`571-272-7822
`
`Entered: March 17, 2016
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ASKELADDEN LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SEAN I. McGHIE and BRIAN K. BUCHHEIT,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-00122
`Patent 8,523,063 B1
`____________
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, JONI Y. CHANG, and
`GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`We have jurisdiction to hear this inter partes review under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 6(c). This Final Written Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. For the reasons discussed herein, Petitioner has
`
`shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 8,523,063 B1 are unpatentable.
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00122
`Patent 8,523,063 B1
`
`
`
`A. Procedural History
`
`
`
`Petitioner, Askeladden LLC, filed a Petition requesting an inter partes
`
`review of claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 8,523,063 B1 (Ex. 1501, “the ’063
`
`patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner, Sean I. McGhie and Brian K.
`
`Buchheit,1 filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 15 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Upon
`
`consideration of the Petition and Preliminary Response, on April 23, 2015,
`
`we instituted an inter partes review of claims 1–20 pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 314. Paper 36 (“Dec.”).
`
`In the Scheduling Order, which sets times for taking action in this
`
`proceeding, we notified the parties that “any arguments for patentability not
`
`raised in the [Patent Owner] response will be deemed waived.”2 Patent
`
`Owner, however, did not file a Patent Owner Response. To ensure clarity in
`
`our record, we required Patent Owner to file a paper, indicating whether it
`
`
`1 Patent Owner is represented by inventor Brian Buchheit, who is an attorney
`and registered to practice before the Office. At times during the proceeding,
`Mr. Buchheit indicated that he was representing “Patent Owner” (Mr.
`Buchheit and Mr. McGhie), while at other times Mr. Buchheit indicated that
`he was not representing Mr. McGhie, but rather acting pro se. Papers 4, 39,
`56; Ex. 2054. Over the course of the proceeding, we have provided
`instructions to Patent Owner on filing papers, authorized Patent Owner leave
`to refile papers and file papers beyond due dates, and expunged other Patent
`Owner papers that were not authorized, not in compliance with Board rules,
`and/or contained arguments beyond what was authorized. See, e.g., Papers
`8, 9, 11, 14, 39 (and Exhibit 3001), 40, and 56.
`
`2 See Paper 37, 3; see also Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg.
`48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012) (a patent owner’s “response should identify
`all the involved claims that are believed to be patentable and state the basis
`for that belief”).
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00122
`Patent 8,523,063 B1
`
`
`had abandoned the contest.3 Paper 57. Patent Owner indicated that it had
`
`
`
`not abandoned the contest. Paper 59. Patent Owner, however, did not seek
`
`authorization to file belatedly a Patent Owner Response, nor indicate that it
`
`wished to file such a document. We have before us, therefore, the Petition
`
`with no Patent Owner Response. Nonetheless, Petitioner bears the burden to
`
`show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the challenged claims are
`
`unpatentable.
`
`For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has shown by
`
`a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–20 of the ’063 patent are
`
`unpatentable.
`
`B. The ’063 Patent
`
`The ’063 patent relates to the automatic conversion of non-negotiable
`
`credits to funds. Ex. 1501, 1:29–31. In particular, an entity and a commerce
`
`partner agree to permit transfers or conversions of non-negotiable credits to
`
`entity independent funds in accordance with a fixed credits-to-funds ratio.
`
`Id. at Abstract. The conversion allows the user to make a purchase from the
`
`commerce partner who accepts as payment the converted loyalty points. Id.
`
`at Fig. 1.
`
`
`3 An abandonment of the contest is construed as a request for adverse
`judgment. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(4). A request for adverse judgment, on
`behalf of a Patent Owner, would result in the cancellation of the involved
`claims of a challenged patent, e.g., without consideration of the Petition, etc.
`On the other hand, when a Patent Owner does not abandon the contest, but
`chooses not to file a Patent Owner Response, the Board generally will render
`a final written decision, e.g., based on consideration of the Petition, etc. See
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(a).
