throbber
Apple Inc.,
`v.
`Universal Secure Registry, LLC,
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.’s Demonstrative Slides
`U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00812
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`August 27, 2019
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1
`
`

`

`Roadmap
`
`The Claims Are Invalid
`
`Responses To USR’s Sur-reply
`
`USR’s Substitute Claims Are Not Patentable
`
`USR’s CMTA Should Be Denied
`
`USR’s Motion To Strike Should Be Denied
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`
`

`

`Roadmap
`
`The Claims Are Invalid
`
`
`
`Responses To USR’s Sur-replyResponses To USR’s Sur-reply
`
`
`
`USR’s Substitute Claims Are Not PatentableUSR’s Substitute Claims Are Not Patentable
`
`
`
`USR’s CMTA Should Be DeniedUSR’s CMTA Should Be Denied
`
`
`
`USR’s Motion To Strike Should Be DeniedUSR’s Motion To Strike Should Be Denied
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3
`
`

`

`The Claims Are Invalid
`• Claims 1-3, 5-8, 16-24, 26-30, and 37-38 are invalid over
`Reber and Franklin.
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`4
`
`

`

`The Prior Art: The Reber ’767 Reference
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`5
`
`
`
`Ex. 1131 [Reber], CoverEx 1131 [Rebber] Cover
`
`

`

`The Prior Art: The Franklin ’832 Reference
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`6
`
`
`
`Ex. 1132 [Franklin], CoverEEx 11113322 [[FFrankklliin]] CCover
`
`

`

`’539 Patent Claims a System Directed to Verifying
`an Identity in a Transaction Using a Time-Varying
`Multicharacter Code
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`7
`
`
`
`Ex. 1101 [’539 Patent], Claim 1Ex 1101 [’539 Patent] Claim 1
`
`

`

`Reber Discloses a “Processor” and “Database” for
`Conducting Transactions Between an “Entity” and a
`“Provider”
`
`Entity
`
`Provider
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Processor
`
`Database
`
`Ex. 1131 [Reber], Fig. 1
`Petition at 19-25.
`8
`
`

`

`Reber Discloses a “Transaction Request” Including
`Two “Data Elements”
`
`Indication
`of the
`Provider
`
`Time-varying
`Multicharacter
`Code
`
`Receive the
`Transaction
`Request
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex 1131 [Reber] 5:48 51
`Ex. 1131 [Reber], 5:48-51
`
`
`
`Ex. 1131 [Reber], 5:45-51Ex 1131 [Reber] 5:45 51
`
`Petition at 33-35.
`9
`
`

`

`Reber Discloses Including an “Indication of the
`Provider” in the Transaction Request
`
`Indication
`of the
`Provider
`
`Ex 1131 [Reber] 5:48 55
`Ex. 1131 [Reber], 5:48-55
`
`Petition at 33-34.
`10
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`

`

`Reber Discloses Including a “Time-varying
`Multicharacter Code” in the Transaction Request
`
`Time-varying
`Multicharacter
`Code
`
`Ex. 1131 [Reber], 4:14-18
`Ex 1131 [Reber] 4:14 18
`
`Petition at 32-33.
`11
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`

`

`Reber Discloses “Map[ping] the Time-Varying
`Multicharacter Code to the Identity of the Entity”
`
`Transaction
`Request
`
`Ex 11113311 [Rebber] 22:522-533
`Ex. 1131 [Reber], 2:52-53
`
`Map the
`time-varying
`multicharacter code
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex 1131 [Reber] 5:16-22
`Ex. 1131 [Reber], 5:16-22
`
`Petition at 35.
`12
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`

`

`In The ID, The Board Found that Reber’s
`“Transaction Methods” Are Compatible
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Institution Decision at 12-13.
`13
`
`

`

`Even If They Are Separate Embodiments, Reber’s Transaction
`Methods Would Have Been Obvious to Combine in View of
`Reber Alone
`Reber explains that its transaction methods can be combined and
`modified
`
`
`
`Ex. 1131 [Reber], 11:33-36EEx 11113311 [[RRebber]] 1111:3333-3366
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply to POR at 22-23.
`14
`
`

`

`Even If They Are Separate Embodiments, Reber’s
`Transaction Methods Would Also Have Been Obvious to
`Combine in View of Franklin’s Merchant Validation
`
`
`
`Ex. 1132 [Franklin], 1:48-49Ex 1132 [Frankklliin] 1:48-49
`
`
`
`Ex. 1132 [Franklin], 11:43-45Ex 11113322 [Frankklliin] 1111:433-45
`
`Reply to POR at 22-24.
`15
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`

