UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`v.
`Fintiv, Inc.
`Patent Owner
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00019
`U.S. Patent No. 8,843,125
`_________________________________________________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. CLIFFORD NEUMAN
`
`_________________________________________________________________
`
`Apple Ex. 1003, p. 1
`Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-0019
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 4
`EDUCATION BACKGROUND, PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE, AND
`OTHER QUALIFICATIONS .......................................................................... 4
`III. ASSIGNMENT AND MATERIALS CONSIDERED ................................... 7
`IV. UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW ............................................................ 10
`V.
`LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART ................................................................. 14
`VI. THE ’125 PATENT’S EFFECTIVE FILING DATE ................................... 15
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE ’125 PATENT .......................................................... 16
`A.
`Technological Background ................................................................. 16
`B.
`The ’125 Patent’s Device and System ................................................ 18
`1.
`The Mobile Device ................................................................... 19
`2.
`The Wallet Management System .............................................. 23
`Claims of the ’125 Patent .................................................................... 25
`C.
`VIII. CLAIM INTERPRETATION ....................................................................... 30
`A.
`“Wallet Management Applet (WMA)” ............................................... 32
`B.
`“Widget” .............................................................................................. 39
`C.
`“Mobile Wallet Application” .............................................................. 43
`D.
`“SE Information” ................................................................................. 49
`E.
`“Mobile Device Information” ............................................................. 51
`F.
`“Over-the-Air (OTA) Proxy” and “OTA Proxy” ................................ 54
`G.
`“Provision[ing]” .................................................................................. 60
`H. Other Claim Terms .............................................................................. 61
`IX. UNPATENTABILITY ANALYSIS ............................................................. 61
`
`Apple Ex. 1003, p. 2
`Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-0019
`
`

`

`A. Overview of the Prior Art .................................................................... 61
`1.
`Aiglstorfer ................................................................................. 61
`2.
`Buhot ......................................................................................... 65
`3. Wang ......................................................................................... 67
`4.
`eWallet ...................................................................................... 68
`B. Ground 1: Claims 11, 13-14, 16-17, and 23-25 Are Obvious Over
`Aiglstorfer, Buhot, and Wang ............................................................. 73
`1.
`Claim 11 .................................................................................... 73
`2.
`Claim 13 .................................................................................... 99
`3.
`Claim 14 ..................................................................................100
`4.
`Claim 16 ..................................................................................104
`5.
`Claim 17 ..................................................................................109
`6.
`Claim 23 ..................................................................................110
`7.
`Claim 24 ..................................................................................116
`8.
`Claim 25 ..................................................................................116
`9. Motivation to Combine ...........................................................117
`C. Ground 2: Claims 18 and 20-22 Are Obvious Over Aiglstorfer and
`Wang .................................................................................................. 129
`1.
`Claim 18 ..................................................................................130
`2.
`Claim 20 ..................................................................................140
`3.
`Claim 21 ..................................................................................141
`4.
`Claim 22 ..................................................................................142
`5. Motivation to Combine ...........................................................142
`Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness ............................... 147
`
`D.
`
`
`
`Apple Ex. 1003, p. 3
`Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-0019
`
`

`

`
`
`I, Dr. Clifford Neuman., declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`I have been retained by Apple Inc. (“Apple”) as an independent expert
`
`consultant in this proceeding before the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`(“PTO”). I am not an employee of Apple or any affiliate or subsidiary of Apple.
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to consider whether certain references teach or
`
`suggest the features recited in certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,843,125, which I
`
`refer to herein as the ’125 patent.
`
`3. My opinions and the bases for my opinions are set forth below.
`
`4.
`
`I am being compensated at my ordinary and customary consulting rate
`
`($650 per hour) for my work, plus reimbursement for any reasonable expenses.
`
`My compensation is based solely on the amount of time that I devote to activity
`
`related to this case and is in no way contingent on the nature of my findings, the
`
`presentation of my findings in testimony, or the outcome of this or any other
`
`proceeding. I have no other financial interest in this proceeding.
`
`II. EDUCATION BACKGROUND, PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE,
`AND OTHER QUALIFICATIONS
`5.
`I received a Ph.D. in Computer Science in 1992 and an M.S. in
`
`Computer Science in 1988 from the University of Washington, and a B.S. in
`
`Computer Science and Engineering in 1985 from the Massachusetts Institute of
`
`Technology.
`
`Apple Ex. 1003, p. 4
`Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-0019
`
`

