`
`DOCKET NO.: 1652875-00151US8
`Filed on behalf of PNC Bank, NA.
`By: David Cavanaugh, Reg. No. 36,476 (Lead Counsel)
`Monica Grewal, Reg. No. 40,056 (First Backup Counsel)
`Gregory Lantier (pro hac vice to be filed) (Backup Counsel)
`Taeg Sang Cho, Reg. No. 69,618 (Backup Counsel)
`
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`Email: david.cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
` monica.grewal@wilmerhale.com
` gregory.lantier@wilmerhale.com
` tim.cho@wilmerhale.com
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`PNC BANK, N.A.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION,
`Patent Owner.
`_________________________________________
`Case IPR2021-01077
`U.S. Patent No. 10,621,559
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 10,621,559
`CHALLENGING CLAIMS 1-18
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01077
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,621,559
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Page
`
`A. 
`B. 
`C. 
`D. 
`
`A. 
`B. 
`
`A. 
`B. 
`C. 
`
`A. 
`B. 
`
`Table of Contents ............................................................................................ ii 
`I. 
`INTRODUCTION............................................................................ 1 
`II. 
`MANDATORY NOTICES .............................................................. 2 
`Real Party-In-Interest ................................................................. 2 
`Related Matters .......................................................................... 2 
`Counsel ...................................................................................... 3 
`Service Information ................................................................... 4 
`CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING .................. 4 
`OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED .... 5 
`Prior Art References .................................................................. 5 
`Grounds for Challenge ............................................................... 7 
`TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND ................................................. 8 
`Bank Check ................................................................................ 8 
`Electronic Check Processing ..................................................... 8 
`Remote Check Deposit System ................................................. 9 
`THE ’559 PATENT ....................................................................... 10 
`Brief Description ..................................................................... 10 
`Prosecution History ................................................................. 12 
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................... 12 
`- ii -
`
`III. 
`IV. 
`
`V. 
`
`VI. 
`
`VII. 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`VIII. 
`IX. 
`
`X. 
`
`A. 
`B. 
`C. 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`IPR2021-01077
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,621,559
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ......................... 15 
`PRINCIPAL PRIOR ART REFERENCES ................................... 16 
`Garcia ....................................................................................... 16 
`Randle ...................................................................................... 18 
`Slater ........................................................................................ 21 
`SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY ................... 23 
`Ground I: Claims 1-3 and 10-12 are Obvious over Garcia in
`view of Randle and Slater ........................................................ 23 
`1.  Garcia in view of Randle and Slater ................................. 23 
`2. 
`Independent Claim 1 ......................................................... 33 
`3.  Claim 2 .............................................................................. 67 
`4.  Claim 3 .............................................................................. 69 
`5. 
`Independent Claim 10 ....................................................... 69 
`6.  Claim 11 ............................................................................ 72 
`7.  Claim 12 ............................................................................ 73 
`Ground II: Claims 4, 9, 13, and 18 are Obvious Over Garcia in
`view of Randle, Slater, and Lev .............................................. 73 
`1.  Claim 4 .............................................................................. 73 
`2.  Claim 9 .............................................................................. 76 
`3.  Claim 13 ............................................................................ 77 
`4.  Claim 18 ............................................................................ 78 
`Ground III: Claims 5 and 14 are Obvious Over Garcia in view
`of Randle, Slater, Lev, and Watanabe ..................................... 78 
`1.  Claim 5 .............................................................................. 78 
`- iii -
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01077
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,621,559
`2.  Claim 14 ............................................................................ 81 
`Ground IV: Claims 6 and 15 are Obvious Over Garcia in view
`of Randle, Slater, Lev, Watanabe, and Aoyama. ..................... 82 
`1.  Claim 6 .............................................................................. 82 
`2.  Claim 15 ............................................................................ 84 
`Ground V: Claims 7, 8, 16, and 17 are Obvious Over Garcia in
`view of Randle, Slater, and Byrne ........................................... 84 
`1.  Claim 7 .............................................................................. 84 
`2.  Claim 8 .............................................................................. 86 
`3.  Claim 16 ............................................................................ 88 
`4.  Claim 17 ............................................................................ 88 
`DISCRETIONARY DENIAL IS NOT WARRANTED ............... 88 
`PO Asserts Co-Pending Litigation Should Not Prevent IPR
`Institution. ................................................................................ 88 
`Fintiv Factors Favor Institution. .............................................. 89 
`New Prior Art and Arguments Favor Institution. .................... 90 
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................. 91 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`C. 
