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
`
`___________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF EDWARD L. GUSSIN
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`1. My name is Edward L. Gussin, and I have been retained by the Patent
`
`Owner to provide my opinions as they relate to U.S. Patent 8,036,988 (hereinafter
`
`“the ‘988 patent”), which is the subject of the present Inter Partes Review, and
`
`U.S. Patent 7,840,486 (hereinafter “the ‘486 patent”), which is the subject of
`
`IPR2014-00544.
`
`
`
`2. My curriculum vitae is included herewith as Appendix A, and a list of
`
`my prior engagements is included herewith as Appendix B. As shown in Appendix
`
`A, I received a B.S. in Electrical Engineering from the Illinois Institute of
`
`Technology in 1975, and an M.S. in Electrical Engineering from the University of
`
`Southern California in 1979.
`
`
`
`3.
`
`From May, 1975 through August, 1976, I was a computer hardware
`
`designer and software programmer at GTE Automatic Electric in Northlake,
`
`Illinois.
`
`
`
`4.
`
`From August, 1976 through April, 2011, I was an electrical engineer
`
`developing signal and data processing electronics, with progressively expanding
`
`responsibility in program management and technical leadership positions at
`
`Raytheon Company, formerly Hughes Aircraft Company in El Segundo,
`
`California.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF MY REVIEW
`
`
`
`5.
`
`In developing my opinions relating to the ‘988 patent, I have reviewed
`
`the following:
`
`Ex. 1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,036,988
`
`Ex. 1002
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 8,036,988
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`File History for U.S. Reexamination No. 90/012,517
`
`Ex. 1004 U.S. Patent No. 6,422,462 (“Cohen”)
`
`Ex. 1006 U.S. Patent No. 5,826,243 (“Musmanno”)
`
`Ex. 1008 Declaration of Jack D. Grimes
`
`Ex. 1009
`
`Ex. 1012
`
`Excerpts from Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary,
`Second Edition
`ISO 8583
`
`Ex. 1013
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 7,840,486
`
`Ex. 1021 Notice of Intent to Issue Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate
`
`Ex. 2003 Appeal Brief in U.S. Reexamination No. 90/012,517
`
`Ex. 2004 U.S. Patent No. 5,621,201
`
`Ex. 2005
`
`Excerpts from Oxford Dictionary, Eighth Edition
`
`Ex. 2006
`
`Excerpts from Random House Webster’s College Dictionary
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`
`
`6.
`
`I understand, in an inter partes review proceeding before the Patent
`
`Trial and Appeal Board, that claims of a patent are interpreted according to their
`
`broadest reasonable construction in view of the specification of the patent. I further
`
`understand that terms of the claim are given their ordinary and customary meaning
`
`as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in light of the specification of the
`
`patent. Following these principles, I believe that my interpretation of the claim
`
`terms given below are the broadest reasonable interpretation of those terms within
`
`the context of the ‘988 patent and its file history.
`
`
`
`7.
`
`The claim limitation “generating a transaction code” should be
`
`construed, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, 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
`
`customer account and a payment category, where the customer account is either a
`
`credit card account or a debit card account.” This interpretation is consistent with,
`
`and is supported by the ‘988 patent. See Ex. 1001, 3:17-22; 3:35-45; 6:33-37.
`
`
`
`8.
`
`I understand that the Board in its Decision has adopted the meaning of
`
`“generating a transaction code” to be “creating or producing a code that is usable
`
`as a substitute for a credit card number in a purchase transaction, the transaction
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`code is pre-coded to be indicative of a specific credit card account.” This definition
`
`incorrectly limits the transaction code to be indicative of a credit card account. The
`
`claims are directed toward performing secure credit card purchases with a
`
`customer’s account that is capable of performing secure credit purchases. The ‘988
`
`patent explains that the account could be a credit card account or a debit card
`
`account. Ex. 1001, 3:17-22. The ‘988 patent also describes “the transaction code is
`
`to be used in substitution for the credit card number…and will accomplish
`
`payment for the goods or services desired in the formal fashion normally
`
`associated with a credit or debit card transaction….” Ex. 1001, 3:40-45. And, the
`
`‘988 patent discloses a user identifying either a credit card or debit card account in
`
`the process of obtaining a transaction code. Ex. 1001, 3:17-22.