`

`
`
`6.
`
`Since receiving my doctorate, I have devoted my professional career
`
`to the research, design, development, study, and teaching of numerous aspects of
`
`computer systems. I have studied, taught, practiced, and researched in the field of
`
`computer science for over thirty years.
`
`7.
`
`I am currently an Associate Professor of Computer Science Practice in
`
`the Department of Computer Science at the University of Southern California
`
`(USC), where I have taught since 1992. I am also the Director of the Center for
`
`Computer Systems Security and Associate Director of the Informatics Program at
`
`USC and a Research Scientist at USC’s Information Sciences Institute.
`
`8.
`
`I teach and have taught numerous courses at USC, including advanced
`
`courses in computer science for upper-level undergraduates and graduate students,
`
`on topics such as distributed systems and computer and network security.
`
`9.
`
`As part of my research at USC, I have worked in a number of areas,
`
`including research in distributed computer systems with emphasis on scalability
`
`and computer security, especially in the areas of authentication, authorization,
`
`policy, electronic commerce, and protection of cyber-physical systems and critical
`
`infrastructure such as the power grid. I have worked on the design and
`
`development of scalable information, security, and computing infrastructure for the
`
`Internet. I am also the principal designer of the Kerberos system, an encryption-
`
`based authentication system used among other things as the primary authentication
`
`Apple Ex. 1003, p. 5
`Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-0019
`
`

`

`
`
`method for most versions of Microsoft’s Windows, as well as many other systems.
`
`I developed systems which used Kerberos as a base for more comprehensive
`
`computer security services supporting authorization, accounting, and audit. My
`
`research includes managing computer security policies in federated and coalition
`
`environments, and using policy as a unifying element for integrating all security
`
`services including authorization, audit, and intrusion detection with systems and
`
`applications.
`
`10.
`
`In addition to my academic experience, I have many years of practical
`
`experience designing computer security systems. For example, from 1985-1986, I
`
`worked on Project Athena at MIT, to produce a campus-wide distributed
`
`computing environment. I also served as Chief Scientist at CyberSafe Corporation
`
`from 1992-2001. I have designed systems for network payment which build upon
`
`security infrastructure to provide a secure means to pay for services provided over
`
`the Internet. For example, I designed the NetCheque and NetCash systems, which
`
`are suitable for micropayments (payments on the order of pennies where the cost of
`
`clearing a credit card payment would be prohibitive). I am also the principal
`
`designer of the Prospero system which is used to organize and retrieve information
`
`distributed on the Internet. At one time the Prospero system was embedded in
`
`several commercial products, including early internet services provided by
`
`America Online.
`
`Apple Ex. 1003, p. 6
`Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-0019
`
`

`

`
`
`11. As part of my research on computer security and electronic payment
`
`systems I was involved with the integration of portable electronic devices such as
`
`smart cards and PCMCIA cryptographic processors with other computer devices
`
`such as card readers and personal computers.
`
`12.
`
`I have authored or co-authored over 50 academic publications in the
`
`fields of computer science and engineering. In addition, I have been a referee or
`
`editor for the following academic journals: ACM Transaction on Information and
`
`Systems Security and International Journal of Electronic Commerce.
`
`13.
`
`I am also a member of IEEE, Association for Computer Machinery
`
`(ACM), and the Internet Society (ISOC), among others. I have also served as
`
`program and/or general chair of the following conferences: Internet Society
`
`Symposium on Network and Distributed System Security, ACM Conference on
`
`Computer and Communications Security, and Internet Society Symposium on
`
`Network and Distributed System Security.
`
`14. Additional details of my education and work experience, awards and
`
`honors, and publications that may be relevant to the opinions I have formed are set
`
`forth in my curriculum vitae, which accompanies this declaration as Attachment A.
`
`III. ASSIGNMENT AND MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`15.
`I have been asked to provide analysis and explain the subject matter of
`
`the ’125 patent, including the state of the art when the ’125 patent application was
`
`Apple Ex. 1003, p. 7
`Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-0019
`
`

