
`
`unfounded. The Board correctly found this term to mean “the merchant to whom
`
`the customer discloses the transaction code” and/or “the merchant with whom the
`
`customer is transacting.” ID at 9. The argument the Patent Owner now makes in
`
`support of its construction (i.e., that the “particular merchant” is merely one with
`
`whom a customer is able to engage in “a” purchase transaction and not necessarily
`
`“the” merchant with whom the customer is transacting, Response at 12) is
`
`unreasonable, at least because the Patent Owner argued the exact opposite to obtain
`
`allowance during the ex parte prosecution of the parent ‘486 Patent. See Ex. 1013
`
`p. 187 (where the Patent Owner distinguished the prior art for failing to tie the
`
`transaction to the code, contending that the prior art is “not directed towards
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`generating a temporary account number on a transactional basis,” but rather uses
`
`merchant type category codes and approved vendor lists having pre-identified
`
`merchants); Ex. 1008 p.14, n.3; Petition at 10.
`
`Additionally, the Patent Owner falsely states that “Petitioner’s expert
`
`agrees” with Patent Owner’s construction. Response at 12. To the contrary,
`
`Petitioner’s expert’s construction calls for “a specific merchant with whom a
`
`customer can engage in the purchase transaction” -- not “a” purchase transaction,
`
`as proposed by the Patent Owner. Ex. 1008 ¶ 23. Although only a word, the
`
`difference is immense. Under Patent Owner’s construction, the “particular
`
`merchant” could be any merchant potentially involved in any transaction --
`
`untethered to the “transactions” explicitly mentioned in the clause just preceding
`
`“particular merchant.” In context, the phrase “particular merchant” must reference
`
`“the” merchant with whom the customer is transacting -- not any merchant with
`
`whom the customer could transact.2 See Ex. 1008 ¶ 26.
`
`
`2 Patent Owner’s reliance on claim differentiation is misplaced (Response at 14).
`
`None of the independent claims require the merchant ever be identified. Instead,
`
`they merely require a limitation to be included in a payment category “prior to any
`
`particular merchant being identified.” Moreover, the dependent claims include
`
`particular timing limitations related to when during transaction processing the
`
`merchant is identified. Thus, those claims are not superfluous.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`The Patent Owner further spends several pages attacking the Board’s
`
`construction of the “said one or more merchants limitation” and the “single
`
`merchant limitation.” Response at 15-22. These “arguments” lack substance.
`
`The Board correctly interpreted each phrase as “any group, category, or type of
`
`merchant is included in the payment category prior to the customer selecting a
`
`particular merchant for a transaction.” ID at 9. The Board then qualified this
`
`construction noting that “one or more merchants” allows “for one or multiple
`
`merchants as any group, category, or type of merchant” and “single merchant”
`
`allows “for only one merchant.” Id. at 10. The Patent Owner professes confusion
`
`about this construction (“it is unclear”), and “interprets the Board’s construction of
`
`“said single merchant limitation” to be “any one group, type, or category of
`
`merchant.” Response at 19. But this is neither reasonable nor correct, as the
`
`Board has already explained. ID at 10. In view of the foregoing, Patent Owner’s
`
`arguments regarding patentability also fail, as explained below.
`
`III. Cohen Discloses “A Payment Category That at Least Limits
`Transactions to a Single Merchant”
`
`In connection with claims 21 and 23-30, and the clause “within a payment
`
`category that at least limits transactions to a single merchant,” Patent Owner argues
`
`(1) that Petitioner relies on Cohen’s disclosure of single-use cards (at 24); (2) that
`
`Cohen’s disclosure of single-use cards does “not meet the disputed claim limitation
`
`because a single-use card cannot be used to make multiple transactions as required
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`by the claims” (at 24-25); and (3) that this claim limitation “includes making more
`
`than one transaction” (at 25). Patent Owner also generally argues that the “single
`
`merchant limitation” is not disclosed in Cohen. Response at 26-33.
`
`Patent Owner is wrong on all counts. First, Patent Owner assumes
`
`incorrectly that this limitation requires multiple transactions with a single
`
`merchant. But, the surrounding claim text is not restricted to multiple transactions.
`
`Instead, the claim specifies that the “account holder” requests “a transaction code
`
`to make a purchase…” Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`standard, the claim encompasses conducting only one transaction with a single
`
`merchant. It could also encompass multiple transactions at a single merchant, but
`
`that is not required. Had the Patent Owner desired to add that limitation to the
`
`claim, it should have sought to do so by amendment.
`
`Second, even if, as Patent Owner contends, the claim requires multiple
`
`transactions with a single merchant, Cohen discloses this feature. Ex. 1004 at
`
`2:35-43; 8:25-39 (“The card could be valid only for purchases on that particular
`
`day, to a certain designated purchase limit, and even, if desired only in a certain
`
`store, or group of stores or types of stores (e.g. clothing stores...); “any of [these]
`
`features... can also be combined.”) Id. 8:35-36 (emphasis supplied).
