`
`___________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________
`
`MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`JOHN D’AGOSTINO
`
`Patent Owner
`
`___________
`
`Case IPR2014-00544
`
`Patent 7,840,486
`
`___________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), Patent Owner submits the
`
`Preliminary Statement
`
`following Request for Rehearing of the Final Written Decision dated August 31,
`
`2015 that finds claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 7,840,486 (“the ‘486 patent”)
`
`unpatentable over the asserted prior art.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner respectfully requests a rehearing on the Board’s Final Written
`
`Decision because (1) the Board misapprehended or overlooked the claim limitation
`
`“as said single merchant,” which when considered, the claim limitation changes the
`
`Board’s claim construction and (2) under the correct claim construction, the claim
`
`limitation is missing from the asserted prior art. For these reasons, the Patent
`
`Owner requests the Board to issue a new Final Written Decision that finds claims
`
`1-30 of the ‘486 patent are patentable over the asserted prior art.
`
`Applicable Law
`
`
`
`A final decision is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c).
`
`An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous
`
`conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of
`
`judgment.” Illumina, Inc. v. Trustees of Columbia Univ., IPR2012-00007,
`
`Decision, Request for Rehearing, Paper 54 at 2 (May 10, 2013).
`
`
`
`The Board interprets claims of an unexpired patent according to their
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the patent in
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Claim terms are given their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in
`
`the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249,
`
`1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “All words in a claim must be considered in judging the
`
`patentability of that claim against the prior art.” In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385
`
`(CCPA 1970).
`
`Argument
`
`
`
`In its Final Written Decision, the Board “[construed] the relationship
`
`between the recited ‘particular merchant’ and the ‘single merchant’ such that the
`
`‘single merchant’ includes the particular merchant as a member of the single
`
`merchant chain, without identifying the particular merchant.” Paper 22 at 17. In
`
`reaching this conclusion, the Board misapprehended or overlooked the claim
`
`limitation “as said single merchant,” which immediately follows the claim
`
`language “prior to any particular merchant being identified.”
`
`
`
`The Patent Owner argued that all of the claims of the ‘486 patent include the
`
`claim limitation “said single merchant limitation being included in said payment
`
`category prior to any particular merchant being identified as said single
`
`merchant.” See Ex. 1001, 8:61-63; PO Resp. at 18-20 (emphasis added). The
`
`Patent Owner further argued that dropping “as said single merchant” from the
`
`claim limitation is improper. PO Resp. at 13-16, 25-26; Tr. 26:23-27:11. The
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner further argued that under the proper claim construction, a limit to a
`
`chain of stores does not satisfy the claim limitation. PO Resp. at 25-26.
`
`Specifically, a limit to a chain of stores as the single merchant cannot satisfy the
`
`claim limitation, because creating such a limit requires identification of the chain
`
`store before the limit can be created and the purchases restricted to the identified
`
`chain store, whereas the claim limitation requires that the single merchant is not
`
`identified before the limit to the single merchant is created. Id.
`
`
`
`The Board rejected the Patent Owner’s argument and found “a single
`
`merchant can be the chain of stores, whereas the particular merchant is a single
`
`store of that chain of stores.” Paper 22 at 17 (internal quotations removed). The
`
`Board further concluded “the ‘single merchant’ could be Target or McDonald’s
`
`chain of stores, where a ‘particular merchant’ could be a specific Target or
`
`McDonald’s store, e.g., at a particular location or online.” Paper 22 at 16. This
`
`finding is an erroneous conclusion of law and a clearly erroneous finding of fact.
`
`
`
`First, the Board has misconstrued the claim limitation by improperly
`
`stripping “as said single merchant” from the claim limitation. This is apparent
`
`because in construing the claim limitation the Board did not account for the
`
`requirement that the “particular merchant” is the “single merchant,” as required by
`
`the claim. The claim explicitly recites “said single merchant limitation being
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`included in said payment category prior to any particular merchant being
`
`identified as said single merchant.”
`
`
`
`The Board’s error is most easily shown by inserting Target as the single
`
`merchant limit and Location A (a subset store of the single merchant Target chain
`
`store) as the particular merchant limit within the claim itself: said Target (single
`
`merchant) being included in said payment category prior to Location A (any
`
`particular merchant) being identified as said Target (single merchant).