`

`Reber and Franklin Render Obvious the
`“Restriction Mechanism” and “Access Restrictions”
`It would have been obvious to perform merchant validation alongside
`authentication of the second data element
`
`Ex. 1131 [Reber], 5:16-22
`Ex. 1131 [Reber], 5:16-22
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Ex. 1132 [Franklin], 11:43-45Ex 1132 [Franklin] 11:43 45
`
`Petition at 36-39; Reply to POR at 10-14.
`16
`
`

`

`Reber and Franklin Render Obvious the
`“Restriction Mechanism” and “Access Restrictions”
`In the ID, the Board rejected USR’s limiting construction of
`“access restrictions”
`
`Institution Decision at 14
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`17
`
`

`

`Reber and Franklin Teach Providing Account Identifying
`Information to a Third Party to Enable a Transaction
`Franklin’s bank computing center has
`separate computing elements that perform
`the function of the database and third party
`
`Ex. 1132
`[Franklin],
`Fig. 7
`(annotated)
`
`E[F(
`
`Database
`Third
`Party
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`Ex. 1132 [Franklin], 12:27-33Ex 1132 [Franklin] 12:27-33
`Petition at 39-42; Reply to POR at 4-6.
`18
`
`

`

`Reber and Franklin Teach Providing Account Identifying
`Information to a Third Party to Enable a Transaction
`In the ID, the Board determined that Franklin’s “processing
`system 84” could be a third party
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Institution Decision at 18.
`19
`
`

`

`A POSITA Would Have Been Motivated to Combine
`Reber and Franklin
`Reber discloses “directing” a third party to credit and debit
`financial accounts
`
`
`Ex. 1131 [Reber], xEExEE 11113311 [[RRebber]]
`6:26-29
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`
`Ex. 1131 [Reber], Fig. 1 (annotated)Ex 1131 [Reber] Fig 1 (annotated)
`Reply to POR at 14-17; Ex-1135 [Shoup POR Reply Decl.], ¶¶ 38-41.
`20
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`

`

`Reasons to Combine
`Reber and Franklin disclose similar and technologically-
`compatible transaction methods designed for similar purposes.
`
`• Both teach protecting sensitive data from
`unauthorized interception and misappropriation
`• Both operate using a similar four-party structure
`(entity, provider, secure registry, third party)
`• Both transmit a time-varying multicharacter code
`to an issuing institution
`• Both use encryption to ensure that secure data is
`not compromised.
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`Petition at 23-31; Reply to POR at 5, 13-14, 16-19.
`21
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`

`

`Reasons to Combine
`Both references teach protecting sensitive data from
`unauthorized interception and misappropriation
`
`Reber ’767
`
`Franklin ’832
`
`
`
`Ex. 1131 [Reber], 2:29-31EEx 11113311 [[RRebber]] 22:2299-3311
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Ex. [Franklin], 1:48-54EEx [[FFrankklliin]] 11:4488-5544
`
`Petition at 23-25;
`Reply to POR at
`4-6.
`22
`
`

`

`Reasons to Combine
`Both references operate using a similar four party structure
`Orange – Entity
`Yellow – Network
`Green – Provider
`Red – Secure Registry
`
`Reber ’767
`
`Franklin ’832
`
`
`
`Petition at 25PPettiittiion att 2255
`
`Petition at 26
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petition at 27
`Pet. at 24-28; Reply to POR at 14-19.
`23
`
`

`

`Reasons to Combine
`Both references teach transmitting a time-varying
`multicharacter code to a database for verification
`
`Ex. 1131 [Reber], 4:25-27
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`Ex. 1132 [Franklin], 2:26-38
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`See Petition at 28-30; Reply to POR at 4-5.See Petition at 28 30; Reply to POR at 4 5
`24
`
`

`

`Reasons to Combine
`Both references teach using encryption to prevent interception
`of secure data (claims 3 and 24)
`
`Reber ’767
`
`Franklin ’83222
`
`Ex. 1131 [Reber], 2:29-31
`
`
`
`Ex. 1131 [Reber], 4:63-5:3E 1131 [R b ] 4 63 5 3
`
`Ex. 1132 [Franklin], 8:35-42
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petition at 43-44,
`60-61; Reply to
`POR at 24-26.
`25
`
`

`

`Reasons to Combine
`Claim 37 would have been an obvious modification to the
`structure of the database to improve security.
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petition at 68.
`26
`
`

