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
`
`Title: SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MANAGING MOBILE
`WALLET AND ITS RELATED CREDENTIALS
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`THE ’125 PATENT ........................................................................................ 2
`A.
`Brief Description of the ’125 Patent Disclosure .................................. 2
`B.
`Prosecution History .............................................................................. 6
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL ................................................................... 7
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................... 8
`A.
`“mobile device information” .............................................................. 10
`B.
`“mobile wallet application” ................................................................ 11
`C.
`“over-the-air (OTA) proxy”, “OTA proxy” ....................................... 11
`D.
`“provision[ing]” .................................................................................. 13
`E.
`“SE information” ................................................................................ 13
`F.
`“wallet management applet” .............................................................. 13
`G.
`“widget” .............................................................................................. 14
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ALLEGED PRIOR ART ......................................... 15
`A. Aiglstorfer - U.S. 2010/0138518, Ex. 1004 (“Aiglstorfer”) .............. 15
`B.
`Buhot - - U.S. 2010/0190437, Ex. 1005 (“Buhot”) ............................ 17
`C. Wang................................................................................................... 20
`VI. Argument ...................................................................................................... 22
`A.
`The Board Should Exercise its Discretion and Deny Institution
`Under §314(a) AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(b). ..................................... 22
`1.
`The District Court Trial is Scheduled for November 16,
`2020, Six Months Before the Estimated Deadline to Issue
`a Final Written Decision. ......................................................... 23
`The Identical Claims and Invalidity Arguments are
`Asserted in Both the IPR and the District Court Litigation ..... 24
`The District Court Already Entered a Claim Construction
`Order ........................................................................................ 25
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`

`

`4.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`C.
`
`Substantial Resources Have Already Been Invested in the
`District Court Proceeding. ....................................................... 26
`VII. PETITIONER HAS NOT SHOWN A REASONABLE
`LIKELIHOOD THAT ALL THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS OF THE
`’125 PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 ........... 27
`A.
`Legal Standard .................................................................................... 27
`B. Ground 1: Claims 11, 13-14, 16-17, and 23-25 Are Obvious
`Over Aiglstorfer, Buhot, and Wang ................................................... 30
`Claim 11 Would Not Have Been Obvious in View of
`Aiglstorfer, Buhot and Wang ............................................................. 30
`1.
`Limitation 11a: “activating the mobile wallet
`application” .............................................................................. 30
`Limitation 11c: “synchronizing the mobile wallet
`application with the TSM system” ........................................... 31
`Limitation 11d: “displaying a contactless card applet
`based on attributes of the mobile device” ................................ 32
`Limitation 11e: “receiving a selection of a contactless
`card applet” .............................................................................. 36
`Limitation 11f: “retrieving a widget and a wallet
`management applet (WMA) corresponding to the
`contactless card applet”; Limitation 11g: “provisioning
`the selected contactless card applet, the widget, and the
`WMA.” ..................................................................................... 36
`Claim 13 Would Not Have Been Obvious in View of
`Aiglstorfer, Buhot and Wang ............................................................. 38
`1.
`Claim 13: The method of claim 11, wherein
`synchronizing the mobile wallet application with the
`TSM system comprises: checking for a change made to a
`configuration of the mobile wallet application; and
`transmitting the change to the TSM system.” .......................... 38
`Claim 14 Would Not Have Been Obvious in View of
`Aiglstorfer, Buhot and Wang ............................................................. 39
`
`D.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`E.
`
`