`
`The fact that Cohen also discloses a single-use card that can be used for a
`
`single purchase does not alter this conclusion. Cf. Response at 25. As disclosed in
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`Cohen: “a card [could be used] in any computer store which is good for a total
`
`purchase of up to, for example, $2000 in value.” Id. at 8:38-40. This portion of
`
`Cohen alone meets the Patent Owner’s narrow construction (Response at 26, 28-
`
`29) as it recites the use of a payment category comprising an unidentified
`
`“computer store” or “single merchant” allowing for multiple purchases or
`
`transactions, over any time period, up to a certain value. This is exactly what
`
`Patent Owner says is required by this limitation, and is exactly what is disclosed in
`
`Cohen -- as the Board previously found. ID at 13-14.
`
`Patent Owner further argues that Cohen’s disclosure does not satisfy the
`
`claims’ limits to a “single merchant” or designation of a payment category “prior
`
`to any particular merchant being identified.” Response at 26-32. Patent Owner
`
`also cites the Central Reexamination Unit’s (“CRU’s”) statement that “Cohen does
`
`not disclose a single merchant being included in a payment category prior to any
`
`particular merchant being identified.” Response at 33. Both the Patent Owner and
`
`the CRU misapply the teachings of Cohen.
`
`Applying this Board’s proper construction of the “single merchant
`
`limitation” (i.e., “only one merchant is included in the payment category prior to
`
`the customer selecting that particular merchant for a transaction”), or even using
`
`the Patent Owner’s construction (“including the limit in the payment category that
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`limits transactions to a single merchant before any specific merchant is identified
`
`as the single merchant,” Response at 22), Cohen anticipates.
`
`More specifically, Cohen explicitly discloses a payment card system having
`
`“customized or limited use” credit cards. Ex. 1004, 2:55-57. These cards, in one
`
`example, “could be valid only for purchase...only in a certain store, or group of
`
`stores or type of stores (e.g., clothing stores)...” Id. 8:44-46. Or, the card could be
`
`used “in any computer store.” Id. 8:37-39. These instances alone demonstrate a
`
`payment category limited to one (i.e. a single) merchant (e.g., a certain store, type
`
`of store, clothing store or computer store), in each case the name of the store being
`
`unidentified until the card is later used at the store itself. Accordingly, Cohen
`
`discloses the “single merchant limitation.”
`
`To support its flawed argument, Patent Owner resorts to selectively quoting
`
`Dr. Grimes in an effort to convince the Board that Dr. Grimes “concedes that a
`
`merchant type limit…does not satisfy the disputed claim limitation.” Response at
`
`27-28; see also id. at 35. In particular, Patent Owner quotes the following from Dr.
`
`Grimes: “pre-identifying a merchant by an MCC code is insufficient to satisfy the
`
`element ‘prior to any particular merchant being identified.’” Id. But, as the
`
`remainder of the sentence (left out by Patent Owner) makes clear, Dr. Grimes is
`
`not relying on “pre-identifying” a merchant to satisfy the claim element. Instead,
`
`as Dr. Grimes correctly states in the rest of that sentence: “the claimed
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`identification must be related to the transactions in the payment category.” Ex.
`
`1008, p. 14, n.3. Like Dr. Grimes, Petitioner relies on Cohen’s disclosure of
`
`identifying the merchant at the time of the transaction as satisfying the claim
`
`element, not any “pre-identification,” as the Board has recognized. (ID at 15) (“the
`
`user subsequently identifies a particular merchant”) (emphasis added).
`
`Accordingly, Patent Owner’s arguments that in Cohen, merchants must be
`
`pre-identified “in order to limit a credit card’s use to a group of stores, that group
`
`must already exist” (e.g. Response at 29-32) are irrelevant. These arguments
`
`confuse any pre-identification (which, as Dr. Grimes has noted, was disclaimed
`
`during ex parte prosecution) with the claimed identification that takes place in the
`
`course of carrying out the transaction that is subject to the limit. Whether
`
`merchants have been pre-identified as being within a particular class of merchants,
`
`such as clothing stores, is simply irrelevant to the claims. Accordingly, Cohen
`
`anticipates.
`
`IV. Cohen Discloses “A Payment Category That at Least Limits
`Transactions to One or More Merchants”
`
`Patent Owner argues that Cohen’s merchant limitation cannot satisfy the
`
`claim term “a payment category that at least limits transactions to one or more
`
`merchants” because a merchant limitation “does not create a limit to a reasonable,
`
`finite number of merchants.” ‘988 Response at 36-37. Using the clothing store
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`example, Patent Owner argues that a limitation to clothing stores is “not a
`
`numerical limit that is finite.” Id.