`

`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`• Bachelor’s Degree
`• Two to three years of experience in secure transactions
`and encryption
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petition at 10.
`27
`
`

`

`Roadmap
`
`
`
`The Claims Are InvalidThe Claims Are Invalid
`
`Responses To USR’s Sur-reply
`
`
`
`USR’s Substitute Claims Are Not PatentableUSR’s Substitute Claims Are Not Patentable
`
`
`
`USR’s CMTA Should Be DeniedUSR’s CMTA Should Be Denied
`
`
`
`USR’s Motion To Strike Should Be DeniedUSR’s Motion To Strike Should Be Denied
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`28
`
`

`

`Responses to USR’s Surreply
`
`Response to Sur-reply
`1. Reber and Franklin disclose protecting
`“account identifying information”
`2. Reber and Franklin disclose compliance with
`“access restrictions”
`3. Reber and Franklin disclose providing account
`identifying information to a third party
`4. Reber and Franklin disclose “receiving a
`transaction request”
`5. Reber and Franklin disclose encrypting the
`time-varying multicharacter code
`
`Addressed in Briefing
`
`Petition at 19-23, 39-42; Reply at 1-6
`
`Petition at 36-39; Reply at 6-14
`
`Petition at 39-42; Reply at 14-19
`
`Petition at 34-35; Reply at 19-24
`
`Petition at 43-44; Reply at 24-26
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`29
`
`

`

`1. Reber and Franklin Teach Protecting
`“Account Identifying Information”
`Reber and Franklin teach protecting sensitive information
`from fraud, including by merchants.
`
`Ex. 1131 [Reber], 2:29-31
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1132 [Franklin], 2:35-43; 1:48-49
`Petition at 36-37; Reply to POR at 4-6.
`30
`
`

`

`1. Reber and Franklin Teach Protecting
`“Account Identifying Information”
`Both references disclose storing sensitive information in a remote
`database that can be accessed with a time-varying code
`
`Reber ’767
`
`Franklin ’832
`
`Database
`
`Database
`
`Petition at 25PPettiittiion att 2255
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petition at 27
`
`Petition at 28-30; Reply to POR at 4-6.
`31
`
`

`

`1. Reber and Franklin Teach Protecting
`“Account Identifying Information”
`Franklin teaches providing customer-specific information to the
`merchant is optional
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1132 [Franklin], 9:49-58EEx 11113322 [[FFrankklliin]] 99:4499-5588Ex. 1132 [Franklin], 9:49 58
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1132 [Franklin], 11:33-38
`Reply to POR at 4-6.
`32
`
`

`

`1. Reber and Franklin Teach Protecting
`“Account Identifying Information”
`The Board did not construe the term “account identifying
`information”
`
`Institution Decision at 7
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`Compare Surreply at 1-3 with Institution Decision at 7; see also Reply to POR at 1-3.
`33
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`

`

`1. Reber and Franklin Teach Protecting
`“Account Identifying Information”
`USR’s argument is inconsistent with claim 4 of the ’539 patent,
`which requires the provider to provide “delivery” to the entity
`as a “service”
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply to POR at 2.
`34
`
`Ex 1101 [’539 Patent] Claim 4
`Ex. 1101 [’539 Patent], Claim 4
`
`

`

`1. Reber and Franklin Teach Protecting
`“Account Identifying Information”
`The ’539 patent describes providing name and address
`information to merchants to enable delivery
`
`Ex. 1101 [’539 Patent], 13:63-14:3; see also id. at
`12:57-62, 17:34-38, Figs. 7-10
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply to POR at 2-3, 5-6.
`35
`
`

`

`1. Reber and Franklin Teach Protecting
`“Account Identifying Information”
`Dr. Jakobsson did not offer any opinion that the claims of the
`’539 patent require anonymity
`
`
`
`Ex. 1137 [Jakobsson Dep. Tr.], 343:8-12Ex 1137 [Jakobsson Dep Tr] 343:8 12
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply to POR at 2.
`36
`
`

`

`2. Reber and Franklin Teach Compliance with
`Access Restrictions
`Franklin teaches performing merchant validation in addition to
`confirming the authenticity of a received time-varying code
`
`Ex. 1131 [Reber], 5:16-22
`Ex. 1131 [Reber], 5:16-22
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Ex. 1132 [Franklin], 11:43-45Ex 1132 [Franklin] 11:43 45
`
`Petition at 36-39; Reply to POR at 10-14.
`37
`
`