`

`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 14: The method of claim 11, wherein displaying a
`contactless card applet based on attributes of the mobile
`device comprises: retrieving mobile device information
`comprising SE information; transmitting the mobile
`device information”.................................................................. 39
`“receiving filtered contactless card applet for
`provisioning, wherein the contactless card applet is
`filtered based on the mobile device information” .................... 39
`Claim 16 Would Not Have Been Obvious in View of
`Aiglstorfer, Buhot and Wang ............................................................. 41
`1.
`Claim 16: The method of claim 11, wherein provisioning
`the selected contactless card applet, WMA and widget
`comprises: transmitting a request for installation of the
`contactless applet and the corresponding widget and
`WMA to be installed, wherein the WMA is a software
`application configured to store account specific
`information and the widget is an application configured
`to interface with a user of the mobile device” ......................... 41
`“receiving the contactless applet, the WMA, and the
`widget information through OTA proxy” ................................ 41
`Claim 17 Would Not Have Been Obvious in View of
`Aiglstorfer, Buhot and Wang ............................................................. 43
`1.
`Claim 17: The method of claim 16, wherein account
`specific information comprises at least one of a payment
`card number, a security code, an expiration date, and a
`personal identification number (PIN).” ................................... 43
`Claim 23 Would Not Have Been Obvious in View of
`Aiglstorfer, Buhot and Wang ............................................................. 44
`1.
`Limitation 23b: “a mobile wallet application configured
`to store a widget corresponding to a contactless card
`applet, wherein the contactless card applet is stored in the
`SE” ........................................................................................... 44
`Limitation 23c: “a wallet management applet (WMA)
`corresponding to the contactless card applet, wherein the
`WMA is stored in the SE” ....................................................... 44
`
`2.
`
`2.
`
`

`

`I.
`
`J.
`
`4.
`
`Limitation 23d: “an over-the-air (OTA) proxy
`configured to provision the contactless card applet, a
`widget corresponding to the contactless card applet, and
`the WMA” ................................................................................ 45
`Limitation 23e: “wherein said OTA proxy is configured
`to capture mobile device information comprising SE
`information”; Limitation 23f: “wherein said OTA proxy
`is configured to transmit the mobile device information
`for registering the mobile wallet application.” ....................... 45
`Claim 24 Would Not Have Been Obvious in View of
`Aiglstorfer, Buhot and Wang ............................................................. 46
`1.
`Claim 24: “The mobile device of claim 23, wherein
`WMA is configured to store account information
`associated with the contactless card applet, and the
`widget is configured to include a user interface.” ................... 46
`Claim 25 Would Not Have Been Obvious in View of
`Aiglstorfer, Buhot and Wang ............................................................. 46
`1.
`Claim 25: “The mobile device of claim 24, wherein the
`account information comprises at least one of a card
`number to access financial information, a security code, a
`personal identification number (PIN), and an expiration
`date.” ........................................................................................ 46
`VIII. A POSITA WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MOTIVATED TO
`COMBINE AIGLSTORFER AND BUHOT, AIGLSTORFER AND
`WANG, OR AIGLSTORFER, BUHOT AND WANG ............................... 47
`IX. GROUND 2: CLAIMS 18, AND 20-22 WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN
`OBVIOUS OVER THE COMBINATION OF AIGLSTORFER AND
`WANG .......................................................................................................... 55
`A.
`Claim 18 Would Not Have Been Obvious in View of
`Aiglstorfer and Wang ......................................................................... 55
`1.
`Limitation 18a: “a wallet client management component
`configured to store and to manage a mobile wallet
`application” .............................................................................. 55
`Limitation 18b: “a widget management component
`configured to store and to manage widgets” ............................ 56
`
`3.
`
`2.
`
`