`
`As an initial matter, Patent Owner’s only evidence for the remarkable
`
`proposition that there are an infinite number of clothing stores in the world is the
`
`testimony of Mr. Gussin, who is not a person skilled in the art, and whose
`
`conclusory “opinion” is entitled to no weight.3 Mr. Gussin’s “reasoning” is limited
`
`to asking the rhetorical question: “how can one know or even determine the
`
`number of clothing stores that might exist in the entire world on any given day.”
`
`Ex. 2007 ¶ 51.4 Notably, Mr. Gussin does not dispute that as of the effective filing
`
`date of the ‘988 Patent, there existed in the world only a finite number of clothing
`
`stores. Accordingly, Cohen’s disclosure, as of that date, of creating a payment
`
`category that limits payment card transactions to clothing stores is sufficient to
`
`anticipate. Nothing in the claims requires that it be easy to count the number of
`
`
`3 A 2012 government survey reported 1,063,842 retailers in the United States.
`
`Even if every one of those were a clothing retailer, there would still be a finite
`
`number of clothing retailers, contrary to Patent Owner’s suggestion. Ex.1024, p.7.
`
`4 Patent Owner’s reasoning is also inconsistent with its argument that members of a
`
`particular industry group must be pre-identified by the credit card company in
`
`order to restrict purchases to that group. Cf. Response p. 30.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`possible stores at which the transaction number could be used, but only that there
`
`be some limit.
`
`Patent Owner also exhausts several pages repeating arguments that
`
`MasterCard already addressed in its Petition (‘988 Response at 35, 37-9), and
`
`which the Board found unconvincing in its Decision to Institute. These arguments
`
`are without merit.
`
`Accordingly, Cohen’s merchant limitation satisfies the claim term “a
`
`payment category that at least limits transactions to one or more merchants.”
`
`V. Cohen Discloses Defining a Payment Category Before Generating the
`Transaction Code
`
`Patent Owner argues that the claims require “designating/selecting a
`
`payment category that places limitations on a transaction code before the
`
`transaction code is generated.”5 Response at 39-45 (emphasis added). Petitioner
`
`disagrees and respectfully submits that designating/selecting a payment category
`
`need not take place before the transaction code is generated. Indeed, nothing in the
`
`patent’s specification requires such a narrow reading, and the doctrine of claim
`
`
`5 The Board construed “generating a transaction code” to mean “creating or
`
`producing a code that is usable as a substitute for a credit card number in a
`
`purchase transaction, the transaction code is pre-coded to be indicative of a specific
`
`credit card account.” ID at 7.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`differentiation supports a broader reading, not requiring the limitations at issue to
`
`proceed in sequence.
`
`For instance, claim 1 calls for “defining at least one payment category to
`
`include [a one or more merchants limitation]..., designating said payment category
`
`[and] generating a transaction code” -- and claim 2 requires that “the step of
`
`designating at least one of said one or more merchants” take place “subsequent to
`
`generating the transaction code.” Claim 2’s “subsequent” requirement would not
`
`make sense if claim 1 required just the opposite, as seemingly urged by the Patent
`
`Owner. Consequently, claim 1 does not require the designating/selecting step
`
`before the transaction code is generated. If the inventor had wanted to claim a
`
`particular sequence in Claim 1 he would have explicitly done so, as he did in
`
`Claim 2.
`
`Nonetheless, Patent Owner then argues that Cohen does not disclose these
`
`two steps in the order it says the claims require. Patent Owner’s argument is
`
`without merit, even if the claims were to be read to require that the limitations be
`
`placed on a transaction code before the code were generated.
`
`Patent Owner cites to one embodiment in Cohen where the payment
`
`category is defined after the transaction code is generated. (Response at 43; Ex.
`
`1004 (Cohen) at 9:13-23) This is the same embodiment cited by the CRU in
`
`issuing the Notice of Intent to Issue Ex Parte Reexamination Certification for the
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`‘988 patent (‘988 NIIRC at 2-3). Both the Patent Owner and the CRU, however,
`
`misinterpret and/or misunderstand (or ignore) the explicit additional disclosures in
`
`Cohen defining a payment category before generating the transaction code. See,
`
`e.g., Cohen at 3:40-55, 56-67.
`
`More specifically, Patent Owner argues that Cohen’s single or multiple use
`
`cards do not satisfy the “defining/selecting a payment category that places a
`
`limitation on a transaction code” before “generating the transaction code.”
`
`Response at 39-45. Cohen, however, discloses that a single use card (i.e. a
`
`“disposable card”) is generated for the purpose of allowing a single transaction,
`
`after which it can be thrown away. Cohen at 2:14-15. Cohen also discloses that
`
`customized or limited use cards are generated for the purposes of allowing one or
`
`multiple transactions for only particular uses or groups of uses. Id. at 7:65-8:57.
