IPR2021-01260
`Unified Patents, LLC
`v.
`Authwallet, LLC
`U.S. Patent 9,292,852
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives
`November 16, 2022
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`Petitioner, Slide 1
`
`
`Unified Patents, LLC
`v.
`Authwallet, LLC
`U.S. Patent 9,292,852
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives
`November 16, 2022
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`Petitioner, Slide 1
`
`
`
`Patent Overview
`Overview of the Prior Art
`Claim Construction
`
`Prior Art Disputes
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Overview — Alleged Problem
`
`The
`
`e pay-
`av
`ment instruments, such as credit cards, debit cards, and gift
`cards. Each payment instrument has a separate card or token
`and a separate set of identifying information, such as credit/
`debit card numbers, that must be tracked. Managing multiple
`payment instruments can therefore be complicated and cum-
`
`bersome
`
`
`EX1001, 1:59-2:3
`
`Paper8 at 3; Paper 10 at 4
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT —- NOT EVIDENCE
`Petitioner, Slide 3
`
`
`
`Patent Overview – Alleged Solution
`
`EX1001, Abstract
`
`Paper 1 at 2, 8, 10-11
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`Petitioner, Slide 4
`
`
`
`Patent Overview — Alleged Solution
`
`customertoapplystoredvaluefrommultiplesourcestoasingletransaction.Because
`
`
`
`
`
`the system is linked to the customer'sidentity, it can consolidate stored value items from
`multiple sources (e.g., merchants, manufacturers, or other consumers) into a single
`account.
`For any transaction, the system can automatically determine all relevant
`stored value items, regardless of the source. For example, in a single transaction the
`system may determine that a manufacturer coupon and a merchant gift card are
`available. Because the stored value items are linked to the customer's account, the
`
`system can also notify the customerof available stored value items.Thisallowsthe
`
`
`
`
`
`customertodeterminewhichstoredvalueitemstoapplytoaparticulartransaction.For
`example, if the stored value item is a discountoff the total price of the transaction, the
`customer may direct the system to save the coupon for a later transaction that will be
`
`larger, resulting in greater savings to the customer.
`
`EX1002 (October 19, 2012 Responseto Final Office Action), 365-66
`
`Paper 1 at 29.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`Petitioner, Slide 5
`
`
`
`Patent Overview
`
`1. A computer-implemented method for processing financial transaction data in a computing system including a
`processor and a storage area, the method comprising:
`[1(a)] receiving an authorization request generated as a result of a transaction by a purchaser at a point of purchase
`via an acquirer configured to receive authorization requests from a plurality of points of purchase, wherein the
`authorization request
`includes a purchaser identifier and transaction information,
`the transaction information
`including a transaction amount, and wherein the purchaser identifier identifies the purchaser that initiated the
`transaction;
`[1(b)(i)] based on the authorization request, determining one or more stored value items to apply to the transaction,
`wherein each stored value item includes an associated value,
`[1(b)(ii)] wherein the one or more stored value items are selected from a plurality of stored value items
`stored in the storage area, and
`[1(b)(iii)] wherein the plurality of stored value items includes stored value items provided by a plurality
`of different third parties;
`[1(c)] transmitting a transaction indication message to a mobile device associated with the purchaser identifier,
`wherein the transaction indication message includes information about the determined one or more stored value
`items;
`[1(d)] receiving an indication from a user of the mobile device that at least one stored value item should be
`applied against the transaction;
`[1(e)] applying the indicated at least one stored value item to pay a first portion of the transaction amount and;
`[1(f)] initiating a payment process to pay a remaining portion of the transaction amount by providing a modified
`transaction amount to the acquirer for submission to a payment association
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`Petitioner, Slide 6
