DOCKET NO.: 1652875-00151US10
`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)
`Jonathan P. Knight, Reg. No. 69,866 (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
` jonathan.knight@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 IPR2021-01399
`U.S. Patent No. 10,013,605
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01399
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,013,605
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Page
`
`A. 
`B. 
`C. 
`D. 
`
`A. 
`B. 
`
`A. 
`B. 
`
`A. 
`
`III. 
`IV. 
`
`V. 
`
`VI. 
`
`Table of Contents ............................................................................................. i 
`I. 
`INTRODUCTION............................................................................ 1 
`II. 
`MANDATORY NOTICES .............................................................. 1 
`Real Party-In-Interest ................................................................. 1 
`Related Matters .......................................................................... 2 
`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 ............................................................... 6 
`THE ’605 PATENT ......................................................................... 7 
`Brief Description ....................................................................... 7 
`Prosecution History ................................................................... 9 
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................. 9 
`Claim Construction of “Handheld Mobile Device,” “Portable
`Device,” and “Digital Camera” ............................................... 10 
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ......................... 12 
`THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO A
`PRIORITY DATE EARLIER THAN JULY 28, 2017 .................. 12 
`
`VII. 
`VIII. 
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01399
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,013,605
`
`A. 
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`A. 
`B. 
`C. 
`D. 
`
`A. 
`
`Legal Standard ......................................................................... 14 
`The ’974 Application Is Devoid of Written Description
`Support for Using an Integrated Digital Camera to Capture An
`Image of a Check ..................................................................... 16 
`1.  The ’974 Application Does Not Contain Written
`Description Support for Using an Integrated Digital
`Camera to Capture an Image of a Check .......................... 17 
`2.  The ’974 Application Does Not Contain Written
`Description Support for a Genus that Includes Using an
`Integrated Digital Camera to Capture an Image of a Check
` ........................................................................................... 26 
`The ’974 Application Does Not Contain Written Description
`Support for Claimed Sequences of Steps ................................ 30 
`1. 
`“initiating the [mobile check] deposit after [performing]
`the confirming [step]” ....................................................... 30 
`“confirming that the [mobile check] deposit can go
`forward after performing an optical character recognition
`on the check” ..................................................................... 31 
`The ’974 Application Does Not Contain Written Description
`Support for the Claimed Electronic Format Modifications ..... 31 
`PRIOR ART ................................................................................... 32 
`Oakes-I (EX1037) .................................................................... 32 
`Oakes-II (EX1038) .................................................................. 32 
`Medina (EX1058) .................................................................... 33 
`Roach (EX1040) ...................................................................... 34 
`SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY ................... 34 
`Ground I: Claims 12-23 and 26-29 Are Obvious Over Oakes-I
`and Oakes-II ............................................................................. 34 
`- ii -
`
`2. 
`
`IX. 
`
`X. 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01399
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,013,605
`
`1.  Claim 12 ............................................................................ 35 
`2.  Claim 13 ............................................................................ 60 
`3.  Claim 14 ............................................................................ 60 
`4.  Claim 15 ............................................................................ 60 
`5.  Claim 16 ............................................................................ 61 
`6.  Claim 17 ............................................................................ 62 
`7.  Claim 18 ............................................................................ 62 
`8.  Claim 19 ............................................................................ 62 
`9.  Claim 20 ............................................................................ 63 
`10.  Claim 21 ............................................................................ 63 
`11.  Claim 22 ............................................................................ 65 
`12.  Claim 23 ............................................................................ 65 
`13.  Claim 26 ............................................................................ 66 
`14.  Claim 27 ............................................................................ 66 
`15.  Claim 28 ............................................................................ 66 
`16.  Claim 29 ............................................................................ 67 
`Ground II: Claims 12-23 and 26-29 Are Obvious Over Oakes-
`I, Oakes-II, and Medina ........................................................... 67 
`1.  Claim 12 ............................................................................ 67 
`2.  Claims 13-23 and 26-29 .................................................... 71 
`Ground III: Claims 1-11, 24, and 25 are Obvious over Oakes-
`I/II Combined With Roach or Oakes-I/II Combined With
`Roach and Medina ................................................................... 71 
`
`- iii -
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01399
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,013,605
`
`1.  Claim 1 .............................................................................. 72 
`2.  Claim 2 .............................................................................. 87 
`3.  Claim 3 .............................................................................. 88 
`4.  Claim 4 .............................................................................. 88 
`5.  Claim 5 .............................................................................. 88 
`6.  Claim 6 .............................................................................. 89 
`7.  Claim 7 .............................................................................. 89 
`8.  Claim 8 .............................................................................. 89 
`9.  Claim 9 .............................................................................. 90 
`10.  Claim 10 ............................................................................ 90 
`11.  Claim 11 ............................................................................ 90 
`12.  Claim 24 ............................................................................ 90 
`13.  Claim 25 ............................................................................ 91 
`DISCRETIONARY DENIAL IS NOT WARRANTED ............... 91 
`Fintiv Factors Favor Institution. .............................................. 91 
`New Prior Art and Arguments Favor Institution. .................... 92 
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................. 93 
`
`A. 