`

`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Limitation 18c: “a device profile management
`component configured to store mobile device
`information” ............................................................................. 57
`Limitation 18d: “a rule engine configured to filter a
`widget based on the mobile device information” .................... 58
`Limitation 18e: “wherein said wallet management system
`is configured to receive the mobile device information
`from a mobile device and store the mobile device
`information in the device profile management
`component” .............................................................................. 59
`Limitation 18f: “wherein said wallet management system
`is configured to register the mobile device and the mobile
`wallet application in a Trusted Service Manager (TSM)
`system” ..................................................................................... 59
`Claim 20 Would Not Have Been Obvious in View of
`Aiglstorfer and Wang ......................................................................... 60
`1.
`Claim 20: The WMS of claim 18, wherein the mobile
`device information comprises at least one of a mobile
`device type, a supporting Operating System (OS), a
`mobile service provider, a mobile device manufacturer,
`and a secure element (SE) type.” ............................................. 60
`Claim 21 Would Not Have Been Obvious in View of
`Aiglstorfer and Wang ......................................................................... 61
`1.
`Claim 21: The WMS of claim 18, further comprising a
`user profile management component to capture and
`manage user identifying information” ..................................... 61
`Claim 22 Would Not Have Been Obvious in View of
`Aiglstorfer and Wang ......................................................................... 62
`1.
`Claim 22: The WMS of claim 18, wherein the WMS is
`hosted on the TSM system.” .................................................... 62
`A POSITA Would Not Have Been Motivated to Combine
`Aiglstorfer and Wang ......................................................................... 62
`SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS OF NONOBVIOUSNESS .............. 63
`A.
`Commercial Success........................................................................... 63
`
`D.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`E.
`
`X.
`
`

`

`B.
`
`The invention diverged from the technical direction followed by
`those skilled in the art and filled a long-felt but unsatisfied
`need. .................................................................................................... 65
`Copying .............................................................................................. 66
`C.
`D. Acquiescence and Licensing .............................................................. 66
`E.
`Skepticism .......................................................................................... 66
`XI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 67
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule
`Patent Litig.,
`676 F.3d 1063 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 28
`In re Dow Chem. Co.,
`837 F.2d 469 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ............................................................................ 28
`E-One, Inc. v. Oshkosh Corp.,
`IPR2019-00161, Paper 16 (P.T.A.B. May 15, 2019) ......................................... 24
`E-One, Inc. v. Oshkosh, Corp.,
`IPR2019-00162, Paper 16 (P.T.A.B. June 5, 2019) ..................................... 25, 26
`General Plastics Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha,
`IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 . (P.T.A.B. Sept. 6, 2017)......................................... 23
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) .......................................................................................... 27, 28
`Heart Failure Tech., LLC v. Cardiokinetix, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00183, Paper No. 12 (P.T.A.B. July 31, 2013) ................................... 29
`InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc’ns, Inc.,
`751 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................... 29, 30
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 167 L. Ed. 2d 705 (2007) ................................. 48
`NetApp, Inc. v. Realtime Data LLC,
`IPR2017-01195, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 12, 2017) ............................................ 24
`Next Caller, Inc. v. TrustID, Inc.,
`IPR2019-00961, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 16, 2019) .......................................... 24
`Nhk Spring Co., Ltd. v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc.,
`No. IPR2018-00752, 2018 WL 4373643 (PTAB Sept. 12, 2018) ............... 23, 26
`
`

`

`In re NTP, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 28
`Otsuka Pharm. Co. v. Sandoz, Inc.,
`678 F.3d 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 29
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Red Rock Analytics, LLC,
`IPR2018-00557, Paper 18 (P.T.A.B. August 20, 2018) ........................... 2, 47, 48
`Sony Corp. of Am. v. Network-1 Sec. Sols., Inc.,
`IPR2013-00092, Paper No. 21 (P.T.A.B. May 24, 2013) ............................ 28, 29
`Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,
`655 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 28
`In re Stepan Co.,
`868 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 29
`In re Wright,
`866 F.2d 422 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ............................................................................ 28
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. 102(e) ........................................................................................................ 6
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................ 27
`35 U.S.C. § 313 .......................................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ............................................................................................passim
`35 U.S.C. § 316(b) ................................................................................................... 23
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER’S UDPATED EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`2007
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012
`2013
`
`2014
`
`Description
`Declaration of John W. Downing in Support of
`Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing
`Email dated 11-20-19 from Travis Jensen to counsel
`for Fintiv re seeking leave to file Markman order
`Email dated 11-22-19 from Travis Jensen to the
`Board requesting a conference call
`Email dated 12-2-19 from Travis Jensen to John
`Downing re intending to rely on Section II.B.6 of the
`July 2019 Trial Practice Guide Update
`Email dated 12-3-19 from Travis Jensen to the Board
`confirming parties met and conferred
`July 2019 Trial Practice Guide
`Declaration of Dr. Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D.
`Second Amended Complaint for Patent
`Infringement, Dkt. 92, Fintiv, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`Civil Action No. 19-cv-01238-ADA
`Minute Entry setting trial date, Dkt. 82, Fintiv, Inc.
`v. Apple Inc., Civil Action No. 19-cv-01238-ADA
`Apple’s Invalidity Contentions Chart A-3 -
`Aiglstorfer Chart
`Fintiv’s Preliminary Infringement Contentions
`Exhibit A
`The Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th Ed., 2002)
`Mozido Adds Big Piece to Its Mobile-Pay Puzzle
`with CorFire Purchase, Dec. 18, 2014, available at
`https://www.paymentssource.com/news/mozido-
`adds-big-piece-to-its-mobile-pay-puzzle-with-
`corfire-purchase
`Apple Press Release, “Apple Pay Set to Transform
`Mobile Payments Starting October 20,” October 16,
`2014, available at:
`https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2014/10/16Apple-
`Pay-Set-to-Transform-Mobile-Payments-Starting-
`October-20/
`
`

