UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`AUTHWALLET LLC,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case No. IPR2021-01260
`U.S. Patent No. 9,292,852
`____________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. CLIFFORD NEUMAN
`
`IPR2021-01260
`Unified EX1003 Page 1
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`A. Materials Reviewed ................................................................................... 2
`B. Background and Qualifications ................................................................. 4
`II. Legal Framework .............................................................................................. 7
`III. Opinion ............................................................................................................ 14
`A. Overview of the ’852 Patent .................................................................... 14
`B. Background of the Technology ............................................................... 17
`1. Common Forms of Payment .............................................................. 18
`2. Conventional Transaction Processes .................................................. 27
`3. Technological Aspects of Payment Processing Systems ................... 33
`C. Level of a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................ 47
`D. Claim Construction ................................................................................. 48
`E. Ground 1: Obvious to Combine Nobrega, Keith, and Hansen ................ 49
`1. Overview of the Prior Art .................................................................. 49
`2. Overview of Motivations to Combine Nobrega, Keith, and Hansen . 57
`3. Opinions Regarding Claim 1 .............................................................. 64
`4. Opinions Regarding Claims 2, 16, and 29 (“coupon for use in
`transactions with a specified merchant or for a specified product”) .. 89
`5. Opinions Regarding Claims 3, 17, and 30 (“the associated value is
`expressed as a currency amount”) ...................................................... 90
`6. Opinions Regarding Claim 4 (“the associated value is expressed as a
`percentage of a portion of the transaction amount”) .......................... 92
`7. Opinions Regarding Claim 8, 21, and 34 (“a stored value item is
`item is determined based on a time associated with the transaction”) 93
`8. Opinions Regarding Claims 9, 22, and 35 (“a stored value item is
`determined based on a transaction history of the purchaser”) ........... 95
`9. Opinions Regarding Claim 11, 24, and 37 (“the one or more stored
`authorization request”) ....................................................................... 96
`
`associated with an applicable time or time period and the stored value
`
`value items are uniquely associated with the purchaser identifier in the
`
`IPR2021-01260
`Unified EX1003 Page 2
`
`

`

`10. Opinions Regarding Claim 12, 25, and 38 (“each stored value item
`
`IPR2021-01260
`U.S. Patent 9,292,852
`
`has associated transaction conditions under which a stored value item
`is to be applied, and wherein determining the one or more stored value
`items to apply to the transaction comprises selecting a stored value
`item from the plurality of stored value items in response to
`determining that the associated transaction conditions under which the
`stored value item is to be applied are satisfied by the authorization
`
`request”) ............................................................................................. 98
`11. Opinions Regarding Claim 15 .......................................................... 102
`12. Opinions Regarding Claim 28 .......................................................... 103
`F. Ground 2: Obvious to Combine Nobrega, Keith, Hansen, and Churchill
` ............................................................................................................... 104
`1. Overview of Churchill ...................................................................... 104
`2. Opinions Regarding Claims 5, 18, and 31 ....................................... 106
`3. Opinions Regarding Claims 6, 19, and 32 ....................................... 108
`IV. Conclusion .................................................................................................... 111
`
`
`
`2
`
`IPR2021-01260
`Unified EX1003 Page 3
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01260
`U.S. Patent 9,292,852
`
`I, Clifford Neuman, declare the following:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1. My name is Clifford Neuman and I am over 21 years of age and
`
`otherwise competent to make this Declaration. I make this Declaration based on facts
`
`and matters within my own knowledge and on information provided to me by others,
`
`and, if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify to the matters set
`
`forth herein.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained as a technical expert witness in this matter by
`
`Counsel for the Petitioner, Unified Patents, LLC to provide my independent opinions
`
`on certain issues requested by counsel for Petitioner relating to the accompanying
`
`petition for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,292,852 (the “’852
`
`Patent”). I understand that the Challenged Claims in Petitioner’s IPR Petition are 1-
`
`9, 11-22, 24-35, 37-40 (the “Challenged Claims”) of the ’852 Patent. My opinions
`
`are limited to those Challenged Claims. I have been informed that AuthWallet LLC
`
`(“Patent Owner”) is the purported owner of the ’852 patent. I note that I have no
`
`financial interest in Patent Owner, or the Petitioner, Unified Patents, LLC, and I have
`
`no other interest in the outcome of this matter.