`
`
`
`Patent Overview
`
`1. A computer-implemented method for processing financial transaction data in a computing system including a
`processor and a storage area, the method comprising:
`[1(a)] receiving an authorization request generated as a result of a transaction by a purchaser at a point of purchase
`via an acquirer configured to receive authorization requests from a plurality of points of purchase, wherein the
`authorization request
`includes a purchaser identifier and transaction information,
`the transaction information
`including a transaction amount, and wherein the purchaser identifier identifies the purchaser that initiated the
`transaction;
`[1(b)(i)] based on the authorization request, determining one or more stored value items to apply to the transaction,
`wherein each stored value item includes an associated value,
`[1(b)(ii)] wherein the one or more stored value items are selected from a plurality of stored value items
`stored in the storage area, and
`[1(b)(iii)] wherein the plurality of stored value items includes stored value items provided by a plurality
`of different third parties;
`[1(c)] transmitting a transaction indication message to a mobile device associated with the purchaser
`identifier, wherein the transaction indication message includes information about the determined one or more stored
`value items;
`[1(d)] receiving an indication from a user of the mobile device that at least one stored value item should be
`applied against the transaction;
`[1(e)] applying the indicated at least one stored value item to pay a first portion of the transaction amount and;
`[1(f)] initiating a payment process to pay a remaining portion of the transaction amount by providing a modified
`transaction amount to the acquirer for submission to a payment association
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`Petitioner, Slide 7
`
`
`
`Patent Overview
`Overview of the Prior Art
`Claim Construction
`
`Prior Art Disputes
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Overview of Nobrega
`Nobrega teaches commerce platform which facilitates transactions
`
`EX1004, 1:15-20
`
`Nobrega’s commerce platform allows users to select from multiple
`payment methods to carry out a transaction
`
`EX1004, 13:13-17
`
`Paper 1 at 6-8, 31-39
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`Petitioner, Slide 9
`
`
`
`Overview of Keith
`
`Keith teaches couponprocessing during a transaction, including
`determining applicable coupons and userselection of coupons
`
`[0013] Electronic coupon systems and methodsto operate
`
`the sameare disclosed.
`
`
`
`interface to receive a coupon selection
`from a remotely
`located user device, and to send the coupon to a remotely
`located point-of-sale terminal, wherein the point-of-sale
`terminalis to identify the item to be purchased and to apply
`the identified coupon to the item to be purchased.
`EX1005,[0013]
`
`[0029] The example coupon management devices 145,
`
`
`150 ofFIG. 1 may also be used bymanufictires,adver
`
`
`
`(Gersyand/otstoreowners)to retrieve and/or view usage
`
`their coupons. Example usage
`
`
`statistics associated
`
`with
`
`EX1005, [0029]
`
`Paper1 at 9-11, 22-32, 36-41
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`Petitioner, Slide 10
`
`
`
`Instituted Grounds
`
`Ground Claims
`1
`1-4, 7-9, 11-17, 20-22,
`24-30, 33-35, and 37-40
`5-6, 18-19, 31-32
`
`2
`
`Challenge
`Obviousness under § 103 over
`Nobrega, Keith, and Hansen
`Obviousness under § 103 over
`Nobrega, Keith, Hansen, and
`Churchill
`
`Paper 8 at 28-29
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`Petitioner, Slide 11
`
`
`
`Patent Overview
`Overview of the Prior Art
`Claim Construction
`Prior Art Disputes
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“purchaser identifier”
`Patent Owner’s
`Board’s Preliminary
`Proposed Construction
`Construction
`“[A]
`purchaser
`identifier
`No express construction of
`refers to a code contained in
`the
`term
`“purchaser
`a token or a customer’s
`identifier” is warranted at
`mobile device which is used
`this stage
`to identify the purchaser that
`Institution Decision, 10-13
`initiated the transaction and
`the the purchaser identifier
`cannot be the address of the
`customer’s mobile device”
`POR, 9-15
`
`Petitioner’s Proposed
`Construction
`No construction necessary.