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`XI. 
`
`XII. 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01077
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,621,559
`
`INTRODUCTION
`U.S. Patent No. 10,621,559 (the “’559 patent”) reuses long-known and
`
`I.
`
`routine operations for depositing a bank check using a personal device. Although
`
`the ʼ559 patent claims a novel system that processes a check deposit using only the
`
`check’s image, every claim element was known in the prior art at the time the ʼ559
`
`patent was allegedly invented.
`
`Specifically, claim 1 of the ’559 patent recites (1) a “first processing
`
`circuitry” for “receiv[ing] a digital image … of the check … transmitted using a
`
`mobile device,” “convert[ing] the digital image into a second image format,”
`
`validating “an amount for the remote deposit of the check,” and “perform[ing]
`
`duplicate check detection”; and (2) a “second processing circuitry” for “accepting
`
`the digital image for check deposit.”
`
`None of these claim requirements are new. WO 2005/043857 to Garcia
`
`discloses a remote check deposit system in which a bank computer receives a
`
`check image from a user’s mobile device. U.S. Publication No. 2006/0106717 to
`
`Randle teaches a back-end check processing system that includes: (1) a payee’s
`
`bank that performs routine check processing operations, including converting
`
`image formats and detecting duplicate check deposits, and (2) a payor’s bank that
`
`accepts the digital image for check deposit. EP0984410 to Slater further teaches
`
`validating the check amount. It would have been obvious to combine Garcia’s
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01077
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,621,559
`system with Randle’s back-end check processing system and Slater’s check
`
`validation technique.
`
`PNC Bank N.A. (“Petitioner”) respectfully requests cancellation of claims
`
`challenged in this Petition.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Party-In-Interest
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), Petitioner certifies that PNC Bank N.A.
`
`is the real party-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2), Petitioner states that Patent Owner
`
`(“PO”) has asserted four patents, including the ’559 patent and its parent patent, in
`
`United Services Automobile Association (“USAA”) v. PNC Bank N.A., Case No.
`
`2:20-cv-00319-JRG (E.D. Tex.) (the “-00319 Action”). PO has asserted five
`
`additional patents, including two patents in the ’559 family, in USAA v. PNC Bank
`
`N.A., Case No. 2:21-cv-00110-JRG (E.D. Tex) (the “-00110 Action”) and USAA v.
`
`PNC Bank N.A., 2:21-cv-00246-JRG (E.D. Tex). On July 16, 2021, the district
`
`court consolidated PO’s assertions in the -00319 Action and the -00110 Action (the
`
`“Consolidated Action”). EX1158.
`
`In the -00319 Action, Petitioner has asserted counterclaims against PO,
`
`asserting four patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 7,949,788, 8,868,786, 8,380,623, and
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01077
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,621,559
`8,682,754. PO has filed inter partes review (IPR) petitions challenging validity of
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 7,949,788, 8,868,786. USAA v. PNC Bank, NA, IPR2021-01163,
`
`IPR2021-01248.
`
`Three prior post-grant proceedings have been filed by third parties
`
`pertaining to patents in the ’559 patent’s family, but the ’559 patent has never been
`
`challenged in a post-grant proceeding:
`
`Challenged Patent
`U.S. 9,224,136
`U.S. 10,013,681
`
`Case Nos.
`CBM2019-00027
`IPR2020-01650
`CBM2019-00028
`
`Petitioner has filed or is concurrently filing IPR petitions challenging the ’559
`
`patent and the patents asserted against Petitioner:
`
`Challenged Patent
`U.S. 8,699,779
`U.S. 8,977,571
`U.S. 10,482,432
`U.S. 10,482,432
`U.S. 10,621,559
`
`
`
`Case Nos.
`IPR2021-01070
`IPR2021-01073
`IPR2021-01071
`IPR2021-01074
`IPR2021-01076
`
`C. Counsel
`Under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3)-(4), Petitioner identifies the following lead
`
`and backup counsel, to whom all correspondence should be directed.
`
`Lead Counsel:
`
`
`
`David Cavanaugh (Reg. No. 36,476)
`
`Backup Counsel:
`
`Monica Grewal (Reg. No. 40,056)
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01077
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,621,559
`Gregory Lantier (pro hac vice to be filed)
`
`Taeg Sang Cho (Reg. No. 69,618)
`
`D.