`

`2. Reber and Franklin Teach Compliance with
`Access Restrictions
`A POSITA would have combined Reber and Franklin in order to reduce
`
`fraud (including by merchants)rcchhaannttss)))
`
`* * *
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`Ex-1102 [Shoup Dec. Petition], ¶114.EEx-11110022 [[SShhhoup DDec. PPettiittiion]], ¶¶111144.
`38
`
`

`

`2. Reber and Franklin Teach Compliance with
`Access Restrictions
`Franklin’s teaching about merchant validation is not limited to
`the acquiring bank
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`Reply to POR at 12-13; Ex-1135 [Shoup POR Reply Decl.], ¶35.
`39
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`

`

`2. Reber and Franklin Teach Compliance with
`Access Restrictions
`The Institution Decision correctly decided that merchant
`validation could occur at the secure registry
`
`* * *
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`
`Compare Surreply at 13-15 with Institution Decision at 15.CCompare SSurreplly at 1133-1155 wiithh IInstiitutiion DDeciisiion at 1155
`40
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`

`

`2. Reber and Franklin Teach Compliance with
`Access Restrictions
`USR’s proposed construction should be rejected
`
`USR’s Proposed Construction of
`“Access Restrictions”:
`two or more restrictions specific to the
`provider that indicate what secure data may
`or may not be accessed.
`
`cite
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`Compare Surreply at 5-10 with Reply to POR at 7-10.
`41
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`

`

`2. Reber and Franklin Teach Compliance with
`Access Restrictions
`USR’s construction is inconsistent with the claim language
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Ex. 1101 [’539 Patent], Claim 1 at 18:45-54Ex 1101 [’539 Patent] Claim 1 at 18:45 54
`
`Reply to POR at 9-10.
`42
`
`

`

`2. Reber and Franklin Teach Compliance with
`Access Restrictions
`Nothing in the patent specification requires “two or more”
`access restrictions
`
`
`
`Ex. 1101 [’539 Patent], 10:22-25Ex 1101 [’539 Patent] 10:22-25
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`Compare Surreply at 8-10 with Reply to POR at 9-10.
`43
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Ex. 1101 [’539 Patent], 10:40-48Ex 1101 [’539 Patent] 10:40 48
`
`

`

`2. Reber and Franklin Teach Compliance with
`Access Restrictions
`The examples Dr. Jakobsson offered in his example do not appear in
`
`the ’539 patent and are inconsistent with the specificationstent with the sppecification
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Surreply at 6. SSurrepllly att 66.
`
`44
`
`

`

`2. Reber and Franklin Teach Compliance with
`Access Restrictions
`Even under USR’s construction, a POSITA would have found it
`obvious to implement access restrictions into Reber and Franklin
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`Reply to POR at 11-12; Ex. 1135 [Shoup POR Reply Decl.], ¶33.
`45
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`

`

`2. Reber and Franklin Teach Compliance with
`Access Restrictions
`Even under USR’s construction, a POSITA would have found it
`obvious to implement access restrictions into Reber and Franklin
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`Reply to POR at 11-12; Ex. 1135 [Shoup POR Reply Decl.], ¶34.
`46
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`

`

`2. Reber and Franklin Teach Compliance with
`Access Restrictions
`Dr. Jakobsson did not apply USR’s claim construction
`
`
`
`Ex. 1137 [Jakobsson Dep. Tr.], 365:17-20Ex 1137 [Jakobsson Dep Tr] 365:17 20
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`47
`
`

`

`Slide intentionally left blank
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`48
`
`

`

`3. Reber and Franklin Teach the “Third Party”
`Limitation
`Reber discloses a transaction between two parties and involving a
`secure registry that “directs” financial transactions
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1131 [Reber], 6:26-29EEx 11113311 [[RRebber]] 66:2266Ex 1131 [Reber] -2299
`
`
`
`Third
`Party
`Database
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`
`Compare Surreply at 17-18 with Reply to POR at 14-19; see also Ex-1135, Shoup Decl. ¶38.18 ith R l t POR t 14 19 l E 1135 Sh
`
`49
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`3. Reber and Franklin Teach the “Third Party”
`Limitation
`Dr. Jakobsson acknowledged that Reber’s “directs” language
`could refer to a third party
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Ex. 1137 [Jakobsson Dep. Tr.], 432:11-19Ex 1137 [Jakobsson Dep Tr] 432:11 19
`
`Reply to POR at 14-15.
`50
`
`

