Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`
`DOCKET NO.: 1033300-00304US2
`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 IPR2018-00812
`U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF CLAIMS 1-3, 5-8, 16-24, 26-30, and 37-38
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................ i 
`I. 
`MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1)) ..................................... 2 
`A. 
`Real Party-In-Interest ............................................................................ 2 
`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. 
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications ............................................ 5 
`1. 
`Ex-1131 – Reber ......................................................................... 5 
`2. 
`Ex-1132 - Franklin ...................................................................... 6 
`Grounds for Challenge .......................................................................... 6 
`B. 
`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 ............................................................................... 9 
`VI.  LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL .................................................................. 10 
`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 
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`B. 
`Statutory Grounds Of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2)) ............ 11 
`Standard For Granting A Petition For IPR Review ............................ 11 
`C. 
`VIII.  PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS FOR IPR REVIEW (37 C.F.R. §
`42.104(b)(3)) .................................................................................................. 12 
`A. 
`Provider (All Challenged Claims) ....................................................... 12 
`B. 
`Entity (All Challenged Claims) ........................................................... 13 
`C. 
`Time-Varying Multicharacter Code (All Challenged Claims) ........... 14 
`D. 
`Indication of the Provider (Challenged Claims 1-3, 5-8, 16-24,
`and 26-30) ............................................................................................ 15 
`Account Identifying Information (All Challenged Claims) ................ 16 
`E. 
`Secure Registry (All Challenged Claims) ........................................... 16 
`F. 
`IX.  SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION ...................................................... 17 
`A.  Overview of Primary Prior Art References ......................................... 17 
`1. 
`Reber ......................................................................................... 17 
`2. 
`Franklin ..................................................................................... 18 
`Claims 1-3, 5-8, 16-24, 26-30, and 37-38 Are Obvious in View
`of Reber and Franklin .......................................................................... 19 
`1. 
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................. 19 
`1. 
`Reasons to Combine Reber and Franklin ................................. 23 
`2. 
`Dependent Claim 2 ................................................................... 42 
`3. 
`Dependent Claim 3 ................................................................... 43 
`4. 
`Dependent Claim 5 ................................................................... 44 
`5. 
`Dependent Claim 6 ................................................................... 45 
`6. 
`Dependent Claim 7 ................................................................... 47 
`
`B. 
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`7. 
`Dependent Claim 8 ................................................................... 48 
`Dependent Claim 16 ................................................................. 48 
`8. 
`Dependent Claim 17 ................................................................. 50 
`9. 
`10.  Dependent Claim 18 ................................................................. 50 
`11.  Dependent Claim 19 ................................................................. 53 
`12.  Dependent Claim 20 ................................................................. 54 
`13.  Dependent Claim 21 ................................................................. 56 
`14. 
`Independent Claim 22 ............................................................... 58 
`15.  Dependent Claim 23 ................................................................. 60 
`16.  Dependent Claim 24 ................................................................. 60 
`17.  Dependent Claim 26 ................................................................. 61 
`18.  Dependent Claim 27 ................................................................. 62 
`19.  Dependent Claim 28 ................................................................. 63 
`20.  Dependent Claim 29 ................................................................. 63 
`21.  Dependent Claim 30 ................................................................. 64 
`22. 
`Independent Claim 37 ............................................................... 64 
`23. 
`Independent Claim 38 ............................................................... 69 
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS ........................................................................................... 73 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 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
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ...................................................................................................... 3, 4
`35 U.S.C. § 102 .............................................................................................. 3, 4, 5, 6
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ............................................................................................ 3, 4, 6, 11
`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) ................................................................................................... 11
`Leahy-Smith America Invents Act,
`Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) ............................................. 1, 6, 11
`REGULATIONS
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ..................................................................................................... 2, 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, 17
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,764 (Aug. 14, 2012) ...................................................................... 12
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`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, 16-24, 26-30, 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 patent
`
`owner, Universal Secure Registry, LLC (“USR”), the ’539 patent claims “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-1129, Pl.’s Answering Br. in Opp’n to Defs.’ Mot. to
`
`Dismiss (Opp.”), 17, Universal Secure Registry LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 17-cv-
`
`00585-VAC-MPT (D. Del. Sept. 29, 2017), ECF No. 30. USR further explained
`
`that 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-
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`use token, credit card 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 fact,
`
`the prior art is replete with systems and methods that perform user authentication
`
`in this manner. For example, Ex-1131, U.S. Patent No. 5,930,767 (“Reber”),
`
`discloses a system for conducting an anonymous financial transaction using a
`
`“second data element,” which contains a nonpredictable time-varying code that can
`
`anonymously identify a user to a financial transaction. Ex-1132, U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,000,832 (“Franklin”), discloses a system and method for generating a transaction
`
`number that can be submitted to a merchant as a proxy for a regular account
`
`number. The transaction number proxy can be provided by the merchant to an
`
`authorizing bank, which can substitute the real account number and authorize the
`
`transaction.