`B. 
`
`XI. 
`
`XII. 
`
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01399
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,013,605
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`U.S. Patent No. 10,013,605 (the “’605 patent”) was filed in 2017. Belatedly,
`
`during prosecution USAA claimed priority to a patent application filed in 2006.
`
`The ’605 patent claims, however, recite claim limitations that the inventors neither
`
`contemplated nor disclosed as part of the original application in 2006. Because
`
`these limitations lack written description in the original application, the ’605 patent
`
`claims are not entitled to the claimed 2006 priority date. In fact, the ’605 patent
`
`claims are not entitled to a priority date earlier than July 28, 2017—the filing date
`
`of the ’605 patent.
`
`With this 2017 priority date, U.S. Patent No. 8,708,227 (“Oakes-I”)—the
`
`patent that issued from the 2006 patent application—is prior art to the ’605 patent
`
`claims. As discussed below, Oakes-I in combination with secondary references
`
`renders the ’605 patent claims invalid. Accordingly, Petitioner respectfully
`
`requests cancellation of the ’605 patent claims challenged in this Petition.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Party-In-Interest
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), Petitioner certifies that PNC Bank N.A.
`
`(“Petitioner”) is the real party-in-interest.
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01399
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,013,605
`
`
`B. Related Matters
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2), Petitioner states that Patent Owner (“PO”) has
`
`asserted two patents including the ’605 patent in United Services Automobile
`
`Association (“USAA”) v. PNC Bank N.A., Case No. 2:21-cv-00110-JRG (E.D.
`
`Tex.) (“PNC II”). PO has also asserted four patents in 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 two patents in the ’605 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 Auto. Ass’n v. PNC Bank, N.A., IPR2021-01163,
`
`IPR2021-01248.
`
`Three prior post-grant proceedings pertaining to the ’605 patent family have
`
`been filed by third parties:
`
`Challenged Patent
`U.S. 10,013,605
`
`U.S. 10,402,638
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`Case Nos.
`IPR2020-01742
`CBM2019-00029
`IPR2020-01516
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01399
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,013,605
`
`
`Petitioner has filed inter partes review petitions challenging the following
`
`patents asserted against Petitioner:
`
`Challenged Patent
`U.S. 8,699,779
`U.S. 8,977,571
`U.S. 10,482,432
`
`U.S. 10,621,559
`
`IPR Case No.
`IPR2021-01070
`IPR2021-01073
`IPR2021-01071
`IPR2021-01074
`IPR2021-01076
`IPR2021-01077
`IPR2021-01399
`
`U.S. 10,013,681
`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)
`
`Jonathan P. Knight (Reg. No. 69,866)
`
`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
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01399
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,013,605
`
`
`jonathan.knight@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
`
`
`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 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b)(1)-(2), Petitioner
`
`requests cancellation of claims 1-29 of the ’605 patent.
`
`A.
`Prior Art References
`According to its prosecution history (EX1015), the application for the ’605
`
`patent was filed on July 28, 2017 (EX1015, Part 1, 40), and on November 21,
`
`2017, Applicant added a priority claim to U.S. Patent Application No. 11/590,974
`
`(“’974 Application”) (EX1042), filed on October 31, 2006, which issued as Patent
`
`No. 8,708,227. (EX1015, Part 1, 117-130) As discussed in Section VIII [Priority],
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01399
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,013,605
`
`
`however, the ’605 patent is not entitled to a priority date earlier than July 28,
`
`2017.1 The following references are pertinent to the grounds of unpatentability
`
`presented below:
`
`1. U.S. Patent No. 8,708,227 to Oakes, et al. (“Oakes-I”) (EX1037), issued
`
`April 29, 2014, is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1). Oakes-I was
`
`purportedly in the ’605 patent’s priority chain and is of record on the face of
`
`the ’605 patent but did not form the basis of a rejection during prosecution.