`
`
`
`9.
`
`The adopted definition also incorrectly excludes the transaction code
`
`being indicated of a payment category. The ‘988 patent makes clear that the
`
`transaction code indicates the payment category. Ex. 1001, 3:48-50, 6:33-37. And
`
`the claims expressly include the transaction code being indicative of the payment
`
`category. For example, claims 1, 21, and 22 state “said transaction code reflecting
`
`at least the limits of the designated payment category to make a purchase within
`
`said designated payment category.” And claims 17 and 19 state “said transaction
`
`code associated with …the limits of said selected payment category…”Thus, for
`
`these reasons I believe that my definition is correct.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`10. The claim limitation “defining at least one payment category” should
`
`be construed, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, to mean “specifying the
`
`limit (or limits) of a payment category that are applied to a transaction code in
`
`order to limit its use.” The plain meaning of “defining” is to fix or mark the limits
`
`of. See Ex. 2006, at 3 (355). This interpretation is consistent with, and is supported
`
`by the ‘988 patent. See Ex. 1001, 7:46-49; 7:65-8:3; 8:3-6. That is, a payment
`
`category includes a limitation, such as, for example, a limit on the maximum
`
`purchase amount, and defining the payment category is the act of setting or
`
`specifying the actual value of the maximum purchase amount. Thus, I believe that
`
`my definition is correct.
`
`
`
`11. The claim limitation “particular merchant” should be construed, under
`
`the broadest reasonable interpretation, to mean “a specific merchant with whom a
`
`customer can engage in a purchase transaction.” This interpretation is consistent
`
`with, and is supported by the ‘988 patent. See Ex. 1001, 4:5-7; 8:15-18; 8:19-22.
`
`Further, this interpretation is consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the
`
`word “particular.” See Ex. 2006, at 5 (986).
`
`
`
`12. Dr. Grimes has similarly taken the position that broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation of particular “particular merchant” is “a specific merchant with
`
`whom a customer can engage in the purchase transaction.” Ex. 1008, ¶ 23. The
`
`only difference between my definition and Dr. Grimes is that his includes “the
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`purchase transaction,” whereas mine includes “a purchase transaction” to be
`
`consistent with the claim’s multiple transactions language.
`
`
`
`13.
`
`I understand that the Board in its Decision has adopted the meaning of
`
`“particular merchant” to be “merchant with whom the customer is transacting.” I
`
`believe that this definition incorrectly narrows the meaning of particular merchant.
`
`Initially, the word “particular” modifies the noun “merchant,” and the plain
`
`meaning of the word “particular” is specific identification so as not to refer to any
`
`other merchant. See Ex. 2006, at 5 (986).
`
`
`
`14. The specification supports the conclusion that persons of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would understand that the ‘988 patent specification is consistent
`
`with this plain meaning of “particular.” The ‘988 patent describes “…limits solely
`
`as to a specific merchant…can be effectively established for which the transaction
`
`code is valid.” Ex. 1001, 4:5-7. And, “…other payment category transactions may
`
`include a specific merchant identification to further restrict use of the transaction
`
`code.” Ex. 1001, 8:15-18. The ‘988 patent also describes that a plurality of
`
`different merchants may or may not be identified by the customer and pre-coded in
`
`association with the transaction code. Ex. 1001, 8:19-22. Thus, I believe that my
`
`definition is correct.
`
`
`
`15. The claim language “said one or more merchants limitation” is a
`
`phrase that merely references the previously recited phrase “limiting a number of
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`transactions to one or more merchants.” That is, the phrase “said one more
`
`merchants limitation” is simply the same limitation “limiting a number of
`
`transactions to one or more merchants.”
`
`
`
`16.
`
` I understand that the Board in its Decision has adopted a meaning of
`
`“said one or more merchants limitation” to be “any group, category, or type or
`
`merchant.” This definition is both inconsistent with the meaning of “one or more
`
`merchants” and with the claim language itself.
`
`
`
`17.
`
` The Board has interpreted “one or more merchants” to mean “one
`
`merchant up to a plurality of merchants, where the number of merchants is a finite
`
`number.” The interpretation of “said one or more merchants limitation” to mean
`
`“any group, category, or type of merchant” is inconsistent with the meaning of
`
`“one or more merchants” to be “one merchant up to a plurality of merchants, where
`
`the number of merchants is a finite number.”
