Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`
`DOCKET NO.: 1033300-00304US1
`Filed on behalf of Apple Inc.
`By: Monica Grewal, Reg. No. 40,056 (Lead Counsel)
`Ben Fernandez Reg. No. 55,172 (Backup Counsel)
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, MA 02109
`Email: monica.grewal@wilmerhale.com
`
` ben.fernandez@wilmerhale.com
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`UNIVERSAL SECURE REGISTRY, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_________________________________________
`Case IPR2018-00811
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`_________________________________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF CLAIMS 1-3, 5-8, 12, 16-24, 26-31, 34, AND 37-38
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I. 
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1)) .......................... 3 
`A. 
`Real Party-In-Interest ................................................................. 3 
`B. 
`Related Matters .......................................................................... 3 
`C. 
`Counsel ...................................................................................... 4 
`D. 
`Service Information ................................................................... 4 
`Certification of Grounds for Standing ................................................... 5 
`II. 
`III.  OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED .......... 5 
`A. 
`Grounds for Challenge ............................................................... 6 
`IV.  LEGAL PRINCIPLES .......................................................................... 6 
`V. 
`BACKGROUND OF THE ’539 PATENT ........................................... 7 
`A. 
`Priority ....................................................................................... 7 
`B. 
`Brief Description of the ’539 Patent Disclosure ........................ 7 
`C. 
`Prosecution History ................................................................. 10 
`VI.  LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL ........................................................ 11 
`VII.  STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EACH
`CHALLENGED CLAIM (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)) ............................. 11 
`A. 
`Claims For Which Review Is Requested (37 C.F.R. §
`42.104(b)(1)) ............................................................................ 11 
`Statutory Grounds Of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2)) 11 
`B. 
`Standard For Granting A Petition For IPR Review ................. 12 
`C. 
`VIII.  PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS FOR IPR REVIEW (37
`C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)) ......................................................................... 12 
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`A. 
`B. 
`C. 
`D. 
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`Provider (All Challenged Claims) ........................................... 13 
`Entity (All Challenged Claims) ............................................... 14 
`Time-Varying Multicharacter Code (All Challenged Claims) 15 
`Indication of the Provider (Challenged Claims 1-3, 5-8, 12, 16-
`24, 26-31, and 34) .................................................................... 16 
`Account Identifying Information (All Challenged Claims) .... 17 
`E. 
`Biometric Information (Claims 12-15, 34-36) ........................ 19 
`F. 
`Secure Registry (All Challenged Claims) ............................... 21 
`G. 
`IX.  CLAIMS 1-3, 5-8, 12, 16-24, 26-31, 34, AND 37-38 OF THE ’539
`PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 AND
`103 ....................................................................................................... 22 
`A. 
`Overview of Primary Prior Art Reference (Schutzer) ............. 22 
`B. 
`Ground 1: Claims 1-3, 5-8, 16-24, 26-30 and 37-38 are
`Anticipated by Schutzer ........................................................... 24 
`1. 
`Independent Claim 1 ...................................................... 24 
`2. 
`Dependent Claim 2 ......................................................... 38 
`3. 
`Dependent Claim 3 ......................................................... 40 
`4. 
`Dependent Claim 5 ......................................................... 41 
`5. 
`Dependent Claim 6 ......................................................... 42 
`6. 
`Dependent Claim 7 ......................................................... 43 
`7. 
`Dependent Claim 8 ......................................................... 44 
`8. 
`Dependent Claim 16 ....................................................... 45 
`9. 
`Dependent Claim 17 ....................................................... 45 
`10.  Dependent Claim 18 ....................................................... 46 
`11.  Dependent Claim 19 ....................................................... 46 
`- ii -
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`12.  Dependent Claim 20 ....................................................... 47 
`13.  Dependent Claim 21 ....................................................... 48 
`14. 
`Independent Claim 22 .................................................... 49 
`15.  Dependent Claim 23 ....................................................... 51 
`16.  Dependent Claim 24 ....................................................... 52 
`17.  Dependent Claim 26 ....................................................... 52 
`18.  Dependent Claim 27 ....................................................... 52 
`19.  Dependent Claim 28 ....................................................... 53 
`20.  Dependent Claim 29 ....................................................... 54 
`21.  Dependent Claim 30 ....................................................... 54 
`22. 
`Independent Claim 37 .................................................... 54 
`23. 
