Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,928,495
`
`DOCKET NO.: 1033300-00318US2
`Filed on behalf of Apple Inc.
`By: Monica Grewal, Reg. No. 40,056 (Lead Counsel)
`Ben Fernandez, Reg. No. 55,172 (Backup Counsel)
`Scott Bertulli, Reg. No. 75,886 (Backup Counsel)
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, MA 02109
`Email: monica.grewal@wilmerhale.com
`
` ben.fernandez@wilmerhale.com
`
` scott.bertulli@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`UNIVERSAL SECURE REGISTRY, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_________________________________________
`Case IPR2020-01223
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,928,495
`_________________________________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF CLAIMS 22-28
`
`
`
`
`

`

` Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,928,495
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`Table of Contents ............................................................................................ ii 
`I. 
`Introduction ........................................................................................... 1 
`II.  Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. §42.8(a)(1)) .......................................... 2 
`A. 
`Real Party-in-Interest ................................................................. 2 
`B. 
`Related Matters .......................................................................... 2 
`C. 
`Counsel ...................................................................................... 6 
`D. 
`Service Information ................................................................... 7 
`III.  Grounds for Standing ............................................................................ 7 
`IV.  Level of Ordinary Skill ......................................................................... 8 
`V.  Overview of Challenge .......................................................................... 9 
`VI.  Background of the ’495 Patent .............................................................. 9 
`A. 
`Priority ....................................................................................... 9 
`B. 
`Brief Description ....................................................................... 9 
`C. 
`Prosecution History ................................................................. 10 
`VII.  Proposed Claim Constructions ............................................................ 11 
`VIII.  Prior Art References ............................................................................ 11 
`A. 
`Schutzer ................................................................................... 11 
`B.  Walker ...................................................................................... 12 
`C. 
`Franklin .................................................................................... 14 
`D. 
`Slater ........................................................................................ 15 
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

` Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,928,495
`IX.  Claims 22-28 of the ’495 Patent Are Unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§103 ..................................................................................................... 15 
`A. 
`Ground 1: Claims 22-26 and 28 Are Obvious over Schutzer
`Alone or in View of Walker. ................................................... 15 
`1. 
`Independent Claim 22 .................................................... 15 
`2. 
`Dependent Claim 23 ....................................................... 35 
`3. 
`Dependent Claim 24 ....................................................... 35 
`4. 
`Dependent Claim 25 ....................................................... 36 
`5. 
`Dependent Claim 26 ....................................................... 36 
`6. 
`Dependent Claim 28 ....................................................... 41 
`Ground 2: Claim 27 Is Obvious over Schutzer Alone or in
`View of Walker and/or Slater. ................................................. 42 
`1. 
`Dependent Claim 27 ....................................................... 42 
`Ground 3: Claims 22-26 and 28 Are Obvious over Franklin
`Alone or in View of Schutzer. ................................................. 48 
`1. 
`Independent Claim 22 .................................................... 48 
`2. 
`Dependent Claim 23 ....................................................... 63 
`3. 
`Dependent Claim 24 ....................................................... 63 
`4. 
`Dependent Claim 25 ....................................................... 64 
`5. 
`Dependent Claim 26 ....................................................... 65 
`6. 
`Dependent Claim 28 ....................................................... 69 
`Ground 4: Claim 27 Is Obvious over Franklin in View of
`Schutzer Alone or Further in View of Slater. .......................... 70 
`1. 
`Dependent Claim 27 ....................................................... 70 
`Conclusion ........................................................................................... 75 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`X. 
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

` Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,928,495
`Table of Exhibits ............................................................................................ 77 
`
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

` Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,928,495
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Apple Inc. v. Universal Secure Registry, LLP,
`IPR2018-00809, Paper No. 51 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 8, 2019) ..................... 8, 41, 69, 73
`Apple Inc. v. Universal Secure Registry, LLP,
`IPR2018-00812, Paper No. 45 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 5, 2019) ...................................... 8
`eBay Inc. v. Lockwood,
`CBM2014-00026, Paper No. 25 (P.T.A.B. May 15, 2014) .................................. 7
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 10
`Statutes, Rules and Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ..................................................................................................... 2, 6
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22 ....................................................................................................... 8
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ............................................................................................... 1, 10
`37 C.F.R. § 42.101 ..................................................................................................... 7
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ................................................................................................... 15
`77 Fed. Reg. 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012) ....................................................................... 10
`35 U.S.C. § 102 .................................................................................................. 12-15
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .................................................................................................... 8, 15
`35 U.S.C. § 314 .......................................................................................................... 8
`35 U.S.C. § 321 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,928,495
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The ’495 patent is directed to systems and methods for authenticating users
`
`involved in a transaction using one-time codes received by a computer system that
`
`uses the code to access account-identifying information associated with the user.