`

`3. Reber and Franklin Teach the “Third Party”
`Limitation
`Franklin’s processing system 84 is a
`third party
`
`Reply to POR at
`18
`
`R1
`
`Database
`Third
`Party
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`
`Ex. 1132 [Franklin], 12:27-33Ex 1132 [Franklin] 12:27 33
`Compare Surreply at 21-23 with Reply to POR at 16-19.
`51
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`

`

`3. Reber and Franklin Teach the “Third Party”
`Limitation
`A POSITA would have been motivated to minimize changes to
`backend software.
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`52
`
`
`
`Ex. 1135 [Shoup POR Reply Decl.], ¶41. EEx 11113355 [[SShhoup PPOORR RReplly DDecll ]] ¶¶4411
`
`

`

`3. Reber and Franklin Teach the “Third Party”
`Limitation
`Franklin’s processing system 84 satisfies the third party
`limitation
`
`
`
`Ex. 1132 [Franklin], 4:3-9Ex 1132 [Franklin] 4:3 9
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`Compare Surreply at 21-23 with Reply to POR at 15-19.
`53
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`

`

`3. Reber and Franklin Teach the “Third Party”
`Limitation
`In the ID, the Board agreed that “processing system 84” can be a
`“third party”
`
`* * *
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Institution Decision at 7 and 18.
`54
`
`

`

`4. Reber and Franklin Teach “Receiving a
`Transaction Request”
`Reber discloses receiving the transaction request from the
`provider
`
`* * *
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`Ex. 1131 [Reber], 5:16-26, 45-53Ex 1131 [Rebber] 5:16-26 45-53
`Reply to POR at 22-24.
`55
`
`

`

`4. Reber and Franklin Teach “Receiving a
`Transaction Request”
`USR argues that Reber’s first message from the merchant to the
`secure registry does not include an indication of the provider
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`CMTA Surreply at 25.
`56
`
`

`

`4. Reber and Franklin Teach “Receiving a
`Transaction Request”
`In the ID, the Board found that Reber’s “transaction methods”
`are compatible
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Institution Decision at 12-13.
`57
`
`

`

`4. Reber and Franklin Teach “Receiving a
`Transaction Request”
`Reber explains that its transaction methods can be combined
`and modified
`
`
`
`Ex. 1131 [Reber], 11:33-36EEx 11113311 [[RRebber]] 1111:3333-3366
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply to POR at 22-23.
`58
`
`

`

`4. Reber and Franklin Teach “Receiving a
`Transaction Request”
`Franklin’s merchant validation provides motivation to combine
`the two transaction methods
`
`
`
`Ex. 1132 [Franklin], 1:48-49Ex 1132 [Frankklliin] 11:48-49
`
`
`
`Ex. 1132 [Franklin], 11:43-45Ex 1132 [Franklin] 11:43-45
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`Compare Surreply 25-28 with Reply to POR at 21-24.
`59
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`

`

`4. Reber and Franklin Teach “Receiving a
`Transaction Request”
`USR’s proposed construction is inconsistent with the intrinsic
`evidence
`
`USR’s Proposed Construction of
`“the provider requesting the transaction”:
`the provider that sent the transaction request
`POR at 5.
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply to POR at 19-20.
`60
`
`

`

`4. Reber and Franklin Teach “Receiving a
`Transaction Request”
`Nothing in the ’539 claims requires the transaction request to
`originate with the provider
`
`
`
`Ex. 1101 [’539 Patent], Claim 1Ex 1101 [’539 Patent] Claim 1
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply to POR at 20-21.
`61
`
`

`

`4. Reber and Franklin Teach “Receiving a
`Transaction Request”
`The Board rejected USR’s claim construction argument in the
`Institution Decision
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`Institution Decision at 11; see also Reply to POR at 20.
`62
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`

`

`4. Reber and Franklin Teach “Receiving a
`Transaction Request”
`Performing merchant validation at the secure registry was
`obvious
`
`Transaction
`Request
`
`Ex. 1131 [Reber], Fig. 1
`
`
`
`Ex. 1135 [Shoup POR Reply Decl.], ¶47 E 1135 [Sh POR R l D l ] ¶47
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`Compare Surreply at 13-15, 26-28 with Reply to POR at 22-24.
`63
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`