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00122
`Patent 8,523,063 B1
`
`
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`
`
`
`Claims 1, 8, and 13 are independent claims. Claims 2–7 directly
`
`depend from claim 1; claims 9–12 directly depend from independent claim
`
`8; and claims 14–20 directly depend from claim 13. Claim 1 is reproduced
`
`below.
`
`1. A method comprising:
`an entity agreeing to permit transfers or conversions of
`non-negotiable credits to entity independent funds in
`accordance with a fixed credits-to-funds ratio, wherein the
`entity agrees to compensate a commerce partner by paying an
`amount in cash or credit for each non-negotiable credit
`redeemed by the commerce partner, wherein the non-negotiable
`credits are loyalty points of a loyalty program of the entity,
`wherein the entity independent funds are loyalty points of a
`different loyalty program of the commerce partner, wherein the
`entity independent funds are redeemable under terms-of-use of
`the different loyalty program for consumer partner goods or for
`consumer partner services, wherein terms-of-use of the different
`loyalty program does not permit commerce partner goods or
`commerce partner services to be exchanged for the non-
`negotiable credits in absence of the non-negotiable credits being
`transferred or converted into the entity independent funds of the
`different loyalty program;
`a computer for the loyalty program of the entity
`establishing an account for non-negotiable credits of a loyalty
`program member;
`the computer detecting a set of two or more interactions
`earning additional non-negotiable credits for the loyalty
`program member in accordance with terms-of-use of the loyalty
`program, wherein the computer adds the additional non-
`negotiable credits to the account; and
`responsive to an indication of a conversion operation
`occurrence, the computer subtracting a quantity of the non-
`negotiable credits from the account, said subtracted quantity of
`non-negotiable credits comprising at least a quantity of non-
`negotiable credits that were converted or transferred to a new
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00122
`Patent 8,523,063 B1
`
`
`
`quantity of entity independent funds using the fixed credits-to-
`funds ratio.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1501, 16:5–39.
`
`D. Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`We instituted an inter partes review on the grounds that claims 8–20
`
`are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on MacLean4 and
`
`Sakakibara5 and claims 1–7 and 13–20 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) based on MacLean, Sakakibara, and Postrel.6 Dec. 10–13, 17–18.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Interpretation
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`
`patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also In re Cuozzo
`
`Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Congress
`
`implicitly approved the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in
`
`enacting the AIA,” and “the standard was properly adopted by PTO
`
`regulation.”), cert. granted sub nom., Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC v. Lee, 136
`
`S. Ct. 890 (mem.) (2016). Under the broadest reasonable construction
`
`standard, 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
`
`
`4 U.S. Patent Application Publication 2002/0143614 A1, published Oct. 3,
`2002 (Ex. 1504) (“MacLean”).
`5 U.S. Patent No. 6,721,743 B1, issued Apr. 13, 2004 (Ex. 1505)
`(“Sakakibara”).
`6 U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0021399 A1, published Jan. 27,
`2005 (Ex. 1503) (“Postrel”).
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00122
`Patent 8,523,063 B1
`
`
`entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed.
`
`
`
`Cir. 2007).
`
`Petitioner proposes constructions for the following claim terms:
`
`“entity,” “non-negotiable credits,” and “entity independent funds,” which are
`
`recited at least in independent claims 1, 8, and 13. Pet. 6–9. In our Decision
`
`to Institute, we determined that Petitioner’s proposed constructions are
`
`consistent with the broadest reasonable construction, and adopted them.