`
`The computer system then authorizes the transaction with a merchant or a credit
`
`card company.
`
`When the ’495 patent was filed, however, authentication of a user’s identity
`
`based on one-time codes was well known in the art. See generally Ex-1102 ¶¶27-
`
`47. The prior art is replete with systems and methods that perform user
`
`authentication using one-time codes. For example, European Patent Application
`
`Publication No. 1028401A2 (“Schutzer”) (Ex-1106), U.S. Patent No. 6,163,771
`
`(“Walker”) (Ex-1107), and U.S. Patent No. 6,000,832 (“Franklin”) (Ex-1108) each
`
`disclose systems and methods for conducting financial transactions using one-
`
`time/single-use codes that allow the transaction to take place without providing the
`
`merchant any sensitive account-identifying information. See, e.g., Ex-1106, [0019]
`
`(“[T]he anonymous or alternate card number is used in a transaction by the
`
`transaction card user in place of the transaction card user’s transaction card
`
`number.”), [0038]; Ex-1107, 6:61-7:9 (single-use credit card number), 8:37-9:3;
`
`Ex-1108, 2:21-38 (“The customer computer then generates a code number as a
`
`function of … specific data ….”), 3:7-23, 5:24-40.
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,928,495
`As further explained in this Petition, the systems and methods claimed in the
`
`’495 patent were known in the art and obvious at the time the ’495 patent was
`
`filed.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. §42.8(A)(1))
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(1), Petitioner certifies that Apple Inc.
`
`(“Apple” or “Petitioner”) is the real party-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters
`The ’495 patent is assigned to Universal Secure Registry, LLC (“Patent
`
`Owner”). On May 21, 2017, Patent Owner sued Apple as well as Visa Inc. and
`
`Visa U.S.A. Inc. (“Visa”) in the District of Delaware, asserting four U.S. patents,
`
`including a parent to the ’495 patent, Patent No. 8,856,539 (“’539 patent”), as well
`
`as Patent Nos. 9,530,137, 9,100,826, and 8,577,813—directed to verifying an
`
`account holder’s identity based on codes and/or information related to the account
`
`holder before enabling a transaction. See Ex-1103 ¶2.
`
`On June 30, 2020, the Court issued a Memorandum and Order ruling these
`
`patents invalid under 35 U.S.C. §101, finding that they “are directed to an abstract
`
`idea—the secure verification of a person’s identity—and therefore fail step one of
`
`the Alice inquiry.” Ex-1114, 9; see also Ex-1115. Further, the patents were found
`
`to “not disclose an inventive concept such as an improvement in computer
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,928,495
`functionality that transforms that abstract idea into a patent-eligible application of
`
`the idea.” Ex-1114, 9.
`
`On July 2, 2020, Petitioner filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District of Delaware
`
`seeking a declaratory judgment of noninfringement regarding the ’495 patent, as
`
`well as related U.S. Patent No. 9,947,000 (the “’000 patent”) and U.S. Patent
`
`No. 10,163,103. Ex-1113.
`
`In 2018, Apple and/or Visa filed the petitions identified in the table below
`
`relating to the asserted patents. Also listed is a petition filed by Unified Patents for
`
`the ’813 patent.
`
`Asserted U.S.
`Patent No.
`9,530,137
`
`
`
`CBM/IPR
`
`CBM2018-00022
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00808
`
`IPR2018-00809
`
`Statutory
`Grounds
`35 U.S.C. §101
`
`35 U.S.C. §103
`
`Outcome
`
`Institution denied
`because Patent Owner
`disclaimed all claims
`with financial terms
`
`Institution denied
`
`35 U.S.C. §103 Final Written Decision
`finding all challenged
`claims unpatentable
`
`Patent Owner filed
`appeal to the Federal
`Circuit, which Patent
`Owner subsequently
`dismissed.
