Filed on behalf of: The Hillman Group, Inc.
`By: Daniel C. Cooley
`Christopher P. Isaac
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
` GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`Telephone: 571-203-2700
`Facsimile: 202-408-4400
`E-mail: daniel.cooley@finnegan.com
`chris.isaac@finnegan.com
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`
`THE HILLMAN GROUP, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`MINUTE KEY INC.,
`Patent Owner
`______________________
`
`IPR2015-01154
`Patent No. 8,979,446
`
`Filed: May 7, 2015
`______________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`KEYME EX. 1010, PAGE 1
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01154
`U.S. Patent No. 8,979,446
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1 
`
`I. 
`
`II.  Mandatory Notices ........................................................................................................ 2 
`
`III.  Payment of Fees ............................................................................................................. 2 
`
`IV.  Grounds for Standing ................................................................................................... 2 
`
`A. 
`
`At Least One Challenged Claim Is Unpatentable ......................................... 3 
`
`V. 
`
`Statement of Precise Relief Requested for Each Claim Challenged ...................... 3 
`
`VI.  Background of the Technology ................................................................................... 4 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`The ’446 Patent .................................................................................................. 4 
`
`The Decades-Old Technology of Self-Service Key Cutting Kiosks .......... 6 
`
`Scope and Content of the Prior Art ................................................................ 8 
`
`VII.  Claim Construction ..................................................................................................... 13 
`
`A.  One of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................... 13 
`
`B. 
`
`Claim Terms ..................................................................................................... 14 
`
`VIII.  The Challenged Claims of the ’446 Patent Are Unpatentable .............................. 18 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`Independent Claim 1 Is Obvious in View of Freeman and Barber ......... 18 
`
`Independent Claim 31 Is Obvious in View of Freeman and
`Barber ................................................................................................................ 32 
`
`Independent Claim 57 Is Obvious in View of Freeman, Barber,
`and Almblad ...................................................................................................... 34 
`
`Independent Claim 83 Is Obvious in View of Freeman, Barber,
`and Wills ............................................................................................................ 38 
`
`Independent Claim 108 Is Obvious in View of Freeman, Barber,
`and Prescott ...................................................................................................... 39 
`
`
`
`i
`
`KEYME EX. 1010, PAGE 2
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01154
`U.S. Patent No. 8,979,446
`The Challenged Dependent Claims Are Unpatentable as Obvious
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ................................................................................ 41
`
`F.
`
`IX.
`
`Patent Owner’s Purported Evidence of Secondary Considerations Does
`Not Support Patentability of the Challenged Claims ............................................. 60
`
`X.
`
`Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 60
`
`ii
`
`KEYME EX. 1010, PAGE 3
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`IPR2015-01154
`U.S. Patent No. 8,979,446
`
` Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`
`In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC,
`No. 2014-1301, 2015 WL 448667 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 4, 2015) ......................................... 13
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ........................................................................................................... 18
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ...................................................................... 13
`
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc.,
`504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ........................................................................................ 13
`
`In re Yamamoto,
`740 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ........................................................................................ 13
`
`Federal Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b)...................................................................................................................... 4
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................................... 3
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ......................................................................................................... 4, 18, 41
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ...................................................................................................................... 3
`
`Federal Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(b) .................................................................................................................. 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103(a) ................................................................................................................. 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................................. 2
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,764
`(Aug. 14, 2012) ................................................................................................................... 13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`KEYME EX. 1010, PAGE 4
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01154
`U.S. Patent No. 8,979,446
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit 1001.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,979,446 to Freeman (“the ’446 patent”)
`
`Exhibit 1002.
`
`Declaration of George L. Heredia, with C.V.
`
`Exhibit 1003.
`
`Exhibit 1004.
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0145163 to
`Freeman et al. (“Freeman”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0050266 to Barber
`et al. (“Barber”)
`
`Exhibit 1005.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,807,042 to Almblad et al. (“Almblad”)
`
`Exhibit 1006.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,588,995 to Wills et al. (“Wills”)
`
`Exhibit 1007.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,590,809 to Prescott et al. (“Prescott”)
`
`Exhibit 1008.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,358,561 to Roxburgh et al. (“Roxburgh”)
`
`Exhibit 1009.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,442,174 to Weiner et al. (“Weiner”)
`
`Exhibit 1010.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,796,130 to Gartner (“Gartner”)
`
`Exhibit 1011.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,617,323 to Stansberry et al. (“Stansberry”)
`
`Exhibit 1012.