`
`Dec. 5. We also construed “commerce partner” to mean an individual or
`
`group involved in commercial activity. Id. at 5–6. Neither party has
`
`indicated that our constructions are improper and we do not perceive any
`
`reason or evidence that now compels any deviation from our initial
`
`constructions. Accordingly, the following claim constructions apply to this
`
`Claim Term
`
`Construction
`
`Decision:
`
`
`
`entity
`
`non-negotiable credits
`
`entity independent funds
`
`commerce partner
`
`
`
`an organization that has a rewards
`program for a consumer
`credits which are accepted only by
`the granting entity of the credits
`funds acceptable as payment by at
`least one entity different from the
`original granting entity of the non-
`negotiable credits
`an individual or group involved in
`commercial activity
`
`B. Principles of Law
`
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
`
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00122
`Patent 8,523,063 B1
`
`
`the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the
`
`
`
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`
`subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`
`factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of
`
`nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`
`In that regard, an obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise
`
`teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for
`
`a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; see
`
`Translogic, 504 F.3d at 1259. A prima facie case of obviousness is
`
`established when the prior art itself would appear to have suggested the
`
`claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rinehart,
`
`531 F.2d 1048, 1051 (CCPA 1976).
`
`The level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of
`
`record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001);
`
`In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich,
`
`579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).
`
`C. Obviousness of Claims over MacLean and Sakakibara
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 8–12 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) as obvious over MacLean and Sakakibara. Pet. 15–30. To support
`
`its contentions, Petitioner provides detailed explanations as to how the
`
`combination of prior art meets each claim limitation. Id. Petitioner also
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00122
`Patent 8,523,063 B1
`
`
`relies upon the Declaration of Matthew Calman (Ex. 1502) to support its
`
`
`
`position.
`
`MacLean describes a system and method for managing and
`
`exchanging reward or loyalty points (credits) from one Loyalty Program
`
`(LP) to another. Ex. 1504 ¶ 40, Abstract. The Background Section of
`
`MacLean discusses a number of existing web services for converting points
`
`from a single loyalty program for negotiable credits. Ex. 1504 ¶¶ 2–12.
`
`MacLean’s disclosed invention provides additional improvements to those
`
`services by allowing users to accumulate or convert the points from various
`
`loyalty programs into those of a single program. Id. ¶ 41.
`
`Figure 1 of MacLean is reproduced below and shows a functional
`
`diagram of a points exchange system.
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 of MacLean shows a functional diagram of a points exchange
`
`
`
`system.
`
`Point management system 100 facilitates interaction between
`
`customer 110, transaction center 120, and issuers 130a-c. Id. ¶ 40. Points
`
`managed by system 100 may take the form of a variety of Loyalty Program
`
`(LP) points such as those issued by airlines, hotels, financial entities, e.g.,
`
`credit cards, and networks, e.g., portal web sites on the Internet. Id. Each
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00122
`Patent 8,523,063 B1
`
`
`kind of point is issued and redeemed by a different LP and may have a
`
`
`
`different value or liability to its LP. Point management system 100 permits
`
`a customer to exchange points from one LP to another. Id. ¶ 41. As
`
`examples, a customer may exchange points issued by American Airlines for
`
`those issued by American Express Card, or a customer may transfer points
`
`issued by any number of LPs to a single LP, so that the customer may
`
`redeem its collected points for the rewards offered by the single LP. Id.
`
`
`
`MacLean describes the transfer or conversion of points using an
`
`exchange rate. Id. ¶¶ 21, 27. In particular, and with reference to Figures
`
`5A, 5B, and 6D, a customer may select a depositing LP (step 510) and click
`
`on “calculate advanced xchange” button 634, which results in the calculation
`
`of the exchange rates for the points transaction (step 511). Id. ¶ 52.
`
`
`
`Sakakibara describes a point managing system that provides a web-
`
`based user interface, allowing a customer to convert the loyalty points of a
`
`first business entity into those of a second business entity in accordance with
`
`an exchange rate. Ex. 1505, 1:57–2:5, 7:7–10, Fig. 9.