`

`Exhibit No.
`
`2015
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`2021
`
`2022
`2023
`
`Description
`Braithwaite, Tom et al., “Apple Wages War on the
`Wallet,” September 15, 2014, available at:
`https://www.cnbc.com/2014/09/15/apple-wages-war-
`on-the-wallet.html
`Moon, Brad, “Apple In’s Apple Pay Volume
`Skyrockets 500%,” October 26, 2016, available at:
`https://investorplace.com/2016/10/apple-inc-aapl-
`apple-pay-volume-iplace/
`Rogers, Adams, “Apple Pay Transactions Rose
`Significantly in Q4 of Fiscal 2018,” Nov. 27, 2018,
`available at:
`https://marketrealist.com/2018/11/apple-pay-
`transactions-rose-significantly-in-q4-of-fiscal-2018/
`Miller, Chance, “Apple Pay Transaction Volume
`Growing 4x as Fast as PayPal, Tim Cook Says,”
`October 30, 2019, available at:
`https://9to5mac.com/2019/10/30/apple-pay-
`transaction-volume-paypal/
`Lovejoy, Ben, “Apple Pay Revenue is Heading
`Toward a Multi-Billion Dollar Business,” February
`12, 2020, available at:
`https://9to5mac.com/2020/02/12/apple-pay-revenue/
`Financial Alchemist, “Apple Pay Revenue Estimates
`and Future Potential,” April 25, 2019, available at:
`https://financial-
`alchemist.blogspot.com/2019/04/apple-aapl-apple-
`pay-revenue-estimates.html
`Murphy, Mike, “ Apple Pay is a Sleeper Hit,”
`January 22, 2019, available at:
`https://qz.com/1799912/apple-pay-on-pace-to-
`account-for-10-percent-of-global-card-transactions/
`Resume of Michael Ian Shamos
`Agreed Scheduling Order, Dkt. 38, Fintiv, Inc. v.
`Apple Inc., Civil Action No. 19-cv-01238-ADA
`
`

`

`

`

`IPR2020-00019
`Patent No.: 8,843,125
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Fintiv, Inc. (“Fintiv” or “Patent Owner”) respectfully submits its Preliminary
`
`Response (“Response”) in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 313 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`in response to Apple Inc.’s (“Apple” or “Petitioner”) Petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review (“IPR”) (Paper 1) and supplemental IPR petition (Paper 7) that challenges
`
`Claims 11, 13-14, 16-18, and 20-25 of U.S. Patent No. 8,843,125. (Ex. 1001, “the
`
`’125 Patent”.) This Response is timely under 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(b) because it was
`
`filed within three months of November 15, 2019, the Filing Date Accorded to
`
`Petition (Paper No. 3).
`
`Initially, the Board should exercise its discretion and deny institution under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. §42.108(a) to prevent duplicative proceedings in
`
`the PTAB and district court and to promote efficiency. Specifically, the district court
`
`trial is set for November 16, 2020, an estimated six months before the PTAB’s
`
`deadline to issue a final written decision. Moreover, Petitioner has made identical
`
`invalidity arguments in the district court and in the IPR, and the district court has
`
`already issued a claim construction order. This is an inefficient use of the Board’s
`
`time and resources and creates a second identical follow-on proceeding, which does
`
`not advance the Board’s goal of efficiency.
`
`The Board should also deny institution because each of the grounds advanced
`
`in the Petition is flawed. Petitioner’s analysis of the prior art references simply gloss
`
`