`Independent Claim 38 .................................................... 61 
`Ground 2: Claims 12, 31, and 34 are Obvious in view of
`Schutzer ................................................................................... 63 
`1. 
`Dependent Claim 12 ....................................................... 63 
`2. 
`Dependent Claim 31 ....................................................... 67 
`3. 
`Dependent Claim 34 ....................................................... 68 
`
`C. 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`CASES
`In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.,
`496 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ..................................................................... 12
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007)......................................................................................... 7
`Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California,
`814 F.2d 628 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ......................................................................... 7
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ...................................................................................................... 3, 4
`35 U.S.C. § 102 .................................................................................... 4, 6, 7, 11, 226
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ...................................................................................... 4, 6, 7, 11, 22
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ........................................................................................................ 10
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ..................................................................................................... 6
`35 U.S.C. § 321 .................................................................................................... 1, 11
`35 U.S.C. § 324(a) ................................................................................................... 12
`Leahy-Smith America Invents Act,
`Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) ............................................. 1, 6, 11
`REGULATIONS
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ..................................................................................................... 3, 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22 ....................................................................................................... 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ............................................................................................... 1, 12
`37 C.F.R. § 42.101 ..................................................................................................... 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ................................................................................... 5, 11, 12, 22
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,764 (Aug. 14, 2012) ...................................................................... 13
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 321, Section 18 of the Leahy-Smith America
`
`Invents Act (“AIA”), and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq., the undersigned hereby
`
`requests Inter Partes review of claims 1-3, 5-8, 12, 16-24, 26-31, 34, and 37-38
`
`(“challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539 (“’539 patent”).
`
`The ’539 patent is directed to systems and methods for anonymously
`
`authenticating users using a time-varying multicharacter code. According to the
`
`patent owner, Universal Secure Registry, LLC (“USR”), the ’539 patent is directed
`
`to “an anonymous identification system that allows user verification without
`
`requiring the user to share personal information with whomever is requesting
`
`verification, e.g., allows a person to purchase goods without publicly providing
`
`credit card information to the merchant, for fear that the credit card information
`
`may be stolen or used fraudulently.” Ex-1029, Pl.’s Answering Br. in Opp’n to
`
`Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss, 17, Universal Secure Registry LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 17-
`
`cv-00585-VAC-MPT (D. Del. Sept. 29, 2017), ECF No. 30. USR further asserted
`
`that in the claimed invention, authentication occurs when “the person’s device
`
`(e.g., mobile phone) retrieves a secret user code and/or time varying value from
`
`memory and obtains from the person a secret personal identification code,
`
`combining these values to generate a ‘one-time nonpredictable code’ that is
`
`forwarded to the USR system to validate the merchant’s request.... Since the
`
`person’s device can generate a time variant single-use token, credit card
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`transaction approval is obtained without the merchant’s knowledge of the user's
`
`credit card number.” Id.
`
`When the ’539 patent was filed, however, anonymous authentication of a
`
`user’s identity based on one-time nonpredictable codes was well known in the art.
`
`In fact, the prior art is replete with systems and methods that perform user
`
`authentication in this manner. For example, Ex-1030, EP 1,028,401 (“Schutzer”),
`
`discloses a system and method for performing a bank card transaction that includes
`
`generating an “alternate card number” to replace a user’s credit card number in a
`
`financial transaction, allowing the transaction to take place without providing the
`
`merchant any account identifying information. The alternate card number is
`
`generated by the transaction card issuer using a proprietary algorithm for
`
`generating a time-varying multicharacter code. The transaction card issuer
`
`maintains a link between the alternate card number and the transaction card user’s
`
`transaction card number.
`
`Thus, as further explained in this Petition, the systems and methods claimed
`
`in the ’539 patent were known in the art or obvious at the time the ’539 patent was
`
`filed.
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1))
`A. Real Party-In-Interest
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), Petitioner certifies that Apple Inc.
`
`(“Apple” or “Petitioner”) is the real party-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters
`The ’539 patent is owned by Universal Secure Registry, LLC (“USR” or
`
`“Patent Owner”). On May 21, 2017, USR sued Apple and Visa in the District of
`
`Delaware, asserting four patents, including the ’539 patent, against Apple’s Apple
`
`Pay functionality. See Ex-1003, Compl. ¶2, Universal Secure Registry LLC v.