`

`5. Reber and Franklin Teach Encrypting the
`Time-varying Multicharacter Code (Claims 3 and 24)
`Reber teaches encrypting transmissions over the electronic
`network 22 to prevent unauthorized interception
`
`
`
`Ex. 1131 [Reber], 4:63-5:3Ex 1131 [Reber] 4:63 5:3
`
`Ex. 1131 [Reber], 4:18-20
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`Compare Surreply at 28-29 with Reply to POR at 24-26.
`64
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`

`

`5. Reber and Franklin Teach Encrypting the
`Time-varying Multicharacter Code (Claims 3 and 24)
`
`Electronic network 22 connects to both the provider and secure p
`registry
`
`
`Ex. 1131 [Reber], EEx
`Fig. 1
`FFi
`
`Processor
`
`Database
`
`Entity
`
`Provider
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`
`
`
`Compare Surreply at 28-29 with Reply to POR at 24-26.C S l t 28
`65
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`5. Reber and Franklin Teach Encrypting the
`Time-varying Multicharacter Code (Claims 3 and 24)
`
`Franklin teaches the use of public-key encryption for transmissions of ppublic keyy encryypption for transmissions
`over public networks
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1132 [Franklin], 4:35-43 Ex 1132 [Frankklliin] 4:35-43Ex. 1132 [Franklin], 4:35-43
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`Ex. 1132 [Franklin], 8:35-42
`Compare Surreply at 28-29 with Reply to POR at 24-26.
`66
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`

`

`5. Reber and Franklin Teach Encrypting the
`Time-varying Multicharacter Code (Claims 3 and 24)
`A POSITA would have been motivated to apply these encryption
`techniques to transmissions between the merchant and the secure
`registry over electronic network 22
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`Compare Surreply at 28-29 with Reply to POR at 24-26.
`67
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Ex. 1135 [Shoup POR Reply Decl.], ¶50Ex 1135 [Shoup POR Reply Decl ] ¶50
`
`

`

`Roadmap
`
`
`
`The Claims Are InvalidThe Claims Are Invalid
`
`
`
`Responses To USR’s Sur-replyResponses To USR’s Sur-reply
`
`
`
`USR’s Substitute Claims Are Not PatentableUSR’s Substitute Claims Are Not Patentable
`
`USR’s CMTA Should Be Denied
`
`
`
`USR’s Motion To Strike Should Be DeniedUSR’s Motion To Strike Should Be Denied
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`68
`
`

`

`USR’s Substitute Claims Are Not Patentable
`
`Section 101
`
`Section 103
`
`Section 112
`
`Limitation
`“transaction request…from the
`provider”
`“extracting” a “time value
`representative of when the
`time-varying multicharacter
`code was generated”
`“Validate an identity of the
`provider and then execute a
`restriction mechanism”
`“wherein the identity of the
`entity is verified using a
`biometric”
`“the third party being a
`different entity from the
`secure registry”
`
`“Public ID Code”
`
`Claims
`39, 40, 41, 42, 43,
`44, 45, 46, 47
`39, 40, 41, 42, 43,
`46
`
`39, 40, 41, 42, 43,
`44, 45
`
`39, 40, 41, 42, 43,
`44, 45, 47
`
`44, 45, 47
`
`47
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`69
`
`

`

`USR’s Substitute Claims Are Not Patentable
`Issue Addressed in Briefing
`Grounds for Invalidity
`1. Reber/Franklin render obvious a “transaction
`request…from the provider”
`2. Reber/Franklin render obvious “extracting” a “
`time value representative of when the time-
`varying multicharacter code was generated”
`3. Reber/Franklin render obvious “validat[ing] an
`identity of the provider and then execut[ing] a
`restriction mechanism
`4. Schutzer renders obvious “wherein the identity
`of the entity is verified using a biometric”
`5. Reber/Franklin render obvious “the third party
`being a different entity from the secure
`registry”
`6. Schutzer renders obvious a “public ID code”
`7. The substitute claims do not satisfy § 112
`8. The substitute claims are drawn to ineligible
`subject matter
`
`CMTA Opp. at 4-6; CMTA Sur-Reply at 1-4
`
`CMTA Opp. at 6-8; CMTA Sur-Reply at 4-6
`
`CMTA Opp. at 8-9; CMTA Sur-Reply at 6-7
`
`CMTA Opp. at 9-12; CMTA Sur-Reply at 7-9
`
`CMTA Opp. at 12-15
`
`CMTA Opp. at 15-18; CMTA Sur-Reply at 9
`CMTA Opp. at 25; CMTA Sur-Reply at 9
`
`CMTA Opp. at 18-25; CMTA Sur-Reply at 10
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`70
`
`