`
`
`
`18. The Board’s interpretation of “said one or more merchants limitation”
`
`is inconsistent with the claims. Specifically, it appears the Board has read this
`
`phrase out of context with the remaining claim language “being included in said
`
`payment category prior to any particular merchant being identified as one of said
`
`one or more merchants” that completes the sentence, because the Board’s
`
`interpretation cannot be reconciled with the claim language that follows “said one
`
`or more merchants limitation.”
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`19. Additionally, the ‘988 patent does not describe limiting use of a
`
`transaction code by any group, type, or category of merchant. Ex. 1001, 4:8-17,
`
`4:49-54, 6:6-8, 6:44-54, 8:18-24. The ‘988 patent is consistent with the plain and
`
`ordinary meaning of merchant which is someone who buys and sells goods. See
`
`Ex. 2006, at 4 (848).
`
`
`
`20. Further, the current construction is inconsistent with the file history.
`
`During reexamination of the ‘988 patent the limitation “said one more merchants
`
`limitation being included in said payment category prior to any particular merchant
`
`being identified as one of said one or more merchants” was construed to mean
`
`including one or more merchants in a payment category prior to any particular
`
`merchant being identified. See Ex. 1003, ‘988 Patent Reexamination History at
`
`103. Thus, I believe that my understanding that “said one or more merchants
`
`limitation” is a reference to the limitation “limiting a number of transactions to one
`
`or more merchants” is correct.
`
`
`
`21. Thus, the claim limitation “said one or more merchants limitation
`
`being included in said payment category prior to any particular merchant being
`
`identified as one of said one or more merchants” should be construed, under the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation, to mean “including the limit in the payment
`
`category that limits transactions to one or more merchants before any particular
`
`merchant is identified as one of the one or more merchants.” This meaning is
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`consistent with the meaning of “one or more merchants”, the claims, the ‘988
`
`patent, and the file history. See Ex. 1003, at 103.
`
`
`
`22. The claim language “said single merchant limitation” is a phrase that
`
`merely references the previously recited phrase “limits transactions to a single
`
`merchant.” That is, the phrase “said single merchant limitation” is simply the same
`
`limitation “limits transactions to a single merchant.”
`
`
`
`23.
`
`I understand that the Board in its Decision has adopted a meaning of
`
`“said single merchant limitation” to be “any one group, category, or type or
`
`merchant.” This definition is both inconsistent with the meaning of “single
`
`merchant” and with the claim language itself.
`
`
`
`24. The word “single” modifies the noun “merchant.” The plain and
`
`ordinary meaning of “single” is only one. See Ex. 2006, at 6 (1250). The plain and
`
`ordinary meaning of merchant is someone who buys and sells goods. See Ex. 2006,
`
`at 4 (848). The ‘988 patent is consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of
`
`“single” and “merchant.” Ex. 1001, 4:49-54; 8:18-34. The ‘988 patent does not
`
`describe limiting use of a transaction code by any group, type, or category of
`
`merchant. Ex. 1001, 4:8-17, 4:49-54, 6:6-8, 6:44-54, 8:18-24. Thus, the Board’s
`
`interpretation of “said single merchant limitation” to mean “any one group,
`
`category, or type of merchant” is inconsistent with the plain and ordinary meaning
`
`of “single merchant.”
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`25. The Board’s interpretation of “said single merchant limitation” is
`
`inconsistent with the claims. Specifically, it appears the Board has read this phrase
`
`out of context with the remaining claim language “being included in said payment
`
`category prior to any particular merchant being identified as said single merchant”
`
`that completes the sentence, because the Board’s interpretation cannot be
`
`reconciled with the claim language that follows “said merchant limitation.”
`
`
`
`26.
`
` Further, the current construction is inconsistent with the file history.
`
`During reexamination of the ‘988 patent, the limitation “said single limitation
`
`being included in said payment category prior to any particular merchant being
`
`identified as said single merchant” was construed to mean including a single
`
`merchant in a payment category prior to any particular merchant being identified.
`
`Ex. 1021 at 6. And, this construction is consistent with the file history of related
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,840,486 patent. Ex. 1013, File History of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,840,486, at 51, 140-141. Thus, I believe that my understanding that “said single
`
`merchant limitation” is a reference to the limitation “limits transactions to a single
`
`merchant” is correct.
