IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2019-01081
`U.S. Patent No. 9,336,517
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF CLAIMS
`1, 5-10, 12-14, 17-20 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,336,517
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`I.
`Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1
`II. Background ........................................................................................................ 1
`A. There was a trend in the industry toward increasing automation of check
`deposit. ................................................................................................................... 1
`B. Mobile Technology Advances ....................................................................... 4
`C. Technology Converges .................................................................................. 5
`III. The ’517 Patent .................................................................................................. 7
`A. Specification................................................................................................... 7
`B. Prosecution History ......................................................................................10
`C. Effective Filing Date ....................................................................................10
`D. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................11
`IV. Claim Construction ..........................................................................................11
`V. Wells Fargo Has Standing and the ’517 Patent Is Eligible for Inter Partes
`Review......................................................................................................................19
`VI. Institution of This Inter Partes Review Would Be Equitable. .........................19
`VII. Precise Relief Requested ..................................................................................23
`A. Proposed Grounds and Prior Art ..................................................................23
`B. The Proposed Grounds Are Not Cumulative or Redundant. .......................26
`VIII. Detailed Explanation of Grounds for Institution ............................................27
`A. Ground 1: Nepomniachtchi and Yoon Render Claims 1, 5-6, 9-10, 12-13,
`and 18-20 Obvious. ..............................................................................................27
`1. Summary of Nepomniachtchi ...................................................................28
`2. Summary of Yoon ....................................................................................29
`3. Claim 1 .....................................................................................................31
`a. “A system, comprising:” .......................................................................31
`b. “a mobile device having a processor, wherein the processor is
`configured to:” .............................................................................................31
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`c. “[1] generate an alignment guide adapted to align with an instrument,
`[2] wherein the alignment guide is associated with an information capture
`component, [3] wherein the information capture component is associated
`with the mobile device, and [4] wherein the mobile device is adapted to
`capture information of the instrument” ........................................................34
`d. “monitor at least one feature of the instrument detected by the
`information capture component” .................................................................37
`e. “determine whether the at least one feature of the instrument aligns
`with the alignment guide” ............................................................................38
`f.
`“automatically capture information of the instrument when the at least
`one feature aligns with the alignment guide” ..............................................40
`g. “transmit the captured information from the mobile device to a server
`via a communication pathway between the mobile device and the server” 41
`h. A POSITA would have combined Nepomniachtchi and Yoon. ...........42
`4. Claim 5 .....................................................................................................44
`5. Claim 6 .....................................................................................................46
`6. Claim 9 .....................................................................................................47
`7. Claim 10 ...................................................................................................48
`a. “A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions
`executed by a processor of a mobile device to:” .........................................48
`b. “monitor at least one feature of an instrument that is within a field of
`view of a camera associated with the mobile device, wherein the mobile
`device is adapted to capture information of the instrument” .......................49
`c. “determine whether the at least one feature aligns with an alignment
`guide adapted to align with an instrument” .................................................49
`d. “automatically capture the information of the instrument when the at
`least one feature is determined to align with the alignment guide” .............49
`e. “transmit the captured information from the mobile device to a server”
`
`49
`8. Claims 12 and 13 ......................................................................................50
`9. Claim 18 ...................................................................................................52
`10. Claim 19 ...................................................................................................52
`11. Claim 20 ...................................................................................................54
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`B. Ground 2: Nepomniachtchi in View of Yoon and Further in View of Cho
`Renders Claims 7, 8, 14, and 17 Obvious. ...........................................................55
`1. Summary of Nepomniachtchi and Yoon ..................................................55