`
`Apple Inc., No. 17-cv-00585-VAC-MPT (D. Del. May 21, 2017), ECF No. 1
`
`(“USR Compl.”). The complaint was served on Petitioner on July 5, 2017.
`
`On August 25, 2017, Apple filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a
`
`Claim, asserting that the asserted claims of the ’539 patent are unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 because they are directed to the abstract idea of “verif[ying] an
`
`account holder’s identity based on codes and/or information related to the account
`
`holder before enabling a transaction.” Defs.’ Opening Br., 2, Universal Secure
`
`Registry LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 17-cv-00585-VAC-MPT (D. Del. Aug. 25, 2017),
`
`ECF No. 17. That motion remains pending.
`
`In addition to the Motion to Dismiss, Apple is filing the following petitions
`
`for CBM/IPR with respect to the four asserted patents:
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`U.S. 9,530,137
`
`
`
`U.S. 9,100,826
`
`
`
`U.S. 8,856,539
`
`
`
`U.S. 8,577,813
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR
`
`IPR
`
`IPR
`
`IPR
`
`CBM
`
`IPR
`
`IPR
`
`CBM
`
`CBM
`
`CBM
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102, 103
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`C. Counsel
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)-(4), Petitioner identifies the following
`
`lead and backup counsels, to whom all correspondence should be directed.
`
`Lead Counsel: Monica Grewal (Reg. No. 40,056),
`
`Backup Counsel: Ben Fernandez (Reg. No. 55,172).
`
`D.
`Service Information
`Email: monica.grewal@wilmerhale.com; ben.fernandez@wilmerhale.com;
`
`Post and hand delivery address: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, 60
`
`State Street, Boston, MA 02109.
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`Telephone: (617) 526-6223; Facsimile: (617) 526-5000.
`
`Petitioner consents to electronic service.
`
`II. Certification of Grounds for Standing
`Petitioner certifies pursuant to Rule 42.104(a) that the patent for which
`
`review is sought is available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review challenging the patent
`
`claims on the grounds identified in this Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.101(a-c).
`
`Petitioner certifies that it (1) has not filed a civil action challenging the
`
`validity of a claim of the patent, 37 C.F.R. § 42.101(a), (2) has complied with the
`
`timing requirements set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.101(b), and (3) is not estopped
`
`from challenging the claims on the grounds identified in this Petition, 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.101(c).
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`Pursuant to Rules 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b)(1)-(2), Petitioner challenges
`
`claims 1-3, 5-8, 12, 16-24, 26-31, 34, and 37-38 of the ’539 patent and requests
`
`that they be canceled.
`
`The sole reference at issue in this petition is European Patent Application EP
`
`1,028,401 (Ex-1030), which was filed on February 10, 2000, claiming priority to
`
`two provisional applications 60/119818 filed on February 2, 1999, 60/144927 filed
`
`on July 21, 1999, and published on August 16, 2000, which is before the priority
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`date of the ’539 patent. Therefore, Schutzer is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(a). Schutzer was not considered during the prosecution of the ’539 patent.
`
`Like the ’539 patent, Schutzer relates to a system for anonymous authentication of
`
`a party to a transaction via an alternate card number that the issuing institution can
`
`recognize as representing a user’s actual account number. Ex-1030, Schutzer,
`
`Abstract.
`
`A. Grounds for Challenge
`Petitioner requests cancellation of claims 1-3, 5-8, 12, 16-24, 26-31, 34, and
`
`37-38 of the ’539 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103. This
`
`Petition, supported by the declaration of Dr. Victor Shoup (Ex-1002) filed
`
`herewith, demonstrates that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will
`
`prevail with respect to cancellation of at least one of the challenged claims. See 35
`
`U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`IV. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`The challenged patent was filed prior to the effective date of the Leahy-
`
`Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011), and
`
`therefore should be analyzed for patentability under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and
`
`103. A claim is invalid if it would have been “anticipated.” or “obvious.” See 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 102, 103(a). A claim is anticipated if “each and every element as set
`
`forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628,
`
`631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). A claim is invalid if it would have been “obvious.” See 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a). The key inquiry to determine obviousness is whether an
`
`“improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to
`
`their established functions.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415,
`
`417, 420-21 (2007).
`
`V. BACKGROUND OF THE ’539 PATENT
`A.