`
`Petitioner relies on MacLean to meet all of the independent claim 8
`
`limitations with the exception of “non-negotiable credits.” Pet. 20–28. We
`
`agree with Petitioner’s contentions, and adopt them as our own, that
`
`MacLean discloses all of the claim 8 limitations, with the exception of the
`
`“non-negotiable credits.” For example, Petitioner sufficiently shows, with
`
`supporting testimony from Matthew Calman (Ex. 1502), that any of the
`
`points issuers 130a-c of Figure 1 of MacLean meets the commerce partner
`
`limitation. See, e.g., Pet. 20. As pointed out by Petitioner, the points issuers
`
`agree to permit transfers or conversions by their participation in the points
`
`exchange system of MacLean. Id. Moreover, Petitioner also has accounted
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00122
`Patent 8,523,063 B1
`
`
`sufficiently for the limitation that the commerce partner receives
`
`
`
`compensation from an entity. Specifically, Petitioner directs attention to
`
`paragraphs 64–67 and Figures 9–12 of MacLean (Pet. 22–23), and explains
`
`that the withdrawing issuer (entity) pays transaction center 120 an associated
`
`cash value of each point withdrawn, which then pays the depositing issuer
`
`(commerce partner) an associated cash value per point deposit.
`
`Claim 8 further requires a commerce partner to agree to permit
`
`transfers or conversions of quantities of non-negotiable credits to entity
`
`independent funds in accordance with a fixed credits-to-funds ratio. Ex.
`
`1501, 17:5–8. Petitioner sufficiently accounts for this claim limitation by
`
`directing attention to paragraph 23 of MacLean, for example, which
`
`describes “a system and method . . . permitting the customer to set a first
`
`number of first points to be exchanged and permitting the first and second
`
`point issuers to set [i.e., agree to] the point withdrawal and deposit rates of
`
`their first and second points respectively.” Pet. 20–21; Ex 1504 ¶ 0023.
`
`We also have considered Petitioner’s arguments regarding the
`
`“wherein [the] terms-of-use of the different loyalty program permit transfers
`
`or conversions of non-negotiable credits to entity independent funds” clause
`
`of claim 8. Pet. 42–43. Petitioner cites to the Declaration of Mr. Calman
`
`who explains that, at the time of the invention, a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would have understood that MacLean’s point exchange system
`
`demonstrates that terms-of-use of the commerce partner’s different loyalty
`
`program permit transfers or conversions as claimed. Ex. 1502 ¶ 110. We
`
`give Mr. Calman’s testimony substantial weight in that regard because it is
`
`supported by MacLean’s disclosure and what MacLean would have
`
`conveyed to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00122
`Patent 8,523,063 B1
`
`
`
`Claim 8 also recites “the computer redeeming at least a portion of the
`
`
`
`new quantity of entity independent funds in exchange for user selected ones
`
`of the commerce partner goods or user selected ones of the commerce
`
`partner services.” Petitioner accounts for this limitation by directing
`
`attention to various portions of MacLean that describe redeeming points for
`
`rewards. Pet. 27.
`
`For independent claim 8, Petitioner argues that although MacLean’s
`
`LP points are consistent with the general concept that loyalty points earned
`
`from one merchant (e.g., United Airlines or Macy’s) could not be redeemed
`
`for goods or services at another merchant (e.g., Delta Airlines or
`
`Bloomingdale’s), MacLean does not explicitly describe that the points of the
`
`different LPs are non-negotiable. Pet. 17. Petitioner relies on Sakakibara
`
`for its explicit description with respect to “non-negotiable credits” and that
`
`such credits are converted into entity independent funds as claimed. See,
`
`e.g., id. at 21, 24, 25, and 28. For example, Petitioner relies on Sakakibara’s
`
`description of a “method of exchanging points between different business
`
`entities . . . wherein the first points are only directly redeemable by the first
`
`business entity, and wherein the second points are only directly redeemable
`
`by the second business entity.” Ex. 1505, 12:64–13:30.
`
`Petitioner also relies on Sakakibara with respect to dependent claims
`
`10 and 11 and the limitations of those claims that the conversion operation is
`
`performed by a computer for the different loyalty program of the commerce
`
`partner (claim 10) and by a computer for the loyalty program of the entity
`
`(claim 11). Pet. 18–20. We agree with Petitioner’s showing, and adopt it as
`
`our own, that MacLean in combination with Sakakibara discloses non-
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00122
`Patent 8,523,063 B1
`
`
`negotiable credits as claimed in claim 8, along with the features recited in
`
`
`
`dependent claims 10 and 11.