`2. Summary of Cho .......................................................................................56
`3. Claim 7 .....................................................................................................56
`4. Claim 8 .....................................................................................................58
`5. Claim 14 ...................................................................................................60
`6. Claim 17 ...................................................................................................61
`7. A POSITA would have combined Nepomniachtchi, Yoon, and Cho. .....63
`IX. Mandatory Notices ...........................................................................................64
`A. Real Parties-in-Interest .................................................................................64
`B. Related Proceedings .....................................................................................65
`C. Lead and Backup Counsel ...........................................................................66
`D. Electronic Service ........................................................................................66
`X. Fees ...................................................................................................................66
`XI. Conclusion ........................................................................................................67
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Abbott Labs v. Sandoz, Inc.,
`566 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................................................... 16
`CBT Flint Partners, LLC v. Return Path, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 19
`General Plastic Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha,
`No. IPR2016-01357, 2017 WL 3917706 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 6, 2017) ....... 21, 22, 23
`Karlin Tech., Inc. v. Surgical Dynamics, Inc.,
`177 F.3d 968 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ............................................................................ 14
`Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc.,
`358 F.3d 898 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................ 16
`NRT Technology Corp. v. Everi Payments, Inc.,
`No. CBM2015-00167, Paper No. 14 .................................................................. 21
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .................................................................... 15, 16
`SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc.,
`242 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .......................................................................... 16
`Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. United Services Auto. Ass’n,
`No. CBM2019-00003, Paper No. 25 ...........................................................passim
`Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. United Services Auto. Ass’n,
`No. CBM2019-00003, Paper No. 9 .................................................................... 22
`Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. United Services Auto. Ass’n,
`No. CBM2019-00004, Paper No. 22 .................................................................. 66
`Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. United Services Auto. Ass’n,
`No. CBM2019-00005, Paper No. 25 .................................................................. 66
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Statutes
`12 U.S.C. § 5001 ........................................................................................................ 3
`12 U.S.C. § 5002 ........................................................................................................ 3
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ........................................................................................................ 20
`35 U.S.C. § 102 .................................................................................................. 21, 24
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .................................................................................................passim
`35 U.S.C. § 120 ........................................................................................................ 25
`35 U.S.C. § 325 ........................................................................................................ 21
`Check 21 Act, PUB. L. NO. 108-100, 117 Stat. 1177 (2003) (codified
`at 12 U.S.C. § 5001 et seq) ................................................................................... 3
`Other Authorities
`83 FED. REG. 51340 (Oct. 11, 2018) ........................................................................ 12
`Rule 42.104(a) .......................................................................................................... 19
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Ex. No.
`1001
`
`Brief Description
`U.S. Patent No. 9,336,517
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`Declaration of Peter Alexander, Ph.D.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,778,457
`
`Provisional U.S. Patent Application No. 61/022,279
`
`Published U.S. Patent Application No. 2007/0262148
`
`Published U.S. Patent Application No. 2007/0288382
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,386,511
`
`Machine Accepts Bank Deposits, N.Y. Times (April 12, 1961)
`
`Published U.S. Patent Application No. 2005/0097046
`
`Published U.S. Patent Application No. 2007/0194102
`
`Published U.S. Patent Application No. 2006/0249567
`
`U.S. Patent 8,290,237
`
`Shah, Moore’s Law, Continuous Everywhere but
`Differentiable Nowhere (February 24, 2009),
`http://samjshah.com/2009/02/024/moores-law/
`
`Rockwell, The Megapixel Myth, KenRockwell.com (2008),
`http://kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm
`
`Gates, A History of Wireless Standards: Wi-Fi Back to
`Basics, Aerohive Blog (July 1, 2015),
`http://blog.aerohive.com/a-history-of-wireless-standards
`
`Apple Reinvents the Phone with iPhone (January 9, 2007)
`available at
`https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2007/01/09Apple-
`Reinvents-the-Phone-with-iPhone/
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Ex. No.