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Asserted U.S.
`Patent No.
`9,100,826
`
`
`
`CBM/IPR
`
`IPR2018-00810
`
`
`IPR2018-00813
`
`8,856,539
`
`
`
`CBM2018-00023
`
`
`IPR2018-00811
`
`IPR2018-01350
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,928,495
`Outcome
`
`35 U.S.C.
`§§102, 103
`
`Statutory
`Grounds
`35 U.S.C. §103 Final Written Decision
`finding all challenged
`claims were not shown
`to be unpatentable
`
`Appeal pending with
`the Federal Circuit
`
`Final Written Decision
`finding claims 1, 2, 10,
`11, 21, 22, 24, 27, 30,
`and 31 to be
`unpatentable
`
`Claims 7, 14, 15, 26,
`and 34 were not shown
`to be unpatentable
`
`Appeal pending with
`the Federal Circuit
`
`Institution denied
`because Patent Owner
`disclaimed all claims
`with financial terms
`
`Institution denied
`
`35 U.S.C. §101
`
`35 U.S.C. §103
`
`35 U.S.C. §103 Final Written Decision
`finding all challenged
`claims were not shown
`to be unpatentable
`
`Appeal pending with
`the Federal Circuit
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,928,495
`Outcome
`
`Asserted U.S.
`Patent No.
`
`CBM/IPR
`
`IPR2018-01351
`
`IPR2018-00812
`
`Statutory
`Grounds
`35 U.S.C. §103
`
`35 U.S.C. §103
`
`
`Institution denied
`
`Final Written Decision
`finding all challenged
`claims were not shown
`to be unpatentable
`
`Appeal pending with
`the Federal Circuit
`
`Institution denied
`
`8,577,813
`
`CBM2018-00026 35 U.S.C. §101
`
`
`
`CBM2018-00024 35 U.S.C. §103 Trial terminated and
`decision to institute
`vacated
`
`Notice of Appeal filed
`with the Federal Circuit;
`following dismissal of
`appeal, Apple has
`requested en banc
`review.
`
`CBM2018-00025 35 U.S.C. §103 Trial terminated and
`decision to institute
`vacated
`
`Notice of Appeal filed
`with the Federal Circuit;
`following dismissal of
`appeal, Apple has
`requested en banc
`review.
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Asserted U.S.
`Patent No.
`
`CBM/IPR
`
`IPR2018-00067
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,928,495
`Outcome
`
`Statutory
`Grounds
`35 U.S.C. §103 Final Written Decision
`finding claims 1-3, 5-9,
`11, 13-18, 20, and 22-
`26 to be unpatentable
`
`Claims 10, 12, 19, and
`21 were not shown to be
`unpatentable
`
`Patent Owner filed
`appeal to the Federal
`Circuit, which Patent
`Owner subsequently
`dismissed.
`
`
`
`Petitioner is concurrently filing two petitions regarding a related patent (the
`
`’000 patent) and another petition regarding the ’495 patent, along with Petitioner’s
`
`Statement Regarding Multiple Petitions, as follows:
`
`Asserted Patent IPR
`
`Grounds
`
`U.S. 9,947,000
`
`IPR2020-01220
`
`35 U.S.C. §103, claims 1-21
`
`IPR2020-01221
`
`35 U.S.C. §103, claims 22-28
`
`U.S. 9,928,495
`
`IPR2020-01222
`
`35 U.S.C. §103, claims 1-21
`
`
`C. Counsel
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(3)-(4), Petitioner identifies the following
`
`lead and backup counsel, to whom all correspondence should be directed.
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,928,495
`Lead Counsel: Monica Grewal (Reg. No. 40,056)
`
`Backup Counsel: Ben Fernandez (Reg. No. 55,172)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Scott Bertulli (Reg. No. 75,886)
`
`Service Information
`
`D.
`Email:
`
`monica.grewal@wilmerhale.com
`
`ben.fernandez@wilmerhale.com
`
`scott.bertulli@wilmerhale.com
`
`Post and hand delivery address:
`
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`
`60 State Street
`
`Boston, MA 02109
`
`Telephone: (617) 526-6223; Facsimile: (617) 526-5000.