`
`2. U.S. Patent No. 7,873,200 to Oakes, et al. (“Oakes-II”) (EX1038), issued
`
`January 18, 2011, is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1). Oakes-II
`
`is of record on the face of the ’605 patent but did not form the basis of a
`
`rejection during prosecution.
`
`3. U.S. Publication No. 2013/0155474 to Roach, et al. (“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 face of the ’605 patent.
`
`4. U.S. Patent No. 9,129,340 to Medina et al. (“Medina”) (EX1058), issued
`
`September 8, 2015, is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1). Medina
`
`is not of record on the face of the ’605 patent.
`
`
`1 The Petition applies AIA provisions of 35 U.S.C. §§102, 103.
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01399
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,013,605
`
`
`B. Grounds for Challenge
`Petitioner requests cancellation of claims 1-29 of the ’605 patent as
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The grounds for challenge are
`
`Ground
`
`References
`
`Basis
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`I
`II
`
`III
`
`Oakes-I and Oakes-II
`Oakes-I, Oakes-II, and
`Medina
`Oakes-I, Oakes-II, and
`Roach, or
`
`Oakes-I, Oakes-II, Roach,
`and Medina
`
`§ 103
`§ 103
`
`12-23 and 26-29
`12-23 and 26-29
`
`§ 103
`
`1-11, 24, and 25
`
`This Petition, supported by the declaration of Dr. Mowry (EX1002),
`
`demonstrates there is a reasonable likelihood that the Petitioner would prevail with
`
`respect to at least one challenged claim. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Petitioner
`
`respectfully requests institution. SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348
`
`(2018).
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01399
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,013,605
`
`
`V. THE ’605 PATENT
`A. Brief Description
`The ’605 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 financial institution that receives information from the general-
`
`purpose computer via a publicly accessible network. EX1001, 3:59-4:3. The
`
`general-purpose computer may be a desktop computer or a laptop (id., 4:22-23)
`
`or a PDA (id., 8:32-34) and the image capture device may be a scanner or a
`
`digital camera. Id., 6:50-52. EX1002, ¶34.
`
`
`In this Petition, color annotations and emphases are added unless noted
`
`2
`
`otherwise.
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01399
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,013,605
`
`
`
`
`EX1001, FIG. 1. EX1002, ¶34.
`
`The general-purpose computer includes a software component for
`
`capturing an image of a check using the image capture device and transmitting the
`
`captured information to the server. EX1001, FIG. 6, 13:48-57, 14:11-16.
`
`EX1002, ¶35.
`
`Once the requisite check images are sent to the server, the financial
`
`institution then processes the check images using routine check and image
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01399
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,013,605
`
`
`processing techniques and initiates deposit of the check. Id., 11:46-57, 12:51-62.
`
`EX1002, ¶36.
`
`B.
`Prosecution History
`The original application for the ’605 patent, filed July 28, 2017, did not
`
`include a priority claim but, in order to antedate prior art rejections, Applicant
`
`requested a corrected filing receipt to add a priority claim to Application No.
`
`11/590,974, now U.S. Patent No. 8,708,227, filed October 31, 2006. See EX1015,
`
`47, 76-98, 105-106, 117-127, 135-148. There is no evidence in this record that the
`
`Examiner analyzed the ’605 patent’s priority date. EX1002, ¶¶37-38.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`In co-pending district court litigation, Petitioner and PO agree on the
`
`construction of certain terms and disagree on others. EX1059 [Joint Claim
`
`Construction Statement]. Other than the terms “handheld mobile device,”
`
`“portable device,” and “digital camera” addressed below, Petitioner submits that
`
`resolving claim construction disputes over the remaining disputed terms3 is
`
`
`Any term not construed should be understood according to ordinary and
`
`3
`
`customary meaning. 37 C.F.R. §42.100(b); Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01399
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,013,605
`
`
`unnecessary in this IPR proceeding because those terms are taught by the cited
`
`references—one of which has the same specification as the ’605 patent—
`
`regardless of the construction. EX1002, ¶41.