`
`Thus, the systems and methods claimed in the ’539 patent were known in the
`
`art or obvious at the time the ’539 patent was filed.
`
`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.
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`B. Related Matters
`The ’539 patent is owned by Universal Secure Registry, LLC (“USR” or
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`
`“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-1103, Compl. ¶ 2, Universal Secure Registry LLC v.
`
`Apple Inc. et al., No. 17-cv-585-VAC-MPT (D. Del. May 21, 2017), ECF No. 1.
`
`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 “verifying an
`
`account holder’s identity based on codes and/or information related to the account
`
`holder before enabling a transaction.” 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:
`
`Asserted Patent
`
`CBM/IPR
`
`Statutory Grounds
`
`U.S. 9,530,137
`
`
`
`U.S. 9,100,826
`
`
`
`CBM
`
`IPR
`
`IPR
`
`IPR
`
`IPR
`
`- 3 -
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103
`
`

`

`Asserted Patent
`
`CBM/IPR
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`Statutory Grounds
`
`U.S. 8,856,539
`
`
`
`U.S. 8,577,813
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM
`
`IPR
`
`IPR
`
`CBM
`
`CBM
`
`CBM
`
`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 counsel, 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.
`
`Telephone: (617) 526-6223; Facsimile: (617) 526-5000.
`
`Petitioner consents to electronic service.
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`II. Certification of Grounds for Standing
`Petitioner certifies pursuant to Rule 42.104(a) that the patent for which
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`
`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 set forth in 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), Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”)
`
`challenges claims 1-3, 5-8, 16-24, 26-30, and 37-38 of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`
`(“’539 patent”) and requests that they be canceled.
`
`A.
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications
`The following references are pertinent to the grounds of unpatentability
`
`explained below:
`
`1. Ex-1131 – Reber
`United States Patent No. 5,930,767 (“Reber”) (Ex-1131), which was filed on
`
`May 28, 1997 and issued on July 27, 1999, is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(a), and102(b),. Reber was not considered during prosecution of the ’539
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`patent. Like the ’539 patent, Reber relates to a system and method for
`
`authenticating a party to a transaction based upon a provided nonpredictable code
`
`value. Ex-1131, Reber, 4:14-27; 5:4-27.
`
`2. Ex-1132 - Franklin
`United States Patent No. 6,000,832 (“Franklin”) (Ex-1132), which was filed
`
`on September 24, 1997 and issued on December 14, 1999, is prior art under at least
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a), and 102(b). Like the ’539 patent, Franklin is directed to a
`
`secure financial transaction system whereby a one-time use code is generated that
`
`can be used to anonymously authenticate a party to a financial transaction. Ex-
`
`1132, Franklin, Abstract, 5:24-6:22.
`
`B. Grounds for Challenge
`Petitioner requests cancellation of claims 1-3, 5-8, 16-24, 26-30, and 37-38
`
`of the ’539 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. This Petition, supported
`
`by the declaration of Dr. Victor Shoup (Ex-1102) 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. § 103. A
`
`claim is invalid if it would have been “obvious.” See 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The key
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`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-1104).
`
`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-1101, ’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 fraud. E.g., id., 3:22-24. The patent
`
`states that various forms of information can be used to provide access to the
`
`database: (1) algorithmically generated codes, such as a time-varying
`
`multicharacter code or a non-counterfeitable “token,” (2) “secret user code,” like a
`
`PIN or password, and/or (3) a user’s “biometric identification,” such as
`
`fingerprints, voice prints, or a photograph. See id., 4:4-12, 8:17-47, Fig. 3. The
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`patent does not describe any new technology for generating or combining this
`
`information. Ex-1102, Shoup-Decl., ¶25.
`
`Instead, the patent emphasizes that the USR database itself “may be any kind
`
`of database” and communication with the database may take place over “any
`
`[network] protocol.” Ex-1101, ’539 patent, 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-1102, Shoup-
`
`Decl., ¶26.
`
`In its 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 illustrated by, for example, Figure 8 (shown below), is a “method for
`
`providing information to a provider [merchant] to enable transactions 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.” Ex-1101, ’539
`
`patent, 20:4-8. The claimed method includes six steps, which are also depicted in
`
`Figure 8: (1) the database receives a request (e.g., from a merchant) that includes
`
`the “time-varying multicharacter code” for the entity (e.g., a customer) whose
`
`account data is stored in the USR (804); (2) comparing and matching 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
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`compliance with any access restrictions on that customer’s account (not explicitly
`
`shown); (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 (e.g., credit card account number) 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-1102, Shoup-Decl., ¶27.