`
`
`
`Service Information
`E-mail:
`david.cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`
`
`
`monica.grewal@wilmerhale.com
`
`gregory.lantier@wilmerhale.com
`
`tim.cho@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`
`
`
`Post and hand delivery: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`
`1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
`
`Washington, DC 20006
`
`Telephone: 202-663-6000
`
`Facsimile: 202-663-6363
`
`Petitioner consents to service by e-mail on lead and backup counsel.
`
`III. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioner certifies under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) that the patent for which
`
`review is sought is available for inter partes review and under 37 C.F.R. §§
`
`42.101(a)-(c) that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting an inter
`
`partes review challenging the patent claims on the grounds identified in this
`
`Petition.
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01077
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,621,559
`IV. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`Under Rules 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b)(1)-(2), Petitioner requests
`
`cancellation of claims 1-18 of the ’559 patent.
`
`A.
`Prior Art References
`The ’559 patent was filed on April 11, 2019, and purports to claim priority
`
`to U.S. Patent No. 7,873,200 filed on October 31, 20061. The following references
`
`are pertinent to the grounds of unpatentability presented below:
`
`1.
`
`International Patent Application Publication No. WO 2005/043857
`
`(“Garcia”) (EX1103)2, published May 12, 2005, is prior art under at
`
`least 35 U.S.C. §102(b). Garcia is not of record on the face of the
`
`’559 patent.
`
`
` This Petition assumes the ’559 patent’s alleged invention date is 2006 and
`
`1
`
`applies pre-AIA provisions of 35 U.S.C. §§102,103.
`
`2
`
`Garcia was originally published in Spanish. Exhibit A of EX1103 includes
`
`the original Spanish publication, and Exhibit B of EX1103 includes a certified
`
`translation of the Spanish publication. This Petition’s citations to “EX1103” refer
`
`specifically to Exhibit B of EX1103.
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01077
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,621,559
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0106717 (“Randle”) (EX1104),
`
`2.
`
`filed May 15, 2004, and published May 18, 2006, is prior art under at
`
`least 35 U.S.C. §§102(a),(e).
`
`3.
`
`European Patent Application Publication No. 0984410 (“Slater”)
`
`(EX1105), published March 8, 2000, is prior art under at least 35
`
`U.S.C. §102(b).
`
`4.
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0164682 (“Lev”) (EX1106), filed
`
`January 24, 2006, claiming priority to January 25, 2005, and
`
`published July 27, 2006, is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§102(a),(e).
`
`5.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,027,171 (“Watanabe”) (EX1107), filed March 29,
`
`2000 and issued April 11, 2006, is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§102(a),(e).
`
`6.
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0172516 (“Aoyama”) (EX1108),
`
`published on November 21, 2002, is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C.
`
`§102(b). Aoyama is not of record on the face of the ’559 patent.
`
`7.
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0249567 (“Byrne”) (EX1109), filed
`
`February 9, 2006, claiming priority to February 10, 2005, and
`
`published November 9, 2006, is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§102(a),(e).
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01077
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,621,559
`Randle, Slater’s U.S. counterpart (U.S. Patent No. 7,792,753), Lev,
`
`Watanabe, and Byrne are of record on the face of the ’559 patent but did not form
`
`the basis of a rejection during prosecution. Byrne was used in IPR2020-01650 and
`
`CBM2019-00027 against a related patent, but the prior proceedings did not
`
`consider Byrne in combination with Garcia.
`
`B. Grounds for Challenge
`Petitioner requests cancellation of claims 1-18 as unpatentable under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103:
`
`Ground
`
`References
`
`Basis Claims Challenged
`
`I
`
`II
`
`III
`
`IV
`
`V
`
`Garcia, Randle, Slater
`
`Garcia, Randle, Slater, Lev
`
`Garcia, Randle, Slater, Lev,
`Watanabe
`Garcia, Randle, Slater, Lev,
`Watanabe, Aoyama
`Garcia, Randle, Slater, Byrne
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`1-3, 10-12
`
`4, 9, 13, 18
`
`5, 14
`
`6, 15
`
`7-8, 16-17
`
`This Petition, supported by the declaration of Dr. Noble (EX1102),
`
`demonstrates there is a reasonable likelihood that the Petitioner would prevail with
`
`respect to at least one challenged claim. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Petitioner
`
`respectfully requests institution. SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348
`
`(2018).