`Reply, 1-2
`
`Patent Owner adds the following requirements:
`• The purchaser identifier must be a code
`• The purchaser identifier must be contained in a token or customer’s mobile device
`• The purchaser identifier cannot be the address of the customer’s mobile device
`
`Paper 7 at 10-14; Paper 8 at 13; Paper 10 at 9-15; Paper 15 at 1-2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`Petitioner, Slide 13
`
`
`
`“purchaser identifier”
`
`PO’s proposed construction is not supported by the claims:
`
`[1(a)] receiving an authorization request generated as a result of a transaction by a purchaser
`at a point of purchase via an acquirer configured to receive authorization requests from a
`plurality of points of purchase, wherein the authorization request includes a purchaser
`identifier and transaction information,
`the transaction information including a
`transaction amount, and wherein the purchaser identifier identifies the purchaser that
`initiated the transaction;
`
`[1(c)] transmitting a transaction indication message to a mobile device associated with
`the purchaser identifier, wherein the transaction indication message includes information
`about the determined one or more stored value items;
`
`11. The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more stored value items are uniquely
`associated with the purchaser identifier in the authorization request.
`
`Paper 15 at 2-3; Paper 8 at 10-11
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`Petitioner, Slide 14
`
`
`
`“purchaseridentifier”
`
`PO’s requirements are not supported by the specification
`
`The uniqueidentifyinginformation
`
`
`maybeanalpha-numeric code, a sixteen digit number similar
`Oo a credit card number,
`ne or more pieces of data that
`uniquely identifies the customer.
`
`EX1001, 8:18-21
`
`tion
`
`begins in step
`
`A transac- |
`ntained ona tendered
`1 when a customer 102 uses a token 202to |
`
`transaction process, the customer 102 or
`the
`initiate
`: card and
`in order to make a purchase.As | the merchant 106may
`at a point of purchase
`
`used herein,“token”isagenerictermthat refers to various readerand, ifrequired, enter a or code. Alternatively, for
`
`/a purchase made via a website, phone, or other network-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`‘meansforprovidingtheuniqueidentifyinginformationtothe ' accessible service, the customer 102 ma
`
`merchant
`
`106.
`
`EX1001, 7:9-16
`
`7 -
`
`EX1001, 7:63-8:2
`
`Paper15 at 3; Paper 8 at 11-12
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`Petitioner, Slide 15
`
`
`
`“purchaser identifier”
`
`The Institution Decision was correct
`
`The Claims
`•
`“The claim does not specify where [the purchaser] identifier is from or where it is
`stored.” Institution Decision, 11.
`“The claim is silent as to storing or retrieving an address for the mobile device.”
`Institution Decision, 11.
`
`•
`
`The Specification
`•
`“Here, contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, the specification supports a broad
`construction.” Institution Decision, 11
`• Given this broad disclosure, we find that, contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments,
`the specification does not support Patent Owner’s contention that “the purchaser
`identifier cannot be the address of the customer’s mobile device.” Institution
`Decision, 12.
`
`Paper 8 at 11-12
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`Petitioner, Slide 16
`
`
`
`“purchaser identifier”
`
`Athletic Alternatives is inapplicable
`
`“Were we to allow AAI successfully to assert the broader of the two senses of ‘between’
`against Prince, we would undermine the fair notice function of the requirement that
`the patentee distinctly claim the subject matter disclosed in the patent from which he
`can exclude others temporarily. Where there is an equal choice between a broader and a
`narrower meaning of a claim, and there is an enabling disclosure that indicates that the
`applicant is at least entitled to a claim having the narrower meaning, we consider the
`notice function of the claim to be best served by adopting the narrower meaning.”
`
`Athletic Alternatives, Inc. v. Prince Mfg., Inc., 73 F.3d 1573, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1996)
`
`Paper 1 at 3-4
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`Petitioner, Slide 17
`
`
`
`“purchaser identifier”
`
`An enablement analysis is not appropriate here
`
`“Accordingly, unless the court concludes, after applying all the available tools of claim
`construction, that the claim is still ambiguous, the axiom regarding the construction to
`preserve the validity of the claim does not apply.”
`Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 911 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
`
`“While we have acknowledged the maxim that claims should be construed to preserve
`their validity, we have not applied that principle broadly, and we have certainly not
`endorsed a regime in which validity analysis is a regular component of claim
`construction.”
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (internal citation
`omitted).