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`Brief Description
`Chen, iPhone 3GS Trounces Predecessors, Rivals in Web
`Browser Speed Test, Wired (June 24, 2009)
`
`Apple Announces the New iPhone 3GS—The Fastest, Most
`Powerful iPhone Yet (June 8, 2009) available at
`http://www.apple.com/newsroom/2009/06/08Apple-
`Announces-the-New-iPhone-3GS-The-Fastest-Most-
`Powerful-iPhone-Yet/
`
`Askey, Panasonic Lumix DMC-L1 Review (pts. 1, 3, 7),
`Digital Photography Review (Apr. 11, 2007),
`https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmcl1
`
`Askey, Nikon D300 In-depth Review (pts. 1, 3, 9), Digital
`Photography Review (Mar. 12, 2008),
`https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond300
`
`Joinson et al., Olympus E-30 Review (pts. 1, 4, 8), Digital
`Photography Review (Mar. 24, 2009),
`https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse30
`
`Nokia N95 8GH User Guide (2009), available at
`https://www.nokia.com/en_int/phones/sites/default/files/user-
`guides/Nokia_N95_8GB_Extended_UG_en.pdf.
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 9,336,517
`
`Complaint, United Services Automobile Association v. Wells
`Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 2:16-cv-245 (E.D. Tex. June 7, 2018),
`ECF No. 1
`
`Curriculum vitae of Peter Alexander, Ph.D.
`
`149 Cong. Rec. H9289 (Oct. 8, 2003)
`
`Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act, H.R. Rep. No. 108-
`132 (Jun. 2, 2003)
`
`1028
`
`Published U.S. Patent Application No. 2009/0114716
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Ex. No.
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`1039
`
`Brief Description
`ITU-R M.1225, Guidelines for Evaluation of Radio
`Transmission Technologies for IMT-2000 (1997), available at
`https://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/rec/m/R-REC-M.1225-
`0-199702-I!!PDF-E.pdf.
`
`U.S. Published Patent Application No. 2004/0029591
`
`Sumits, Major Mobile Milestones – The Last 15 Years, and
`the Next Five, Cisco Blogs (Feb. 3, 2016),
`https://blogs.cisco.com/sp/mobile-vni-major-mobile-
`milestones-the-last-15-years-and-the-next-five
`
`International Patent Application WO 01/61436 A2
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,120,461
`
`Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement, Ex. B Parties’
`Proposed Constructions. United Services Automobile
`Association v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 2:16-cv-245
`(E.D. Tex. June 7, 2018), ECF No. 76-2
`
`USAA Opening Claim Construction Brief, United Services
`Automobile Association v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 2:16-
`cv-245 (E.D. Tex. April 11, 2019), ECF No. 81
`
`Defendant’s Claim Construction Brief and supporting
`exhibits, United Services Automobile Association v. Wells
`Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 2:16-cv-245 (E.D. Tex. April 25,
`2019), ECF No. 84
`
`USAA’s Reply Claim Construction Brief and supporting
`exhibits, United Services Automobile Association v. Wells
`Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 2:16-cv-245 (E.D. Tex. May 2, 2019),
`ECF No. 85
`
`U.S. Patent 7,419,093
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,978,900
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`

`I.
`
`Introduction
`Petitioner Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”) requests Inter Partes
`
`review of claims 1, 5-10, 12-14, 17-20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,336,517 (“the ’517
`
`patent”) (Ex. 1001).
`
`II. Background
`A. There was a trend in the industry toward increasing automation
`of check deposit.
`Traditionally, depositing a check required physical transportation of a paper
`
`check. A “payor” would write a check and deliver it to a “payee.” Ex. 1002, ¶ 28
`
`(citing Ex. 1006, ¶ 3; Ex. 1007, 1:32-53). The payee would then provide the check
`
`to a bank where the payee held an account. Id. The payee’s bank would credit the
`
`amount of the check to payee’s account, subject to the check “clearing.” Id. To clear
`
`the check, the payee’s bank would forward the paper check to the payor’s bank,
`
`which would determine whether it would honor the check. Id. If the check was
`
`honored, the payor’s bank would debit the amount of the check from the payor’s
`
`account and transmit those funds to the payee’s bank to cover the credit the payee’s
`
`bank had made to the payee’s account. Id. But if the check was not honored—for
`
`example, if the payor had insufficient funds—the payor bank would instead return
`
`the check to payee’s bank. Id.