`

`Case No. 2020-00019
`Patent No.: 8,843,125
`
`over what is required in the limitation, and advances claim construction positions
`
`rejected by the district court. The IPR also improperly uses hindsight to piece
`
`references together based on the patent claims themselves. Samsung Electronics
`
`Co., Ltd. v. Red Rock Analytics, LLC, IPR2018-00557, Paper 18 (P.T.A.B. August
`
`20, 2018) (finding it was impermissible to rely on the patent itself “as a roadmap for
`
`putting what amounts to pieces of a jigsaw puzzle together.”)
`
`Fintiv does not point out every deficiency of the Petition, but instead reserves
`
`the right to make additional arguments and provide additional evidentiary support if
`
`required later. Fintiv respectfully submits that the Petition should be denied in its
`
`entirety.
`
`II.
`
`THE ’125 PATENT
`A.
`Brief Description of the ’125 Patent Disclosure
`The ’125 Patent relates to virtual card management stored on mobile devices
`
`and discloses provisioning a contactless card in a mobile device with a mobile wallet
`
`application. The ’125 patent, however, identifies a number of shortcomings in
`
`mobile wallet functionality. Mobile wallets lacked “an effective means to manage
`
`various payment applets residing within the mobile device.” (Ex. 1001 at 1:63-67.)
`
`Although the prior art allowed users to select contactless payment virtual cards from
`
`contactless payment applets stored in the mobile device for use with point-of-sale
`
`(“POS”) devices, management of the payment applets was less than ideal. For
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case No. 2020-00019
`Patent No.: 8,843,125
`
`example, users were limited to view contactless payment applets stored in the user’s
`
`mobile device when interacting with a POS device and the user was unable to view
`
`details of the contactless payment applets even when making a payment with the
`
`POS device. (Id. at 2:6-18.) Industry standards at the time, Payment Procedure
`
`Secure Elements (“PPSE”), provided a very limited generic description to the user
`
`that included an application identification (ID) and label (Id. at 2:19-29) such that
`
`the user was unable to view any account specific information stored within the SE
`
`or manage the applications with or without the use of POS equipment. (Id.)
`
`Additionally, mobile commerce services were offered to users without regard to
`
`mobile device capabilities or mobile service providers actually utilized by the user.
`
`(Id. at 2:30-44.) Because service providers operated independently, individual
`
`applications were also updated separately, which dissuaded users from obtaining
`
`critical updates to particular applications. (Id. at 2:45-51.) The ’125 patent also
`
`discloses a Trusted Service Manager System which is positioned to consolidate
`
`information from various service providers and to act as an integration point for all
`
`of the external parties which provided a more seamless and efficient operation of
`
`mobile services. (Id. at 5:36-46.) Thus, the ’125 patent did not invent the idea of a
`
`mobile wallet or using a mobile wallet with NFC technology, but instead addresses
`
`numerous shortcomings of the technology as it existed at that time. (Ex. 2007,
`
`Declaration of Dr. Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D (“Shamos”) at ¶ 40.)
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Figure 2 shows an embodiment of a method to install the mobile wallet
`
`application on a mobile device.
`
`Case No. 2020-00019
`Patent No.: 8,843,125
`
`In step 201, the mobile device (201) requests a new mobile wallet application
`
`from the TSM (120). (Id. at 5:55-56.) When installation is executed, a widget
`
`representing a virtual card (e.g. a virtual credit card) is provisioned to reside within
`
`the mobile wallet application 24. (Id. at 5:55-60; 5:66-6:4.) The user initiates the
`
`actual installation process by sending a request to the TSM in step 205 and the TSM
`
`transmits the requested mobile wallet application 24 for installation along with an
`
`accompanying over-the-air proxy program to allow OTA provisioning in step 206.
`
`(Id. at 6:31-41.) In step 208, the OTA proxy captures mobile device information,
`-4-
`
`