`
`
`
`27. Thus the claim limitation “said single merchant limitation being
`
`included in said payment category prior to any particular merchant being identified
`
`as said single merchant” means “including the limit in the payment category that
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`limits transactions to a single merchant before any specific merchant is identified
`
`as the single merchant.” See Ex. 1021 at 6; See Ex. 1013, at 51, 140-141.
`
`IV. OPINIONS ABOUT COHEN
`
`
`
`28.
`
`I understand that the Petitioner carries the burden of proving invalidity
`
`by at least a preponderance of the evidence. I do not believe it has done so, as
`
`described in greater detail below.
`
`
`
`29.
`
`In rendering the opinions set forth in this declaration, I have
`
`considered the patent claims through the eyes of “one of ordinary skill in the art.” I
`
`understand that I should consider factors such as the educational level and years of
`
`experience, not only of the person or persons who have developed the processes
`
`that are the subject of the case, but also of others working in the pertinent art; the
`
`types of problems encountered in the art; the teachings of the prior art; patents and
`
`publications of other persons or companies; and the sophistication of the
`
`technology. I understand that the person of ordinary skill in the art is not a specific
`
`real individual, but rather a hypothetical individual having the qualities reflected
`
`by the factors discussed above.
`
`
`
`30. Based on my experience as a professional engineer leading the
`
`development of signal and data processing systems and my education, I generally
`
`agree with Dr. Grimes’ definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`
`31.
`
`I understand that this inter partes review was instituted by the Board
`
`based on Cohen’s disclosure of limiting a credit card’s use to a certain store, a
`
`particular store, groups of stores, chain of stores, and types of stores as allegedly
`
`disclosing the subject matter of claims 1-10, 15-25, 27-33, and 35-38.
`
`
`
`32.
`
`I understand that Cohen cannot anticipate claims that depend on
`
`independent claim if Cohen does not include a claim limitation in the independent
`
`claim.
`
`
`
`33.
`
`I have reviewed Cohen with respect to independent claims 1, 17, 19,
`
`21, and 22. Dr. Grimes alleges that these claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`102 over Cohen, but I believe that Cohen does not anticipate the subject matter of
`
`claims 1, 17, 19, 21, and 22 as described in further detail below.
`
`
`
`34.
`
`Initially, Cohen’s type of stores limit (e.g., clothing stores) and type of
`
`charges limit (e.g., computer hardware and software stores) are merchant type
`
`(merchant category) limits. Limiting a credit card by merchant type limit is the
`
`same as limiting a credit card by a Merchant Category Code (MCC). Ex. 2004,
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,621,201, at 12:11-14.
`
`
`
`35.
`
`It was well known in 1999 that a Merchant Category Code (MCC) is
`
`assigned to a merchant that deals in goods, such as clothes or computer hardware
`
`and software, to identify that merchant as a merchant of the type that deals in those
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`goods. Dr. Grimes agrees that this was well known at the relevant time. Ex. 1008,
`
`Grimes Declaration, at ¶17.
`
`
`
`36. As an example, a merchant category code for clothing stores is
`
`assigned to a merchant that sells clothes to identify that merchant as belonging to
`
`the type or category of merchants that sells clothes (e.g., clothing stores).
`
`
`
`37. With this understand, Dr. Grimes seemingly admits that a merchant
`
`type limit (e.g., a MCC limit) does not meet the claim limitation “prior to any
`
`particular merchant being identified.”
`
`
`
`38. Cohen’s limit to type of stores and types of charges (e.g., a merchant
`
`type limit) does not create a limit to a single merchant. A merchant type limit is not
`
`a numerical limit on the number of merchants. Rather, it is an identification limit
`
`that is based on the type of goods that a store deals in. At most merchant type limit
`
`creates an indeterminable numerical limit on a number of merchants, where the
`
`number is greater than one.
`
`
`
`39. Cohen’s group of stores limit requires identifying individual stores
`
`that consist of and form the group of stores. That is a group of stores, which
`
`essentially is the same as an approved vendor list, can only be created by
`
`identifying the stores that belong to the group in order to make the group.