`
`Petitioner consents to electronic service.
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Pursuant to Rule 42.104(a), Petitioner certifies that it (1) has not filed a civil
`
`action challenging the validity of a claim of the patent, 37 C.F.R. §42.101(a), (2)
`
`has complied with the timing requirements of 37 C.F.R. §42.101(b), and (3) is not
`
`estopped from challenging the claims on the grounds identified in this Petition, 37
`
`C.F.R. §42.101(c).
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,928,495
`Moreover, there exists a real and substantial controversy regarding
`
`infringement of the ’495 patent. In a June 29, 2018 letter, Patent Owner expressed
`
`its intent to move to add the ’495 patent to its then-pending lawsuit against Apple
`
`and Visa. See Ex-1104.
`
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) is a hypothetical person to
`
`whom an expert in the relevant field could assign a routine task with reasonable
`
`confidence that the task would be successfully carried out. In IPR proceedings for
`
`a parent of the ’495 patent (the ’539 patent), Patent Owner argued a POSITA
`
`would have had “a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering and/or
`
`computer science, and three years of work or research experience in the fields of
`
`secure transactions and encryption, or a Master’s degree in electrical engineering
`
`and/or computer science, and two years of work or research experience in related
`
`fields.” Apple Inc. v. Universal Secure Registry, LLP, IPR2018-00812, Paper
`
`No. 45, 6 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 5, 2019); see also Apple Inc. v. Universal Secure
`
`Registry, LLP, IPR2018-00809, Paper No. 51, 6-7 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 8, 2019)
`
`(“IPR2018-00809 FWD”) (adopting Patent Owner’s definition). Because the ’495
`
`patent claims similar subject matter as its parent ’539 patent (including by sharing
`
`figures and specification language), Petitioner submits that the same level of skill
`
`in the art should apply here. Ex-1102 ¶¶48-49.
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,928,495
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE
`Pursuant to Rules 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b)(1)-(2), Petitioner challenges
`
`claims 22-28 of the ’495 patent and requests that they be canceled as unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §103. This Petition demonstrates that there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to cancellation of at least one of
`
`the challenged claims. See 35 U.S.C. §314(a). This Petition, supported by the
`
`declaration of Dr. Patrick McDaniel (Ex-1102) filed herewith, demonstrates that
`
`there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to
`
`cancellation of at least one of the challenged claims. See 35 U.S.C. §314(a).
`
`VI. BACKGROUND OF THE ’495 PATENT
`A.
`Priority
`Entitled “Universal Secure Registry” (“USR”), the ’495 patent issued on
`
`March 27, 2018 from an application filed on August 30, 2017. The ’495 patent
`
`claims priority to a series of continuation applications, the earliest of which was
`
`filed on March 16, 2001. Ex-1102 ¶50.
`
`B.
`Brief Description
`The ’495 patent describes a secure database called a “universal secure
`
`registry,” which is “a universal identification system … used to selectively provide
`
`personal, financial or other information about a person to authorized users.” Ex-
`
`1101, 3:24-27. Ex-1102 ¶¶51-52.
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,928,495
`Independent claim 22 describes “an authentication system to enable a
`
`transaction involving a first party and a user.” Id. 21:4-5. The system comprises
`
`components including: “an electronic device comprising a communications
`
`interface and one or more processors” that are capable of “receiv[ing] biometric
`
`information of the user” and “generat[ing] a one-time code in response to
`
`authenticating the user.” The system of claim 22 also includes a computer system
`
`with its own “communications interface configured to receive the one-time code”
`
`and using it to “access the account identifying information or user identifying
`
`information.” Ex-1101, 21:3-23. Ex-1102 ¶53.
`
`C.
`Prosecution History
`Patent Owner filed Patent Application Number 15/691,378 on August 30,
`
`2017 and requested prioritized examination. Ex-1105, 274-362. The application
`
`contained 28 claims. Id. 334-39. On October 6, 2017, the examiner rejected all
`
`pending claims for nonstatutory double patenting over claims in the ’539 patent.