`
`Paper 1 at 3-4
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`Petitioner, Slide 18
`
`
`
`“a mobile device associated with a purchaser
`identifier”
`
`Patent Owner’s
`Proposed Construction
`“based on the purchaser
`identifier, an address of a
`mobile
`device
`can
`be
`retrieved”
`POR, 17
`
`Board’s Preliminary
`Construction
`No
`construction
`limitation necessary
`Institution Decision, 10
`
`of
`
`Petitioner’s Proposed
`Construction
`No construction necessary.
`Reply, 10
`
`this
`
`Paper 7 at 6-7; Paper 8 at 10; Paper 10 at 15-17; Paper 15 at 10
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`Petitioner, Slide 19
`
`
`
`“a mobile device associated with a purchaser
`identifier”
`
`Claim language is silent as to retrieving an address of a mobile device
`
`[1(a)] receiving an authorization request generated as a result of a transaction by a
`purchaser at a point of purchase via an acquirer configured to receive authorization
`requests from a plurality of points of purchase, wherein the authorization request
`includes a purchaser identifier and transaction information,
`the transaction
`information including a transaction amount, and wherein the purchaser identifier
`identifies the purchaser that initiated the transaction;
`
`[1(c)] transmitting a transaction indication message to a mobile device associated with
`the purchaser identifier, wherein the transaction indication message includes information
`about the determined one or more stored value items;
`
`Paper 8 at 9-10; Paper 15 at 11
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`Petitioner, Slide 20
`
`
`
`“a mobile device associated with a purchaser
`identifier”
`
`PO’s proposed construction was previously rejected by the Board
`
`“We decline Patent Owner’s invitation to read an additional step of ‘retrieving the address
`of the mobile device associated with the purchaser identifier’ into this step of the method.
`Patent Owner’s only basis for reading this step into the claim is that the preferred
`embodiment performs this step. Id. at 8–9. But the fact that the method of the preferred
`embodiment may perform additional steps not recited in this claim does not form a
`basis for reading those steps into the claim. ‘A claim is not defective when it states
`fewer than all of the steps that may be performed in practice of an invention.’”
`Institution Decision, 10 (citing Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Ethicon, Inc., 276 F.3d 1304, 1311
`(Fed. Cir. 2001).
`
`Paper 8 at 9-10
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`Petitioner, Slide 21
`
`
`
`Patent Overview
`Overview of the Prior Art
`Claim Construction
`Prior Art Disputes
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim [1(a)]
`
`PO argues that Nobrega does not teach a purchaser identifier
`that identifies the purchaser that initiated the transaction
`
`[1(a)] receiving an authorization request generated as a result of a transaction by a
`purchaser at a point of purchase via an acquirer configured to receive authorization
`requests from a plurality of points of purchase, wherein the authorization request includes
`a purchaser identifier and transaction information, the transaction information including a
`transaction amount, and wherein the purchaser identifier identifies the purchaser that
`initiated the transaction;
`
`Paper 10 at 9-10
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`Petitioner, Slide 23
`
`
`
`Claim [1(a)]
`
`| Consumer communicates unique ID to ‘301A
`'
`merchant
`
`t
`Merchant inputs consumer's unique ID
`into POS terminal, substituting consumer's ~~~
`unique ID for credit card number
`'
`
`302A
`
`Merchant's POS terminal sends
`transaction information to acquirer,
`substituting consumer's unique ID for
`credit card number
`
`'
`'303A
`!
`'
`
`acquirer
`from
`request
`authorization
`including the unique ID and_transaction
`|
`Acquireridentifies transaction type and commerce
`'
`!