`

`1. Reber and Franklin Render Obvious
`“A Transaction Request…from the Provider”
`Reber contemplates receiving the transaction request from the
`provider
`
`Provider
`
`Processor
`
`
`
`Ex. 1131 [Reber], 5:45-53EEx 11113311 [[RRebber]], 55:4455-5533
`
`Transaction Request
`Ex. 1131 [Reber], Figure 1
`CMTA Surreply at 1-4; Reply to POR at 21-24.
`71
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`

`

`2. Reber and Franklin Render Obvious “Extracting” a
`“Time Value Representative of When the Time-varying
`Multicharacter Code Was Generated”
`Reber discloses generating a “transaction record” from time
`information extracted from the transaction request
`
`
`
`Ex. 1131 [Reber], 5:33-38Ex 1131 [Reber] 5:33 38
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`CMTA Opp. at 6-7; CMTA Sur-Reply at 4-6.
`72
`
`

`

`2. Reber and Franklin Render Obvious “Extracting” a
`“Time Value Representative of When the Time-varying
`Multicharacter Code Was Generated”
`USR admits that Franklin’s transaction data includes the claimed
`“time value”
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`USR’s CMTA Reply at 9USR’s CMTA Reply at 9
`
`See CMTA Surreply at 5.
`73
`
`

`

`2. Reber and Franklin Render Obvious “Extracting” a
`“Time Value Representative of When the Time-varying
`Multicharacter Code Was Generated”
`Franklin describes extracting time information from a transaction
`request to generate a Test MAC (i.e., a time-varying code) for
`comparison
`p
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Ex. 1132 [Franklin], 6:3-12Ex 1132 [Franklin] 6:3 12
`
`CMTA Opp. at 7-8; CMTA Surreply at 5.
`74
`
`

`

`2. Reber and Franklin Render Obvious “Extracting” a
`“Time Value Representative of When the Time-varying
`Multicharacter Code Was Generated”
`Reber discloses a similar comparison between a received value
`and a database value
`
`
`
`Ex. 1131 [Reber], 5:16-22Ex 1131 [Reber] 5:16 22
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`CMTA Opp. at 6-8; CMTA Surreply at 5.
`75
`
`

`

`3. Reber and Franklin Render Obvious
`“Validat[ing] an Identity of the Provider and then
`Execut[ing] a Restriction Mechanism”
`Reber and Franklin disclose sending a transaction request that
`contains information needed to conduct a financial transaction
`
`Ex. 1131 [Reber], 5:47-51; 6:17-18
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1132 [Franklin], 11:41-46
`See CMTA Surreply at 6-7.
`76
`
`

`

`3. Reber and Franklin Render Obvious
`“Validat[ing] an Identity of the Provider and then
`Execut[ing] a Restriction Mechanism”
`Reber compares the received information to stored information
`to confirm the authenticity of the transacting parties
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1131 [Reber], 5:18-26
`Ex 1131 [Reber] 5:18-26
`
`CMTA Opp. at 8-10; CMTA Surreply at 6-7.
`77
`
`

`

`3. Reber and Franklin Render Obvious
`“Validat[ing] an Identity of the Provider and then
`Execut[ing] a Restriction Mechanism”
`As Dr. Shoup explained, the transaction could not go forward
`unless the merchant had complied with “any access restrictions”
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petitioner’s Opp to Patent Owner’s CMTA at 9
`Petitioner’s Opp. to Patent Owner’s CMTA at 9
`See also CMTA Surreply at 6-7.
`78
`
`

`

`3. Reber and Franklin Render Obvious
`“Validat[ing] an Identity of the Provider and then
`Execut[ing] a Restriction Mechanism”
`The ’539 patent enables financial transactions in precisely the same
`way as Reber and Franklin
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`
`
`Ex. 1101 [’539 Patent], Fig. 8EEx. 11110011 [[’’553399 PPattentt]], FFiig. 88
`
`Ex. 1101 [’539 Patent], 12:19-39
`CMTA Surreply at 7; Ex-1135 [Shoup POR Reply Decl.], ¶29.
`79
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`

`

`4. Schutzer Renders Obvious “Wherein the Identity
`of the Entity Is Verified Using a Biometric”
`USR does not dispute that Reber, Franklin, and Schutzer disclose
`biometric authentication prior to initiating a transaction
`
`
`
`Ex. 1130 [Schutzer], ¶12EEx. 11113300 [[SSchhuttzer]], ¶¶1122
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Ex. 1130 [Schutzer], ¶13Ex 1130 [Schutzer] ¶13
`
`CMTA Opp. at 9-12.
`80
`
`

