Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,652,771
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BLAZE MOBILE, INC., and
`MICHELLE FISHER,
`Patent Owners
`
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,652,771
`
`Case IPR2021-TBD
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,652,771
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 2
`A.
`Real Party-In-Interest ............................................................................ 2
`B.
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 2
`C.
`Counsel and Service Information .......................................................... 3
`PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ....................................... 3
`III.
`IV. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING .................................. 4
`V. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED .................... 4
`A.
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications ............................................ 4
`B.
`Relief Requested .................................................................................... 5
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE TECHNOLOGY ......................................................... 6
`A. Near Field Communications (NFC) ...................................................... 6
`B. Mobile Device NFC-Based Transactions .............................................. 6
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE ʼ771 PATENT ............................................................ 7
`A.
`The Alleged Invention ........................................................................... 8
`B.
`Summary of the Prosecution History .................................................. 10
`1.
`Prosecution of the parent ’632 Application .............................. 10
`2.
`Prosecution of the ’150 Application ......................................... 11
`Person of Ordinary Skill In The Art .................................................... 12
`C.
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 12
`IX. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART ............................................................. 13
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,652,771
`
`X.
`
`A. Huomo (Ex. 1005) ............................................................................... 13
`B.
`Sklovsky (Ex. 1006) ............................................................................ 15
`C.
`Dua (Ex. 1008) .................................................................................... 18
`D. Overview of Griffin (Ex. 1009) ........................................................... 20
`THE ART AND ARGUMENTS IN THIS PETITION WERE NOT
`PREVIOUSLY BEFORE THE PATENT OFFICE ...................................... 21
`XI. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION ...................................................... 22
`A. Ground I: Claims 1-19 Are Rendered Obvious by Huomo ................ 22
`1.
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................. 22
`2.
`Dependent Claim 2 ................................................................... 36
`3.
`Dependent Claim 3 ................................................................... 36
`4.
`Dependent Claim 4 ................................................................... 36
`5.
`Dependent Claim 5 ................................................................... 37
`6.
`Dependent Claim 6 ................................................................... 37
`7.
`Dependent Claim 7 ................................................................... 38
`8.
`Dependent Claim 8 ................................................................... 39
`9.
`Dependent Claim 9 ................................................................... 41
`10. Claims 10-19 ............................................................................. 42
`Ground II: Claims 1-19 Are Rendered Obvious by Huomo in
`view of Dua and Griffin ...................................................................... 44
`1.
`Elements [1.5], [10.4], [19.5] - Biometric Data ........................ 45
`2.
`Elements [1.2], [1.5], [10.4] and [19.2] - Mobile device
`display ....................................................................................... 46
`Elements [4.1] and [13.1] - Coupon ......................................... 48
`3.
`Ground III: Claims 1-19 Are Rendered Obvious by Sklovsky in
`view of Dua and Griffin ...................................................................... 49
`1. Motivation to Combine Sklovsky, Dua, and Griffin ................ 49
`2.
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................. 53
`3.
`Dependent Claim 2 ................................................................... 73
`4.
`Dependent Claim 3 ................................................................... 74
`5.
`Dependent Claim 4 ................................................................... 74
`6.
`Dependent Claim 5 ................................................................... 75
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,652,771
`
`Dependent Claim 6 ................................................................... 77
`7.
`Dependent Claim 7 ................................................................... 78
`8.
`Dependent Claim 8 ................................................................... 78
`9.