`platform based on consumer’s unique ID and
`;
`information
`| passes unique ID, amount, MerchantID, TerminallD |
`i
`
` Nobrega’s commerce platform receives an
`uniqueID to identify the purchaser
`
`Nobrega’s commerceplatform uses the
`
`Consumerselects Accept
`
`EX1004, Fig. 5A (annotated)
`
`Paper 1 at 18-22
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`Petitioner, Slide 24
`
`and Merchant Name to commerce platform Commerceplatform verifies that phone
`
`
`
`
` 502
`
`
`involvedin transaction is in geographic
`vicinity of merchant
`(if not, sends appropriate messageto
`phonefor display to user)
`
`
`
`
`
` Commerce platform sends transaction
`details and prompt to accept/decline
`
`transaction to phone associated with
`identified user account, where messageis
`displayed to consumer
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim [1(a)]
`
`PO’s Arguments
`
`A user accountis associated with the unique ID only meansthat there is a
`
`
`
`user account relating to the unique ID, whichdoesnotnecessarilymeantheuser
`
`
`
`
`
`accountisownedbythepurchaser,for example, if anyone other than the owner of
`
`the user account gets unique ID of the owner, such as, gets the mobile device from
`
`a customer which ownsthe mobile device, in the transaction process, the commerce
`
`platform will identify the user account associated with the telephone number, butthe
`
`
`
`
`
`identifythepurchaserinitiatedthetransaction.that Ex 3001, 80.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`POR,24
`
`Paper10 at 24
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`Petitioner, Slide 25
`
`
`
`Claim [1(a)]
`
`The claims do not require “determin[ing] whether or not the user
`account is owned by the purchaser”
`
`[1(a)] receiving an authorization request generated as a result of a transaction by a
`purchaser at a point of purchase via an acquirer configured to receive authorization
`requests from a plurality of points of purchase, wherein the authorization request
`includes a purchaser identifier and transaction information,
`the transaction
`information including a transaction amount, and wherein the purchaser identifier
`identifies the purchaser that initiated the transaction;
`
`Paper 15 at 14
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`Petitioner, Slide 26
`
`
`
`Claim [1(a)]
`
`Identifiers in the ’852 Patent and Nobrega have the same
`function
`
`*852 Patent
`
`Nobrega
`
`
`
`
`
`
`institution
`t provi
`
`dating
`financial
`transactions)
`
`
`the unique identifying information, and transmits at least part
`ofthe initial authorization request to the intermediary service.
`
`EX1001, 2:64-3:17
`
`The acquirer recognizes request is associated with the intermediary service based on
`;
`
`Merchant inputs consumer's unique ID
`into POSterminal, substituting consumer's ~
`unique !D for credit card number
`
`302A
`
`Acquirer identifies transaction type and commerce!
`platform based on consumer's unique |D and
`:
`passes unique ID, amount, MerchantiD, TerminallD |
`and Merchant Name to commerce platform
`
`EX1001, 24:33-36
`
`EX1004, Fig. 5A (excerpted, annotated)
`
`Paper 15 at 14-17
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`Petitioner, Slide 27
`
`
`
`Claim [1(a)]
`
`Nobrega’s uniqueID is notlimited to a telephone number
`
`The unique ID is used
`to identify the transaction as a phonebased transaction and
`
`
`maybe,forexample,the consumer’s cellular telephone
`number.
`
`EX1004, 12:34-37
`
`Nobrega also teaches that
`
`the
`
`
`
`
`
`transaction information includes apurchaseridentifier(e.g.,auniqueID)that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`identifies the purchaser. Nobrega explains “[t]he unique ID .. .maybe,forexample,
`
`the consumer’s cellular telephone number.” Jd., 12:34-37.
`
`Petition, 22
`
`Paper 15 at 14-15; Paper 1 at 22
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`Petitioner, Slide 28
`
`
`
`Claim [1(a)]
`
`PO’s Arguments
`
`POR, 26
`
`Paper 10 at 26
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`Petitioner, Slide 29
`
`
`
`Claim [1(a)]
`
`Nobrega’s uniqueID is used foridentification, while Nobrega’s PIN is
`used for verification
`
`At block 501, thecommerceplatformidentifiestheuser
`
`
`
`
`
`
`accountassociatedwiththeuniqueID.
`
`EX1004, 12:58-59
`
`Concurrently, in one embodiment, the commerce platform
`2 receives a PIN input by the consumer at the wireless
`device 1 and uses the PIN andstored information associated
`
`with the consumertoverifytheidentityoftheconsumer.