`
`Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed. 2011), p. 688
`
`Exhibit 1013.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,172,969 to Haggstrom (“Haggstrom”)
`
`Exhibit 1014.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,351,409 to Heredia (“Heredia”)
`
`Exhibit 1015.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,839,449 to Campbell et al. (“Campbell”)
`
`Exhibit 1016.
`
`U.S. Design Patent No. D348,393 to Neitzke et al. (“Neitzke”)
`
`Exhibit 1017.
`
`RESERVED
`
`Exhibit 1018.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,891,919 to Bass et al. (“Bass”)
`
`Exhibit 1019.
`
`Exhibit 1020.
`
`Declaration of Randall Fagundo submitted in U.S. Patent
`Application No. 13/743,053
`
`Better Business Bureau Complaints for Minute Key, printed April
`27, 2015
`
`iv
`
`KEYME EX. 1010, PAGE 5
`
`

`

`Exhibit 1021.
`
`IPR2015-01154
`U.S. Patent No. 8,979,446
`Hillman’s Preliminary Claim Constructions and Identification of
`35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 Corresponding Structures from Hillman
`Group, Inc. v. Minute Key Inc., No. 1:13-CV-707 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 1,
`2014)
`
`
`
`v
`
`KEYME EX. 1010, PAGE 6
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01154
`U.S. Patent No. 8,979,446
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,979,446 (“the ’446 patent”) claims an “invention” of a self-
`
`service kiosk for duplicating keys. But nearly every feature claimed in the ’446 patent
`
`had already been disclosed several years prior by Daniel Freeman—one of the
`
`contributors to the ’446 patent—in U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
`
`2008/0145163 (“Freeman”). Freeman and the ’446 patent even use similar
`
`nomenclature—the ’446 patent disclosing a “key-alignment mechanism” where
`
`Freeman discloses a “key-alignment module”; the ’446 patent disclosing a “key blank
`
`extraction system” where Freeman discloses a “key blank extraction module.”
`
`Semantics aside, any sliver of daylight between the claims of the ’446 patent
`
`and the disclosure of Freeman results not from innovation in the ’446 patent, but
`
`from its recitation of obvious soft features—like a display that “instructs the customer
`
`how to begin a purchase transaction” or “informs the customer that the inserted key
`
`cannot be duplicated and should be removed from the kiosk.” Providing a screen that
`
`prompts a user to insert a key during a key duplication process is not a patentable
`
`invention—it is common sense. Other prior art key duplication machines, including
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,588,995 to Wills et al. and U.S. Patent No. 5,807,042 to Almblad et
`
`al., disclose these exact sorts of screen prompts. Indeed, all of the features not
`
`disclosed by Freeman are implicit or predictable implementations of well-known
`
`technologies in the key cutting and vending machine arts. For these reasons, the
`
`challenged claims are unpatentable and should be canceled.
`
`1
`
`KEYME EX. 1010, PAGE 7
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01154
`U.S. Patent No. 8,979,446
`
`II. Mandatory Notices
`
`Real Party-in-Interest: The Hillman Group, Inc.
`
`Related Matters: Hillman Group, Inc. v. Minute Key Inc., No. 1:13-CV-707 (S.D.
`
`Ohio Oct. 1, 2014).
`
`Lead Counsel: Daniel C. Cooley: Reg. No. 59,639; telephone 571.203.2778;
`
`daniel.cooley@finnegan.com.
`
`Back-up Counsel: Christopher P. Isaac: Reg. No. 32,616; telephone:
`
`571.203.2740; chris.isaac@finnegan.com.
`
`Service Information: Please send all correspondence to: Finnegan,
`
`Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP; Two Freedom Square, 11955 Freedom
`
`Drive, Reston, VA 20190-5675. Petitioner consents to service by e-mail at the
`
`following addresses: chris.isaac@finnegan.com, daniel.cooley@finnegan.com.
`
`III. Payment of Fees
`
`The required fees are submitted herewith pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.103(a)
`
`and 42.15(b). If additional fees to be paid by the Petitioner are due during this
`
`proceeding, the Office is authorized to charge Deposit Account No. 06-0916.
`
`IV. Grounds for Standing
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a), Petitioner certifies that the ’446 patent is
`
`available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from
`
`requesting inter partes review of the ’446 patent challenging the patent claims on the
`
`grounds identified in this petition.