`
`3.
`
`I am being compensated for my time spent in connection with this
`
`matter. My compensation in this matter is not based on the substance of my opinions
`
`or on the outcome of this matter.
`
`
`
`1
`
`IPR2021-01260
`Unified EX1003 Page 4
`
`

`

`A. Materials Reviewed
`4.
`As part of my work and in forming my opinions in connection with this
`
`IPR2021-01260
`U.S. Patent 9,292,852
`
`proceeding, I have reviewed the following materials, each of which I believe experts
`
`in my field would reasonably rely upon in forming opinions regarding the subject
`
`matter of this proceeding:
`
`• Exhibit 1001 – The ’852 Patent;
`
`• Exhibit 1002 – File History of the ’852 Patent (the “’852 File History”);
`
`• Exhibit 1004 – U.S. Patent No. 7,292,996 to Nobrega et al. (“Nobrega”);
`
`• Exhibit 1005 – U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0174116 to Keith et al.
`(“Keith”)
`
`• Exhibit 1006 – U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0011044 to Hansen
`(“Hansen”)
`
`• Exhibit 1007 – U.S. Patent No. 7,461,022 to Churchill et al. (“Churchill”)
`
`• Exhibit 1010 – Day, Clive, A History of Commerce, Longmans, Green,
`and Co. (1907) (“History of Commerce”);
`
`• Exhibit 1011 – U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0251469A1 to
`Nandakumar (“Nandakumar”);
`
`• Exhibit 1012 – U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0022966A1 to Horgan
`(“Horgan”);
`
`• Exhibit 1013 – U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0047573A1 to Mitchell
`et al. (“Mitchell”);
`
`• Exhibit 1014 – U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0288313A1 to Brodson
`et al. (“Brodson”);
`
`• Exhibit 1015 – U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0140520A1 to Hyder et
`al. (“Hyder”);
`
`
`
`2
`
`IPR2021-01260
`Unified EX1003 Page 5
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01260
`U.S. Patent 9,292,852
`• Exhibit 1016 – U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0235747A1 to Hammond
`et al. (“Hammond”);
`
`• Exhibit 1017 – U.S. Patent No. 8,788,323 to Weiss et al. (“Weiss”);
`
`• Exhibit 1018 – U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0281692A1 to Zhang et
`al. (“Zhang”);
`
`• Exhibit 1019 – U.S. Patent No. 7,146,344
`(“Wankmueller”);
`
`to Wankmueller
`
`• Exhibit 1020 – U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0009382A1 to
`D’Arbeloff et al. (“D’Arbeloff”);
`
`• Exhibit 1021 – U.S. Patent No. 5,878,141 to Daly et al. (“Daly”);
`
`• Exhibit 1022 – U.S. Patent No. 5,878,423 to Anderson et al. (“Anderson”);
`
`• Exhibit 1023 – U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0147620A1 to Walsh
`(“Walsh”);
`
`• Exhibit 1024 – PC Basics Get a Great Start, Gateway Inc. (2002) (“PC
`Basics”);
`
`• Exhibit 1025 – U.S. Patent No. 8,041,634 to Eastley et al. (“Eastley”);
`
`• Exhibit 1026 – U.S. Patent No. 7,853,525 to Yeates et al. (“Yeates”);
`
`• Exhibit 1027 – U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0178986A1 to Giordano
`et al. (“Giordano”);
`
`• Exhibit 1028 – U.S. Patent No. 6,612,488 to Suzuki (“Suzuki”);
`
`• Exhibit 1029 – U.S. Patent No. 7,967,196 to Bierbaum et al. (“Bierbaum”);
`
`• Exhibit 1030 – U.S. Patent No. 6,626,356 to Davenport et al.
`(“Davenport”);
`
`• Exhibit 1031 – U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0156530A1 to Schmitt et
`al. (“Schmitt”); and
`
`• Exhibit 1034 – U.S. Patent No. 6,854,652 to Omori (“Omori”).