`
`EX1004, 7:21-25
`
`Paper 15 at 16-17
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT —- NOT EVIDENCE
`Petitioner, Slide 30
`
`
`
`Claim [1(a)]
`
`The ’852 Patent similarly verifies user identify with a
`verification code
`
`FIG. 2B illustrates a
`
`EX1001, 8:54-59
`
`The transaction
`notification message may also request the customer 102 to
`provide information to continue the transaction, such as to
`
`rovide a transaction confirmatio
`
`EX1001, 9:7-13
`
`Paper 15 at 16-17
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`Petitioner, Slide 31
`
`
`
`Claim [1(c)]
`
`PO argues that Nobrega does not transmit a transaction indication
`message to a mobile device associated with the purchaser identifier
`
`[1(c)] transmitting a transaction indication message to a mobile device associated with
`the purchaser identifier, wherein the transaction indication message includes information
`about the determined one or more stored value items;
`
`Paper 10 at 29-36
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`Petitioner, Slide 32
`
`
`
`Claim [1(c)]
`
`Nobrega disclosesthat a transaction notification messageis
`transmitted to a telephone associated with a user account, whichis
`associated with a unique ID
`
`EX1004, 12:58-59
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`At 501,thecommerceplatformidentifiestheuser*°®block
`At block 501,
`the
`ae
`Commerceplatform identifies user
`accountassociated with the unique ID
`
`
`
`Commerce platform verifies that phone
`involved in transaction is in geographic
`
`vicinity of merchant
`(if not, sends appropriate message to
`phonefor display to user)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Commerce platform sends transaction
`
`
`details and prompt to accept/decline
`transaction to phone associated with
`identified user account, where messageis
`displayed to consumer
`
`
`.
`EX1004, Fig. 5A (excerpted)
`
`At block 503, the commerce platform sends the trans-
`action details and a prompt to accept or decline the trans-
`action to the
`account, where the messageis displayed to the user.
`
`EX1004, 13:1-4
`
`The unique ID is used
`to identify the transaction as a phonebased transaction and
`
`
`maybe,forexample,the consumer's cellular telephone
`number.
`
`EX1004, 12:34-37
`
`Paper 1 at 32-38; Paper 15 at 17-18
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`Petitioner, Slide 33
`
`
`
`Claim [1(c)]
`
`PO’s Arguments
`
`If the phrase “a mobile device associated with the purchaser identifier” is
`
`construed as “based on the purchaser identifier, an address of a mobile device can
`
`be retrieved” according to the specification of the ’852 Patent,Nobregadoesnot
`
` thus Nobrega
`
`does not teach the limitation “a transaction indication message is transmitted to a
`
`mobile device associated with the purchaser identifier.” Ex 3001, 115.
`
`POR, 35-36
`
`Paper10 at 35-36
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`Petitioner, Slide 34
`
`
`
`Claim 1 does not require proving ownership to
`reduce fraud
`
`The method of claim 1
`
`implements two functions: determining that
`
`the
`
`consumerpays his purchase using account owned by himself to reduce fraudulence
`
`in a transaction and determining one or more stored value items to apply to the
`
`transaction. Ex 3001, 110.
`
`POR,36
`
`[1(b)G)] based on the authorization request, determining one or morestored value items
`to apply to the transaction, wherein each stored value item includes an associated value,
`
`[1(c)] transmitting a transaction indication message to a mobile device associated with
`the purchaser identifier, wherein the transaction indication message includes information
`about the determined one or more stored value items;
`
`[1(d)] receiving an indication from a user of the mobile device that at least one stored
`value item should be applied against the transaction;
`
`Paper10 at 36-41
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT —- NOT EVIDENCE
`Petitioner, Slide 35
`
`
`
`Claim 1 does not require proving ownership to
`reduce fraud
`
`“based on the authorization request, determining one or more stored
`value items to apply to the transaction”
`
`PO’s Proposed Construction
`“authorization request” is used to reduce the
`occurrence of fraud and to determine one or
`more stored value items to apply to the
`transaction
`POPR, 7
`
`Board’s Preliminary Construction
`No construction necessary
`Institution Decision, 8-9
`
`Paper 7 at 6-7; Paper 8 at 8-9
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`Petitioner, Slide 36
`
`
`
`Claim 1 does not require proving ownership to
`reduce fraud
`
`The Board Previously Rejected PO’s Arguments
`
`“Fraud prevention may be a potential benefit to using an authorization request, but we
`decline to import it into the claim. This is particularly true here where the claim already
`recites what the authentication request is to be used for.”