`

`
`
`filed. I have also been asked to consider, analyze, and explain certain prior art to
`
`the ’125 patent including how that art relates to the challenged claims of the ’125
`
`patent and to provide my opinions regarding whether that art invalidates the
`
`claimed subject matter.
`
`16. The opinions expressed in this declaration are not exhaustive of my
`
`opinions regarding the unpatentability of the claims of the ’125 patent. Therefore,
`
`the fact that I do not address a particular point should not be understood to indicate
`
`an agreement on my part that any claim complies with the requirements of any
`
`applicable patent or other rule.
`
`17.
`
`I reserve the right to amend and supplement this declaration in light of
`
`additional evidence, arguments, or testimony presented during this IPR or related
`
`proceedings on the ’125 patent.
`
`18.
`
`In forming the opinions set forth in this declaration, I have considered
`
`and relied upon my education, knowledge of the relevant field, knowledge of
`
`scientific and engineering principles, and my experience. I have also reviewed and
`
`considered the ’125 patent (Exhibit 1001), its prosecution history (Exhibit 1002),
`
`and the following additional materials:
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0138518 to Aiglstorfer et al.
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0190437 to Buhot
`
`Apple Ex. 1003, p. 8
`Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-0019
`
`

`

`
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`eWallet: Users Guide and Reference: Version 5.0, Ilium Software
`(Nov. 2007) (available at https://web.archive.org/web/
`20071110033509/http:/www.iliumsoft.com/gh/download/
`doc/eWallet.pdf)
`
`Excerpt from the File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,646,056 to
`Poplett
`
`CN101459902A to Wang et al.
`
`Certified English translation of CN101459902A to Wang et al. and
`associated translator declaration
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,832,373 to O’Neill
`
`Provisional U.S. Patent App. No. 61/428,846
`
`Provisional U.S. Patent App. No. 61/428,851
`
`Provisional U.S. Patent App. No. 61/428,852
`
`Provisional U.S. Patent App. No. 61/428,853
`
`Apple’s Opening Claim Construction Brief from Fintiv, Inc. v.
`Apple Inc., Case No. 6:18-cv-00372 (W.D. Tex.), Dkt. 71.
`
`Plaintiff Fintiv, Inc.’s Opening Claim Construction Brief from
`Fintiv, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6:18-cv-00372 (W.D. Tex.)
`
`Apple’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief from Fintiv, Inc. v.
`Apple Inc., Case No. 6:18-cv-00372 (W.D. Tex.), Dkt. 72.
`
`Plaintiff Fintiv, Inc.’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief from
`Fintiv, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6:18-cv-00372 (W.D. Tex.),
`Dkt. 75.
`
`Apple’s Reply Claim Construction Brief from Fintiv, Inc. v. Apple
`Inc., Case No. 6:18-cv-00372 (W.D. Tex.), Dkt. 76.
`
`Plaintiff Fintiv, Inc.’s Reply Claim Construction Brief from Fintiv,
`Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6:18-cv-00372 (W.D. Tex.), Dkt. 77.
`
`Apple Ex. 1003, p. 9
`Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-0019
`
`