`
`For several decades the financial sector has been attempting to remove
`
`physical check transportation from this process. Ex. 1026, H9292 (“[t]he technology
`
`
`
`

`

`[to image checks] has really been here for 20 and 30 years”) (referring to creating
`
`“substitute checks” in the Check 21 Act). By 2003, some banks would electronically
`
`clear imaged checks drawn on themselves or drawn on other banks with which they
`
`had formed agreements for electronic check presentment. Ex. 1027, 11 (describing
`
`“on us” payments and inter-bank agreements). But the complexity and lack of
`
`uniformity of those agreements limited their implementation. Id.
`
`In 2003, although some banks were accepting electronic presentment of
`
`checks under limited conditions, “millions of paper checks” were being “physically
`
`transported between banks every day for processing and presentment.” Ex. 1027, 11.
`
`One estimate (from 2004) pegged the cost of manually handling checks in the United
`
`States at roughly $8 billion. Ex. 1009, ¶ 7. Absent a change in the law that required
`
`physical presentment of original checks, the only way to full electronic presentment
`
`was for the industry to slog through bank to bank negotiations for electronic check
`
`presentment.
`
`Congress would provide this legal change in 2003. The tragedies of
`
`September 11, 2001, brought Congress’s attention to the problem. In the wake of
`
`these tragedies, “domestic flights were suspended, preventing millions of checks
`
`from physically moving through the payment system.” Ex. 1026, H9289; Ex. 1027,
`
`11 (noting “hundreds of millions of checks did not move” when air traffic was halted
`
`in the wake of the September 11th attacks “stalling the U.S. payment system”).
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Congress passed the Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act (or the “Check 21
`
`Act”) to alleviate the problem. Check 21 Act, PUB. L. NO. 108-100, 117 Stat. 1177
`
`(2003) (codified at 12 U.S.C. § 5001, et seq).
`
`The Check 21 Act was intended “[t]o improve the efficiency of the Nation’s
`
`payments system,” and to “foster innovation in the check collection system.” 12
`
`U.S.C. § 5001(b) (2004). The Check 21 Act was expected to “unleash[] innovation
`
`by removing legal obstacles to check truncation.” Ex. 1026, H9290. While not
`
`requiring receipt of electronic checks, the Act “obviat[ed] the need for physical
`
`transfer of” paper checks. Ex. 1027, 10. The Act obviated this need by allowing
`
`banks that wanted to process checks electronically to do so as long as they delivered
`
`a “substitute check” to any bank that still wanted paper copies. 12 U.S.C. § 5002(16)
`
`(defining “substitute check”). Under the Check 21 Act, a “substitute check” is the
`
`legal equivalent of the original paper check so long as it “accurately represents all
`
`of the information on the front and back of the original check at the time the original
`
`check is truncated,” and contains a specific legend. Ex. 1027, 16. With these changes
`
`it was expected that consumers would “enjoy extended deposit cutoff hours and
`
`deposit services at ATMs in remote or underserved urban and rural areas.” Id.,
`
`H9291. It goes nearly without saying that these ground breaking changes were
`
`known to those of ordinary skill in the art. See Ex. 1002, ¶ 32 (citing Ex. 1010, ¶¶ 2,
`
`4; Ex. 1011, ¶ 5; Ex. 1012, 1:36-37).
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`After passage of the Check 21 Act, “the use of digital images for check
`
`presentment … increased dramatically, as the process typically reduce[d] the time
`
`necessary for a check to clear and the cost associated with moving paper checks from
`
`location to location.” Ex. 1012, 1:31-36. And, just as Congress had foreshadowed,
`
`Ex. 1027, 11, soon after the Check 21 Act was enacted, the patent literature included
`
`teachings of ATM terminals for imaging checks and transmitting check images to
`
`other banks’ computers to clear the check. See, e.g., Ex. 1038, 6:4-5, 7:2-4, 8:28-32
`
`(describing a “deposit accepting apparatus and method” that “is used in connection
`
`with an ATM” where checks are imaged and delivered by machine to a bank for
`
`processing). By 2006, “[t]echnology for check image capturing, performing optical
`
`character recognition (OCR) and image assessment, [was also] well known in the
`
`art.” Ex. 1010, ¶ 8.