`10. Dependent Claim 9 ................................................................... 80
`11. Claims 10-19 ............................................................................. 80
`XII. SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................... 81
`XIII. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL IS INAPPLICABLE ..................................... 81
`XIV. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 82
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,652,771
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) ............................................. 81
`Fasteners for Retail, Inc. v. RTC Indus., Inc.,
`IPR2019-00994 (PTAB Nov. 5, 2019) ............................................................... 21
`PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`69 F. Supp. 3d 1022(N.D. Cal. 2014) ................................................................. 82
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .......................................................... 12
`Samsung Electronics Co. v. Blaze Mobile Inc.,
`Case No. 21-cv-02989-EJD (N.D. Cal.) ............................................................... 2
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ...................................................................................................... 4, 5
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ...................................................................................................... 5, 6
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) .................................................................................................. 81
`35 U.S.C. § 325 ........................................................................................................ 21
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 1.131 ..................................................................................................... 10
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) .................................................................................................. 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a)(1) .............................................................................................. 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 12
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ..................................................................................................... 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24 ..................................................................................................... 82
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,652,771
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,652,771
`
`Certified File History of U.S. Patent No. 9,652,771 (“the ’150
`Application”)
`Declaration of Dr. Sandeep Chatterjee for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,652,771
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Sandeep Chatterjee
`
`International Publication No. WO 2006/095212 (“Huomo”)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0162312 (“Sklovsky”)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No 2003/ 0149662A1 (“Shore”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,700,729 (“Dua”)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0190970A1 (“Griffin”)
`
`ISO/IEC 18092 - Information technology - Telecommunications and
`information exchange between systems - Near Field Communication
`Interface and Protocol (NFCIP-1)
`Declaration in Support of the Public Availability of ISO/IEC 18092
`
`Nokia 6131 NFC Spec Sheet
`
`Nokia 6131 NFC User Guide, Nokia (2007)
`
`Kline, The technical basics of Near Field Communications,
`SecureIDNews (May 2007)
`Omitted
`
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary, 5th Ed (2002)
`
`Certified File History of U.S. Patent No. 9,378,493 (“the ’632
`Application”)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0145135 (“Jogand”)
`
`v
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1001
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`1008
`1009
`1010
`
`1011
`1012
`1013
`1014
`
`1015
`1016
`1017
`
`1018
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,652,771
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1019
`1020
`1021
`1022
`1023
`1024
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0162381 (“Petralia”)
`
`European Patent 1503352 (“Furuyama”)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0116264 (“Hammad”)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0018450 (“Sandberg”)
`
`Listing of Challenged Claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,652,771
`
`SWAPEROO: A Simple Wallet Architecture, UENIX Workshop on
`Electronic Commerce (1998)
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,652,771
`
`Petitioner Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Samsung” or “Petitioner”)
`
`requests inter partes review of Claims 1-19 (“the Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 9,652,771 (“the ʼ771 patent”) (Ex. 1001).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Digital wallets stored on mobile devices (e.g., cell phones) for purchasing
`
`goods and services have existed since the 1990s. Indeed, the ’771 Patent
`
`acknowledges that digital wallets on mobile devices were known in the prior art, but
`
`the Patent Owner nevertheless claims to have invented a mobile transaction scheme
`
`whereby the user is authenticated before executing a mobile payment by sending
`
`sensitive information (e.g., credit card number, expiration date, CVV) via Near Field
`
`Communication (NFC) to a point-of-sale (POS) terminal that ultimately forwards
`
`the information to a merchant or financial institution for authorization. But this
`
`straightforward scheme was also well-known in the art long before the ’771 Patent.
`
`And the Patent Owner’s purported novelty based on the use of “secure”
`
`components—i.e., a secure element on a mobile device that has a secure memory
`
`and processor, a secure element application—and NFC is directly contrary to the
`
`Patent Owner’s prior admission that “mobile communication device [] internals and
`
`application platforms, NFC, smartcard internals and application platforms, payment
`
`protocols [], and the working/workflow associated with POS and POE terminals, and
`
`the transaction and management servers” were all “known knowledge.” Ex. 1017,
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,652,771
`
`306. As discussed herein, all components of the claimed invention were well-known
`
`in the art long before the alleged invention, and the Challenged Claims of the ’771
`
`Patent are therefore invalid and should be cancelled.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Party-In-Interest
`Samsung identifies the following real parties-in-interest: Samsung Electronics
`
`Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`
`B. Related Matters
`On April 25, 2021, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics
`
`America, Inc. filed a complaint in the Northern District of California for a
`
`declaratory judgment of non-infringement against Patent Owners Blaze Mobile Inc.
`
`and Michelle Fisher. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v. Blaze Mobile Inc., et al.,
`
`Case No. 21-cv-02989-EJD (“DJ Action”). Among other patents, the complaint
`
`seeks a judgement of non-infringement of the ’771 Patent and another related patent,
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,378,493 (“the ’493 Patent”).
`
`Further, concurrently with this Petition, Samsung has filed an IPR petition
`
`challenging claims of the ’493 Patent.
`
`The above actions may affect, or may be affected by, decisions in this
`
`proceeding.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,652,771
`
`C. Counsel and Service Information
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`
`Todd M. Friedman, P.C. (No. 42,559)
`todd.friedman@kirkland.com
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`601 Lexington Avenue
`New York, NY 10022
`Telephone: (212) 446-4800
`Facsimile: (212) 446-4900
`
`Jon R. Carter (No. 75,145)
`carterj@kirkland.com
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`601 Lexington Avenue
`New York, NY 10022
`Telephone: (212) 446-4800
`Facsimile: (212) 446-4900
`
`Bao Nguyen (No. 46,062)
`bnguyen@kirkland.com
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`555 California Street, 27th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`Telephone: (415) 439-1400
`Facsimile: (415) 439-1500
`
`Samsung concurrently submits a Power of Attorney, 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b),
`
`and consents to electronic service directed to the following email address:
`
`Samsung_Blaze_IPR@kirkland.com.