`

`Case No. 2020-00019
`Patent No.: 8,843,125
`
`which can be stored in device memory. (Id. at 6:52-60.) At step 209, the OTA proxy
`
`sends captured SE and mobile device information to the TSM, which may include a
`
`Widget Management System 110 (“WMS”). (Id. at 6:63-67.) The WMS 110, upon
`
`receipt of the information provided by the OTA proxy, creates a Mobile
`
`identification for the installed mobile wallet application in step 210. The WMS 110
`
`then requests TSM to provision a wallet management applet (“WMA”) via OTA
`
`proxy; the WMA may include a WMA container and one or more WMA applets and
`
`may manage the information stored in the WMA applets. (Id. at 7:4-11.) In step
`
`211 and 212, the TSM sends a wake up message to the mobile push server to wake
`
`up the OTA proxy residing in the mobile device. (Id. at 7:51-54.) In step 213, the
`
`OTA proxy gathers mobile device and SE specific information and sends it to the
`
`TSM. (Id. at 7:58-65.) The TSM processes information received from the OTA
`
`Proxy in step 213 and converts the identifying information along with the request to
`
`provision WMA 21 container into Application Protocol Data Unit (APDU)
`
`commands in step 214 and sends them over to the OTA proxy in step 215. (Id. at
`
`7:59-8:4.) In Step 216, the OTA proxy receives the APDU commands to install
`
`WMA container and relays them to the SE which processes the APDU commands
`
`to install the requested WMA container and its associated credentials and the SE
`
`responds back with results of each command request in step 217. (Id. at 8:5-14.)
`
`The OTA Proxy relays the result back to the TSM in step 218 and the TSM updates
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case No. 2020-00019
`Patent No.: 8,843,125
`
`its system with results. Once successfully installed, the user may provision specific
`
`contactless card applets and widget applications and WMA applet onto the mobile
`
`device. (Id. at 8:18-22.)
`
`The mobile wallet application describes synchronization in Figure 5. (Id. at
`
`8:29-35.) The ’125 explains that when the user logs into the mobile wallet
`
`application, the mobile wallet application checks with the TSM system/WMS for
`
`any modifications to the wallet configuration since the last login. (Id. at 11:35-47.)
`
`Dynamic filtering is disclosed in Figure 4 (Id. at 4:15-19; 10:9-11:4.) The
`
`user first logs into the mobile wallet application, which seeks to connect with the
`
`TSM system 120/WMS 110. (Id. at 10:15-17.) The request is relayed to the Rule
`
`Engine in TSM system which queries the user account for equipment information
`
`and based on this information, a filtered list of downloadable applications may be
`
`displayed to the mobile device. (Id. at 10:18-26.)
`
`Prosecution History
`B.
`During prosecution of the ’125 application, the examiner rejected claims 1-25
`
`under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Desai et al. (US
`
`2014/0089185). (Ex. 1002, April 24, 2014 Office Action, at 72.) The applicant
`
`successfully argued that Desai merely discloses an OTA trusted service manager,
`
`“but was silent on capturing mobile device information by using the OTA proxy
`
`wherein the mobile device information comprises secure element information.” (Id.,
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Case No. 2020-00019
`Patent No.: 8,843,125
`
`July 24, 2014 Amendment at 97.) The applicant also argued that Desai was “silent
`
`in disclosing or teaching the feature of transmitting the mobile device information
`
`for registering the installed mobile wallet application” and was silent in disclosing
`
`and teaching “synchronizing the mobile wallet application with the TSM system.”
`
`(Id. at 97-98.) A notice of allowance thereafter issued. (Id., August 6, 2014 Notice
`
`of Allowance at 108.)
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`A POSITA should have at least a degree in computer engineering, computer
`
`science, information systems, or a similar discipline, or equivalent work experience
`
