`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper: 20
`Entered: July 15, 2019
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`INGENICO INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`IOENGINE, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Cases IPR2019-00416
`Patent 8,539,047 B2
`____________
`
`Before ELIZABETH M. ROESEL, SHEILA F. McSHANE, and
`SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC
`IPR2019-00879 (US 9,059,969)
`Exhibit 2076
`Page 1 of 2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00416
`Patent 8,539,047 B2
`
`which is not part of the IUI, but is merely the input component for the
`portable apparatus.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 68, 84); see also Ex. 2001
`¶ 66.16
`Based on the current record, we have concerns regarding whether
`Petitioner’s arguments and evidence sufficiently show that Iida discloses the
`“first program code” and “third program code” limitations recited in claim 1.
`As set forth above, an “interactive user interface” as recited in claim 1
`encompasses “a display with which a user may interact to result in the
`portable device taking action responsively.” Moreover, the claim requires
`that the third program code is executed “in response to a communication
`resulting from user interaction with the interactive user interface.”
`Ex. 1001, 31:15–19 (emphasis added). Although Iida discloses that “[t]he
`instruction inputted by the user is transmitted from the portable terminal 14
`to the digital still camera 12,” (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 98, 131), based on the current
`record, we are not sufficiently persuaded the user interacts with the menu on
`the display of the portable terminal. Instead, at this juncture, it appears the
`user is interacting with the numeric keyboard, which is not part of the
`display. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 68, 84.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`Our review of the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 314 is to determine
`whether the totality of the information presented at this stage shows that
`
`
`16 Patent Owner further argues that Iida does not disclose an “interactive
`user interface.” See Prelim. Resp. 22–24. However, because Patent
`Owner’s arguments are based on a claim construction we did not adopt in
`this Decision, the arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the
`claims.
`
`79
`
`Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC
`IPR2019-00879 (US 9,059,969)
`Exhibit 2076
`Page 2 of 2
`
`