`Priority
`Entitled “Universal Secure Registry,” the ’539 patent issued on October 7,
`
`2014 from an application filed on June 26, 2007. The ’539 patent is a continuation
`
`of U.S. Application No. 09/810,703, which was filed on March 16, 2001 (now U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,237,117, Ex-1004).
`
`B.
`Brief Description of the ’539 Patent Disclosure
`The ’539 patent describes a secure database called a “Universal Secure
`
`Registry,” which is “a universal identification system … used to selectively
`
`provide personal, financial or other information about a person to authorized
`
`users.” Ex-1001, ’539 patent, 3:5-9. The patent states that the USR database is
`
`designed to “take the place of multiple conventional forms of identification” when
`
`conducting financial transactions to minimize the incidence of fraud. E.g., id.,
`
`3:22-24. The patent states that various forms of information can be stored in the
`
`database to verify a user’s identity and prevent fraud: (1) algorithmically generated
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`codes, such as a time-varying multicharacter code or an uncounterfeitable
`
`“tokens,” (2) “secret user code,” like a PIN or password, and/or (3) a user’s
`
`“biometric identification,” such as fingerprints, voice prints, an iris or facial scan,
`
`DNA analysis, or a photograph. See id., 4:4-12, 8:17-47, Fig. 3. The patent does
`
`not, however, describe any new technology for generating or combining such
`
`information. Ex-1002, Shoup-Decl. ¶29.
`
`Instead, the patent emphasizes that the USR database can be implemented in
`
`“a general purpose computer system” using “a commercially available
`
`microprocessor” running “any commercially available operating system.” Ex-
`
`1001, ’539 patent, 5:63-6:17. The alleged invention is also “not limited to a
`
`particular computer platform, particular processor, or particular high-level
`
`programming language.” Id., 6:51-53. The USR database itself “may be any kind
`
`of database” and communication with the database may take place over “any
`
`[network] protocol.” Id., 6:18-20, 7:12-22, Fig. 1. This generic database is
`
`encrypted using known methods, and may be accessed by providing information
`
`sufficient to verify the user’s identity. Id., 3:5-12; Ex-1002, Shoup-Decl. ¶30.
`
`In its district court complaint against Apple, USR identified ’539 patent
`
`claim 22 as “exemplary” of the other claims of the patent. Ex-1003, USR Compl.
`
`¶65. Claim 22, which is described by, for example, Figure 8 (shown below), is a
`
`“method for providing information to a provider [merchant] to enable transactions
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`between the provider and entities [purchaser] that have secure data stored in a
`
`[USR] in which each entity is identified by a time-varying multicharacter code.”
`
`Id., 20:4-8. The claimed method includes six steps, which are also depicted in
`
`Figure 8: (1) the database receiving a request (e.g., from a merchant) that includes
`
`the “time-varying multicharacter code” for the entity whose account data is stored
`
`in the USR (804); (2) comparing and mapping the time-varying multicharacter
`
`code for that customer with a time-varying multicharacter code stored in the
`
`database (806); (3) determining whether the merchant is in compliance with any
`
`access restrictions; (4) accessing the relevant information regarding the customer’s
`
`account if the merchant is in compliance (808); (5) providing the customer’s
`
`account identifying information to a third party that will determine whether to
`
`authorize the transaction (808); and (6) authorizing or declining the transaction
`
`without providing the credit card account number to the merchant (810/812/814).
`
`Id., 12:19-54; Ex-1002, Shoup-Decl. ¶31.
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`
`
`
`C.
`Prosecution History
`The ’539 patent was filed as U.S. Application No. 11/768,729 (“’539
`
`application”) on June 26, 2007. The ’539 application claims priority, as a
`
`continuation application, to U.S. Application No. 09/810,703, now U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,237,117 (“’117 patent”). During a lengthy prosecution, the asserted claims were
`
`rejected numerous times over prior art and under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for lack of
`
`written description. See Exs. 1005, 1007, 1010, 1012, 1015, 1017, 1021; see also
`
`Ex-1002, Shoup-Decl, ¶¶32-64. The ’539 patent subsequently issued on October
`
`7, 2014.