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01077
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,621,559
`
`V. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
`A. Bank Check
`A check typically includes a magnetic ink character recognition (MICR) line
`
`that identifies the bank routing number, customer account number, and check
`
`number. EX1112, [0021].
`
`Id., Figure 1. EX1102, ¶¶20-21.
`
`B.
`Electronic Check Processing
`In the past, check deposit transactions were “inefficient and costly” because
`
`banks had to physically exchange paper checks. EX1111. The Check Clearing for
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01077
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,621,559
`the 21st Century Act (the “Check 21 Act”) addressed these inefficiencies and costs.
`
`Id.; EX1121, [0007]. EX1102, ¶¶22-23.
`
`The Check 21 Act enables end-to-end electronic check processing. Under
`
`the Check 21 Act, financial institutions treat a substitute check—a copy of a
`
`physical check including images of the front and back of the physical check and
`
`information appearing on its MICR line—as the legal equivalent of the original
`
`physical check. EX1121, [0008], [0010]. This allowed banks “to truncate the
`
`original paper check to process the check information electronically and to deliver
`
`substitute checks to financial institutions that want to continue receiving paper
`
`checks.” Id., [0008]. See EX1104, [0019], [0025], [0036], [0043], [0048], [0051],
`
`[0074]; EX1112, [0028], EX1103, 11:7-15, EX1109, [0174], EX1105, [0023],
`
`[0028], EX1113, EX1121, [0007]. EX1102, ¶¶23-28.
`
`C. Remote Check Deposit System
`Remote check capture/deposit system provides an alternative to depositing
`
`physical checks. EX1110; EX1114, [0004]. Remote capture/deposit, enabled
`
`partly by the Check 21 Act, allows a payee to take an image of a check and send it
`
`to a bank so the bank can clear the check using the check image. EX1110, 5.
`
`EX1102, ¶29.
`
`One example of a remote deposit system that uses a mobile device with an
`
`integrated camera is illustrated below. EX1103, 12:4-13:5.
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01077
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,621,559
`
`
`
`Id., Figure 1.3 EX1102, ¶¶30-31.
`
`VI. THE ’559 PATENT
`A. Brief Description
` The ’559 patent discloses a particular implementation of a remote check
`
`deposit capture technology. The ’559 patent’s system includes: (1) an image
`
`capture device; (2) a general-purpose computer coupled to the image capture
`
`device; and (3) a server associated with a financial institution that receives
`
`information from the general-purpose computer. EX1101, 2:35-47.
`
`
`In this petition, color annotations and emphases are added unless noted
`
`3
`
`otherwise.
`
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01077
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,621,559
`
`
`
`Id., Figure 1. EX1102, ¶32.
`
`A customer (payee) captures an image of a check using an imaging device
`
`coupled to a general-purpose computer and transmits the captured information to
`
`the server 131 in the payee bank (“payee bank server”). EX1101, 5:26-39, 8:05-
`
`21, 9:01-03. The payee bank server then validates the received check image using
`
`routine techniques such as OCR (EX1101, 9:42-47, 10:61-64) and duplicate check
`
`detection (id., 10:19-20). See also id., 9:47-58, 10:61-67. The payee bank server
`
`subsequently clears the check image for example “by presenting the digital image
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01077
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,621,559
`to an intermediary bank” (EX1101, 6:13-16), which would then present the check
`
`to the payor bank and “request that the check be paid” (id., 6:32-34). See also id.,
`
`11:21-28, 11:57-65, 12:6-10. If the payor bank “verifies the check (i.e., agrees to
`
`honor the check), [the intermediary bank] may then settle the check by debiting
`
`funds from [the payor bank] and crediting funds to [the payee bank].” Id., 6:34-
`
`39. See also id., 11:53-56, 12:6-14. EX1102, ¶¶33-35.
`
`B.
`Prosecution History
`The application for the ’559 patent was filed on April 11, 2019 and was
`
`allowed without any rejections. EX1101, cover; EX1119 [File History], 278-293.
`
`EX1102, ¶36.
