`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