`
`
`
`3
`
`IPR2021-01260
`Unified EX1003 Page 6
`
`

`

`Background and Qualifications
`I have summarized in this section my educational background, career
`
`IPR2021-01260
`U.S. Patent 9,292,852
`
`B.
`5.
`
`history, and other qualifications relevant to this matter. I have also included a current
`
`version of my curriculum vitae as Ex. 1008.
`
`6.
`
`I received an S.B. in Computer Science and Engineering in 1985 from
`
`the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; an M.S. in Computer Science in 1988
`
`from the University of Washington, and a Ph.D. in Computer Science in 1992 from
`
`the University of Washington.
`
`7.
`
`Since receiving my doctorate, I have devoted my professional career to
`
`the research, design, development, and teaching of numerous aspects of computer
`
`systems, including electronic payment systems. I have studied, taught, practiced, and
`
`researched in the field of computer science for over thirty-five years. I am currently
`
`employed as an Associate Professor of Computer Science Practice in the Department
`
`of Computer Science at the University of Southern California, where I have taught
`
`since 1992. I am also the Director of USC’s Center for Computer Systems Security
`
`and I oversee the computer security curriculum within the Data Science Program at
`
`the University of Southern California. I am also a Research Scientist at USC’s
`
`Information Sciences Institute.
`
`8.
`
`In my role as a professor at the University of Southern California, I
`
`teach and have taught numerous courses relating to distributed computer systems
`
`
`
`4
`
`IPR2021-01260
`Unified EX1003 Page 7
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01260
`U.S. Patent 9,292,852
`and network security. I have taught on topics including securing the electronic
`
`transfers of funds. I have supervised Ph.D. candidates whose research included
`
`electronic payment systems. I have presented numerous tutorials in the field of
`
`electronic payment systems, including the following: the Usenix Workshop on
`
`Electronic Commerce, New York, July 1995; Usenix Workshop on Electronic
`
`Commerce, Oakland, CA, November 1996; Internet Society Symposium on
`
`Network and Distributed Systems Security, March 1998; Usenix Workshop on
`
`Electronic Commerce, Boston, MA, September 1998; Internet Society Symposium
`
`on Network and Distributed Systems Security, February 1999. 8th International
`
`World Wide Web Conference, Toronto, Canada May 1999. Further, I have presented
`
`tutorials on web security for protecting electronic commerce applications, including
`
`tutorials at the Internet Society Symposium on Network and Distributed Systems
`
`Security, March 1998 and February 1999.
`
`9.
`
`The focus of my research at the University of Southern California
`
`includes distributed computer systems with an emphasis on computer security in the
`
`areas of authentication, authorization, policy, electronic commerce, and protection
`
`of cyber-physical systems. I have been involved in significant research in the field
`
`of electronic commerce and computer security, including the integration of portable
`
`electronic devices such as smart cards with other computer devices such as card
`
`readers and personal computers.
`
`
`
`5
`
`IPR2021-01260
`Unified EX1003 Page 8
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01260
`U.S. Patent 9,292,852
`10. Additionally, I have substantial experience in designing network
`
`payment systems. For example, I developed network payment systems which build
`
`upon security infrastructure to provide a secure means to pay for services provided
`
`over the Internet. Such systems include the NetCheque and NetCash systems, which
`
`enable users to make micropayments (i.e., payments on the order of pennies where
`
`the cost of clearing a credit card payment would be prohibitive). These systems
`
`provide a means for making secure, and in the case of NetCash, anonymous
`
`electronic transactions. I am also the principal designer of the Kerberos network
`
`authentication system, which is used widely to authenticate users connecting through
`
`the network. Kerberos has been integrated into Microsoft Windows, and almost all
`
`other networked operating systems used today. I also developed the Prospero
`
`Directory service which has been used in the past by companies like America Online
`
`to organize and retrieve information distributed on the Internet.