`

`
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`Agreed Scheduling Order Subsequent to Case Management
`Conference from Fintiv, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6:18-cv-00372
`(W.D. Tex.), Dkt. 38.
`
`Swick et al., “The X Toolkit: More Bricks for Building User-
`Interfaces−or−Widgets For Hire,” published in USENIX Winter
`1988.
`
`Excerpt from Underdahl, “iPAQ™ for Dummies®” (2004) and
`associated Library of Congress Certification
`
`Excerpt from Peacock, “Windows® CE, Clear & Simple” (1999)
`and Associated Library of Congress Certification
`
`Excerpt from McPherson, “How to Do Everything with Your
`Pocket PC” (2nd Ed. 2002) and Associated Library of Congress
`Certification
`
`
`IV. UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW
`19.
`I am not an attorney, but have been instructed in and applied the law
`
`as described in this section.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that the first step in comparing an asserted claim to the
`
`prior art is for the claim to be properly construed. I address how a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood the claims of the alleged invention
`
`in Section VIII below.
`
`21.
`
`I have been further instructed and understand that a patent claim is
`
`unpatentable and invalid as obvious if the subject matter of the claim as a whole
`
`would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art of the claimed
`
`subject matter as of the time of the invention at issue. I understand that when
`
`Apple Ex. 1003, p. 10
`Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-0019
`
`

`

`
`
`assessing the obviousness of claimed subject matter, the following factors are
`
`evaluated: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the difference or
`
`differences between each claim of the patent and the prior art; and (3) the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time the patent was filed.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that claimed subject matter may be obvious in view of
`
`more than one item of prior art. I understand, however, that it is not enough to
`
`show simply that all the limitations of the claimed subject matter are spread
`
`throughout the prior art. Instead, for claimed subject matter to be obvious over
`
`multiple references, there must be some reason or motivation for one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art to combine the prior art references to arrive at the claimed subject
`
`matter.
`
`23.
`
`I have been informed that, in seeking to determine whether an
`
`invention that is a combination of known elements would have been obvious to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, one must consider
`
`the references in their entirety to ascertain whether the disclosures in those
`
`references render the combination obvious to such a person.
`
`24.
`
`I have been informed and understand that, while not required, the
`
`prior art references themselves may provide a teaching, suggestion, motivation, or
`
`reason to combine, but other times the motivation linking two or more prior art
`
`Apple Ex. 1003, p. 11
`Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-0019
`
`

`

`
`
`references is common sense to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that a particular combination may be proven obvious
`
`merely by showing that it was obvious to try the combination. I have been
`
`informed that, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in
`
`the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is
`
`beyond his or her skill.
`
`26.
`
`I further understand that an obviousness analysis recognizes that
`
`market demand, rather than scientific literature, often drives innovation, and that a
`
`motivation to combine references also may be supplied by the direction of the
`
`marketplace. For example, when there is a design need or market pressure to solve
`
`a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a
`
`person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or
`
`her technical grasp because the result is likely the product not of innovation but of
`
`ordinary skill and common sense.
`
`27.
`
`I have been informed that the combination of familiar elements
`
`according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than
`
`yield predictable results. Thus, where all of the elements of a claim are used in
`
`Apple Ex. 1003, p. 12
`Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-0019
`
`

`

`
`
`substantially the same manner, in devices in the same field of endeavor, the claim
`
`is likely obvious.
`
`28. Additionally, I understand that a patent is likely to be invalid for
`
`obviousness if a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation or if
`
`there existed at the time of the invention a known problem for which there was an
`
`obvious solution encompassed by the patent’s claims. Therefore, when a work is
`
`available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can
`
`prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one.
`
`29.
`
`I further understand that combining embodiments related to each other
`
`(e.g., by being disclosed near each other) in a single prior art reference would not
`
`ordinarily require a leap of inventiveness.
`
`30.
`
`I also understand that one of ordinary skill in the art must have had a
`
`reasonable expectation of success when combining references for claimed subject
`
`matter to be obvious.
`
`31.
`
`I have been informed and I understand that factors referred to as
`
`“objective indicia of non-obviousness” or “secondary considerations” are also to
`
`be considered when assessing obviousness when such evidence is available. I
`
`understand that these factors can include: (1) commercial success; (2) long-felt but
`
`unresolved needs; (3) copying of the invention by others in the field; (4) initial
`
`Apple Ex. 1003, p. 13
`Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-0019
`
`