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`The Board need only construe claim terms to the extent necessary to resolve
`
`a controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868
`
`F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`In the co-pending district court litigation, Petitioner and PO agree on the
`
`construction of certain terms and disagree on others. EX1126 [Joint Claim
`
`Construction], 5-6, 9. In this petition, Petitioner relies on the agreed-upon
`
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01077
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,621,559
`constructions and the PO’s proposed construction for “mobile device associated
`
`with an image capture device”4:
`
`Term
`*5 “computing device”
`* “[remote] check deposit
`/ [remote] deposit /
`[remote] deposit of a
`check”
`#6 “mobile device
`associated with an image
`capture device”
`
`
`Proposed Constructions
`“general purpose computer”
`“a [remote] transaction involving provision of a
`check to a depository in a form sufficient to allow
`money to be credited to an account”
`
`“handheld computing device associated with an
`image capture device”
`
`EX1101, 3:33-47, 3:48-4:4, 4:5-26, 4:59-5:3, 7:17-
`24, 13:46-48, 14:14-20, and Figures 1-5.
`PO alleges that under the proposed construction of “mobile device
`
`associated with an image capture device,” the “handheld computing device” “may
`
`include an integrated digital camera controlled by the mobile device.” EX1120, 4-
`
`5.
`
`
`Rule 42.104(b)(3) “does not require Petitioner to express its subjective
`
`4
`
`agreement regarding correctness of its proffered claim constructions or to take
`
`ownership of those constructions.” Western Digital Corp. v. SPEX Tech. Inc.,
`
`IPR2018-00084, Paper 14, 11-12 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 25, 2018).
`
`5
`
`6
`
`“*” denotes an agreed-upon construction.
`
`“#” denotes a construction the PO proposed in the district court and PO’s
`
`alleged supporting evidence.
`
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01077
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,621,559
`For the remaining disputed terms, Petitioner presents below that the
`
`challenged claims are invalid under either party’s proposed construction:
`
`Term
`
`“a computing device for
`processing a remote
`deposit of a check, the
`computing device
`comprising / a method
`for controlling a
`computing device to
`process a remote deposit
`of a check, the method
`comprising”
`“suitable for creating a
`substitute check”
`
`
`“first processing
`circuitry”
`
`
`Petitioner’s District
`Court Construction and
`Supporting Evidence7
`The references to
`“computing device” are
`limiting; otherwise not
`limiting.
`
`EX1101, 3:48-4:4, 6:15-
`25, 9:16-58, 10:29-11:13,
`12:22-13:7, 13:46-14:13,
`14:22-65, 15:38-16:17;
`Figs. 1, 3, 4, 6.
`“suitable for creating a
`paper copy of the original
`check that can be used by
`a bank in place of the
`original check”
`
`EX1101, Claims 1, 3, 10,
`12; 6:17-39, 11:57-12:21.
`
`“first processor”
`
`
`PO’s District Court
`Construction and
`Supporting Evidence8
`Preamble is limiting
`
`EX1101, claims 1, 10.
`
`EX1101, 6:17-49, 9:1-16,
`11:3-13, 12:57-62, 11:34-
`12:21.
`
`“in a form sufficient to
`allow money to be
`credited to an account in
`compliance with all legal
`requirements”
`
`EX1101, 6:17-49, 9:1-16,
`11:3-13, 11:34-12:21,
`12:57-62.
`No further construction
`necessary.
`
`
`
`This column provides the Petitioner’s support from the ’559 patent and its
`
`7
`
`prosecution history.
`
`8
`
`This column provides the PO’s support from the ’559 patent and its
`
`prosecution history.
`
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01077
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,621,559
`PO’s District Court
`Construction and
`Supporting Evidence8
`EX1101, 5:15-39, 5:60-
`6:16, 8:23-36, 9:1-16,
`9:33-11:13, 12:38-62,
`13:46-67, and Figures 1-
`4, 6.
`No further construction
`necessary.
`
`EX1101, 5:60-6:49, 6:50-
`7:2, 11:21-12:21, 13:46-
`67, and Figures 1-4, 6.
`
`No further construction
`necessary. Term has
`patentable weight.
`
`EX1101, 2:35-47, 7:47-
`8:24, 8:37-44, 8:56-62.
`
`“second processing
`circuitry”
`
`
`“control[ling] display of
`instructions”
`
`
`Term
`
`Petitioner’s District
`Court Construction and
`Supporting Evidence7
`EX1101, 3:48-4:4, 6:15-
`25, 9:16-58, 10:29-11:13,
`12:22-13:7, 13:46-14:13,
`14:22-65, 15:38-16:17;
`Figures 1, 3, 4, 6.