`
`Id. 228-33. On October 25, 2017, an Amendment and a Terminal Disclaimer were
`
`filed to overcome the rejection for double patenting. Id. 44-55. On January 26,
`
`2018, the examiner issued a Notice of Allowance of all claims. Id. 24-31. The
`
`patent issued on March 27, 2018. Id. 1. Ex-1102 ¶¶54-57.
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,928,495
`
`VII. PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS
`Petitioner submits that all claim terms should be construed using the plain
`
`and ordinary meaning. See 37 C.F.R. §42.100(b); Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
`
`1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005). If Patent Owner contends that the claim terms have a
`
`different construction, Patent Owner should seek to amend the claim to expressly
`
`correspond to its contentions in this proceeding. See 77 Fed. Reg. 48764 (Aug. 14,
`
`2012).
`
`VIII. PRIOR ART REFERENCES
`A.
`Schutzer
`European Patent Application Publication No. 1028401A2 (Ex-1106)
`
`(“Schutzer”) was filed on February 10, 2000, and claims priority to two U.S.
`
`provisional applications: No. 60/119,818 filed on February 2, 1999, and
`
`No. 60/144,927 filed on July 21, 1999, both of which predate the ’495 patent’s
`
`earliest claimed priority date. Schutzer was published on August 16, 2000 and is
`
`therefore prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §102(a). Schutzer was not considered
`
`during prosecution of the ’495 patent. Ex-1102 ¶58.
`
`Schutzer discloses that when a user engages in a financial transaction, the
`
`user’s system generates a single-use “anonymous or alternate card number,” which
`
`substitutes for the user’s actual card number in a transaction. Ex-1106, [0019]
`
`(“[T]he anonymous or alternate card number is used in a transaction by the
`
`transaction card user in place of the transaction card user’s transaction card
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,928,495
`number.”), [0025] (indicating that “anonymous card number” and “alternate card
`
`number” are used synonymously).1 The anonymous card number can “pass any
`
`validity checks made by a merchant or the merchant’s bank” and, when passed to
`
`the issuing institution (e.g., the bank or other institution that issued the credit or
`
`debit card), can be “associated … with the proper cardholder and the cardholder’s
`
`account can be authorized.” Id. [0011], [0019], Fig. 4. The anonymous card
`
`number can be a one-time code for a single transaction. For example, in at least
`
`one embodiment, the anonymous card number is “[a]ssociated with ... the time
`
`that it was generated” and “cannot be valid for more than one transaction.” Id.
`
`[0041], [0052]. Schutzer also discloses the use of a biometric input to authenticate
`
`a user. Id. [0013]-[0014]. Ex-1102 ¶59.
`
`B. Walker
`U.S. Patent No. 6,163,771 (Ex-1107) (“Walker”) was filed on August 28,
`
`1997 and issued on December 19, 2000. Walker is therefore prior art under at least
`
`35 U.S.C. §102(b). Patent Owner cited Walker in one of several Information
`
`Disclosure Statements (together with 144 other references), but Walker did not
`
`
`
`1 While these terms are used synonymously in Schutzer, this Petition will
`
`use “anonymous card number.”
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,928,495
`form the basis of a rejection and was not analyzed or discussed by the Patent
`
`Owner or the examiner. Ex-1102 ¶60.
`
`Walker discloses a system configured to authenticate a cardholder based on
`
`a single-use credit card number.2 The single-use credit card number is sent by a
`
`cardholder to a merchant and via the merchant to a credit card issuer. Ex-1107,
`
`6:4-14. The credit card issuer retrieves the cardholder’s true account number using
`
`the single-use credit card number and provides an authorization for the transaction
`
`to the merchant. Id. 7:3-9 (“When the single-use credit card number is transmitted
`
`… [t]he central processor … either authorizes or denies the charge.”). Id. Figs.
`
`3A-3B. Ex-1102 ¶¶61-62.
`
`The single-use credit card number is a one-time code sent in lieu of the
`
`cardholder’s actual account number. Ex-1107, 6:64-7:1. Walker also discloses the
`
`use of biometric input to authenticate a user prior to generating the one-time code.
`
`Id. 5:58-61. Ex-1102 ¶63.