`
`For claims 9 and 12, each of which depend directly from claim 8,
`
`Petitioner relies on MacLean, along with the supporting testimony of Mr.
`
`Calman (Ex. 1502) to meet the additional limitations of those claims. Pet.
`
`28–29, 30. We agree with Petitioner’s showing, and adopt it as our own,
`
`that MacLean in combination with Sakakibara discloses the additional
`
`limitations of claim 9 and claim 12.
`
`We also determine that Petitioner has identified sufficient reasoning
`
`for the proposed combination of MacLean and Sakakibara with respect to
`
`claims 8–12. Pet. 15–20; Ex. 1502 ¶¶ 98, 99, 119–122. For example,
`
`Petitioner argues that because both MacLean and Sakakibara relate to
`
`conversion of loyalty program points, one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have appreciated that Sakakibara’s teachings are applicable towards the
`
`system of MacLean. Pet. 20. We agree with, and adopt as our own,
`
`Petitioner’s rationale. “[I]f a technique has been used to improve one
`
`device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would
`
`improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious
`
`unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR, 550 U.S. at
`
`417.
`
`In summary, we have reviewed the Petition and the supporting
`
`evidence, and adopt as our own Petitioner’s findings, as well as its rationale
`
`for combining MacLean and Sakakibara, and conclude that Petitioner has
`
`shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 8–12 are unpatentable
`
`over the combination of MacLean and Sakakibara.
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00122
`Patent 8,523,063 B1
`
`
`
`D. Obviousness of Claims over MacLean, Sakakibara, and Postrel
`
`
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1–7 and 13–20 are unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over MacLean, Sakakibara, and Postrel. Pet.
`
`30–60. Independent claims 1 and 13 are similar to independent claim 8.
`
`Petitioner accounts for the differences and limitations found in independent
`
`claims 1 and 13 that are not in independent claim 8. Id. at 32–35.
`
`Moreover, to support its contention that claims 1–7 and 13–20 would have
`
`been obvious over MacLean, Sakakibara, and Postrel, Petitioner provides
`
`detailed explanations as to how the combination of prior art meets each
`
`claim limitation. Id. Petitioner also relies upon a Declaration of Matthew
`
`Calman (Ex. 1502) to support its position.
`
`Postrel describes a system in which a user may redeem reward points
`
`earned with a merchant, or may redeem the points with another merchant
`
`through an exchange network. The user additionally may aggregate reward
`
`points with those of other merchants into a central exchange account and
`
`then redeem the points for goods or services from any approved merchant on
`
`the network. Ex. 1503, Abstract.
`
`For independent claims 1 and 13, Petitioner relies on Postrel for its
`
`description with respect to funds that are redeemable under terms-of-use.
`
`See, e.g., Pet. 41, 43, 52, and 54. In particular, Petitioner relies on the
`
`description found at paragraph 32 of Postrel that “Fig. 12 illustrates a simple
`
`database format wherein each merchant and user under that merchant has a
`
`record which indicates how many points are in the account, as well as other
`
`optional information (such as par value of points, restrictions on use, etc.).”
`
`Id.
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00122
`Patent 8,523,063 B1
`
`
`
`For independent claim 13, Petitioner additionally relies on Postrel for
`
`
`
`its description of a processor. See, e.g., Pet. 48–49. In particular, Petitioner
`
`relies on the description found at paragraph 68 of Postrel of a
`
`processing means . . . adapted to allow the user to request and
`exchange consideration for rewards from reward servers. . . . to
`coordinate the exchange of consideration and increase or
`decrease the user exchange accounts stored in memory in
`response to actions performed by the user computer, reward
`server and merchants.
`
`Id.; Ex. 1503 ¶ 68.