`
`
`
`2
`
`KEYME EX. 1010, PAGE 8
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01154
`U.S. Patent No. 8,979,446
`At Least One Challenged Claim Is Unpatentable
`
`A.
`
`As further detailed below, claims 1, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15-18, 20, 23-26, 31, 32, 38, 39,
`
`42, 43, 46-49, 51, 54-58, 64, 65, 68, 69, 72, 74, 76, 79-84, 90, 91, 94, 95, 98, 100, and
`
`104-108 of the ’446 patent (“the challenged claims”) are each unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103. There is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with
`
`respect to at least one of the claims challenged in this petition. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`V.
`
`Statement of Precise Relief Requested for Each Claim Challenged
`
`The challenged claims of the ’446 patent are unpatentable and should be
`
`canceled in view of the following prior art references and grounds of unpatentability.
`
`Reference 1: U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0145163 to
`
`Freeman et al., published June 19, 2008 (“Freeman”) (Ex. 1003).
`
`Reference 2: U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0050266 to Barber
`
`et al., published March 1, 2007 (“Barber”) (Ex. 1004).
`
`Reference 3: U.S. Patent No. 5,807,042 to Almblad et al., issued September 15,
`
`1998 (“Almblad”) (Ex. 1005).
`
`Reference 4: U.S. Patent No. 6,588,995 to Wills et al., issued July 8, 2003
`
`(“Wills”) (Ex. 1006).
`
`Reference 5: U.S. Patent No. 5,590,809 to Prescott et al., issued January 7,
`
`1997 (“Prescott”) (Ex. 1007).
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, 18, 24, 25, 31, 32, 38, 39, 42, 43, 46, 49,
`
`55, 58, 64, 65, 68, 69, 72, 74, 80, 81, 84, 90, 91, 94, 95, 98, 100, 105, and 106 are
`
`3
`
`KEYME EX. 1010, PAGE 9
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01154
`U.S. Patent No. 8,979,446
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of Freeman and Barber.
`
`Ground 2: Claims 16, 17, 47, 48, and 57 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) as obvious in view of Freeman, Barber, and Almblad.
`
`Ground 3: Claims 20, 26, 51, 56, 76, 82, 83, and 107 are unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of Freeman, Barber, and Wills.
`
`Ground 4: Claims 23, 54, 79, 104, and 108 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) as obvious in view of Freeman, Barber, and Prescott.
`
`The ’446 patent issued from a pre-AIA patent application filed on June 3, 2011,
`
`which claims priority to provisional application no. 61/351,046 filed on June 3, 2010.
`
`Each prior art reference cited by Petitioner published at least one year prior to June 3,
`
`2010, and is therefore prior art to the ’446 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`VI. Background of the Technology
`A.
`
`The ’446 Patent
`
`The ’446 patent is entitled “Fully Automatic Self-Service Key Duplicating
`
`Kiosk.” Ex. 1001 title. The key duplicating kiosk includes a housing 10 with a touch-
`
`screen display 11 and a payment device 12 (e.g., a coin acceptor, a bill acceptor, or a
`
`credit or debit card reader). Id. at abstract, col.4 ll.39-42, col.5 ll.13-19, FIG. 1
`
`(annotated below). The machine also includes a key analysis system, a key blank
`
`extraction system, and a key duplicating system. Id. at abstract.
`
`
`
`4
`
`KEYME EX. 1010, PAGE 10
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01154
`U.S. Patent No. 8,979,446
`
`Payment device
`
`Housing
`
`Touch-screen display
`
`Key-receiving entry
`
`Output
`tray
`
`FIG. 1 of ’446 patent depicting the self-service key duplicating kiosk
`
`During use, a customer inserts a blade of a key through an entry in the
`
`machine. Id. at col.1 ll.34-39. The key analysis system analyzes the blade to determine
`
`whether the key matches one of a group of preselected key types stored in a magazine
`
`in the kiosk. Id. at col.1 ll.34-41. If the machine matches the customer’s key to one of
`
`the preselected key types, a key blank extraction system extracts an appropriate key
`
`blank from the magazine and positions the key blank in a clamp for cutting. Id. at
`
`col.1 ll.41-44, col.15 l.42 - col.16 l.16. The machine then replicates the tooth pattern of
`
`the customer’s key on the blade of the extracted key blank. Id. at col.1 ll.44-47, FIGS.