`
`
`
`2 Walker uses “single-use financial account identifier” and “single-use credit
`
`card number” synonymously. The detailed description and drawings refer to a
`
`“single-use credit card number,” but the background and summary of the invention
`
`refer to a “single-use financial account identifier.”
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`C.
`Franklin
`U.S. Patent No. 6,000,832 (Ex-1108) (“Franklin”) was filed on September
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,928,495
`
`24, 1997 and issued on December 14, 1999, which is more than one year before the
`
`’495 patent’s priority date. Therefore, Franklin is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C.
`
`§102(b). Franklin was not considered during prosecution of the ’495 patent. Ex-
`
`1102 ¶64.
`
`Franklin is directed to a system for authenticating a party to a financial
`
`transaction using a randomly-generated “transaction number” in place of a user’s
`
`personal account information. Ex-1108, Abstract. When a user initiates a
`
`transaction, the user’s device generates a one-time transaction number as a
`
`function of “the private key, customer-specific data, … and transaction-specific
`
`data.” Id. 2:27-32. The transaction number is then submitted to the merchant “as a
`
`proxy for a regular card number.” Id. 2:35-39. The merchant subsequently passes
`
`the transaction number along to its own bank and then ultimately to the issuing
`
`institution for approval. Id. 2:43-46. The issuing institution, utilizing a database of
`
`customer account records, looks up the user’s information and compares stored
`
`information to a portion of the received transaction number. Id. 2:51-64. Based on
`
`that comparison, the issuing institution either accepts or denies the transaction. Id.
`
`2:65-3:6. Ex-1102 ¶65.
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`D.
`Slater
`U.S. Patent No. 6,098,053 (Ex-1109) (“Slater”) was filed on January 26,
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,928,495
`
`1999 and issued on August 1, 2000. Slater is therefore prior art under at least 35
`
`U.S.C. §102(a). Slater was not considered during prosecution of the ’495 patent.
`
`Ex-1102 ¶66.
`
`Similar to the ’495 patent, Slater discloses a user device configured to
`
`forward a tokenized “electronic financial transaction instruction” containing
`
`sensitive information to a financial institution via a merchant. Ex-1109, Abstract,
`
`Fig. 1. Like the other prior art, the electronic financial transaction instruction
`
`contains information for identifying an account for the user and for performing a
`
`financial transaction. Id. 4:66-5:2. Ex-1102 ¶67.
`
`IX. CLAIMS 22-28 OF THE ’495 PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §103
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(4)-(5), this Petition demonstrates how the
`
`prior art renders obvious claims 22-28 of the ’495 patent.
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 22-26 and 28 Are Obvious over Schutzer Alone
`or in View of Walker.
`1.
`Independent Claim 22
`a.
`22[p]: “An authentication system to enable a
`transaction involving a first party and a user, the
`system comprising:”
`A claim preamble is not limiting unless the preamble “gives ‘life and
`
`meaning’ to the claims,” or unless terms in the preamble “provide an antecedent
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,928,495
`basis for terms in the body.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 269 (CCPA 1976).
`
`This preamble is superfluous. Nowhere besides the preamble does the claim
`
`mention “authentication system” or “enabl[ing] a transaction involving a first party
`
`and a user.” The term “the user” does rely on the preamble for its antecedent basis,
`
`but the body of the claim does not reference “the first party” nor enabling the
`
`transaction between the two. Thus, the preamble does not give life or meaning to
`
`the claim, and the preamble is not limiting. But even if the preamble is limiting,
`
`which Petitioner does not concede, Schutzer alone or in view of Walker discloses
`
`this limitation. As illustrated in Figure 1 below, Schutzer discloses a bankcard
`
`transaction system [authentication system] that “enable[s] a transaction”
`
`involving a “transaction card issuer” and/or a merchant [first party]3 and a
`
`cardholder [user]. Ex-1106, [0008] (“It is a feature and advantage of the present
`
`invention to provide method and system for securely performing a bankcard
`
`transaction ….”), [0019], Fig. 3. Ex-1102 ¶69.
`
`
`
`3 These two alternative mappings of the first party limitation are provided in
`
`view of claim 23’s requirement that the first party is either the merchant or the
`
`credit card company. These alternative mappings addressed in the analysis of the
`
`claim limitations, below. Either mapping, standing alone, is sufficient to meet the
`
`claim.