`
`Accordingly, as seen here, when the entire claim limitation is considered, including
`
`“as said single merchant,” it becomes clear that the Board’s claim construction is
`
`erroneous.1
`
`
`
`The Board’s claim construction is incorrect because the Board’s construction
`
`results in Location A being both the particular merchant as a subset of the single
`
`merchant and also the single merchant itself. This contradicts the Board because
`
`the Board is separately relying upon the chain of stores to meet the single merchant
`
`
`1 This same demonstration applies whether the chain of stores is identified as
`
`Target, McDonalds, or any other chain of stores as the single merchant. In any
`
`instance, when the entire claim is considered, the subset store that is relied upon by
`
`the Board as the particular merchant limit becomes both the particular merchant
`
`and the single merchant, which contradicts the Board’s reliance upon the chain of
`
`stores to meet the single merchant limit without identifying a particular merchant.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`limit and then a subset store of the chain of stores to meet the particular merchant
`
`limit. But, this contradiction does not exist when “as said single merchant” is not
`
`included in the claim – further illustrating that the Board did not consider “as said
`
`single merchant” in its analysis. Consequently, the Board’s claim construction that
`
`improperly strips “as said single merchant” from the claim limitation is an
`
`erroneous conclusion of law that calls for correction. In re Wilson, 424 F.2d at
`
`1382.
`
`
`
`Finally, the Board’s improper claim construction inevitably lead to the
`
`Board’s incorrect finding that Cohen’s chain of stores limit satisfies the claim
`
`limitation. More specifically, it is apparent that the Board acknowledges that
`
`creating a limit to a chain of stores requires identifying the chain of stores as the
`
`single merchant. Paper 22 at 15-16. But the claim requires that no particular
`
`merchant is identified as the single merchant before the limit to the single merchant
`
`is created. PO Response at 25-26. And, as further discussed above, under the
`
`proper claim construction, including the language “as said single merchant” the
`
`Board cannot meet the claim limitation by relying upon a subset store of the chain
`
`of stores to teach the particular merchant and the chain of stores to teach the single
`
`merchant, because this creates a conflict between the recited particular merchant
`
`and the recited single merchant.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`Conclusion
`
`
`
`The Board should issue a new Final Written Decision because the Board’s
`
`current decision is based on a clear error in the Board’s claim construction and
`
`application of the asserted prior art under the incorrect claim construction.
`
`Specifically, the Board abused its discretion and created a reversible error by
`
`failing to consider the entire claim limitation, including “as said single merchant.”
`
`Not considering “as said single merchant” as part of the claim, led the Board to an
`
`incorrect claim construction and an incorrect finding that a limit to a chain of
`
`stores meets the claim limitation. For these reasons, Patent Owner respectfully
`
`requests the Board to issue a new Final Written Decision finding claims 1-30 of the
`
`‘486 patent are patentable over the asserted references.
`
`
`
`Since the remarks above are considered sufficient to reverse the Board’s
`
`Final Written Decision, silence to other assertions in the Final Written Decision is
`
`not a concession that such assertions are accurate or such requirements have been
`
`met. The Patent Owner reserves the right to appeal the issues presented in this
`
`request and any other issues presented in the Final Written Decision.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`By: /s/ Stephen Lewellyn
`Stephen J. Lewellyn (Reg. No. 51,942)
`Brittany J. Maxey (Reg. No. 57,621)
`Maxey Law Offices, PLLC
`100 Second Avenue South
`Suite 401 North Tower
`St. Petersburg, Florida 33701
`Telephone: 727-230-4949
`Facsimile: 727-230-4827
`s.lewellyn@maxeyiplaw.com
`b.maxey@maxeyiplaw.com
`
`Agent and Attorney for Patent Owner
`John D’Agostino
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: September 29, 2015
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on this 29th day of September, a copy of this PATENT
`
`
`
`OWNER’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) has
`
`been served in its entirety by Email, on the following counsel of record for
`
`Petitioner:
`
`Robert Scheinfeld, Lead Counsel
`Baker Botts LLP
`30 Rockefeller Plaza, 44th Floor
`New York, New York 10112-4498
`Service Email: robert.scheinfeld@bakerbotts.com
`
`Eliot William, Back-up Counsel
`Baker Botts LLP
`1001 Page Mill Road
`Building One, Suite 200
`Palo Alto, California 94304-1007
`Service Email: eliot.williams@bakerbotts.com
`
`
`
`Dated: September 29, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/Stephen Lewellyn
`Stephen J. Lewellyn
`Reg. No. 51,942
`Agent for Patent Owner