`Institution Decision, 9 (citing Ecolab v. Envirochem, 264 F.3d 1358, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
`(“Where the function is not recited in the claim itself by the patentee, we do not import
`such a limitation.”)).
`
`Paper 8 at 9
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`Petitioner, Slide 37
`
`
`
`Claim 1 does not require proving ownership to
`reduce fraud
`
`Fraud prevention is not required by the claims
`
`[1(b)(i)] based on the authorization request, determining one or more stored value
`items to apply to the transaction, wherein each stored value item includes an associated
`value,
`[1(c)] transmitting a transaction indication message to a mobile device associated with
`the purchaser identifier, wherein the transaction indication message includes information
`about the determined one or more stored value items;
`[1(d)] receiving an indication from a user of the mobile device that at least one stored
`value item should be applied against the transaction;
`
`Paper 15 at 20-21
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`Petitioner, Slide 38
`
`
`
`Claim 1 does not require proving ownership to
`reduce fraud
`
`Nobrega teaches a system for processing financial transactions that
`reducesfraud
`
`At block 503,thecommerceplatformsendsthetrans-
`
`
`
`
`
`actiondetailsandaprompttoacceptordeclinethetrans-
`action to the phone associated with the identified user
`>[MasterCard]
`account, where the messageis displayed to the user.
`[Transitel Bill]
`{Checking Acct]
`EX1004, 13:1-4
`[ADD NEW]
`
`The
`
`commerce platform thencausestheconsumer’sphoneto
`
`prompttheconsumertoindicatethemethodofpaymentat
`
`block509.An example of such a prompt is shownin FIG.
`
`
`6C. Theconsumerselectsthemethodofpaymentatblock
`
`510,andthemethodofpaymentselectionistransmittedto
`FIG.6C
`
`thecommerceplatformatblock511.
`EX1004, 13:13-19
`EX1004, Fig. 6C
`
` Choose Payment Method
`
`Paper1 at 6-8, 31-39
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`Petitioner, Slide 39
`
`
`
`Claim 1 does not require proving ownership to
`reduce fraud
`
`In the proposed combination, Keith’s functionality is incorporated in
`Nobrega’s system
`
`Accordingly, as modified to provide the coupon determining functionality of
`
`
`
`Keith (discussed in {{ 98-101 above),itwouldhavebeenastraightforwardand
`
`
`
`
`
`whicharealsoatypeofpaymentmethod,in the transaction indication message
`
`transmitted in Nobrega’s system.
`
`EX1003, 4] 114
`
`As recognized by the Boardat Institution
`
`
`
`
`
`‘whicharethetwofunetionsPatentOwneridentifies.See Pet. 32-38.
`
`
`
`
`
`Institution Decision, 23.
`
`Paper 1 at 12-14, 22-26, 32-41; Paper 8 at 22-24; Paper 15 at 23-25
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`Petitioner, Slide 40
`
`
`
`Claim 1 does not require proving ownership to
`reduce fraud
`
`PO’s Arguments
`
`POR, 40
`
`Paper 10 at 40
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`Petitioner, Slide 41
`
`
`
`Claim 1 does not require proving ownership to
`reduce fraud
`
`The Claims of the ’852 Patent are “open” claims
`
`“Further, claims 5 and 8 use the signal ‘comprising,’ which is generally understood to
`signify that the claims do not exclude the presence in the accused apparatus or
`method of factors in addition to those explicitly recited. The signal ‘comprising’
`implements the general rule that absent some special circumstance or estoppel which
`excludes the additional factor, infringement is not avoided by the presence of elements or
`steps in addition to those specifically recited in the claim.”