`
`11. Starting in 1996 I served on the Editorial Board for the International
`
`Journal of Electronic Commerce. Moreover, I have served on numerous program
`
`committees for conferences that accept papers relating to electronic payment
`
`systems, including, for example, the First ACM Conference on Electronic
`
`Commerce (EC-99), Denver, CO, November 1999; the First International
`
`Conference on Financial Cryptography, Anguilla, British West Indies, February
`
`1997; the Second Usenix Workshop on Electronic Commerce, Oakland, CA,
`
`
`
`6
`
`IPR2021-01260
`Unified EX1003 Page 9
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01260
`U.S. Patent 9,292,852
`November 1996; and the First Usenix Workshop on Electronic Commerce, New
`
`York City, July 1995.
`
`12.
`
`I have authored or co-authored over 50 academic publications in the
`
`fields of computer science and engineering and electronic commerce. In addition, I
`
`have been a referee or editor for the following academic journals: ACM Transaction
`
`on Information and Systems Security and International Journal of Electronic
`
`Commerce. My curriculum vitae includes a list of publications on which I am a
`
`named author. I have additionally authored book chapters regarding electronic
`
`payment systems, including: B. Clifford Neuman and Gennady Medvinsky, Internet
`
`Payment Services, in Internet Economics, MIT Press. 1997; and B. Clifford Neuman,
`
`A Flexible Framework for Network Payment, in Readings in Electronic Commerce,
`
`Addison-Wesley. 1996.
`
`II. LEGAL FRAMEWORK
`13.
`I am a technical expert and do not offer any legal opinions. However,
`
`counsel informed me about certain legal principles regarding patentability and
`
`related matters under United States patent law, which I have applied in performing
`
`my analysis and arriving at my technical opinions in this matter.
`
`14.
`
`I have been informed that in proceedings before the USPTO, claim
`
`terms are to be given the meaning they would have to a person having ordinary skill
`
`in the art (“PHOSITA”) at the time of the invention, taking into consideration the
`
`
`
`7
`
`IPR2021-01260
`Unified EX1003 Page 10
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01260
`U.S. Patent 9,292,852
`patent, its file history, and, secondarily, applicable extrinsic evidence such as
`
`dictionary definitions.
`
`15.
`
`I have been informed that a person cannot obtain a patent on an
`
`invention if the differences between the invention and the prior art are such that the
`
`subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was
`
`made to a PHOSITA. A conclusion of obviousness may be founded upon more than
`
`a single item of prior art. In determining whether prior art references render a claim
`
`obvious, counsel has informed me that courts consider the following factors: (1) the
`
`scope and content of the prior art, (2) the differences between the prior art and the
`
`claims at issue, (3) the level of skill in the pertinent art, and (4) secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness. Additionally, I understand the obviousness
`
`inquiry should not be done in hindsight. Instead, the obviousness inquiry should be
`
`done through the eyes of a PHOSITA at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`16.
`
`In considering whether certain prior art renders a particular patent claim
`
`obvious, counsel has informed me that courts allow a technical expert to consider
`
`the scope and content of the prior art, including the fact that one of skill in the art
`
`would regularly look to the disclosures in patents, trade publications, journal articles,
`
`industry standards, product
`
`literature and documentation,
`
`texts describing
`
`competitive technologies, requests for comment published by standard setting
`
`organizations, and materials from industry conferences. I have been informed that
`
`
`
`8
`
`IPR2021-01260
`Unified EX1003 Page 11
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01260
`U.S. Patent 9,292,852
`for a prior art reference to be proper for use in an obviousness analysis, the reference
`
`must be “analogous art” to the claimed invention. I have been informed that a
`
`reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the
`
`same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different
`
`problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the
`
`inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). In
`
`determining whether a reference is reasonably pertinent, one should consider the
`
`problem faced by the inventor, as reflected either explicitly or implicitly, in the
`
`specification. I believe that all of the references I considered in forming my opinions
`
`in this IPR are well within the range of references a PHOSITA would have consulted
`
`to address the type of problems addressed by the claimed inventions of the
`
`challenged patent.
`
`17.