`
`58, 59. The machine ejects the cut key from the clamp, and the ejected key slides
`
`down a dispensing chute 143 into the duplicate-key output tray 15 so that the
`
`5
`
`KEYME EX. 1010, PAGE 11
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01154
`U.S. Patent No. 8,979,446
`customer can remove the key from the kiosk. Id. at col.1 ll.47-49, col.17 ll.24-31,
`
`FIG. 1; see also Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 21-22.
`
`B. The Decades-Old Technology of Self-Service Key Cutting Kiosks
`
`Self-service key cutting kiosks have been contemplated and described in
`
`technical literature for nearly 50 years. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 23-46 (providing the
`
`nomenclature and fundamentals of key cutting). These prior art kiosks had all of the
`
`major components claimed in the ’446 patent, including key-identification systems,
`
`key cutting systems, user interfaces, and payment systems. Id. ¶¶ 41-46.
`
`For example, Roxburgh patented a key cutting vending machine in 1967. Ex.
`
`1008. Roxburgh’s vending machine includes a mechanism for receiving the customer’s
`
`key, a cutting unit to duplicate the customer’s key, a blank key storage turret with
`
`stacks of key blanks, and a key withdrawal mechanism. Id. at col.4 ll.32-42. The
`
`vending machine also provides a customer interface (buttons) and a payment device
`
`(coin receptor). Id. at col.18 ll.15-34. To operate the machine disclosed in Roxburgh, a
`
`customer inserts money into the coin receptor, depresses a button to select an
`
`appropriate key blank, and inserts a key into a key slot for duplication. Id. at col.18
`
`ll.15-55. The machine places the key blank into position for cutting, id. at col.18 ll.42-
`
`45, and uses a tracing mechanism to trace the customer’s key and cut the key blank to
`
`“correspond to the customer’s [key] pattern,” id. at col.1 ll.17-21, col.1 ll. 64-71. After
`
`the cutting process concludes, the machine ejects the cut key, which slides down
`
`chutes for delivery to the customer. Id. at col.20 ll.12-16, FIGS. 1, 4, 14.
`
`
`
`6
`
`KEYME EX. 1010, PAGE 12
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01154
`U.S. Patent No. 8,979,446
`
`Roxburgh self-service key duplication machine (left); Weiner self-service key duplication
`
`machine (center); Gartner self-service key duplication machine (right)
`
`Weiner, which was filed as a patent application in 1961 and patented in 1969,
`
`provides another example of a self-service key duplication machine. Ex. 1009. Weiner
`
`recognized the “trend toward vending-type apparatus,” id. at col.1 ll.24-28, and
`
`proposed a key-blank dispenser and key-blank cutter that are “operable in response to
`
`a single coin-controlled means,” id. at col.1 ll.35-38. The machine includes a key-blank
`
`container, a key-blank removal means, and a key-blank cutter apparatus. Id. at col.1
`
`ll.49-60. These components serve as a source of key blanks and as a means for
`
`duplicating the key blank to match the customer’s key. Id. at col.2 ll.36-39.
`
`Gartner provides a third example of a self-service key duplicating machine.
`
`Even in the early 1970s, Gartner recognized that manual duplication of keys by an
`
`operator was a “very inefficient process.” Ex. 1010 col.1 ll.5-6. Gartner states that
`
`“manual key duplication must be performed by a trained operator” due to the “skill
`
`7
`
`KEYME EX. 1010, PAGE 13
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01154
`U.S. Patent No. 8,979,446
`involved in operating the key duplicating machines,” and that “there is quite obviously
`
`a great loss in labor since the operator will rarely be continuously engaged in the
`
`duplication of keys for customers.” Id. at col.1 ll.7-14.
`
`To overcome these issues, Gartner proposes a “semi-automatic unattended
`
`duplicate key vending machine for use by the general public which includes a housing,
`
`coin receiving means for operation of the machine . . . , [and] at least one key opening
`
`or slot in the exterior of the machine housing into which a key may be inserted by a
`
`customer for selection of a key blank of appropriate cross section for duplication.”
`
`Id. at col.3 ll.36-44. Gartner’s machine includes a key blade blank supply means,
`
`means for selecting and positioning the blank, key profile milling means including a
`
`milling cutter and tracer, and means for discharging the key blade and head from the
`
`machine to the customer. Id. at col.3 ll.49-65.