`
`In all cases, a user can call a credit card company to request a single or
`
`customized use card. Cohen at 3:41-47 (“a user dials into her credit card company
`
`before making a transaction, and after providing the ordinary credit card number
`
`and verification data, is provided with a disposable or customized number and/or
`
`mailed, provided with, or allowed to activate a disposable or customized card for a
`
`single or limited range use.”) (ID at 14, emphasis added). The fact that the user
`
`requests the single or customized use card and then receives such a card in
`
`response - all before any transaction takes place - indicates that the payment
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`category (i.e. restricting a card to a single or customized use, which effectively
`
`limits the card to a single merchant or multiple merchants, as the case may be) is
`
`defined before the transaction code is generated. The user receives a card that has
`
`already been designated for a single or customized use, so the single or customized
`
`use category must have been designated before the transaction code was generated.
`
`Cohen does not suggest otherwise.
`
`Indeed, Cohen is even more explicit, disclosing that “in advance of the
`
`purchase” a user can call the credit card company to “indicate” the exact use of the
`
`card, namely “what the single use or customized credit card number is to be used
`
`for.” Cohen 3:49-54. Cohen thus discloses that a user may first designate or select
`
`a payment category that places limitations on a transaction code (e.g., single use,
`
`customized use), saying what the card is to be used for (e.g., for purchases in
`
`computer stores). Then, “before making the transaction” and “in advance of
`
`purchase” -- and after saying what the card is to be used for (i.e., after
`
`defining/selecting a payment category) -- the user is “provided with a disposable or
`
`customized number” (i.e., transaction code) for making a purchase or purchases
`
`within the payment category. Id. This is the very sequence that Patent Owner says
`
`is missing from Cohen.
`
`But there is more. Cohen also discloses an additional embodiment, where “a
`
`user could be provided … with a set of disposable, one time only, or customized,
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`limited use, numbers….” Ex. 1004, 3:56-60. Cohen further explains: “With
`
`respect to the customized card, the cards can either be preset for certain uses, or
`
`the cards can be ready and waiting in the user's office or home for setting to the
`
`desired use when the user is ready.” Id. 3:63-67 (emphasis added). Accordingly,
`
`Cohen discloses both designating a particular payment category before the number
`
`(or authorization code) is generated (i.e. the card is “preset” for a particular use)
`
`and designating a payment category after the code is generated (i.e. the card is
`
`“ready …for setting to the desired use when the user is ready”). As a result, Cohen
`
`anticipates, even if payment category designation is required before the code is
`
`generated.
`
`VI. Conclusion
`
`The absence of comments in reply to a specific assertion made by the Patent
`
`Owner does not signify agreement with or concession of that assertion, but that the
`
`assertion has already been addressed by MasterCard or is without any merit. For
`
`the foregoing reasons and based on the Petition, the expert declaration of Dr.
`
`Grimes, and all the supporting evidence of record, MasterCard respectfully
`
`requests that the Board issue a final decision cancelling each and every claim of
`
`the ’988 patent.
`
`February 27, 2015
`
`
`Eliot D. Williams
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`BAKER BOTTS LLP
`/Robert C. Scheinfeld/
`Robert C. Scheinfeld
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`Reg. No. 50,822
`1001 Page Mill Road
`Building One, Suite 200
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Phone: (650) 739-7511
`Facsimile: (650) 739-7611
`eliot.williams@bakerbotts.com
`
`
`Reg. No. 31,300
`30 Rockefeller Plaza, 44th Floor
`New York, New York 10112-4498
`Phone: (212) 408-2512
`Facsimile: (212) 408-2501
`robert.scheinfeld@bakerbotts.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER
`MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL
`INCORPORATED
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that on the 27th day of February, 2015, a complete
`
`and entire copy of PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`and EXHIBIT 1024 were served via electronic mail and Federal Express to the
`
`Patent Owner’s attorneys of record at the following address:
`
`
`
`Stephen J. Lewellyn
`Brittany J. Maxey
`Maxey Law Offices, PLLC
`100 Second Avenue South
`Suite 401 North Tower
`St. Petersburg, Florida 33701
`s.lewellyn@maxeyiplaw.com
`b.maxey@maxeyiplaw.com
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`BAKER BOTTS LLP
`
`/Robert C. Scheinfeld/
`Robert C. Scheinfeld
`Reg. No. 31,300
`30 Rockefeller Plaza, 44th Floor
`New York, New York 10112-4498
`Phone: (212) 408-2512
`Facsimile: (212) 408-2501
`robert.scheinfeld@bakerbotts.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER
`MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL
`INCORPORATED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Eliot D. Williams
`Reg. No. 50,822
`1001 Page Mill Road
`Building One, Suite 200
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Phone: (650) 739-7511
`Facsimile: (650) 739-7611
`eliot.williams@bakerbotts.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`