`and, in addition have at least two years of experience with design and/or
`
`implementation of mobile financial applications in a client/server environment,
`
`including over-the-air provisioning of secure elements. (Shamos at ¶ 35.)
`
`Petitioner’s proposal of 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 (Ex. 1003, “Neuman,” at ¶ 37) is not sufficient. (Shamos at ¶ 33.) The
`
`claims of the ’125 patent are drawn to mobile wallet applications, secure elements,
`
`and communications with a Trusted Service manager. (Id. at ¶ 33) Petitioner’s
`
`proposal for level of ordinary skill omits these. (Id.)
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`Case No. 2020-00019
`Patent No.: 8,843,125
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`In the intervening time since the petition was filed, the district court issued a
`
`final claim construction ruling (Ex. 1027) that addressed certain terms under the
`
`same claim construction standard. For purposes of this proceeding, Patent Owner
`
`submits that all terms should be interpreted consistent with the constructions adopted
`
`in the district court’s claim construction ruling. (Ex. 1027 at 34; Shamos at ¶ 56).
`
`To determine whether the district court construction should be applied, the Board
`
`uses non-exclusive factors such as (1) similarities between the actions, (2) whether
`
`the prior claim construction is final, and (3) whether the terms construed by the
`
`district court are necessary for the Board in deciding issues before it. (Ex. 2006 at
`
`13.) Petitioner has argued that its constructions should be applied, but that if the
`
`district court’s constructions were adopted, the ’125 patent is still obvious” under
`
`the arguments Petitioner advances. (Paper 7 at 1.) Factors 1-3 all favor the district
`
`court constructions since Petitioner advocates for the identical claim constructions it
`
`made to the district court action, the district court entered a final order on the same
`
`terms, and because Petitioner argues that the constructions are invalid under its
`
`proposed constructions or the district court’s constructions. Below is a chart showing
`
`the district court and Apple’s proposed constructions.
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`Case No. 2020-00019
`Patent No.: 8,843,125
`
`Apple District Court and IPR
`Construction
`“software application for storing
`duplicate account specific
`information accessible to the
`mobile wallet application.”
`(Ex. 1027 at 5; Paper 1 at 14.)
`
`“user interface software
`application”
`(Ex. 1027 at 13; Paper 1 at 16.)
`
`“mobile wallet software
`application capable of being
`independently downloaded and
`installed”
`(Ex. 1027 at 17; Paper 1 at 18.)
`“information relating to the secure
`element”
`(Ex. 1027 at 21; Paper 1 at 18.)
`
`“hardware or software properties
`relating to the mobile device.”
`(Ex. 1027 at 25; Paper 1 at 19.)
`“mobile device software
`application for communication
`
`Term
`
`District Court’s Construction1
`
`“WMA”
`
`“Widget”
`
`“mobile
`wallet
`application”
`
`“SE
`information”
`
`“Mobile
`device
`information”
`“Over-the-Air
`(OTA)
`
`software that enables
`management of an electronic
`wallet including, but not
`limited to, the functionality of
`storing account specific
`information
`(Ex. 1027 at 34.)
`Plain-and-ordinary meaning,
`where the plain-and-ordinary
`meaning is
`software that is either an
`application or works with an
`application, and
`which may have a user
`interface.
`(Ex. 1027 at 34.)
`Plain-and-ordinary meaning
`(Ex. 1027 at 34.)
`
`information related to the SE
`including, but not limited to,
`production life cycle, card
`serial number, card image
`number, and
`integrated circuit card
`identification
`(Ex. 1027 at 34.)
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`(Ex. 1027 at 34.)
`
`“software, in conjunction with
`relevant hardware, that
`provisions contactless card
`
`1 Ex. 1027 at 34.
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`Proxy” and
`“OTA Proxy”
`
`Case No. 2020-00019
`Patent No.: 8,843,125
`
`between a secure element and a
`server over a mobile netwo