`
`B. Mobile Technology Advances
`Even though, in 2003, “[t]he technology to make the check system more
`
`efficient exist[ed], and was already in use,” Ex. 1025, H9290, a revolution in mobile
`
`computing and telecommunications was on the horizon that would further expand
`
`the types of computing equipment capable of imaging a check for remote deposit.
`
`By 1997, the International Telecommunications Union, a specialized agency of the
`
`United Nations, was setting the framework for development of the third generation
`
`of wireless networks called “3G.” Ex. 1029, 2. 3G brought the promise of increased
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`data speeds. Ex. 1030, ¶ 10 (“[T]echnology is evolving toward CDMA-2000, a 3G
`
`wireless technology that offers twice the voice capacity and data speed (up to 307
`
`Kbps) on a single 1.25 MHz (1X) carrier”). By 2003, 3G networks were being rolled
`
`out and by 2005, mobile data usage was seeing obvious, steady increases. Ex. 1002,
`
`¶¶ 38-40 (citing Ex. 1031, 4).
`
`Increased data speeds converged with the rise of the “smartphone”—a device
`
`that integrated a computer, phone, and camera in one device. Ex. 1002, ¶ 35 (citing
`
`Exs. 1013, 1014, 1015). Indeed, prior to 2009, mobile phones with integrated digital
`
`cameras were commonplace. Id., ¶ 36. For example, Apple released the “3GS”
`
`model of the iPhone in June of 2009. Id. Dr. Alexander recalls the 3GS was at least
`
`the third model of the iPhone and that all previous iPhone models included an
`
`integrated digital camera. Id.
`
`C. Technology Converges
`The Check 21 Act opened up innovation in terms of services that could be
`
`offered by banks to their customers when it came to cashing checks. Ex. 1026,
`
`H9290. With substitute checks, better wireless data capabilities, and the rise of the
`
`smartphone, it was only a matter of time before smartphones, rather than ATMs,
`
`were used for imaging paper checks and initiating check deposit transactions. Ex.
`
`1002, ¶ 37. For example, US Published Patent Application No. 2009/0114716 to
`
`Ramachandran disclosed a system where “[c]ommunication is established between
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`the phone … and a financial entity that allows customers to make electronic deposits
`
`involving imaged checks.” Ex. 1028, ¶ 212. As another example, U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,778,457, described capturing the image of a check or payment coupon with a
`
`“mobile
`
`telephone handset, Personal Digital Assistant, or other mobile
`
`communication device.” Ex. 1003, 6:19-23.
`
`Those skilled in the art knew, however, that not just any image would do. Ex.
`
`1002, ¶ 43. To satisfy the Check 21 Act, the image had to be an accurate
`
`representation of all information on the check. Ex. 1027, 16; Ex. 1026, H9292. Bad
`
`images were a problem. Ex. 1002, ¶ 43. But those of ordinary skill would have
`
`known that using a mobile phone to capture an image of a document created
`
`problems with skewing because of the lack of a mechanical guide used in check
`
`scanners during the 1990s. Id.; see also Ex. 1038, 28:50-52. As Dr. Alexander
`
`explains, “cell phones and their embedded cameras were typically hand held, and
`
`therefore did not offer the same check alignment precision with the camera as was
`
`available with previous scanning devices.” Ex. 1002, ¶ 43. One solution to this
`
`problem was to “deskew” any misaligned check images using software. Ex. 1038,
`
`29:27-32.