`
`C.
`
`Scope and Content of the Prior Art
`
`Roxburgh, Weiner, and Gartner confirm that key duplication kiosks had long
`
`been contemplated in the key cutting and vending machine arts, and so had the
`
`various internal components included in such machines. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 41-46. More
`
`recent key duplication and vending machine patents have married technologies
`
`described in Roxburgh, Weiner, and Gartner with other previously developed
`
`technologies, including touch-screen interfaces, user prompts, indicator lights, and
`
`inventory sensors. Id. ¶¶ 47-55.
`
`
`
`8
`
`KEYME EX. 1010, PAGE 14
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01154
`U.S. Patent No. 8,979,446
`
`1.
`
`Freeman
`
`Freeman discloses a self-service key duplicating machine that includes a
`
`“master key alignment module 50; master key clamping module 100; master key
`
`identification module 130; key blank extractor module 150; key cutting module 200;
`
`and central positioning base 250.” Ex. 1003 ¶ [0062]. Freeman has “at least one
`
`magazine . . . for housing a plurality of key blanks,” and each magazine is “adapted to
`
`house a different model or color of the key blanks.” Id. ¶ [0011].
`
`Magazines
`
`Key blank clamp
`
`Key blank
`
`Follower
`
`Master key
`
`Master key clamp
`
`Cutter
`
`Freeman FIG. 17A key duplication machine (left); FIG. 2A key blank cutting module (right)
`
`The operation of Freeman’s machine is straightforward and predictable. Ex.
`
`1002 ¶ 48. When Freeman’s key identification module matches the customer’s key to
`
`one of the key blanks in the magazine, the key blank extractor module extracts an
`
`appropriate key blank from the magazine by “push[ing] the lowermost key blank out
`
`of the magazine.” Ex. 1003 ¶¶ [0017], [0025]. The machine clamps the key blank using
`
`a blank clamp (labeled as 14 or 270), and cuts the key blank using a follower 12 that
`
`9
`
`KEYME EX. 1010, PAGE 15
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01154
`U.S. Patent No. 8,979,446
`traces the tooth pattern of the master key. Id. ¶¶ [0026], [0060], [0065], FIG. 2A
`
`(above). When the duplicate key is finished and ready to be removed from the
`
`machine, a device engages with a hole in the head of the cut key, and slides the cut key
`
`out of the blank clamp. Id. ¶ [0091]. The key then “falls down a dispensing chute or
`
`into a tray (not shown).” Id.
`
`Freeman confirms that the key duplicating machine is a self-service kiosk,
`
`stating that it “fulfills the . . . need[]” of providing “a fully automatic key identifying
`
`and/or duplicating machine that can be operated by an ordinary consumer in a
`
`manner as easy as purchasing an item from a vending machine or receiving money
`
`from an automated teller machine.” Id. ¶¶ [0009]-[0010].
`
`2.
`
`Almblad, Wills, Barber, and Prescott
`
`Freeman is silent regarding the details of its customer interface, but customer
`
`interfaces were already known in the art prior to the ’446 patent. Ex. 1002 ¶ 50. For
`
`example, Almblad discloses a key duplication vending machine that includes a
`
`customer interface having a “monitor” that “displays . . . a variety of instructions,”
`
`Ex. 1005 col.13 ll.23-25, including “how to enter a number of copies of keys desired
`
`to be made and how much money to put in a currency acceptor,” id. at col.18 ll.54-61.
`
`The customer interface also instructs the user when “to place the key [for
`
`identification].” Id. at col.9 ll.38-43. If the Almblad machine cannot identify the
`
`customer’s key, “the monitor will instruct the customer that [the] key making
`
`apparatus cannot currently make a duplicate of the object key and that it should be
`
`
`
`10
`
`KEYME EX. 1010, PAGE 16
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01154
`U.S. Patent No. 8,979,446
`taken to a locksmith.” Id. at col.13 ll.19-22. The monitor and other user-interface
`
`features in Almblad are designed to make it a “self-service key making apparatus
`
`requiring few instructions and little or no skill or special knowledge on the part of the
`
`customer.” Id. at col.5 ll.30-34. Even though Almblad discloses a monitor, not a touch
`
`screen, those skilled in the art at the time of the invention used touch-screen monitors
`
`in key duplication machines, as evidenced by the key duplication machine in Bass. See
`
`Ex. 1018 col.6 ll.41-43; Ex. 1002 ¶ 51.