`

`
`
`expressions of disbelief by experts in the field; (5) failure of others to solve the
`
`problem the claimed subject matter solved; and (6) unexpected results.
`
`32.
`
`I also understand that evidence of objective indicia of non-
`
`obviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claimed subject matter. I
`
`further understand that there must be a relationship, sometimes referred to as a
`
`“nexus,” between any such secondary indicia and the claimed invention.
`
`33. Finally, I have been informed that one cannot use hindsight to
`
`determine that an invention was obvious.
`
`34.
`
`I provide my opinions in this report based on the guidelines set forth
`
`above.
`
`V. LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART
`35.
`I have been informed and understand that the level of ordinary skill in
`
`the relevant art at the time of the invention is relevant to inquiries such as the
`
`meaning of claim terms, the meaning of disclosures found in the prior art, and the
`
`reasons one of ordinary skill in the art may have for combining references.
`
`36.
`
`I have been informed and understand that factors that may be
`
`considered in determining the level of ordinary skill include: (1) the education of
`
`the inventor; (2) the type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions
`
`to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication
`
`of the technology; and (6) education level of active workers in the relevant field. I
`
`Apple Ex. 1003, p. 14
`Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-0019
`
`

`

`
`
`have been further informed and understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`is also a person of ordinary creativity.
`
`37.
`
`In my opinion, the ordinarily skilled artisan in the technology field of
`
`the ’125 patent would have had a degree in computer engineering, computer
`
`science, information systems, or a similar discipline and have 3-4 years of
`
`experience with the design and/or implementation of mobile applications in a
`
`client/server environment.
`
`38. Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be aware of and
`
`generally knowledgeable about mobile application development platforms, APIs,
`
`and protocols, along with the servers that make the operation of mobile
`
`applications possible.
`
`39.
`
`In view of my educational background (e.g. a Ph.D. in Computer
`
`Science obtained in 1992) and decades of experience designing and developing
`
`software (including software allowing for secure payments) as explained in Section
`
`II, I was a person of more than the ordinary level of skill in the art as of December
`
`2010. My opinions herein, however, were formed taking into account the
`
`perspective of an ordinarily skilled artisan.
`
`VI. THE ’125 PATENT’S EFFECTIVE FILING DATE
`40.
`I understand that the application leading to the ’125 patent was filed
`
`on December 2, 2011.
`
`Apple Ex. 1003, p. 15
`Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-0019
`
`

`

`
`
`41. Based on my review of the ’125 patent, I note that it references a
`
`collection of four provisional applications, all of which were filed on December
`
`30, 2010. This includes Provisional App. No. 61/428,846 (“the ’846 provisional”
`
`or Ex. 1012), Provisional App. No. 61/428,851 (“the ’851 provisional” or Ex.
`
`1013), Provisional App. No. 61/428,852 (“the ’852 provisional” or Ex. 1014), and
`
`Provisional App. No. 61/428,853 (“the ’853 provisional” or Ex. 1015).
`
`42. For purposes of this declaration, I have been instructed to use
`
`December 30, 2010 as the effective filing date. My opinions in this declaration
`
`were formed from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art as of
`
`December 30, 2010, including both the knowledge of a person or ordinary skill in
`
`the art at that time as well as how a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand the prior art.
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE ’125 PATENT
`A. Technological Background
`43. The ’125 patent is directed to a “system and method for managing
`
`mobile wallet and its related credentials.” (’125 patent at Title.)
`
`44. The ’125 patent begins with a discussion of the “Background of the
`
`Invention” which identifies mobile wallet features that were already known in the
`
`art before the patent was filed. (’125 patent at 1:27-2:51.)
`
`Apple Ex. 1003, p. 16
`Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-0019
`
`