`“processor different from
`the first processor”
`
`EX1101, 3:48-4:4, 6:15-
`25, 9:16-58, 10:29-11:13,
`12:22-13:7, 13:46-14:13,
`14:22-65, 15:38-16:17;
`Figures 1, 3, 4, 6.
`Term lacks patentable
`weight.
`
`EX1101, Claims 1, 4-8,
`10, 13-17; 8:5-21, 8:57-
`62; Figure 2.
`EX1126, 5-6, 9, 19-25, 36-39.
`
`All other claim terms should be given their plain and customary meaning as
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, under Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415
`
`F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`
`VIII. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`A person of ordinary skill in the relevant field or art (“POSITA”) as of the
`
`claimed priority date of the ’559 patent would have had a bachelor’s degree in
`
`electrical engineering, computer science, computer engineering, or equivalent
`
`field, and at least two years of prior experience with image capture/scanning
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01077
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,621,559
`technology, involving transferring and processing of image data to and at a server.
`
`Less work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education and vice
`
`versa. EX1102, ¶¶42-45.
`
`IX. PRINCIPAL PRIOR ART REFERENCES
`A. Garcia
`Garcia teaches a remote check deposit system “for processing and accepting
`
`documents, such as … bank checks … using … a mobile device capable of
`
`capturing and sending images.” EX1103, 1:7-13. EX1102, ¶46.
`
`Garcia’s Figure 2 illustrates the system that includes a user’s “mobile
`
`device” and “computer equipment at the financial institution.” EX1103, 9:11-18.
`
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01077
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,621,559
`
`
`
`EX1103, Figure 2. EX1102, ¶47.
`
`The mobile device can capture and send the image of a check and
`
`information associated with the deposit to a financial institution. EX1103, 10:10-
`
`13, 10:16-18, 11:20-12:3, 12:9-13. The institution then recognizes, verifies, and
`
`processes the received information, “ultimately obtaining a digital photograph of
`
`the check and a data set that allows it to automatically process the deposit of the
`
`check.” EX1103, 11:7-10, 12:17-22. To that end, the financial institution uses
`
`“computer equipment … that has an optical character recognition (OCR) system.”
`
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01077
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,621,559
`Id., 11:10-15. See also id. 11:15-19, Figure 1 (“Financial Processing”). EX1102,
`
`¶¶48-49.
`
`B. Randle
`Randle teaches end-to-end electronic check processing that can “capture,
`
`validate and clear transactions rapidly and inexpensively.” EX1104, [0002],
`
`[0006]-[0007]. See also id., [0004], [0042]. Figure 1A, reproduced below,
`
`illustrates the end-to-end check processing sequence. Id., [0018]. When a payee
`
`receives a check from a payor, the payee presents the check to the payee bank
`
`either in an electronic form (5) or in a physical form (2b) (which is then scanned.)
`
`Id., [0019]; Figure 1A. Subsequently, “the captured data and image information is
`
`checked for quality and if found insufficient, the transaction is flagged or routed
`
`for exception processing.” Id. If found sufficient, the payee bank submits the
`
`quality-assured (“QA’d”) check information to the clearing house 20, which then
`
`clears and settles the check transaction between the payee bank and the payor
`
`banks. Id.
`
`
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01077
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,621,559
`
`
`
`Id., Figure 1A. EX1102, ¶¶50-53.
`
`Although Randle’s Figure 1A illustrates the QA processes and the check
`
`image processing processes (items 5a, 10-16) to be separate from the payee bank
`
`4/21, these processes can be performed by an engine (as described below) that
`
`resides in the payee bank 4/21. EX1104, Figure 3, [0028], [0042]. EX1102, ¶¶50,
`
`54-55.
`
`Randle’s Figure 1B illustrated below “depicts an outline of the end to end
`
`processing,” showing the “sources” of a check image, “engine,” legacy systems,
`
`identification/verification systems, and the “destination” of the check image.
`- 19 -
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01077
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,621,559
`EX1104, Figure 1B, [0020]. When an engine receives a check image from a
`
`“source,” it performs “[d]ynamic quality assurance (QA) … on the image and the
`
`transaction” for “verification, posting, and clearing purposes.” Id., [0021], [0028].
`
`
`
`Id., Figure 1B. EX1102, ¶55.