`
`
`
`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
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`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. 1105, 1107, 1110, 1112, 1115, 1117, 1121; see also
`
`Ex-2, Shoup-Decl., ¶¶28-60. The ’539 patent subsequently issued on October 7,
`
`2014.
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`A person of ordinary skill in the relevant field (“POSITA”) is a hypothetical
`
`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 ’137 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-1102,
`
`Shoup-Decl., ¶¶61-62.
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`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, 16-24, 26-30, 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. § 103. On that
`
`ground and in light of the evidence submitted herein, Petitioner has established that
`
`is it more likely than not that it will prevail in establishing unpatentability of
`
`claims 1-3, 5-8, 16-24, 26-30, and 37-38 and requests institution of inter parties
`
`review and cancellation of these claims.
`
`C.
`Standard For Granting A Petition For IPR Review
`To institute an IPR review, 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).
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`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); In re ICON Health & Fitness,
`
`Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`The following discussion proposes a construction 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 term has a
`
`construction different from its broadest reasonable 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
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`“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-1123, Examiner Interview Summary. The
`
`term “first party” was later changed to “provider” via amendment. Ex-1124,
`
`Supplemental Amendment, 2-10; see also Ex-1108, Response After Final Action,
`
`9-10; Ex-1102, Shoup-Decl., ¶66.
`
`B.
`Entity (All Challenged Claims)
`Under the broadest reasonable construction standard, the term “entity” as
`
`used in the ’539 patent means “the purchasing party to a transaction who has data
`
`stored in the secure registry.”
`
`This construction is consistent with the claim language, 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 an “entity” as a user, a person, or a company
`
`with information stored in the USR database. See, e.g., Ex-1101, ’539 patent,
`
`Abstract (“A secure registry system … which permits secure access to a database
`
`containing selected data on a plurality of entities....”); see also id., 2:28-31, 7:30-
`
`39. The patent further uses the term “entity” to refer to the person requiring
`
`identification. Id., 3:24-27, see also id., 7:30-36; Ex-1102, Shoup-Decl., ¶68.
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`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-1101, ’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...” (emphasis added)); see also id.,
`
`7:36-39; 8:36-40; Ex-1114, Response to Office Action, at (contrasting “static” with
`
`“time-varying” codes); Ex-1102, Shoup-Decl., ¶70.
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`D.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`Indication of the Provider (Challenged Claims 1-3, 5-8, 16-24, and
`26-30)
`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 this term is not used in the ’539 patent
`
`specification, the specification does describe the information transmitted with a
`
`transaction request in Figures 7-10. Each figure discloses 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-1101, ’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
`
`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. See, 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 merchant ID number, which corresponds to the specific merchant (provider)
`
`involved in the transaction. Moreover, during prosecution, the patent holder
`
`acknowledged that the invention required transmission of a merchant identifier.
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`Ex-1123, Examiner Interview Summary (“the invention provides an identifier of
`
`the merchant associated with a time-varying multicharacter code of the customer”);
`
`Ex-1102, Shoup-Decl., ¶72.
`
`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 account information,
`
`including a user’s name, address, bank or credit card account numbers, and other
`
`personal information. See Ex-1101, ’539 patent, 3:44-50 (“[P]roviding anonymous
`
`identification of a person enables the person to purchase goods and/or
`
`services…without ever transmitting to the merchant information, such as the
`
`person’s credit card number, or even the person’s name.”); see also id., 13:3-8,
`
`13:28-32, Figs. 3-4; Ex-1108, Response After Final Action, 9-10; Ex-1102, Shoup-
`
`Decl., ¶74.
`
`F.
`Secure Registry (All Challenged Claims)
`Under the broadest reasonable construction standard, the term “secure
`
`registry” as used in the ’539 patent claims means “a database with access
`
`restrictions.”
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,539
`The construction is consistent with the ’539 claims. For example, claim 22
`
`describes the secure registry as containing entities’ “secure data” and that such data
`
`cannot be accessed without “determining compliance with any access restrictions.”
`
`Ex-1101, ’539 patent, cl. 22. This construction is further supported by the
`
`specification, which describes the “Universal Secure Registry” as a “database”
`
`throughout the specification. See also id., 4:36-39 (describing the USR as a
`
`database); Fig. 1; 5:56-58; 19:39-41; Ex-1102, Shoup-Decl., ¶76.
`
`IX. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)-(5), the below sections, and as
`
`confirmed in the Shoup Declaration (Ex-1102), demonstrate in detail how the prior
`
`art discloses each and every limitation of claims 1-3, 5-8, 16-24, 26-30, and 37-38
`
`of the ’539 patent, and how those claims are rendered obvious by the prior art.
`
`A. Overview of Primary Prior Art References
`1.
`Reber
`