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,928,495
`
`
`
`Ex-1106 (Schutzer), Fig. 1.
`
`Schutzer further discloses that the cardholder transmits an anonymous card
`
`number for one-time use to the merchant to authenticate him or herself and enable
`
`a transaction. Ex-1106, [0027] (“[T]he merchant’s server 12 receives and sends
`
`the alternate card number to the … bank’s server 18 with a request for
`
`authorization.”). Schutzer discloses that the merchant’s server “receives the
`
`request for authorization [from the user] and sends the request with the alternate
`
`card number … to the card issuer’s server 14.” Id. In Walker, “[t]he merchant 302
`
`transmits the single-use credit card number 300 to a credit card issuer 303. The
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,928,495
`credit card issuer 303 returns an authorization 310 to the merchant, based on which
`
`the merchant delivers the desired goods or services 320 to the cardholder.” Ex-
`
`1107, 6:9-14. Ex-1102 ¶70.
`
`A POSITA would have understood that the merchant described in both
`
`Schutzer and Walker is a first party in a transaction. Alternatively, a POSITA
`
`would also have understood that the issuing bank [credit card company], which
`
`receives and validates the one-time code in both Schutzer and Walker, is a first
`
`party. Ex-1102 ¶¶71-73.
`
`b.
`
`22[a]: “an electronic device comprising a
`communications interface and one or more
`processors;”
`Schutzer discloses this limitation. Schutzer discloses a user computing
`
`device [electronic device] that contains computer hardware, such as a processor
`
`[one or more processors]. Ex-1106, [0024], [0030], [0034], [0026], [0023], Figs.
`
`3, 5. Ex-1102 ¶74.
`
`Schutzer further discloses that the user’s computing device is coupled to
`
`other devices (such as the card issuer’s server) over a network [communications
`
`interface]. Ex-1106, [0012] (indicating “a computing device” is “coupled to the
`
`card issuer’s server over a network, such as the Internet”); see also id. [0018],
`
`[0019], [0030]-[0032], [0037], [0040], [0041], Abstract. A POSITA would have
`
`understood that a computing device such as a personal computer or a personal
`
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,928,495
`digital assistant that could connect to the Internet would have comprised a
`
`processor coupled to a communications interface, at least since both components
`
`are required to connect to the internet. Ex-1102 ¶¶75-76.
`
`c.
`
`22[b]: “wherein the one or more processors are
`configured to: receive biometric information of the
`user; and”
`Schutzer discloses this limitation. Schutzer discloses that the local
`
`computing device is configured to receive biometric information of a user. In
`
`particular, Schutzer explains that “the transaction card user authenticates himself or
`
`herself with the transaction card user information at a local computing device, …
`
`by entering the transaction card user information [receive biometric information
`
`of the user] on the application at the local computing device [one or more
`
`processors].” Ex-1106, [0014]. Schutzer explains that the transaction card user
`
`information may include “a biometric sample” that may be received and processed
`
`by the processor in the local computing device. Id. [0013]; see also id. [0035]
`
`(“[T]he user 2 enters … a biometric, such as a fingerprint, onto the input device 34,
`
`such as a biometric input device.”), Fig. 3. Ex-1102 ¶¶77-78.
`
`d.
`
`22[c]: “generate a one-time code in response to
`authenticating the user,”
`Schutzer discloses this limitation. Schutzer discloses that the processor of
`
`the local computing device generates an anonymous card number for “one-time
`
`use” [generate a one-time code]. Ex-1106, [0040] (“[T]he anonymous or
`
`
`
`- 19 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,928,495
`alternate card number is a number that is not the cardholder’s actual card number.
`
`The issuing bank 8 associates the number with the cardholder’s actual card number
`
`for one-time use over a limited time-duration ….”), [0030]. Ex-1102 ¶79.
`
`Schutzer further discloses that the user computing device generates a one-
`
`time anonymous card number [one-time code] “in response to” locally
`
`authenticating the user. Specifically, Schutzer explains that “software on the
`
`cardholder’s PC or information appliance … can generate the anonymous card
`
`number after the cardholder 2 identifies himself or herself”4 [in response to
`
`authenticat