`

`5. Reber and Franklin Render Obvious “the Third Party
`Being a Different Entity from the Secure Registry”
`Reber describes “directing” a third party separate from the
`secure registry to conduct a transaction
`
`Ex. 1131 [Reber], 6:25-28EEx 11113311 [[RRebber]] 66:2255Ex 1131 [Reber] -2288
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1131
`[Reber], Fig
`1
`(Annotated)
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`CMTA Opp. at 15; see also Reply to POR at 14-19CMTA O t 15 l R l t PO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`81
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`5. Reber and Franklin Render Obvious “the Third Party
`Being a Different Entity from the Secure Registry”
`Franklin describes a third party that
`is separate from the secure registry
`
`Reply to POR at
`18
`
`R1
`
`Database
`Third
`Party
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`Ex. 1132 [Franklin], 4:3-9EEx 11113322 [[FFrankklliin]], 44:33-99
`CMTA Opp. at 14; Reply to POR at 14-19.
`82
`
`

`

`6. Reber, Franklin, and Schutzer Render Obvious a
`“Public ID Code”
`Schutzer teaches using a public ID code when transmitting
`sensitive data over any network
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1130 [Schutzer], ¶19
`CMTA Opp at 15-18; CMTA Surreply at 7-9.
`83
`
`

`

`6. Reber, Franklin, and Schutzer Render Obvious a
`“Public ID Code”
`A POSITA would have applied Schutzer’s teachings to Reber’s
`“directing” a third party
`
`
`
`Ex. 1131 [Reber], 6:25-28Ex 1131 [Reber] 6:25 28
`
`Public
`ID Code
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply to POR Brief at 17
`CMTA Opp at 15-18; CMTA Surreply at 7-9.
`84
`
`

`

`6. Reber, Franklin, and Schutzer Render Obvious a
`“Public ID Code”
`A POSITA would also have
`applied Schutzer to Franklin’s
`transmission to the bank’s
`traditional processing system
`
`Database
`
`Third
`Party
`
`Public
`ID Code
`
`
`
`Reply to POR Brief at 18Reply to POR Brief at 18
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1132 [Franklin], 12:27-33
`EEEExx. 1111111133332222 [[[[FFFFrraannkkkkkllllliiiiinn]]]], 11112222::22227777-33333333
`CMTA Opp at 15-18; CMTA Surreply at 7-9.
`85
`
`

`

`7. The Substitute Claims Do Not Satisfy § 112
`“Wherein the identity of the entity is verified using a biometric” is
`indefinite because a POSITA would not have understood where or how
`the validation is to be performed.
`USR’s proposed interpretation is unsupported by the written
`description, which only describes verification at the “point of use.”
`
`Ex. 1101 [’539 Patent], 4:4-9
`
`Ex. 1101 [’539 Patent], 8:48-51
`CMTA Opp. at 25; CMTA Sur-Reply at 9.
`86
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`

`

`8. The Substitute Claims Are Ineligible Under § 101
`The substitute claims are drawn to the abstract idea of “verifying an account
`holder’s identity based on codes and/or information related to the account
`holder before enabling a transaction”
`
`
`
`Ex. 1101 [’539 Patent], 1:13-19 Ex 1101 [’539 Patent] 1:13 19
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`CMTA Opp. at 18-25; CMTA Sur-Reply at 10.
`87
`
`

`

`8. The Substitute Claims Are Ineligible Under § 101
`Dr. Jakobsson agrees that the ’539 patent is directed to authenticating
`a user to determine whether a transaction is to be performed
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Ex. 1137 [Jakobsson Dep. Tr.], 284:12-24EEExx. 111111333777 [[[JJJaakkkoobbbssssoonn DDDeepp. TTTrr.]]], 222888444::111222-222444
`
`CMTA Opp. at 18-25; CMTA Sur-Reply at 10.
`88
`
`

`

`8. The Substitute Claims Are Ineligible Under § 101
`The Federal Circuit has found similar inventions to be abstract
`ideas
`
`Federal Circuit Authority
`Secured Mail Sols. LLC v. Universal Wilde,
`Inc., 873 F.3d 905 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`
`Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chicago
`Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`Alice Corp Pty. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208
`(2014).
`Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)
`
`Unpatentable Abstract Idea
`“using a marking affixed to the outside of
`a mail object to communicate
`information about the mail object, i.e

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket