DOCKET NO.: 1652875-00151US9
`Filed on behalf of PNC Bank N.A.
`By: Monica Grewal, Reg. No. 40,056 (Lead Counsel)
`David Cavanaugh, Reg. No. 36,476 (First Backup Counsel)
`Gregory Lantier (pro hac vice to be filed) (Backup Counsel)
`Taeg Sang Cho, Reg. No. 69,618 (Backup Counsel)
`R. Gregory Israelsen, Reg. No. 72,805 (Backup Counsel)
`
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, MA 02109
`Email: monica.grewal@wilmerhale.com
` david.cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
` gregory.lantier@wilmerhale.com
` tim.cho@wilmerhale.com
` greg.israelsen@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 IPR2021-01381
`U.S. Patent No. 10,013,681
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF CLAIMS 1-30
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01381
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,013,681
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Page
`
`A. 
`B. 
`C. 
`D. 
`
`A. 
`B. 
`
`A. 
`B. 
`
`A. 
`
`III. 
`IV. 
`
`V. 
`
`VI. 
`
`Table of Contents ............................................................................................ ii 
`I. 
`INTRODUCTION............................................................................ 1 
`II. 
`MANDATORY NOTICES .............................................................. 1 
`Real Party-In-Interest ................................................................. 1 
`Related Matters .......................................................................... 1 
`Counsel ...................................................................................... 3 
`Service Information ................................................................... 3 
`CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING .................. 4 
`OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED .... 4 
`Prior Art References .................................................................. 4 
`Grounds for Challenge ............................................................... 5 
`THE ’681 patent ............................................................................... 6 
`Brief Description ....................................................................... 6 
`Prosecution History ................................................................... 7 
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................. 8 
`Claim Construction of “Mobile Device,” “Portable Device,”
`and “Digital Camera” ................................................................ 9 
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ......................... 10 
`THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO A
`PRIORITY DATE EARLIER THAN JULY 28, 2017 .................. 10 
`Legal Standard ......................................................................... 11 
`- ii -
`
`VII. 
`VIII. 
`
`A. 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IX. 
`
`X. 
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01381
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,013,681
`
`B. 
`
`The ’247App Does Not Contain Written Description Support
`for a Portable/Mobile Device with an Integrated Digital
`Camera ..................................................................................... 13 
`1.  The ’247App Does Not Provide Written Description
`Support for a Portable/Mobile Device with an Integrated
`Digital Camera .................................................................. 14 
`2.  The ’247App Does Not Contain Written Description
`Support for a Species of Portable/Mobile Device with an
`Integrated Image Capture Device ...................................... 19 
`The ’247App Does Not Disclose the Portable/Mobile Device
`Checking For Errors ................................................................ 24 
`The ’247App Does Not Disclose the Portable/Mobile Device
`Transmitting a Copy of an Image Having a Different Format
`Than the Image Captured with the Digital Camera ................. 26 
`PRIOR ART REFERENCES ......................................................... 27 
`Oakes (EX1038) ...................................................................... 27 
`A. 
`Roach (EX1040) ...................................................................... 27 
`B. 
`C.  Medina (EX1041) .................................................................... 27 
`SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY ................... 28 
`Ground I: Claims 12-24, 26-27, and 29 are Anticipated by
`Oakes ....................................................................................... 28 
`1.  Claim 12 ............................................................................ 28 
`2.  Claim 13 ............................................................................ 52 
`3.  Claim 14 ............................................................................ 52 
`4.  Claim 15 ............................................................................ 55 
`5.  Claim 16 ............................................................................ 55 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`A. 
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01381
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,013,681
`
`6.  Claim 17 ............................................................................ 55 
`7.  Claim 18 ............................................................................ 56 
`8.  Claim 19 ............................................................................ 56 
`9.  Claim 20 ............................................................................ 56 
`10.  Claim 21 ............................................................................ 59 
`11.  Claim 22 ............................................................................ 61 
`12.  Claim 23 ............................................................................ 63 
`13.  Claim 24 ............................................................................ 63 
`14.  Claim 26 ............................................................................ 65 
`15.  Claim 27 ............................................................................ 65 
`16.  Claim 29 ............................................................................ 66 
`Ground II: Claims 12-24, 26-27, and 29 are Obvious in view of
`Oakes and Medina. .................................................................. 66 
`1.  Claim 12 ............................................................................ 66 
`2.  Claims 13-24, 26-27, and 29 ............................................. 69 
`Ground III: Claims 1-11, 25, 28, and 30 are Obvious in view of
`Oakes and Roach, or in view of Oakes, Roach, and Medina. . 69 
`1.  Claim 1 .............................................................................. 70 
`2.  Claim 2 .............................................................................. 97 
`3.  Claim 3 .............................................................................. 98 
`4.  Claim 4 .............................................................................. 98 
`5.  Claim 5 .............................................................................. 98 
`6.  Claim 6 .............................................................................. 99 
`
`- iv -
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01381
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,013,681
`
`7.  Claim 7 .............................................................................. 99 
`8.  Claim 8 ............................................................................100 
`9.  Claim 9 ............................................................................101 
`10.  Claim 10 ..........................................................................101 
`11.  Claim 11 ..........................................................................101 
`12.  Claim 25 ..........................................................................101 
`13.  Claim 28 ..........................................................................102 
`14.  Claim 30 ..........................................................................102 
`DISCRETIONARY DENIAL IS NOT WARRANTED ............. 104 
`Fintiv Factors Favor Institution .............................................104 
`New Prior Art and Arguments Favor Institution. ..................105 
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................ 105 
`
`
`
`A. 
`B. 
`
`XI. 
`
`XII. 
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01381
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,013,681
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`U.S. Patent No. 10,013,681 (the “’681 patent”), filed in 2017. Belatedly,
`
`I.
`
`during prosecution USAA claimed priority to a patent application filed in 2006.
`
`The ’681 patent claims, however, recite limitations the inventors did not disclose in
`
`the 2006 application. Because these features lack written description in the 2006
`
`application, the ’681 patent claims are not entitled to the claimed 2006 priority
`
`date. In fact, the ’681 patent claims are not entitled to a priority date earlier than
`
`July 28, 2017—the ’681 patent’s filing date.
`
`Instead, U.S. Patent No. 7,873,200 to Oakes (“Oakes”) that issued in 2011
`
`from the 2006 application is prior art to the ’681 patent. As discussed below,
`
`Oakes, alone or in combination with secondary references, renders the ’681 patent
`
`claims invalid. Accordingly, Petitioner respectfully requests cancellation of the
`
`’681 patent 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.
`
`(“Petitioner”) 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 two patents including the ’681 patent in USAA v. PNC Bank
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`

`

`N.A., Case No. 2:21-cv-00110-JRG (E.D. Tex) (“PNC II”). PO has also asserted
`
`IPR2021-01381
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,013,681
`
`
`four patents, including two children of the ’681 patent, in United Services
`
`Automobile Association (“USAA”) v. PNC Bank N.A., Case No. 2:20-cv-00319-
`
`JRG (E.D. Tex.) (“PNC I”). PO has asserted three additional patents, including
`
`one patent in the ’681 family, in USAA v. PNC Bank N.A., 2:21-cv-00246-JRG
`
`(E.D. Tex) (“PNC III”). On July 16, 2021, the district court consolidated PNC I
`
`and PNC II (the “Consolidated Action”). See USAA v. PNC Bank N.A., Case No.
`
`2:20-cv-00319-JRG, Dkt. No. 144 (July 16, 2021).
`
`In PNC I, Petitioner has asserted counterclaims against PO, asserting four
`
`patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 7,949,788; 8,868,786; 8,380,623; and 8,682,754. PO has
`
`filed IPR petitions challenging validity of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,949,788; and
`
`8,868,786. United Services Automobile Association v. PNC Bank, NA, IPR2021-
`
`01163, IPR2021-01248.
`
`Three prior post-grant proceedings have been filed for patents in the ’681
`
`family by third parties:
`
`Challenged Patent
`U.S. 9,224,136
`U.S. 10,013,681
`
`Case Nos.
`CBM2019-00027
`IPR2020-01650
`CBM2019-00028
`
`Petitioner has filed inter partes review petitions challenging the following
`
`patents asserted against Petitioner:
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Challenged Patent
`U.S. 8,699,779
`U.S. 8,977,571
`U.S. 10,482,432
`
`U.S. 10,621,559
`
`IPR2021-01381
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,013,681
`
`
`IPR Case No.
`IPR2021-01070
`IPR2021-01073
`IPR2021-01071
`IPR2021-01074
`IPR2021-01076
`IPR2021-01077
`
`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:
`
`
`
`Monica Grewal (Reg. No. 40,056)
`
`First Backup Counsel: David Cavanaugh (Reg. No. 36,476)
`
`Backup Counsel:
`
`Gregory Lantier (pro hac vice to be filed)
`
`Taeg Sang Cho (Reg. No. 69,618)
`
`R. Gregory Israelsen (Reg. No. 72,805)
`
`D.
`Service Information
`E-mail:
`
`
`monica.grewal@wilmerhale.com
`david.cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`gregory.lantier@wilmerhale.com
`tim.cho@wilmerhale.com
`greg.israelsen@wilmerhale.com
`
`Post and hand delivery: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, MA 02109
`Telephone: 617-526-6000
`Facsimile: 617-526-5000
`
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01381
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,013,681
`
`
`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.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`Under Rules 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b)(1)-(2), Petitioner requests
`
`cancellation of claims 1-30 of the ’681 patent.
`
`A.
`Prior Art References
`The ’681 patent was filed on July 28, 2017, and on November 28, 2018,
`
`USAA claimed priority to U.S. Patent No. 7,873,200, filed on October 31, 2006, as
`
`Application No. 11/591,247 (“’247App”) (EX1042). As discussed in Section VIII
`
`[Priority Break], the ’681 patent is not entitled to a priority date earlier than July
`
`28, 2017.1 The following references are pertinent to the grounds presented below:
`
`1. U.S. Patent No. 7,873,200 (“Oakes”) (EX1038), issued January 18, 2011, is
`
`prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1). Oakes is purportedly in the
`
`
`The Petition applies AIA provisions of 35 U.S.C. §§102, 103.
`
`- 4 -
`
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`’681 patent’s priority chain and is of record on the ’681 patent’s face but did
`
`IPR2021-01381
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,013,681
`
`
`not form the basis of a rejection during prosecution.
`
`2. U.S. Publication No. 2013/0155474 (“Roach”) (EX1040), published June
`
`20, 2013, is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1). Roach is not of
`
`record on the ’681 patent’s face.
`
`3. U.S. Patent No. 9,129,340 (“Medina”) (EX1041), issued on September 8,
`
`2015, is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1). Medina is not of
`
`record on the ’681 patent’s face.
`
`B. Grounds for Challenge
`Petitioner requests cancellation of claims 1-30 of the ’681 patent as
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103. The grounds for challenge are:
`
`Ground
`
`References
`
`Basis
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`I
`
`II
`
`III
`
`Oakes
`
`§ 102
`
`12-24, 26-27, 29
`
`Oakes, Medina
`
`§ 103
`
`12-24, 26-27, 29
`
`Oakes and Roach, or
`
`§ 103
`
`1-11, 25, 28, 30
`
`Oakes, Roach, and Medina
`
`This Petition, supported by Dr. Noble’s declaration (EX1002), demonstrates
`
`there is a reasonable likelihood the Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`one challenged claim. 35 U.S.C. §314(a). Petitioner respectfully requests
`
`IPR2021-01381
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,013,681
`
`
`institution. SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018).
`
`V. THE ’681 patent
`A. Brief Description
`The ’681 patent’s remote check capture/deposit system includes (1) an
`
`image capture device2; (2) a general-purpose computer; and (3) a server associated
`
`with a bank that receives information from the general-purpose computer via a
`
`communications network. EX1001, 2:11-24. EX1002, ¶24.
`
`
`
`EX1001, FIG. 1. EX1002, ¶24.
`
`
`Color annotations and emphases are added unless noted otherwise.
`
`- 6 -
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`The general-purpose computer includes a software component for capturing
`
`IPR2021-01381
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,013,681
`
`
`an image of a check using a scanner or digital camera and transmitting the captured
`
`information to the server. EX1001, 6:48-7:16, 7:50-65, 8:22-32, 8:32-37.
`
`EX1002, ¶25.
`
`Once the requisite check images are captured, the software component sends
`
`a copy of the check images and the associated information to a bank server.
`
`EX1001, 5:4-17, 7:50-65, 8:45-49. The bank server then processes the check
`
`images using routine check processing techniques and sends a confirmation
`
`message to the user’s device that the user’s account was provisionally credited.
`
`Id., 8:49-54, 9:18-10:62. EX1002, ¶¶26-28.
`
`B.
`Prosecution History
`Application No. 15/663,305, which issued as the ’681 patent, was filed July
`
`28, 2017. EX1015, 1-50, 591. Only after a non-final rejection, the applicant
`
`added, on November 28, 2017, a priority claim to the ’247App (filed October 31,
`
`2006) supposedly to antedate prior art references the Examiner cited. Id., 86-133,
`
`141-156, 165-179, 184-202. The Examiner then issued a Notice of Allowance.
`
`Id., 250-289. EX1002, ¶¶29-30.
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`The ’681 patent’s belatedly-added priority claims to a chain of applications
`
`IPR2021-01381
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,013,681
`
`
`is depicted below. There is no evidence, however, the Examiner analyzed the ’681
`
`patent’s priority date. EX1002, ¶¶29-31.
`
`
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`In the co-pending district court litigation, Petitioner and PO agree on the
`
`construction of certain terms and disagree on others. EX1028 [Joint Claim
`
`Construction Statement]. Other than the terms “portable device,” “mobile device,”
`
`and “digital camera” addressed below, Petitioner submits that resolving remaining
`
`claim construction disputes is unnecessary in this proceeding because those terms
`
`are taught by the cited references—one of which has the same specification as the
`
`’681 patent—regardless of the construction. EX1002, ¶¶33-36.
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01381
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,013,681
`
`
`A. Claim Construction of “Mobile Device,” “Portable Device,” and
`“Digital Camera”
`For this proceeding, Petitioner relies on PO’s proposed district court
`
`construction for “mobile device,” “portable device,” and “digital camera” provided
`
`below. Rule 42.104(b)(3) “does not require Petitioner to express its subjective
`
`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). EX1002, ¶¶33-34.
`
`Term
`“mobile device”
`“portable device”
`
`“digital camera”
`EX1028, 15.
`
`PO’s Proposed Constructions
`“handheld computing device”
`“computing device capable of being easily moved
`manually”
`“No further construction necessary”
`
`In district court, PO asserts claim 1, 12, and 30 encompass a mobile device
`
`with an integrated digital camera. Southwall Techs., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co., 54
`
`F.3d 1570, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“Claims may not be construed one way in order
`
`to obtain their allowance and in a different way against accused infringers.”).
`
`Specifically, PO alleges a mobile phone running a downloaded application meets
`
`the claimed “portable or mobile device that includes a downloaded software or
`
`app,” and “the camera in the personal or mobile device” meets the claimed “digital
`
`camera.” EX1043 [Complaint], ¶¶ 32, 34, 64, 66, 68. PO also alleged, in a prior
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`CBM proceeding, the ’681 patent “claims the genus of mobile/portable general
`
`IPR2021-01381
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,013,681
`
`
`purpose computers that can communicate over a wireless network and have an
`
`integrated camera” including “smartphones.” Wells Fargo v. USAA, CBM2019-
`
`00028, Paper 11, 36-37 (P.T.A.B. July 8, 2019). For this proceeding, Petitioner
`
`relies on PO’s constructions and applications of the terms “mobile device,”
`
`“portable device,” and “digital camera.” EX1002, ¶¶33-34.
`
`VII. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`A person of ordinary skill in the relevant field of art (“POSITA”) at the
`
`relevant time (2006-2017) of the ’681 patent would have had a Bachelor’s degree
`
`in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or equivalent
`
`field, and two years of experience in software development and programming in
`
`the area of image capturing/scanning 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. EX1002, ¶¶37-38.
`
`VIII. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO A
`PRIORITY DATE EARLIER THAN JULY 28, 2017
`PO contends in the co-pending litigation the ’681 patent claims encompass a
`
`system that includes a mobile/portable device with an integrated digital camera and
`
`a mobile/portable device that checks for errors and transmits a copy of an image
`
`having a different format than the originally captured image. The ’247App—to
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`which the ’681 patent claims priority—does not provide written description
`
`IPR2021-01381
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,013,681
`
`
`support for these limitations. Accordingly, the ’681 patent claims are not entitled
`
`to the priority date of the ’247App, October 31, 2006. EX1002, ¶39.
`
`Nor do other applications in the ’681 patent’s priority chain, which share a
`
`common specification with the ’247App, provide written description support. The
`
`first application in the priority chain to mention a “mobile device,” “portable
`
`device,” or such devices “checking for errors” and transmitting a copy of an image
`
`having a different format than the originally captured image was the ’681 patent
`
`itself. For this Petition, Petitioner submits the ’681 patent’s priority date cannot be
`
`earlier than its original filing date of July 28, 2017. EX1002, ¶¶39-40.
`
`A. Legal Standard
`The “requirement to describe one’s invention is basic to patent law. Every
`
`patent must describe an invention.” Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598
`
`F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2010). For a claim to receive the priority benefit of an
`
`earlier-filed application, every application in the priority chain must support every
`
`claim limitation. In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268, 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2011); In re Chu,
`
`66 F.3d 292, 297 (Fed. Cir. 1995); 35 U.S.C. § 120. 35 U.S.C. § 112 requires the
`
`application to convey with reasonable clarity to a POSITA that, as of the desired
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`priority date, the inventor possessed the invention. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar,
`
`IPR2021-01381
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,013,681
`
`
`935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
`
`Thus, “[t]o obtain the benefit of the filing date of a parent application, the
`
`claims of the later-filed application must be supported by the written description in
`
`the parent ‘in sufficient detail that [a POSITA] can clearly conclude that the
`
`inventor invented the claimed invention as of the filing date sought.’” Anascape,
`
`Ltd. v. Nintendo of Am. Inc., 601 F.3d 1333, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see also Gentry
`
`Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473, 1478-80 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“claims
`
`may be no broader than the supporting disclosure, and therefore … a narrow
`
`disclosure will limit claim breadth.”). If a child patent includes claims
`
`“exceed[ing] in scope the subject matter that inventor … chose to disclose to the
`
`public in the [parent application’s] written description,” the parent application does
`
`not provide written description support for the child patent’s claims. Atl. Rsch.
`
`Mktg. Sys., Inc. v. Troy, 659 F.3d 1345, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2011). A parent
`
`application that merely renders obvious the claims of the child patent cannot
`
`provide adequate written description support. Ariad Pharms., 598 F.3d at 1352
`
`(“description that merely renders the invention obvious does not satisfy the
`
`requirement”).
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`Although a patent is presumed valid, it is not presumed to be entitled to a
`
`IPR2021-01381
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,013,681
`
`
`claimed priority date. Instead, “once a challenger … introduce[s] sufficient
`
`evidence to put [the priority date at issue] …, the patentee has the burden of going
`
`forward with evidence and argument to the contrary.” Tech. Licensing Corp. v.
`
`Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1328–29 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`
`An IPR petitioner may challenge a patent’s claimed priority date by showing
`
`the priority application does not provide written description support for at least one
`
`challenged claim. For example, in Intel Corp. v. Tela Innovations, Inc., the Board
`
`found all claims unpatentable after finding the challenged patent was not entitled to
`
`its claimed priority date due to the priority applications’ lack of written description
`
`support. IPR2019-01636, Paper 46 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 10, 2021). Moreover, the
`
`Board may find a parent application’s publication is prior art to a child patent if the
`
`child patent’s claims, as construed, do not have written description support in the
`
`parent application. See Reckitt Benckiser LLC v. Ansell Healthcare Products LLC,
`
`IPR2017-00063, Paper 38 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2018) (“Reckitt”).
`
`B.
`
`The ’247App Does Not Contain Written Description Support for a
`Portable/Mobile Device with an Integrated Digital Camera
`The ’681 patent’s independent claim 1 recites “a portable device” and “a
`
`digital camera” and independent claims 12 and 30 recite “a customer’s mobile
`
`device” and a “digital camera.” As discussed in Section VI [Claim Construction]
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`and below, PO alleges these claim terms claim “mobile/portable general purpose
`
`IPR2021-01381
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,013,681
`
`
`computers … that have an integrated camera.” CBM2019-00028, Paper 11, 36-37.
`
`The ’247App however, lacks written description support for a portable/mobile
`
`device with an integrated digital camera, which is fatal to the ’681 patent’s priority
`
`claim.3 EX1002, ¶41.
`
`1.
`
`The ’247App Does Not Provide Written Description
`Support for a Portable/Mobile Device with an Integrated
`Digital Camera
`The ’247App fails to provide written description support for a
`
`portable/mobile device with an integrated digital camera for the same reasons the
`
`Board in Reckitt found a parent application lacked written description support for a
`
`child patent wherein, the PO filed a series of patent applications related to the
`
`challenged patent, where “every patent in the priority chain ... recite[d] a limitation
`
`explicitly directed to pre-vulcanization” of “synthetic polyisoprene particles.”
`
`Reckitt, 10-12. In the challenged patent, the PO “generically recite[d] ‘synthetic
`
`polyisoprene particles,’ which … admittedly includes both non-pre-vulcanized and
`
`
`See Celltrion, Inc. v. Biogen, Inc., IPR2017-01095, Paper 60, 16 (P.T.A.B.
`
`3
`
`Oct. 4, 2018) (“To receive the benefit of a previous application, every feature
`
`recited in a particular claim at issue must be described in the prior application.”).
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`pre-vulcanized synthetic polyisoprene particles....” Reckitt, 12. The Board
`
`IPR2021-01381
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,013,681
`
`
`construed the challenged claims as encompassing synthetic polyisoprene articles
`
`that both (1) include pre-vulcanized synthetic polyisoprene particles, and (2) do
`
`not include pre-vulcanized synthetic polyisoprene particles. Reckitt, 12. Based on
`
`its claim construction, the Board found the challenged patent was not entitled to
`
`claim priority to applications in the priority chain, none of which described
`
`synthetic polyisoprene articles that do not include pre-vulcanized synthetic
`
`polyisoprene particles. Reckitt, 12-15. Consequently, the Board found the
`
`challenged claims were anticipated by a parent application to which the challenged
`
`patent claimed priority. Reckitt, 15-17.
`
`The same circumstances exist here. After prosecuting a chain of priority
`
`applications, PO pursued claims to a portable/mobile device and digital camera.
`
`The PO applies these claims to encompass both (1) a portable/mobile device
`
`separate from the digital camera (EX1001, claims 4, 15), and (2) a mobile device
`
`with an integrated digital camera (EX1043 [Complaint], ¶¶ 32, 34, 64, 66, 68;
`
`CBM2019-00028, Paper 11, 36-37). See also Section VI [Claim Construction].
`
`The ’681 patent is not entitled to claim priority to the applications in its belatedly-
`
`added priority chain because none of those applications provide adequate written
`
`description support for a portable/mobile device with an integrated digital camera.
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`The ’247App does not disclose a portable/mobile device with an integrated
`
`IPR2021-01381
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,013,681
`
`
`digital camera. Section VI [Claim Construction]. Instead, every time the ’247App
`
`discusses an image capture device, it refers to either a scanner or a digital camera
`
`separate from a general-purpose computer. EX1002, ¶42.
`
`For example, the ’247App describes the customer’s general-purpose
`
`computer without mentioning an integrated imaging device. Instead, it states “[a]
`
`particular advantage of … the invention is its ability to operate in conjunction with
`
`electronics that today’s consumers actually own or can easily acquire, such as a
`
`general purpose computer, a scanner, and a digital camera.” EX1042, [0020].
`
`EX1002, ¶¶43-44.
`
`The specification also gives examples of the image capture device being “a
`
`scanner or digital camera,” (EX1042, [0025]), instead of describing the image
`
`capture device integrated in the general-purpose computer. Further, the ’247App
`
`explains “digital cameras often ship along with software that allows users to move
`
`images from the camera to a computer.” Id.; see also id., [0008], [0043], [0044].
`
`A POSITA would have understood if the computer had an integrated camera, there
`
`would have been no need to ship a separate camera or separate software, or to
`
`move images as described. EX1002, ¶45.
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`

`The specification also describes a log file including identifying information
`
`IPR2021-01381
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,013,681
`
`
`for “an image capture device ... for example a … digital camera make and model,
`
`or other identification information such as an image capture device Global Unique
`
`Identifier (GUID).” EX1042, [0075]. A POSITA would have understood a GUID
`
`is useful for identifying entities having a separate and unique existence from other
`
`entities. EX1052, 1-2. A POSITA thus would have understood these teachings to
`
`confirm the ’247App only contemplated an image capture device separate from
`
`the general-purpose computer. EX1002, ¶46.
`
`Similarly, Figure 1 shows general-purpose computer 111 separate from a
`
`digital camera or scanner (image capture device 112).
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01381
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,013,681
`
`
`
`
`EX1042, FIG. 1. EX1002, ¶47.
`
`Thus, the ’247App lacks disclosure of a general-purpose computer 111 with
`
`an integrated image capture device. The ’247App consistently describes the image
`
`capture apparatus as separate from the general-purpose computer. EX1002, ¶48.
`
`Because the ’247App does not disclose a customer’s portable/mobile device
`
`with an integrated digital camera, a POSITA would not have understood the
`- 18 -
`
`
`
`

`

`’247App to demonstrate the inventors possessed the ’681 patent’s claims reciting
`
`IPR2021-01381
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,013,681
`
`
`“a portable device,” “a customer’s mobile device,” and “a digital camera,” which
`
`PO contends includes a portable/mobile device with an integrated digital camera.
`
`See supra Reckitt; Anascape, 601 F.3d at 1335. EX1002, ¶51.
`
`Therefore, the ’681 patent as filed in 2017, is not entitled to claim priority to
`
`the ’247App. EX1002, ¶51.
`
`2.
`
`The ’247App Does Not Contain Written Description
`Support for a Species of Portable/Mobile Device with an
`Integrated Image Capture Device
`The ’247App also fails to provide written description support for the full
`
`scope of the genus allegedly claimed in the ’681 patent. Specifically, the only
`
`conceivable “portable device” or “mobile device” disclosed in the ’247App is a
`
`laptop, but the ’247App does not disclose a laptop (or any other mobile device)
`
`with an integrated digital camera. The ’247App’s single disclosure of a laptop
`
`cannot provide written description support for the broad genus of “portable device”
`
`or “mobile device” including (1) a portable/mobile device separate from a digital
`
`camera and (2) a portable/mobile device with an integrated digital camera.
`
`LizardTech v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`
`(specification does not sa