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`A person of ordinary skill in the relevant field (“POSITA”) is a hypothetical
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`
`person to whom an expert in the relevant field could assign a routine task with
`
`reasonable confidence that the task would be successfully carried out. The level of
`
`skill in the art is evidenced by prior art references. The prior art demonstrates that
`
`a POSITA, at the time the ’539 patent was effectively filed, would have a
`
`Bachelor’s Degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related
`
`scientific field, and approximately two years of work experience in the computer
`
`science field including, for example, operating systems, database management,
`
`encryption, security algorithms, and secure transaction systems, though additional
`
`education can substitute for less work experience and vice versa. See Ex-1002,
`
`Shoup-Decl. ¶¶65-66.
`
`VII. STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EACH
`CHALLENGED CLAIM (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b))
`A. Claims For Which Review Is Requested
`(37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1))
`Petitioner respectfully requests review under 35 U.S.C. § 321 and AIA § 18
`
`of claims 1-3, 5-8, 12, 16-24, 26-31, 34, and 37-38 of the ’539 patent, and the
`
`cancellation of these claims for being unpatentable.
`
`B.
`
`Statutory Grounds Of Challenge
`(37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2))
`The challenged claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103. On
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`these grounds and in light of the evidence submitted herein, Petitioner has
`
`established that it is more likely than not that it will prevail in establishing
`
`unpatentability of the challenged claims and requests institution of Inter Partes
`
`review and cancellation of these claims.
`
`C.
`Standard For Granting A Petition For IPR Review
`To institute a IPR proceeding, the Board must determine that the IPR
`
`petition establishes that it is more likely than not that at least one of the challenged
`
`claims is unpatentable. See 35 U.S.C. § 324(a).
`
`VIII. PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS FOR IPR REVIEW (37
`C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3))
`A claim in Inter Partes review is given the “broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)1; In re ICON
`
`Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`The following discussion proposes constructions for certain terms and
`
`support for those constructions. Any claim terms not included are given their
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification as commonly
`
`understood by those of ordinary skill in the art. Should the Patent Owner contend
`
`that the claim has a construction different from its broadest reasonable
`
`
`1 Petitioner adopts this standard and reserves the right to pursue different
`
`constructions in district court, where a different standard applies.
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`interpretation, the appropriate course is for the Patent Owner to seek to amend the
`
`claim to expressly correspond to its contentions in this proceeding. See Office
`
`Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,764 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`A.
`Provider (All Challenged Claims)
`Under the broadest reasonable construction standard, the term “provider” as
`
`used in the ’539 patent means “the party to a transaction, such as a merchant, that
`
`provides a good or service to an entity.”
`
`This construction is consistent with the ’539 claims and specification, which
`
`recite a “provider” and an “entity” engaging in a transaction. The claims state that
`
`the entity has “secure data stored in a secure registry.” The claims also state that
`
`the provider “request[s] the transaction.” Thus, describing the provider as the
`
`“merchant” providing the good or service to the entity is consistent with the claim
`
`as a whole. Moreover, according to the examiner’s summary of an interview with
`
`the patent holder, the patent holder represented that the claimed “first party” is
`
`“intended to represent a merchant.” Ex-1023, ’539 Patent File History, 02/04/2014
`
`Examiner Interview Summary. The term “first party” was later changed to
`
`“provider” via amendment. Ex-1024, ’539 Patent File History, 01/31/2014
`
`Supplemental Amendment, 2-10; Ex-1002, Shoup-Decl. ¶70.
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`B.
`Entity (All Challenged Claims)
`Under the broadest reasonable construction standard, the term “entity” as
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`
`used in the ’539 patent means “the purchasing party to a transaction who has data
`
`stored in the secure registry.”
`
`Again, this construction is consistent with the claim language as a whole,
`
`which describes the “entity” as the party to a transaction with “secure data stored
`
`in a secure registry,” such as a credit card number. This construction is further
`
`supported by the ’539 patent specification, which describes “entities” as a user, a
`
`person, or a company with information stored in the USR database. See, e.g., Ex-
`
`1001, ’539 patent, Abstract (“A secure registry system and method for the use
`
`thereof are provided which permits secure access to a database containing selected
`
`data on a plurality of entities....”), 2:28-31 (“For example, when there is a need to
`
`locate a person or other entity where only limited biographical data is known….”),
`
`7:30-39 (“[T]he USR system 10 or USR database 24 may be able to authenticate
`
`its identity to a user or other entity accessing the system....”). The patent
`
`consistently uses the term “entity” to refer to the person requiring identification.
`
`Id., 3:24-27 (“[T]he user’s identity to be confirmed or verified without providing
`
`any identifying information about the person to the entity requiring
`
`identification.”), 7:30-36 (“In one embodiment, the USR system 10 or USR
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`database 24 may be able to authenticate its identity to a user or other entity….”);
`
`Ex-1002, Shoup-Decl. ¶72.
`
`C. Time-Varying Multicharacter Code (All Challenged Claims)
`Under the broadest reasonable construction standard, the term “time-varying
`
`multicharacter code” as used in the ’539 patent means “a sequence of numbers that
`
`varies with time.”
`
`The ’539 patent specification consistently describes the time-varying
`
`multicharacter code as a “number” and/or a “value” that can be combined with
`
`other values using a predetermined algorithm to produce a nonpredictable code that
`
`can be used to provide secure access to the database. Ex-1001, ’539 patent, 8:22-
`
`35 (“Specifically, to access the USR database, the card retrieves a secret user code
`
`and/or time varying value from memory and obtains from the user a secret
`
`personal identification code. The card mathematically combines these three
`
`numbers using a predetermined algorithm to generate a one-time nonpredictable
`
`code” (emphasis added)), 13:43-51 (“Where the number from the electronic ID
`
`device is a time varying number, the merchant may also need to input the time the
`
`number was received. Alternatively, the electronic ID device may encode or
`
`encrypt the time with the number, the USR software being able to extract time
`
`when receiving the number from the merchant. This may not be required where
`
`the time varying number varies slowly, for example changing every hour rather
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`than every minute as for some existing such devices.” (emphasis added)); see also
`
`id., 7:36-39 (“A comparison by the user or the code generator between the
`
`provided number and an expected number can validate, to the user (or other
`
`entity) or the code generator, that communication is with the database and not an
`
`imposter.” (emphasis added)); see also 8:36-40; Ex-1014, ’539 Patent File History,
`
`11/29/2011 Response to Office Action, 9-10 (contrasting “static” with “time-
`
`varying” codes); Ex-1002, Shoup-Decl. ¶74.
`
`D.
`
`Indication of the Provider (Challenged Claims 1-3, 5-8, 12, 16-24,
`26-31, and 34)
`Under the broadest reasonable construction standard, the term “indication of
`
`the provider” as used in the ’539 patent means “information corresponding to a
`
`provider.”
`
`In the ’539 claims 1 and 22, the “indication of the provider” is transmitted as
`
`part of a “transaction request.” Although the term “indication of the provider” is
`
`not used in the ’539 patent specification, the specification does describe the
`
`information transmitted with a transaction request in Figures 7-10. Elements 704,
`
`804, 904, and 1102 all contain the identical disclosure that at the outset of a
`
`transaction, a merchant transmits to the USR database information including a
`
`“code from SecureID,” “store number,” and “amount of purchase.” Ex-1001, ’539
`
`patent, Figs. 7-10. The specification explains that the code from SecureID is
`
`verified in order to grant access to the database. See, e.g., id., 12:24-29. Once the
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`code has been verified, the user’s credit card information, the store number, and
`
`amount of purchase are passed on to the credit card company to process the
`
`transaction, including by transferring funds from the customer’s account to the
`
`merchant’s account. E.g., id., 12:40-43. The only piece of information described
`
`by the ’539 patent sufficient to identify the correct merchant account is the store
`
`number, which corresponds to the specific merchant (provider) involved in the
`
`transaction. Moreover, during prosecution, the patent holder acknowledged that
`
`the claimed invention required transmission of a merchant identifier. Ex-1023,
`
`’539 Patent File History, 02/04/2014 Examiner Interview Summary (“Applicant’s
`
`representatives discussed the instant invention, noting that ... the invention
`
`provides an identifier of the merchant associated with a time-varying
`
`multicharacter code of the customer.”); Ex-1002, Shoup-Decl. ¶76.
`
`E. Account Identifying Information (All Challenged Claims)
`Under the broadest reasonable construction standard, the term “account
`
`identifying information” as used in the ’539 patent means “personal information
`
`about an entity such as name, address, or account number.”
`
`This construction is supported by the patent specification, which consistently
`
`describes employing the USR system to protect a user’s (purchaser’s) account
`
`information, including a user’s name, address, bank or credit card account
`
`numbers, and other personal information. See Ex-1001, ’539 patent, 3:44-50 (“In a
`
`