`
`Digital cameras and mobile phones available at the time of the Challenged
`
`Patent’s filing suggested another obvious solution to the problem with capturing
`
`check images with a portable, hand-held devices like mobile phones. Ex. 1002, ¶ 44.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`The solution was live preview viewfinders with alignment guides superimposed on
`
`a live image display presented to the user of the phone or camera. Dr. Alexander has
`
`provided some contemporaneous examples of the use of alignment guides in digital
`
`cameras and mobile phones. Ex. 1002, ¶ 45.
`
`
`
`
`Id. (citing Ex. 1019, 17; Ex. 1020, 17; Ex. 1021, 19). Viewfinder alignment guides
`
`were also known to be used in applications for automatically capturing images of
`
`business cards using a “voice/data” capable “portable terminal.” Ex. 1005, ¶ 19. One
`
`example displayed “reference boundary lines” on the mobile device display while a
`
`photograph of a business card was being taken and if those lines coincided with the
`
`edges of the business card, the portable terminal automatically took a photo of the
`
`card. Id.
`
`III. The ’517 Patent
`Specification
`A.
`The ’517 patent related to the capturing of “a digital image at a mobile device
`
`that allows for detection and extraction of the information from the digital image.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 1:44-47. The ’517 patent admitted that “systems and methods have been
`
`developed to enable the remote deposit of checks” to ease the burden. Id., 1:35-37.
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`The ’517 patent further conceded that mobile devices were used to capture an image
`
`of a check and send it to a financial institution, which processes the check. Id., 1:38-
`
`42. But capturing “a digital image at a mobile device that allows for detection and
`
`extraction of the information from the digital image [was] difficult.” Id., 1:44-47.
`
`This image capture quality problem was the problem that the ’517 patent was
`
`attempting to solve. See, e.g., id., 4:56-61.
`
`The solution the ’517 patent proposed was to provide an “alignment guide” in
`
`the “field of view”1 of a mobile device’s camera. Ex. 1001, 1:51-53. The alignment
`
`guide “increase[d] the likelihood of capturing a digital image of the check … that
`
`may be readable and processed ….” Id., 4:66-5:1. The user “may move the camera
`
`or the check … until the check … is viewed within the alignment guide;”2 then an
`
`
`1 The patent defined “field of view” as “that part of the world that is visible through
`
`the camera at a particular position and orientation in space.” Ex. 1001, 4:3-5.
`
`2 By “within” the patent encompassed not just the plain and ordinary meaning of
`
`“within,” but also “aligned.” See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 6:32-35 (“When the check image
`
`247 is within the alignment guide 235 (e.g., the edges 245 of the check image 247
`
`are aligned with respect to the alignment guide 235, such as parallel to the associated
`
`portion of the alignment guide 235) ….”).
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`image of the check was captured. Id., 1:53-56, 4:6-10. An example of such an
`
`alignment guide (235) and a check (245) is below.
`
`
`Ex. 1001, Fig. 3 (showing a three-sided bounding box as an alignment guide), 6:12-
`
`15. Capturing the image could be either manual or automatic. Id., 4:14-19. The
`
`mobile device optionally further processed the captured image by performing corner
`
`detection, grayscale conversion, dewarping, cropping, or other image processing
`
`tasks. Id., 15:47-53. After any additional processing, the image was transmitted to a
`
`financial institution. Id., 1:53-56, 4:22-24. “Upon receipt and approval of the digital
`
`image, financial institution … may credit the funds to [the user’s] account.” Id., 4:62-
`
`63.
`
`
`
`In some embodiments, a user could have also selected or adjusted the
`
`displayed alignment guide. Id., 6:60-7:32.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Prosecution History
`B.
`The ’517 patent was a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`14/224,944, filed on March 25, 2014, which was a continuation of U.S. Patent
`
`Application No. 12/549,443, filed on August 28, 2009, now U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,699,779. Contemporaneously with the application, applicants identified over 950
`
`references in an IDS. See Ex. 1023, 66-90. All of the claims were initially rejected
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over U.S. Patent No. 7,978,900 to Nepomniachtchi in view
`
`of U.S. Published Patent Application No. 2010/0225773 to Lee. Id., 111-17.