`
`
`
`40. Cohen’s group of stores limit is not a limit to a single merchant. The
`
`phrase “groups of stores” itself means more than one store.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`
`
`41. Cohen’s particular chain of stores limit requires identifying the
`
`particular chain of stores before a credit card’s use can be limited to that chain of
`
`stores. The nature of the limitation itself requires identifying a specific chain of
`
`stores as the particular chain of stores so that the credit card company can create
`
`the limit and restrict purchases to only that chain of stores. The word “particular”
`
`itself denotes a specific identification so as not to refer to any other store or chain
`
`of stores.
`
`
`
`42.
`
`Identifying a particular chain of stores is an identification of a
`
`particular merchant. It is generally known that a chain of stores consists of series of
`
`stores that are owned by one ownership and selling the same goods. See Ex. 2005,
`
`at 3 (184). Consequently, identifying a particular chain of stores to create a limit
`
`on a credit card to that specific chain of stores is certainly an identification of a
`
`particular merchant.
`
`
`
`43. This becomes clear when Cohen’s particular chain of stores is
`
`discussed in connection with an example of its application. For the purpose of
`
`discussion, presume a user wants to limit the credit card to Target stores. Creating
`
`a limit to Target stores requires identifying Target as the chain of stores so that the
`
`credit card company can create the limit and restrict purchases to only Target.
`
`
`
`44. Without identify Target as the chain of stores, the limit to Target
`
`simply could not be made. Identifying Target to create the limit to only Target
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`certainly is an identification of a particular merchant. This is so because the
`
`restriction does not require the user to visit a specific brick and mortar location for
`
`the restriction to be effective. The user could simply make an online purchase
`
`using the restricted card by visiting Target’s website. But the card would be
`
`declined if the user attempts a purchase at a different chain store.
`
`
`
`
`
`45. Cohen’s certain store limit and, similarly, Cohen’s particular store
`
`limit require identifying a specific store before a credit card’s use can be limited to
`
`a certain store or particular store. The nature of the limitation itself requires
`
`identifying a specific store as the certain or particular store so that the credit card
`
`company can create the limit and restrict purchases to only that identified store.
`
`This is so because Cohen’s use of “certain” denotes a specific identification so as
`
`not to refer to any other store, which carries the same ordinary and plain meaning
`
`of “particular.”
`
`
`
`46.
`
`In my opinion Cohen does not anticipate independent claim 21.
`
`Independent claim 21 recites “receiving a request from said account holder for a
`
`transaction code to make a purchase within a payment category that at least limits
`
`transactions to a single merchant, said single merchant limitation being included in
`
`said payment category prior to any particular merchant being identified as said
`
`single merchant.”
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`
`
`47. Particularly, the claim limitation requires limiting transactions to a
`
`single merchant (only one merchant). Since Cohen’s group of stores, chain of
`
`stores, and merchant type (types of stores and types of charges) limitations do not
`
`create a limit to only one merchant, they do not satisfy the claim limitation.
`
`
`
`48. Further, the claim limitation requires including the limit in the
`
`payment category that limits transactions to a single merchant before any specific
`
`merchant is identified as the single merchant. Since Cohen’s certain store
`
`(particular store), groups of stores, and chain of stores limitations require
`
`identifying a specific store or specific stores before the credit card company can
`
`create the limit, they do not satisfy the claim limitation. The order in setting the
`
`limit and identifying the merchant is different between claim 21 and Cohen. Thus,
`
`it is my opinion that Cohen does not anticipate claim 21 nor its dependent claims.
`
`
`
`49.
`
`In my opinion Cohen does not anticipate independent claims 1, 17, 19,
`
`and 22. These independent claims include the limitation “one or more merchants.”
`
`The limitation “one or more merchants” means “one merchant up to a plurality of
`
`merchants, where the number of merchants is a finite number.”
`
`
`
`50. Cohen’s merchant type limitation (e.g., a limitation to an entire
`
`industry of merchants) does not fall within this meaning because it does not create
`
`a limit to a reasonable, finite number of merchants.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`
`
`51. While a limit to merchants that are clothing stores creates some
`
`numerical limit because not all merchants are clothing stores, such a limit to every
`
`clothing store that might exist in the entire world is not a numerical limit that is
`
`finite. At most it is an indeterminable numerical limit on the number of merchants,
`
`because how can one know or even determine the number of clothing stores that
`
`might exist in the entire world on any given day. And, an indeterminable number,
`
`by definition, is not a finite number.