`
`Wills recognizes that key duplication “can be difficult, particularly for someone
`
`with little training or experience in the art.” Ex. 1006 col.1 ll.15-17. Wills therefore
`
`discloses a key duplication machine that has an “output subsystem” providing simple
`
`instructions, like directing the operator to “insert the master key.” Id. at col.7 ll.51-59.
`
`The same output subsystem notifies the operator that the “key has been duplicated”
`
`and provides a visual readout to signal to the operator that the “key blank may be
`
`removed.” Id. at col.30 ll.36-40. Indicator lights were a well-known technology at the
`
`time of the invention, Ex. 1002 ¶ 52, and Wills confirms as much, stating that other
`
`embodiments of the output subsystem may include “a CRT, a printout, or a series of
`
`signal lights,” Ex. 1006 col.6 ll.5-6.
`
`In addition to key cutting machines, those of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have been familiar with technologies used in vending machines, given their overlap
`
`with key cutting machines and given their ubiquity. Ex. 1002 ¶ 53. For example,
`
`Barber discloses a DVD rental kiosk that interfaces with and provides instructions to
`
`11
`
`KEYME EX. 1010, PAGE 17
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01154
`U.S. Patent No. 8,979,446
`customers using a “graphical user interface (GUI) utilizing a touch screen display.”
`
`Ex. 1004 ¶¶ [0063]-[0066]. Barber recognizes that a “graphical user interface (GUI)
`
`utilizing a touch screen display provides a user-friendly interface even to consumers
`
`lacking computer experience.” Id. ¶ [0063]. The kiosk in Barber also includes a
`
`magnetic strip reader configured to receive payment. Id. ¶ [0085] (“Magnetic strip
`
`reader 911 is used by kiosk 200, FIG. 2, to identify a customer or member, and/or to
`
`bill the customer, and/or to verify age.”).
`
`Prescott discloses a food product vending machine that provides inventory
`
`control using sensors and a computer. Prescott uses a Hall effect sensor to determine
`
`whether a predetermined level of product is present in an inventory magazine. Ex.
`
`1007 col.12 ll.16-35. So long as at least one product is present in an inventory
`
`magazine, the Hall effect sensor indicates to a control board that the inventory
`
`magazine is not empty. Id. at col.12 ll.16-26. When the predetermined level is reached
`
`(e.g., the inventory magazine has no product), the Hall effect sensor notifies the
`
`control board that the magazine is empty, and the control board causes a series of
`
`three dashes to be displayed in the appropriate price display rather than the price for
`
`that product. Id. at col.12 ll.27-35.
`
`In sum, whether the claims at issue are directed to hardware—such as a “touch
`
`screen display,” “a key blank extraction system,” or “a sensor”—or soft features—
`
`such as a display that “instructs the customer how to begin a purchase transaction” or
`
`“generates a display that informs the customer that the inserted key cannot be
`
`
`
`12
`
`KEYME EX. 1010, PAGE 18
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01154
`U.S. Patent No. 8,979,446
`duplicated and should be removed from the kiosk”—all of the claimed features in the
`
`’446 patent are obvious and predictable implementations of well-known technologies
`
`in the key cutting and vending machine arts. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 47-55.
`
`VII. Claim Construction
`
`Claim terms are “generally given their ordinary and customary meaning,” which
`
`is “the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in
`
`question.” In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)). In the
`
`present proceeding, the Board should apply the broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`(“BRI”) standard to construe claim terms. In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, No. 2014-
`
`1301, 2015 WL 448667, at *8 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 4, 2015). Under the BRI standard, claim
`
`terms are given their “broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with the
`
`specification.” In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Office Patent
`
`Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,764 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`A.
`
`One of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention would
`
`have had a degree in engineering and three years of experience involving key
`
`duplication equipment. Ex. 1002 ¶ 14. This level of skill is approximate and more
`
`experience would compensate for less formal education, and vice versa. For example,
`
`an individual having no degree in engineering, but ten years of key duplication
`
`equipment experience would qualify as a person of ordinary skill in the art. Id. The
`
`13
`
`KEYME EX. 1010, PAGE 19
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01154
`U.S. Patent No. 8,979,446
`experience in the field of key duplication equipment may include experience with
`
`various types of key duplication equipment, including vending machines. Id.