`
`In determining whether the subject matter of a patent claim is obvious,
`
`I understand neither the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the patentee
`
`controls. Instead, the important consideration is the objective reach of the claim. In
`
`other words, if the claim extends to what is obvious, then the claim is invalid. I
`
`further understand the obviousness analysis often necessitates consideration of the
`
`interrelated teachings of multiple patents, the effects of demands known to the
`
`technological community or present in the marketplace, and the background
`
`knowledge possessed by a PHOSITA. All of these issues may be considered to
`
`
`
`9
`
`IPR2021-01260
`Unified EX1003 Page 12
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01260
`U.S. Patent 9,292,852
`determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in
`
`the fashion claimed by the patent.
`
`18.
`
`I have been informed that, in order to establish that a claimed invention
`
`was obvious based on a combination of prior art elements, a clear articulation of the
`
`reason(s) why a claimed invention would have been obvious must be provided.
`
`Specifically, I am informed that, under the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in KSR
`
`Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 401 (2007), a combination of multiple items
`
`of prior art renders a patent claim obvious when there was an apparent reason for a
`
`PHOSITA, at the time of the invention, to combine the prior art, which can include,
`
`but is not limited to, any of the following rationales: (A) combining prior art methods
`
`according to known methods to yield predictable results; (B) substituting one known
`
`element for another to obtain predictable results; (C) using a known technique to
`
`improve a similar device in the same way; (D) applying a known technique to a
`
`known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (E) trying a finite
`
`number of identified, predictable potential solutions, with a reasonable expectation
`
`of success; (F) identifying that known work in one field of endeavor may prompt
`
`variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design
`
`incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art; or (G) identifying an explicit teaching, suggestion, or motivation in
`
`the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference
`
`
`
`10
`
`IPR2021-01260
`Unified EX1003 Page 13
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01260
`U.S. Patent 9,292,852
`or to combine the prior art references to arrive at the claimed invention. I am also
`
`informed that where there is a motivation to combine, claims may be rejected as
`
`prima facie obvious provided a PHOSITA would have had a reasonable expectation
`
`of success regarding the proposed combination.
`
`19.
`
`I am informed that the existence of an explicit teaching, suggestion, or
`
`motivation to combine known elements of the prior art is a sufficient, but not a
`
`necessary, condition to a finding of obviousness. This so-called “teaching-
`
`suggestion-motivation” test is not the exclusive test and is not to be applied rigidly
`
`in an obviousness analysis.
`
`20.
`
`I also understand that in conducting an obviousness analysis, a precise
`
`teaching directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim need not be
`
`sought out because it is appropriate to take account of the inferences and creative
`
`steps that a PHOSITA would employ. I understand that the prior art considered can
`
`be directed to any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of the
`
`invention and can provide a reason for combining the elements of the prior art in the
`
`manner claimed. In other words, the prior art need not be directed towards solving
`
`the same specific problem as the problem addressed by the patent. Further, the
`
`individual prior art references themselves need not all be directed towards solving
`
`the same problem. I have been informed that common sense is important and should
`
`
`
`11
`
`IPR2021-01260
`Unified EX1003 Page 14
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01260
`U.S. Patent 9,292,852
`be considered. Common sense teaches that familiar items may have obvious uses
`
`beyond their primary purposes.
`
`21.
`
`I also understand that a particular combination of prior art elements
`
`being “obvious to try” may indicate that the combination was obvious even if no one
`
`attempted the combination. If the combination was obvious to try (regardless of
`
`whether it was actually tried) or leads to anticipated success, then it is likely the
`
`result of ordinary skill and common sense rather than innovation. I further
`
`understand that in many fields it may be that there is little discussion of obvious
`
`techniques or combinations, and it often may be the case that market demand, rather
`
`than scientific literature or knowledge, will drive the design of an invention. I
`
`understand that an invention that is a combination of prior art must do more than
`
`yield predictable results to be non-obvious.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that for a patent claim to be obvious, the claim must be
`
`obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of the invention. I understand the factors to
`
`consider in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art include: (1) educational
`
`level and experience of people working in the field at the time the invention was
`
`made, (2) types of problems faced in the art and solutions found to those problems,
`
`and (3) sophistication of the technology in the field.