`
`Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng'g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 811 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (internal citations omitted)
`
`transaction data in a
`1. A computer-implemented method for processing financial
`computing system including a processor and a storage area, the method comprising:
`
`Paper 15 at 23
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`Petitioner, Slide 42
`
`
`
`Claim 1 does not require proving ownership to
`reduce fraud
`
`The 852 Patent reducesfraud via a transaction indication message
`for denying/allowing a transaction,just like Nobrega
`
`
`
`intermediary service that the transaction is fraudulentor in
`error and thereby cause the intermediary service to terminate
`the transaction.
`
`EX1001, 9:54-63
`
`Paper15 at 21-23
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`Petitioner, Slide 43
`
`
`
`Additional Slides
`Additional Slides
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Overview of the Prior Art
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Overview of Hansen
`
`Hansendiscloses a system and methodfor processing financial
`transactions involving both coupons and credit card information that
`determines a modified transaction amountfollowing the application of a
`coupon
`
`‘To complete the transaction, the merchant returns
`[0033]
`information at block 234 to the discount coordinator speci-
`fying which discount the customer 104 selected and any
`modifications to the transaction resulting from application of
`
`the discount.
`
`1006, [0033]
`
`Paper1 at 11-12
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`Petitioner, Slide 46
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`“purchaser identifier”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“purchaseridentifier”
`
`The specification refers to purchaseridentifier as “identifying
`information”
`
`Processing begins at block 552, where
` [l(a)]
`
`purchaser
`the
`...wherein
`identifier identifies the purchaserthat
`initiated the transaction;
`
`[1(b)G@)] based on the authorization
`request, determining one or more
`stored value items to apply to the
`transaction, wherein each stored value
`item includesan associated value,
`
`transaction
`a_
`transmitting
`[1(c)]
`indication message to a mobile device
`associated
`with
`the
`purchaser
`identifier, wherein
`the
`transaction
`indication message includes information
`about the determined one or more stored
`value items;
`
`EX1001, 24:33-36
`
`
`
`EX1001, 3:6-17
`
`‘The acquirer recognizes that the initial authorization
`request is associated with the intermediary service based on
`the unique identifying information, and transmitsat leastpart
`a
`ee
`:
`;
`;
`oftheinitial authorization requestto the intermediary
`service.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`. The stored customerinforma-
`
`the customer’s mobile device, a
`tion includes an address of
`reference to One or more payment instruments associated
`with the customer, and a verification code associated with the
`customer’s intermediary service account.
`
`Paper 15 at 3; Paper 10 at 12-13, 15-16
`
`EX1001, 3:18-20
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`Petitioner, Slide 48
`
`
`
`“purchaser identifier”
`
`Even under Wands analysis, PO’s arguments fail
`
`The Wands Factors:
`Factor 1: Quantity of Experimentation Necessary
`Factor 2: Amount of Direction or Guidance Presented
`Factor 3: Presence of Absence of Working Examples
`Factor 4: Nature of the Invention
`Factor 5: State of the Prior Art
`Factor 6: Relevant Skill of Those in the Art
`Factor 7: Predictability of the Art
`Factor 8: Breadth of the Claims
`
`Paper 15 at 5-10; Paper 10 at 11
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`Petitioner, Slide 49
`
`
`
`“purchaseridentifier”
`
`Factor 2: Amount of Direction or Guidance
`Presented
`
`The intermediary service retrieves customer information based on the purchaser
`identifier
`
`Processing begins at block 552, where
`
`EX1001, 24:33-36
`
`The intermediary service authenticates the request and
`
`
`. The stored customer informa-
`
`
`ss of
`the
`customer’s mobile device, a
`reference to one or more payment instruments associated
`with the customer, and a verification code associated with the
`customer’s intermediary service account.
`
`EX1001, 3:10-16
`
`Paper 15 at 7
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`Petitioner, Slide 50
`
`
`
`“purchaseridentifier”
`
`Factor 2: Amount of Direction or Guidance
`Presented
`
`The customer informat
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