`
`A. Claim Construction of “Handheld Mobile Device,” “Portable
`Device,” and “Digital Camera”
`For purposes of this IPR proceeding, Petitioner relies on PO’s district court
`
`construction for the terms “handheld mobile device,” “portable device,” and
`
`“digital camera” provided below. Rule 37 C.F.R. § 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, ¶41.
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Term
`“handheld mobile
`device”
`
`“portable device”
`
`“digital camera”
`
`IPR2021-01399
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,013,605
`
`
`PO’s Proposed Constructions
`“handheld computing device”
`
`EX1001, 3:21-41, 3:59-4:9, 5:37-58, 6:8-56, 7:12-30,
`7:51-9:2, 13:20-32, 14:64-15:6, FIGS. 1, 3-4.
`“computing device capable of being easily moved
`manually”
`
`EX1001, 3:21-41, 3:59-4:9, 5:37-58, 6:8-56, 7:12-30,
`7:51-9:2, 13:20-32, 14:64-15:6, FIGS. 1, 3-4.
`No further construction necessary.
`
`EX1001, 3:21-41, 3:59-4:9, 5:37-58, 6:8-56, 7:12-30,
`7:51-9:2, 13:20-32, 14:64-15:6, FIGS. 1, 3-4.
`
`EX1059, 17. EX1002, ¶41.
`
`In district court, PO asserts claim 1 and 12 are broad enough to read on 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 that a mobile phone running a
`
`downloaded banking app shows the claimed “portable or mobile device that
`
`includes a downloaded software or app,” and “the camera in the personal or mobile
`
`device” shows the claimed “digital camera.” EX1043 [Complaint], ¶¶ 47, 49, 51.
`
`PO also alleged, in a prior CBM proceeding, that the ’605 patent “claims the genus
`
`of mobile/portable general purpose computers that can communicate over a
`
`wireless network and that have an integrated camera.” Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v.
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01399
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,013,605
`
`
`United States Auto. Ass’n, CBM2019-00029, Paper 10, 37 (P.T.A.B. July 17,
`
`2019) (“Wells Fargo”). For this IPR proceeding, Petitioner relies on PO’s
`
`constructions and applications of the terms “handheld mobile device,” “portable
`
`device,” and “digital camera.” EX1002, ¶42.
`
`VII. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`A person of ordinary skill in the relevant field or art (“POSITA”) at relevant
`
`times (2006-2017) of the ’605 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, ¶39.
`
`VIII. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO A
`PRIORITY DATE EARLIER THAN JULY 28, 2017
`The ’605 patent’s priority claim to the ’974 Application is defective because
`
`the ’974 Application fails to provide written description support for multiple claim
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01399
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,013,605
`
`
`limitations.4 First, the ’974 Application does not provide written description
`
`support for a system that includes a mobile/portable device with an integrated
`
`digital camera—a requirement that, under PO’s construction, PO contends is
`
`encompassed by the challenged claims. See Section VI.A [Claim Construction].
`
`EX1002, ¶¶43-44.
`
`Second, the ’974 Application does not provide written description support
`
`for the sequencing of several steps, including:
`
` “initiating the [mobile check] deposit after [performing] the confirming
`
`[step]” [independent claims 1 and 12]; and
`
` “confirming that the [mobile check] deposit can go forward after
`
`performing an optical character recognition on the check” [independent
`
`claims 1 and 12];
`
`EX1002, ¶45.
`
`
`4 U.S. Patent Application No. 14/225,090 (EX1060), another application to
`
`which the ’605 patent claims priority, shares the same written disclosure as the
`
`’974 Application and therefore fails to provide written description support for the
`
`’605 patent.
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01399
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,013,605
`
`
`Third, the ’974 Application does not provide written description support for
`
`“transmitting” images/photos that have been “modified” into a different electronic
`
`format from the captured images/photos [Claims 1 and 25]. EX1002, ¶46.
`
`Accordingly, the ’605 patent claims are not entitled to the priority date of the
`
`’974 Application, i.e., October 31, 2006. Instead, the ’605 patent claims’ priority
`
`date should be no earlier than the filing date of the application for the ’605 patent,
`
`i.e., July 28, 2017. EX1002, ¶47.
`
`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
`
`priority date, the inventor was in possession of the invention. Vas-Cath, Inc. v.