`
`Once verified, the engine transmits the check image (with an assigned “QA
`
`value”) to a destination. EX1104, [0020], [0028]. The destination can include
`
`“image enabled banks” that can clear checks using check images (id., [0048]), or
`
`“[c]learing houses and other settlement engines … for inter-bank settlement.” Id.,
`
`
`
`
`- 20 -
`
`

`

`[0050]; EX1102, ¶56.
`
`IPR2021-01077
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,621,559
`
`Figure 3 reproduced below shows a “multi-bank view” of the components
`
`illustrated in Figure 1B. EX1104, [0066].
`
`
`
`Id., Figure 3. EX1102, ¶57.
`
`C.
`Slater
`Slater discloses a system that allows a customer to deposit a check at a
`
`“remote” “deposit location,” separate from a “check processing location.”
`
`EX1105, [0002]-[0004], [0021], [0022].
`
`
`
`
`- 21 -
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01077
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,621,559
`
`Id., FIG. 1. EX1102, ¶58.
`
`The customer can deposit a check by presenting the check at a remote
`
`deposit location 13 using “a customer access terminal (CAT).” EX1105, [0016],
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 22 -
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01077
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,621,559
`[0021]-[0022]. “The CAT can be programmed to validate check items through
`
`MICR code line and OCR software.” Id., [0023]. Once the image is captured,
`
`“[t]he customer can then, using an appropriate keyboard and Courtesy Amount
`
`Recognition Software (CAR), input the check amount. A comparison between the
`
`scanned amount and the entered amount is made, and if there is a match, the
`
`transaction proceeds.” Id. EX1102, ¶¶59-60.
`
`X. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY
`A. Ground I: Claims 1-3 and 10-12 are Obvious over Garcia in view
`of Randle and Slater
`1.
`Garcia in view of Randle and Slater
`i. Check Processing System in view of Randle
`Garcia discloses “computer equipment at the [financial] institution” that
`
`validates and deposits a check image received from a “mobile device.” EX1103,
`
`4:11-16, 9:11-18. This computer equipment “has an optical character recognition
`
`(OCR) system” for “recognizing, verifying and processing the information sent by
`
`the user.” Id., 11:7-13. Figure 2 of Garcia illustrates the computer equipment as a
`
`server or a desktop computer:
`
`
`
`
`- 23 -
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01077
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,621,559
`
`
`
`Id., Figure 2. EX1102, ¶62.
`
`Garcia explains that its system “achieves greater simplicity … in depositing
`
`checks” (EX1103, 7:18-21) and “automatically process[es] the deposit of the check
`
`in question” (id., 12:20-21) by “[r]ecognizing, verifying, and electronically treating
`
`and processing the information received” at the bank (id., 15:8-10). Garcia,
`
`however, does not expressly disclose details about how the computer equipment
`
`implements these processes. Accordingly, a POSITA would have been motivated
`
`to find implementation details for Garcia’s computer equipment, particularly those
`
`
`
`
`- 24 -
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01077
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,621,559
`based on OCR. Id., 11:10-15. A POSITA would have expected to find such
`
`implementation details in prior art because Garcia explains such implementations
`
`details were routine. Id., 11:15-19. EX1102, ¶63.
`
`A POSITA would have readily understood that Randle provides such
`
`details. As described in Section IX.B, Randle provides an end-to-end check
`
`processing system that “validate[s] and clear[s] transactions” based on “the
`
`electronic capture of paper items at the point of sale or presentment.” EX1104,
`
`[0007]. In Figure 3, Randle’s system includes a payee bank (e.g., Bank A), a
`
`payor bank (e.g., Bank B), and a clearing house, each of which includes an
`
`engine. When a payee submits a check image to the payee bank (e.g., Bank A), the
`
`engine in the payee bank performs QA operations on the received check. EX1104,
`
`[0019]-[0021], [0028], [0036], [0042]-[0043], [0054], [0074]. If the quality is
`
`sufficient, the engine transmits the quality-checked image to the clearing house,
`
`which then clears and settles the check transaction between the payee bank and the
`
`payor bank. Id., [0019]. Accordingly, Randle provides implementation details of a
`
`check processing system that “recogniz[es], verif[ies] and process[es]” check
`
`images as taught by Garcia (EX1103, 11:7-13), and allows a payee to submit a
`
`check image to the payee bank, jus