`
`Petitioner also relies on Postrel with respect to dependent claim 7 and
`
`the limitation of that claim of redeeming of at least a portion of the entity
`
`independent funds. Pet. 36–37, 47–48. Petitioner relies on MacLean and
`
`Sakakibara for the remaining limitations found in claims 1–7 and 13–20,
`
`similar to how the references were applied to claims 8–12 discussed above.
`
`Id. at 30–60. Lastly, Petitioner relies on Sakakibara for the claim 13
`
`limitation “wherein an agreement exists between the entity and the
`
`commerce partner that permits transfers or conversions of non-negotiable
`
`credits to entity independent funds . . . .” Id. at 55.
`
`We are persuaded by Petitioner’s showing, and adopt it as our own,
`
`that MacLean, Postrel, and Sakakibara disclose all of the limitations of
`
`claims 1–7 and claims 13–20. For example, claim 13 recites “wherein an
`
`agreement exists between the entity and the commerce partner that permits
`
`transfers or conversions of non-negotiable credits.” This identical language
`
`is not found in either of claim 1 or independent claim 8. Petitioner
`
`sufficiently shows that Sakakibara meets this limitation by directing
`
`attention to Sakakibara’s description of contracts setting exchange rates
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00122
`Patent 8,523,063 B1
`
`
`between first and second business entities participating in the exchanging of
`
`
`
`points. Pet. 55. Claim 13 also recites “wherein the commerce partners
`
`goods or commerce partners servicers are not in the restricted list of goods
`
`or services.” We are satisfied that Petitioner sufficiently accounts for this
`
`limitation by directing attention to the passage in MacLean that explains a
`
`customer may exchange points issued by an airline for those issued by a
`
`credit card company program where the credit card company is not subject
`
`to the airlines restricted list of goods, such as an airline ticket. Id. at 54–55.
`
`We also are satisfied that Petitioner has identified sufficient reasoning
`
`for the proposed combination of MacLean, Postrel, and Sakakibara with
`
`respect to claims 1–7 and 13–20. See, e.g., Pet. 32–37 (citing various
`
`paragraphs from Ex. 1502). For example, independent claim 13 recites
`
`“wherein an agreement exists between the entity and the commerce partner
`
`that permits transfers or conversions of non-negotiable credits.” As
`
`explained above, Petitioner relies on Sakakibara for its description of
`
`contracts setting exchange rates between first and second business entities
`
`participating in the exchanging of points. Pet. 55. Petitioner argues that a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that MacLean’s
`
`conversions would have preferably been performed in accordance with
`
`agreements existing between the parties as disclosed in Sakakibara, because
`
`such would allow each loyalty program to ensure that its loyalty points are
`
`fairly treated, and provide safeguards against a party’s non-compliance of its
`
`obligations in a points exchange system. Pet. 35 (citing Ex. 1502 ¶ 152).
`
`We agree with, and adopt as our own this as well as all of the rationales
`
`Petitioner provides for combining MacLean, Postrel, and Sakakibara.
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00122
`Patent 8,523,063 B1
`
`
`
`In summary, we have reviewed the Petition and the supporting
`
`
`
`evidence, and adopt as our own Petitioner’s findings, as well as its rationale
`
`for combining MacLean and Sakakibara, and conclude that Petitioner has
`
`shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–7 and 13–20 are
`
`unpatentable over the combination of MacLean, Sakakibara, and Postrel.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Petitioner has
`
`demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 8–12 are
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over MacLean and
`
`Sakakibara, and claims 1–7 and 13–20 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) as obvious over MacLean, Sakakibara, and Postrel.
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`ORDERED that claims 1–20 of the ’063 patent are held unpatentable;
`
`and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that, because this is a Final Written Decision,
`
`parties to the proceeding seeking judicial review of the decision must
`
`comply with the notice and service requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00122
`Patent 8,523,063 B1
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`
`Robert H. Fischer
`Frank A. DeLucia
`Justin Oliver
`Stephen Yam
`AskeladdenIPR@fchs.com
`joliver@fchs.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Brian Buchheit
`bbuchheit@gmail.com
`
`
`Sean McGhie
`Sean.mcghie@me.com
`
`17