`
`
`
`52.
`
`Independent claims 1, 17, 19, and 22 also include the limitation “said
`
`one or more merchants limitation being included in said payment category prior to
`
`any particular merchant being identified as one of said one or more merchants.”
`
`Cohen does not disclose this limitation.
`
`
`
`53. Particularly, this limitation requires including the limit to one or more
`
`merchants in the payment category before any specific merchant is identified as
`
`one of the one or more merchants. Since Cohen’s certain store (particular store),
`
`groups of stores, and chain of stores limitations require identifying a specific store
`
`or specific stores before the credit card company can create the limit, they do not
`
`satisfy the claim limitation. The order in setting the limit and identifying the
`
`merchant is different between claims 1, 17, 19, and 22 and Cohen. Thus, it is my
`
`opinion that Cohen does not anticipate claims 1, 17, 19, and 22 nor any of their
`
`dependent claims.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`
`
`54.
`
`In my opinion Cohen does not anticipate independent claims 1, 17, 19,
`
`21, and 22. Each of these claims requires designating/selecting a payment category
`
`that places limitations on a transaction code before the transaction code is
`
`generated. Ex. 1001, at Abstract, 5:64-6:6, 6:21-34. Cohen does not disclose this
`
`claim limitation.
`
`
`
`55. Cohen discloses that “a user dials into her credit card company before
`
`making a transaction, and … is provided with a disposable or customized number.”
`
`Ex. 1004, 3:42-49. Cohen also discloses that “a user can indicate in advance of
`
`purchase, on the telephone call with the credit card company, what the single use
`
`or the customized credit card number is to be used for.” Ex. 1004, 3:50-53. These
`
`portions do not explicitly disclose the step of designating or selecting a payment
`
`category including limits on a transaction code and then, after designating or
`
`selecting the payment category, the step of generating or producing the transaction
`
`code. Rather, these portions teach that a user is provided with a customized number
`
`before making a purchase, and before making the purchase, the user can specify the
`
`limitations that restrict use of the credit card number for the purchase.
`
`
`
`56. Cohen also discloses “In one embodiment, with respect to
`
`customization, the user receives one or more credit cards, each of which is inactive.
`
`Each card has a blank amount of credit, and no predefined use…. When the user
`
`receives the credit card, or when the user is ready to activate the credit card, the
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`
`user determines. . .what particular uses or types of uses are desired.” Ex. 1004,
`
`9: 13-23.
`
`57.
`
`Since the portions of Cohen found at col. 3, lines 42-53 do not
`
`explicitly disclose the timing between selecting/designating a payment category
`
`and generating a transaction code, but the portion of Cohen found at col. 9, lines
`
`13-23 does explicitly disclose generating a credit card number and then selecting
`
`the limit, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that C0hen’s disclosure
`
`does not include designating/selecting the limits before generating the credit card
`
`number. Thus, it is my opinion that Cohen does not anticipate claims 1, 17, 19, 21,
`
`and 22 nor any of their dependent claims.
`
`58.
`
`I hereby acknowledge that any willful false statements made in this
`
`declaration is punishable under 18 U.S.C. 1001 by fine or imprisonment of not
`
`more than five (5) years, or both.
`
`Executed this 5th day of December, 2014.
`
`_
`£5?
`:24‘
`.'
`’
`(,-~ I.’
`xzérzi.-94./\~—
`517:. r‘/av'z”«/224 .
`
`
`Edward L. Gussin
`
`20
`
`

`
`Appendix A
`
`Edward L. Gussin
`5772 Ridgebrook Drive
`Agoura Hills, CA 91301
`(818) 707-0318
`elgussin@gmail.com
`
`
`
`Summary: Extensive expert witness testimony experience in the fields of electronics,
`computer hardware and software, video game technology, and Electrical
`Engineering. Litigation support, strategy development, and research for patent
`infringement litigation. Court testimony in Coyle v. Nintendo and Coyle v. Sega.
`Markman hearing experience. Skilled at explaining complex technical issues in a
`clear and easy to understand manner. Appears confident and credible.