`

`
`
`45. For example, the patent notes that when it was filed in 2010, “mobile
`
`technology” was “advancing” such that “mobile devices, such as mobile
`
`communication terminals, have practically become a necessity for everyday
`
`needs.” (’125 patent at 1:28-32.)
`
`46. The patent goes on to explain that “[i]n order to further utilize mobile
`
`technology to better cater to a user’s daily requirements, attempts have been made
`
`to provide for a mobile financial management system to replace conventional
`
`physical wallets.” (’125 patent at 1:32-36.)
`
`47. This, according to the patent, was accomplished by “provisioning of
`
`card issuer’s account information directly into a secure element (SE) of the mobile
`
`device equipped with Near Field communication (NFC) chipset” which can then be
`
`accessed via a “mobile wallet application” that has “the same composition as a
`
`conventional wallet” containing multiple different cards. (’125 patent at 1:36-46.)
`
`48. Next, the patent notes that because known, prior art wallets were
`
`“NFC enabled,” they allow for “contactless payments.” (’125 patent at1:47-62.)
`
`In other words, “[o]nce the user financial credentials have been provisioned onto
`
`the NFC enabled mobile device, the provisioned NFC enabled device may transfer
`
`information or make payments to another NFC compatible device by coming near
`
`within a few centimeters of one another without physically contacting each other.
`
`This type of technology is conventionally referred to as ‘contactless’ technology
`
`Apple Ex. 1003, p. 17
`Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-0019
`
`

`

`
`
`and a payment made with this technology is referred to as ‘contactless’ payment.”
`
`(’125 patent at 1:47-62.)
`
`49.
`
` Further, the ’125 patent recognizes that a mobile device could include
`
`multiple contactless cards, along with a “way to select a contactless payment applet
`
`(i.e., contactless payment virtual card) from various contactless payment applets
`
`stored in the mobile device for payment at corresponding point-of-sale (POS)
`
`devices.” (’125 patent at 2:1-6.)
`
`50.
`
`In other words, before the ’125 patent was filed, electronic wallet
`
`applications, similar in form and function to “conventional” wallets were known
`
`and available. These wallets utilized the secure element in a mobile device, and
`
`allowed a user to select and use multiple different “contactless” cards to make
`
`purchases using applets stored in their mobile device’s secure element.
`
`B.
`The ’125 Patent’s Device and System
`51. While mobile wallet applications were already in existence before
`
`the ’125 patent was filed, the patent notes that “while these contactless payment
`
`applets may be selected to make a purchase, the management of payment applets
`
`may be limited. For example, a user may be limited to view the contactless
`
`payment applets stored in the user's mobile device when interacting with a POS
`
`device. Further, even if the user is able to view the various contactless payment
`
`applets stored in the mobile device with or without the POS device, the user may
`
`Apple Ex. 1003, p. 18
`Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-0019
`
`

`

`
`
`be unable to view the details related to the contactless payment applets (e.g.,
`
`account number, expiration date, security code, balance and the like). Accordingly,
`
`users may be unable to effectively manage or keep track of various contactless
`
`payment applets stored in their respective mobile devices.” (’125 patent at 2:6-18.)
`
`52. Next, “services may be offered to the users without regard to the
`
`mobile device capabilities or mobile service providers utilized by the user. Due to
`
`technical or business compatibility, there may be numerous applications that may
`
`be inapplicable to the user’s individual attributes (e.g., bank membership, mobile
`
`service provider, manufacturer of a mobile device owned by the user, type of
`
`secure element installed in the mobile device, operating system of the mobile
`
`device, and the like). Accordingly, users may often be bombarded with various
`
`applications that may be inapplicable to the user, making the process more difficult
`
`than necessary.” (’125 patent at 2:30-44.)
`
`53. The ’125 patent then goes on to discuss a “mobile device to store a
`
`mobile wallet application and a wallet management system (WMS) to sore
`
`corresponding wallet application information.” (’125 patent at 2:55-58.)
`
`1.
`The Mobile Device
`54. Figure 2 of the ’125 patent provides an overview of a mobile device
`
`that includes the various components making up the ’125 patent’s mobile wallet.
`
`This figure has been annotated below. I note that the ’125 patent does not purport
`
`Apple Ex. 1003, p. 19
`Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-0019
`
`