`
`B.
`
`Claim Terms
`
`The terms “self-service,” “kiosk,” and “a key blank magazine . . . configured to
`
`store key blanks for each of said preselected key types” of the ’446 patent should be
`
`construed as follows.
`
`1.
`
`“self-service”
`
`Each of the challenged claims recites “self-service.” One having ordinary skill
`
`in the art at the time of the invention would have understood the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation of “self-service” to be “permitting one to serve oneself.” Id. ¶ 58. This
`
`construction is consistent with the plain meaning of the term and is supported by the
`
`specification, which describes the background of the invention involving a need for a
`
`fully automatic key identifying and/or duplicating machine “for an ordinary
`
`consumer” that is like “purchasing an item from a vending machine or receiving
`
`money from an automated teller machine.” Ex. 1001 col.1 ll.21-26. Vending machines
`
`and teller machines were well-known self-service machines operated directly by
`
`consumers without assistance from clerks or store employees. The specification
`
`further states that the disclosed kiosk requires “no trained human operator” and “only
`
`requires a customer.” Id. at col.1 ll.12-15. Since the disclosed machine only requires a
`
`customer in order to be operated, it is “self-service.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 58.
`
`
`
`14
`
`KEYME EX. 1010, PAGE 20
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01154
`U.S. Patent No. 8,979,446
`
`2.
`
`“kiosk”
`
`Each of the challenged claims recites a “kiosk.” One having ordinary skill in the
`
`art at the time of the invention would have understood the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation of “kiosk” to be a “structure that provides information or services to
`
`customers.” Id. ¶¶ 59-60. This construction is supported by the specification, which
`
`discloses a structure for providing a service in the form of automatic key duplication.
`
`Ex. 1001 title. The specification describes the components located inside of the kiosk,
`
`confirming that it is a structure. Id. at col.1 ll.44-47, col.4 ll.39-56. The kiosk of the
`
`’446 patent is small and commercial in nature; it is designed to “attract customers”
`
`and has a “footprint [that] is less than about 6 square feet, to minimize the floor space
`
`occupied by the kiosk in a retail store.” Id. at col.4 ll.51-60.
`
`Hillman’s proposed construction of “kiosk” is also consistent with standard
`
`dictionary definitions for the term: “a small structure with one or more open sides
`
`that is used to vend merchandise (as newspapers) or services (as film developing)”; or
`
`“a small stand-alone device providing information and services on a computer screen
`
`<a museum with interactive [kiosks]>.” Ex. 1012.
`
`3.
`
`“a key blank magazine . . . configured to store key blanks for
`each of said preselected key types”
`
`Each of independent claims 1, 31, 57, 83, and 108 recites a “key blank
`
`magazine . . . configured to store key blanks for each of said preselected key types.”
`
`The broadest reasonable interpretation of this phrase is “a structure having multiple
`
`15
`
`KEYME EX. 1010, PAGE 21
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01154
`U.S. Patent No. 8,979,446
`compartments that include an enclosed space configured to hold a supply of
`
`preselected key blanks.”1 Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 61-65.
`
`This meaning is consistent with the language from the claims. For example, the
`
`claim language states that the magazine is configured to “store key blanks for each of
`
`said preselected types,” which requires that the magazine hold more than one type of
`
`key blank (i.e., key types). Other language from the claims refers to “a key blank
`
`extraction system configured to extract from said magazine a key blank for the
`
`preselected key type matched by the blade of said key inserted in said key-receiving
`
`entry.” See, e.g., Ex. 1001 col.21 ll.26-29 (same language appears in all of the challenged
`
`independent claims). The key blank extraction system could not extract from the
`
`magazine “a key blank for the preselected key type” unless the magazine was itself
`
`configured to house that type of key. Therefore, the key blank magazine must have
`
`multiple compartments configured to hold key blanks that match the preselected type
`
`for that compartment. Ex. 1002 ¶ 62.
`
`
`1 Using the district court claim construction standard, Hillman proposed a
`
`construction for “key blank magazine” in a prior district court case with Minute Key
`
`over U.S. Patent No. 8,532,809 (“the ’809 patent”). See Ex. 2021. Minute Key did not
`
`respond with its own preliminary construction, neither Hillman nor Minute Key
`
`provided a final constru