`
`23.
`
`I am informed that it is improper to combine references where the
`
`references teach away from their combination. I am informed that a reference may
`
`
`
`12
`
`IPR2021-01260
`Unified EX1003 Page 15
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01260
`U.S. Patent 9,292,852
`be said to teach away when a PHOSITA, upon reading the reference, would be
`
`discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a
`
`direction divergent from the path that was taken by the patent applicant. In general,
`
`a reference will teach away if it suggests that the line of development flowing from
`
`the reference’s disclosure is unlikely to be productive of the result sought by the
`
`patentee. I am informed that a reference teaches away, for example, if (1) the
`
`combination would produce a seemingly inoperative device, or (2) the references
`
`leave the impression that the product would not have the property sought by the
`
`patentee. I also am informed, however, that a reference does not teach away if it
`
`merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not
`
`criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation into the invention claimed.
`
`24.
`
`I am informed that even if a prima facie case of obviousness is
`
`established, the final determination of obviousness must also consider “secondary
`
`considerations” if presented. In most instances, the patentee raises these secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness. In that context, the patentee argues an invention
`
`would not have been obvious in view of these considerations, which include: (a)
`
`commercial success of a product due to the merits of the claimed invention, (b) a
`
`long-felt, but unsatisfied need for the invention, (c) failure of others to find the
`
`solution provided by the claimed invention, (d) deliberate copying of the invention
`
`by others, (e) unexpected results achieved by the invention, (f) praise of the invention
`
`
`
`13
`
`IPR2021-01260
`Unified EX1003 Page 16
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01260
`U.S. Patent 9,292,852
`by others skilled in the art, (g) lack of independent simultaneous invention within a
`
`comparatively short space of time, (h) teaching away from the invention in the prior
`
`art.
`
`25.
`
`I further understand that secondary considerations evidence is only
`
`relevant if the offering party establishes a connection, or nexus, between the
`
`evidence and the claimed invention. The nexus cannot be based on prior art features.
`
`The establishment of a nexus is a question of fact. While I understand that Patent
`
`Owner has not offered any secondary considerations at this time, I will supplement
`
`my opinions in the event that Patent Owner raises secondary considerations during
`
`the course of this proceeding.
`
`III. OPINION
`A. Overview of the ’852 Patent
`26. The ’852 Patent discloses a transaction processing service that operates
`
`as an intermediary between acquirers of financial transaction requests and issuing
`
`institutions that process the financial transaction requests. ’852 Patent at Abstract,
`
`2:47-51. The ’852 Patent teaches that the intermediary service provides functionality
`
`to store value for the benefit of customers by storing “stored value items,” which
`
`includes coupons, gift cards, points, and vouchers and may be provided by different
`
`third parties including merchants and manufacturers. Id. at 4:63-5:7, 4:65-5:1, 18:40-
`
`41. In addition the service also stores other payment methods. Id. at 10:49-55, 4:38-
`
`
`
`14
`
`IPR2021-01260
`Unified EX1003 Page 17
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01260
`U.S. Patent 9,292,852
`47, 4:3-5 (“In some embodiments, the intermediary service may maintain a record
`
`of a set of payment instruments that are available to each customer for purposes of
`
`a transaction.”). This stored value is stored in memory and software is used to
`
`execute the operations of the intermediary service. Id. at 4:3-5, 13:33-35 (“The
`
`processor(s) may include central processing units (CPUs) of the server 300 and, thus,
`
`control the overall operation of the server 300 by executing software or firmware.”).
`
`27. Specifically, the ’852 Patent discloses that a user presents items for
`
`purchase to a merchant and also provides the merchant with a purchaser identifier.