`
`Applicants argued that these references did not show an alignment guide or capturing
`
`information when at least one feature of the instrument is aligned with the alignment
`
`guide. Id., 166-67. In response, examiner withdrew the prior art rejection and
`
`provisionally rejected some of the claims for non-statutory double patenting over
`
`application no. 14/516,364. See id., 174-78. The applicants then filed a terminal
`
`disclaimer to application no. 14/516,364 to moot the provisional double patent
`
`rejection. See id., 198. This marked the last rejections and substantive responses of
`
`record.
`
`C. Effective Filing Date
`August 28, 2009, is the date of invention used in this petition. The application
`
`for the ’517 patent was filed on October 16, 2014. It claims the benefit of the filing
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`date of application no. 12/548,443 (now U.S. Patent No. 8,699,779), filed on August
`
`28, 2009.
`
`D. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`As of August 2009, a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) in the
`
`field of the ’517 patent would have had a range of knowledge roughly equivalent to
`
`the knowledge and/or training of a person holding the degree of Bachelor of Science
`
`in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, or Computer Engineering, or
`
`equivalent, and at least two years of prior experience with image scanning
`
`technology involving transferring and processing of image data to and at a server.
`
`Ex. 1002, ¶ 15. Individuals with additional education or additional industrial
`
`experience could still be of ordinary skill in the art if that additional aspect
`
`compensates for a deficit in one of the other aspects of the requirements stated above.
`
`Id., ¶ 15. This level of skill in the art is reflected by the references cited in this
`
`Petition, the state of the art, and Dr. Alexander’s experience in his work in the
`
`industry. Id., ¶¶ 13-16. In this Petition, reference to a POSITA refers to a person with
`
`these or similar qualifications.
`
`IV. Claim Construction
`The claim terms are to be construed under the same claim construction
`
`standard as civil actions in federal district court. See Changes to Claim Construction
`
`Standard, 83 FED. REG. 51340 (Oct. 11, 2018).
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`In the parallel district court proceeding, the parties disagree on the
`
`construction of several terms from claims at issue in this petition. Ex. 1034, 8-9.3
`
`The parties’ proposed constructions are set forth below. These construction disputes
`
`do not affect the outcome of this petition with respect to any claim.
`
`Term
`mobile device
`(claims 1, 10)
`
`Wells Fargo’s proposal
`a device capable of being
`moved
`
`USAA’s proposal
`a user’s mobile phone,
`personal digital assistant,
`or handheld computing
`device, in all cases
`controlled by a mobile
`operating system
`information pertaining to
`the identification of
`corners of the instrument
`
`No construction necessary.
`
`identification
`information
`pertaining to the
`instrument (claim 5)
`indicia (claims 9, 18) routing or account number No construction necessary.
`instrument (claims 1,
`a formal legal document
`a document that defines
`10)
`rights, duties, entitlements,
`or liabilities, such as a
`negotiable instrument, a
`credit instrument, a debit
`instrument, a financial
`document, a vehicle accident
`document, or an insurance
`document
`
`
`3 The parties claim construction briefs before the District Court have been provided
`
`as Exs. 1035-1037. The May 23, 2019, Markman hearing transcript is not yet
`
`publicly available, but Petitioner should be able to provide a copy within two weeks
`
`if the Board desires one.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`the processor controls the
`information capture
`component to capture
`information of the
`instrument automatically
`when the processor
`determines that the at least
`one feature aligns with the
`alignment guide
`No additional construction
`necessary.
`
`automatically
`capture information
`of the instrument
`when the at least one
`feature aligns with
`the alignment guide
`(claims 1, 10)
`
`the mobile device is
`adapted to capture
`information of the
`instrument (claims 1,
`10)
`
`alignment guide
`(claims 1, 10)
`
`No additional construction
`