`

`
`
`to have invented any new hardware components or structures. As shown, the
`
`mobile device includes a mobile wallet application 24 (highlighted orange), an
`
`OTA proxy (highlighted green), and a secure element (highlighted purple). The
`
`secure element itself includes multiple different contactless card applets 23
`
`(highlighted blue) and a wallet management applet 21 (highlighted yellow):
`
`55. The paragraphs below discuss each of these mobile wallet
`
`
`
`components in turn.
`
`56. Mobile Wallet Application: According to the ’125 patent, the mobile
`
`wallet application is a software application that is downloaded and installed on a
`
`Apple Ex. 1003, p. 20
`Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-0019
`
`

`

`
`
`mobile device to provide the user with access to multiple different contactless
`
`cards in a manner similar to “a conventional wallet.” (’125 patent at 1:43-46.)
`
`57. This is facilitated with the use of multiple “widgets,” i.e.
`
`“application[s] configured to interface with a user of the mobile device. In an
`
`example, widgets may refer to individual payment applications, transportation
`
`applications, and other related applications.” (’125 patent at 5:4-9; 9:2-5.)
`
`58. OTA Proxy: The OTA (or “over-the-air”) proxy is a piece of
`
`software on the mobile device that allows for the wireless transmission of
`
`information between a server and the secure element in a mobile device. (’125
`
`patent at 3:1-11, 6:34-41; Fig. 2.)
`
`59. Secure Element, Contactless Card Applets, and WMA: Next,
`
`the ’125 patent’s “secure element” (which is sometimes referred to by the acronym
`
`“SE”) is a component like a chip located within the mobile device that stores
`
`information in a manner “not…easily accessed by external parties.” (’125 patent at
`
`1:40-43.) I note here that various “secure element” chips were known in the art
`
`prior to the effective filing date of the ’125 patent and that the ’125 patent does not
`
`purport to have invented the “secure element.”
`
`60.
`
`In the ’125 patent, the “secure element” is responsible for storing both
`
`contactless card applets, the electronic versions of cards that allow for contactless
`
`Apple Ex. 1003, p. 21
`Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-0019
`
`

`

`
`
`payment, and the wallet management applet (or “WMA”) that includes duplicate
`
`card account information. (’125 patent at Fig. 2.)
`
`61. The ’125 patent explains that each contactless card corresponds to a
`
`conventional card. For instance, there may be a “VISA® contactless card applet”
`
`that corresponds to a user’s VISA® card account. (’125 patent at 8:60-62.)
`
`During use, the “the contactless card information, which may include account
`
`specific information” is “transmit[ted] … to a POS device to complete the
`
`transaction.” (’125 patent at 7:20-31.) According to the ’125 patent, the
`
`“contactless card applets may largely be inaccessible by the user.” (’125 patent at
`
`7:20-31.)
`
`62. The “secure element” also includes a separate “wallet management
`
`applet.” (’125 patent at Fig. 2.) This “WMA 21 container is a software application
`
`that … manage[s] account information related to the contactless card applet 23” to
`
`provide the user with access to the “typically inaccessible” card information. (’125
`
`patent at 7:16-20, 8:66-9:5.) “The respective account information or WMA 21
`
`applet may be provided by duplicating the account information associated with the
`
`contactless card when the TSM system receives contactless card applets from SPs
`
`to provision into the mobile device 100.” (’125 patent at 7:43-47.)
`
`Apple Ex. 1003, p. 22
`Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-0019
`
`

`

`
`
`63. As