`
`Id. at 2:64-3:2. In an initial authorization request, the merchant forwards the
`
`purchaser identifier and the transaction information to an acquirer. Id. at 3:2-6 (“The
`
`merchant transmits the unique identifying information to an acquirer (i.e., a financial
`
`institution that provides a clearinghouse service for consolidating financial
`
`transactions) in an initial authorization request”), 7:30-36 (“The authorization
`
`request includes transaction information such as the identifying information, point
`
`of purchase information (e.g., a merchant's name or identifier), and the transaction
`
`details (e.g., price, products, quantities, fees and taxes).”). The acquirer then
`
`forwards an authorization request, including some information from the initial
`
`authorization request to intermediary service 204. Id. at 3:6-9 (“The acquirer
`
`recognizes that the initial authorization request is associated with the intermediary
`
`
`
`15
`
`IPR2021-01260
`Unified EX1003 Page 18
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01260
`U.S. Patent 9,292,852
`service based on the unique identifying information, and transmits at least part of the
`
`initial authorization request to the intermediary service.”).
`
`28. Upon receipt of this information the intermediary service determines
`
`applicable coupons. Id. at 5:33-37 (“The service determines relevant information
`
`from the authorization request, such as customer information and merchant
`
`information, and uses the information to determine whether there are any applicable
`
`stored value items.”). The intermediary service then transmits a transaction
`
`notification message to the customer's mobile device. Id. at 3:18-20 (“Using the
`
`retrieved address of the device, the intermediary service transmits a transaction
`
`notification message to the customer's mobile device.”). The transaction notification
`
`message indicates stored value items that may be applied to the transaction. Id. at
`
`3:20-24 (“The transaction notification message may include the name or location of
`
`the point of purchase, the transaction amount, a listing of payment instruments that
`
`may be used to pay for the transaction, and/or other pertinent characteristics of the
`
`transaction.”). The user selects desired stored value items and the selection is
`
`transmitted back to intermediary service 204. Id. at 5:38-41, 3:42-44; see also id. at
`
`3:24-30 (“The transaction notification message may also specify a required response
`
`from the customer. The required response may vary depending on the requesting
`
`merchant, the type of transaction, the amount of the transaction, or other factor
`
`associated with the transaction (e.g., the type of goods or services being sold, an
`
`
`
`16
`
`IPR2021-01260
`Unified EX1003 Page 19
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01260
`U.S. Patent 9,292,852
`assessment of the likelihood of fraud, etc.).”). Using this information intermediary
`
`service 204 determines a modified transaction amount and this modified transaction
`
`amount is forwarded to the acquirer along with payment information to settle the
`
`transaction. Id. at 5:50-53, 3:57-62 (“The intermediary service forwards the account
`
`information to the acquirer, which generates a modified authorization request based
`
`on the received account information. The acquirer then sends the modified request
`
`to the associated payment association in accordance with its standard practices.”).
`
`B.
`Background of the Technology
`29. As the following background discussion suggests, the basic concepts,
`
`teachings, and techniques utilized by the system for processing financial transaction
`
`data described in the ’852 Patent were well-known at the time of the claimed
`
`invention, which I have been instructed to assume is November 8, 2008.
`
`30. Humans have engaged in commerce and trade for millennia. “The
`
`origins of commerce are lost in obscurity. Before people are sufficiently civilized to
`
`leave written records of their doings they engage in trade.” Ex. 1010, History of
`
`Commerce at 9. Records written on clay tablets from five thousand years ago have
`
`been discovered and are evidence of trade and commerce in ancient times. For
`
`example, “[c]lay tablets, used like modern paper for the preservation of records, have
`
`been discovered and deciphered in modern times, and show an active trade in the
`
`precious metals, grain, wool, building materials, etc.” Id. at 11.
`
`
`
`17
`
`IPR2021-01260
`Unified EX1003 Page 20
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01260
`U.S. Patent 9,292,852
`
`1.
`Common Forms of Payment
`31. There are numerous forms of payment that a customer may use to pay
`
`for goods. Common examples before the priority date of the ’852 Patent include
`
`debit cards, credit cards, gift cards, and coupons.
`
`(a) Credit Cards
`32. Credit cards and analogous instruments have existed and been used in
`
`the US since the 1920s. “The use of credit cards originated in the United States in
`
`the 1920s with the advent of house cards for making purchases at individual
`
`companies, such as hotel chains and oil companies.” Ex. 1011, Nandakumar at
`
`[0003]. So-called “universal credit cards” for making pur