`
`Raytheon Co. (formerly Hughes Aircraft Co.), El Segundo, CA
`Program Manager, Department of Defense Space Programs
`Thirty five years experience in the development of signal and data processing
`electronics, with progressively expanding responsibility in program management
`and technical leadership positions.
`Accomplishments include successful management and technical leadership roles
`in the development of five generations of extremely high throughput signal and
`data processing electronics for space and airborne infrared sensors, many as part
`of the Ballistic Missile Defense and Strategic Defense Initiative programs.
`Proven record of managing programs within budget and on schedule. Key player
`in new business and proposal development resulting in the win of several large
`space programs. Skilled at developing and motivating multidisciplinary teams.
`Most recently was responsible for the program management of the ARTEMIS
`hyperspectral imaging payload for the US Air Force TacSat-3 satellite.
`Previously managed the electronics, and signal and data processing for DoD
`Space new business development. Was responsible for the program management
`of the payload signal and data processing electronics for the Space Tracking and
`Surveillance System, a low earth orbiting satellite to detect and track ballistic
`missiles during the midcourse phase of flight. Managed the payload processing
`electronics for the Space Based Infrared System -Low flight demonstration
`satellite system, including the development of six custom digital application
`specific integrated circuits resulting in a first pass success for all six devices. Was
`responsible for the development of the first processor to perform target detection
`and tracking of ballistic missiles performed on-board a spacecraft. Was the first
`to implement real time signal processing algorithms for space and airborne based
`sensors with large mosaic infrared focal plane arrays. Credited with numerous
`innovations in parallel/pipeline signal processing architectures. Authored and
`presented a seminar on successful program leadership.
`
`Consultant in the electronics design and product development of consumer,
`commercial, medical, and industrial control products.
`
`Invented, developed, and negotiated licenses for a portfolio of successfully
`marketed electronic toys.
`
`
`
`Experience:
`8/76 to
`4/11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Appendix A
`
`GTE Automatic Electric, Northlake, IL
`Hardware and software design of computer controlled test systems for automated
`telecom switching equipment.
`
`MSEE, University of Southern California, Hughes Fellowship
`BSEE, Illinois Institute of Technology
`
`Aviation Week 2010 Program Excellence Finalist, C4ISR Top 5 Innovations in
`2010
`
`Extremely High Speed Real Time Background Filter for Radiation Detectors,
`Array Correlation System for Radiation Detectors, Video Art Electronic System,
`Synchronized Audio Visual Story-Telling Toy
`
`Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
`
`
`5/75 to
`8/76
`
`
`
`Education:
`1979
`1975
`
`Awards:
`
`
`
`
`Patents:
`
`
`Member:
`
`

`
`Appendix B
`
`Edward L. Gussin - Summary of Expert Experience
`
`
`
`
`
`April 25, 2014
`
`
`
`Expert Reports, Declarations, or Deposition or Trial Testimony
`
`Coyle v. Nintendo (C.D. CA), 1988 through 1990, several days of deposition and trial testimony,
`several declarations
`
`Coyle v. Sega, Case No. 2:90-cv-2323 (C.D. CA), 1990 through 1992, several days of
`deposition and trial testimony, several declarations
`
`Grant v. Apple, Case No. 2:93-cv-808 (C.D. CA), May 6, 1994, August 6, 1994, and September
`10, 1994 depositions, several declarations
`
`Int’l Elec. Tech. v. DirecTv, Case No. cv-97-2678 (C.D. CA), 2004 through 2006, several
`declarations
`
`Scharf v. Applied Materials, Case No. cv-01-06580 (C.D. CA), September 27, 2006 and
`February 11, 2007 depositions, several declarations
`
`Impulse Technology v. Nintendo, Ubisoft, THQ, Konami, Majesco, and Namco Bandai, Case
`No. 11-cv-02519-JG (N.D. Ohio), July 31, 2012 deposition, declarations
`
`SmartMetric v. MasterCard, Visa, Case No. cv 11-7126 MWF (C.D. CA), March 27, 2013
`deposition, declarations, reports
`
`
`
`Publications (last 10 years)
`
`“Responsive Space Design Decisions on ARTEMIS,” American Institute of Aeronautics and
`Astronautics, 8th Responsive Space Conference, March 8 – 11, 2010.
`
`Several publications in US gove