`
`Mahurkar, 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
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2021-01399
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,013,605
`
`the parent in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art 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) (internal cites
`
`omitted); 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 that “exceed in scope the subject matter that inventor … chose to
`
`disclose to the public in the written description” of the parent application, the
`
`parent application does not provide written description support for the claims of
`
`the child patent. Atl. Rearch. Mktg. Sys., Inc. v. Troy, 659 F.3d 1345, 1355 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2011). The 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”).
`
`Although a patent is presumed valid, it is not presumed to be entitled to a
`
`claimed priority date. Instead, “once a challenger … has introduced 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).
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2021-01399
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,013,605
`
`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. Intel Corp. v. Tela Innovations, Inc., 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 ’974 Application Is Devoid of Written Description Support
`for Using an Integrated Digital Camera to Capture An Image of a
`Check
`The ’605 patent’s independent claim 1 recites “a portable device” and “a
`
`digital camera” and independent claim 12 recites “a customer’s handheld mobile
`
`device” and a “digital camera.” As discussed in Section VI [Claim Construction],
`
`PO alleges these claim terms encompass portable and mobile devices with an
`
`integrated digital camera. But the only image capture devices referred to in the
`
`’974 Application are separate from the portable/mobile device. The ’974
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2021-01399
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,013,605
`
`Application lacks written description support for using an integrated digital camera
`
`
`
`to capture an image of a check, as claimed.5 This lack of written description
`
`support is fatal to the priority claim of all claims of the ’605 patent. EX1002, ¶48.
`
`1.
`
`The ’974 Application Does Not Contain Written Description
`Support for Using an Integrated Digital Camera to Capture
`an Image of a Check
`The ’974 Application fails to provide written description support for a
`
`portable/mobile device with an integrated digital camera that is used to capture
`
`check images for the same reasons the Board in Reckitt found a parent application
`
`lacked written description support for a child patent. In Reckitt, the patent owner
`
`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 in a latex composition.” Reckitt
`
`at 10-12. Then, in the challenged patent, the patent owner “chose to generically
`
`recite ‘synthetic polyisoprene particles,’ which, standing alone, admittedly includes
`
`both non-pre-vulcanized and pre-vulcanized synthetic polyisoprene particles....”
`
`
`5 See Celltrion, Inc. v. Biogen, Inc., IPR2017-01095, Paper 60, 16 (P.T.A.B.
`
`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.”).
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01399
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,013,605
`
`
`Reckitt at 12. The Board thus 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 at 12. Based on its claim construction, the Board
`
`found the challenged patent was not entitled to claim priority to the applications in
`
`the priority chain, none of which described synthetic polyisoprene articles that do
`
`not include pre-vulcanized synthetic polyisoprene particles. Reckitt at 12-15. As a
`
`result, the Board found that the challenged claims were anticipated by a parent
`
`application to which the challenged patent claimed priority. Reckitt at 15-17.
`
`EX1002, ¶49.
`
`The same situation exists here. After prosecuting a chain of priority
`
`applications, PO pursued claims to a portable/mobile device and digital camera.
`
`The PO now applies these claims to encompass both (1) a portable/mobile device
`
`separate from the digital camera used to capture check images (EX1001, claims 4,
`
`15), and (2) a mobile device with an integrated digital camera used to capture
`
`check images (EX1043 [Complaint], ¶¶ 47, 49, 51; Wells Fargo at 37. See also
`
`Section VI [Claim Construction]. The ’605 patent is not entitled to claim priority
`
`to the applications in its priority chain because none of those applications provide
`
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01399
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,013,605
`
`
`adequate written description support for a portable/mobile device with an
`
`integrated digital camera that is used to capture check images. EX1002, ¶49.
`
`As illustrated by FIG. 1 of the ’974 patent, the ’974 Application’s disclosure
`
`of “the image capture device 112” used for capturing an image of a check “may
`
`be communicatively coupled to the computer 111” accompany drawings and
`
`descriptions that suggests the computer and the image capture device are
`
`physically separate. EX1042, [0033]. EX1002, ¶50.
`
`
`
`- 19 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01399
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,013,605
`
`
`
`
`EX1042, FIG. 1 (annotated).
`
`The description of FIG. 1 suggests that the computer and the image capture device
`
`are separate, not integrated:
`
` “Computer 111 may comprise software that allows the user to control
`
`certain operations of the image capture device 112 from the computer
`
`111”;
`
`
`
`- 20 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01399
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,013,605
`
`
` [M]odern scanner users may be familiar with the TWA