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`The undersigned authorizes the Office to charge the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.15(a)(1) for this Petition to Deposit Account No. 506092. The undersigned
`
`further authorizes payment for any additional fees that may be due in connection
`
`with this Petition to be charged to the above-referenced deposit account.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,652,771
`
`IV. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Samsung certifies pursuant to Rule 42.104(a) that the ’771 Patent is available
`
`for IPR and that Samsung is not barred or estopped from requesting an IPR of the
`
`Challenged Claims on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`Samsung challenges the patentability of the Challenged Claims of the ʼ771
`
`Patent and requests that they be canceled.
`
`•
`
`•
`
`A.
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications
`Samsung’s challenge is based on the following prior art references:
`
`Huomo (Ex. 1005) - International Patent Publication WO 2006/095212 A1 to
`
`Huomo et al., was published on September 14, 2006, from PCT Application
`
`PCT/IB2005/000571 filed on March 7, 2005. Huomo is prior art under pre-
`
`AIA § 102(b).
`
`Sklovsky (Ex. 1006) - U.S. Application Publication No. 2008/0162312 A1 to
`
`Sklovsky et al., was published on July 3, 2008, from Application No.
`
`11/618,163 filed on December 29, 2006. Sklovsky is prior art under pre-AIA
`
`§ 102(e).1
`
`
`1 For purposes of this Petition only Petitioner uses November 14, 2007, the date
`the application to which the ’771 Patent claims priority was filed, as the priority
`date of the ’771 Patent. Because this priority date is before March 16, 2013, the
`pre-AIA version of § 102 applies. All citations to the applicable statutes in this
`petition refer to the pre-AIA version
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,652,771
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Dua (Ex. 1008) - U.S. Patent No. 8,700,729 to Dua, issued on April 15, 2014,
`
`from Application No. 11/040,847, which was filed on January 21, 2005. Dua
`
`was published on July 27, 2006 and is prior art under pre-AIA § 102(b).
`
`Griffin (Ex. 1009) - U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0190970
`
`A1; filed 2/27/2004; published 9/1/2005; prior art under pre-AIA §102(b).
`
`These prior art references predate the ʼ771 Patent, which claims priority to an
`
`application filed on November 14, 2007.2 Sklovsky and Dua were not before the
`
`Patent Office during prosecution.
`
` U.S. Patent Application Publication
`
`2009/0098825 and U.S. Patent No. 8,005,426, related to Huomo and having
`
`substantially the same disclosures, were cited in Information Disclosure Statements
`
`(“IDS”) (Ex. 1002, 4-5; Ex. 1017, 40), but were not discussed by the Examiner or
`
`the Patent Owner during prosecution of the ʼ771 Patent and the parent ʼ493 Patent.
`
`See generally Ex. 1002 and Ex. 1017.
`
`B. Relief Requested
`Samsung requests cancellation of the Challenged Claims as unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The specific grounds of the challenge are set forth below,
`
`and are supported by the declaration of Dr. Chatterjee (Ex. 1003).
`
`
`2 Samsung reserves the right to challenge this or any other alleged priority date.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,652,771
`
`Ground
`
`I
`
`II
`III
`
`Basis
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`Claims
`
`Prior Art References
`
`1-19
`
`1-19
`1-19
`
`Huomo
`
`Huomo, Dua and Griffin
`Sklovsky, Dua and Griffin
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE TECHNOLOGY
`A. Near Field Communications (NFC)
`Near Field Communication (NFC) is a very short range communication
`
`technology that allows devices placed in close proximity of each other (a few
`
`centimeters or less) to communicate with each other wirelessly. Ex. 1003, ¶¶41-43.
`
`The technology is standardized. ISO/IEC 18092 (Ex. 1010), published by the
`
`ISO and IEC international standard organizations in 2004, is a specification standard
`
`that “defines communication modes for Near Field Communication Interface and
`
`Protocol (NFCIP-1) using inductive coupled devices operating at the centre
`
`frequency of 13,56 MHz for interconnection of computer peripherals.” Ex. 1010, 7;
`
`Ex. 1003, ¶42.
`
`B. Mobile Device NFC-Based Transactions
`NFC technology is used in smartcards and portable consumer electronic
`
`devices, such as PDAs and cell phones. See Ex. 1003, ¶¶43-46. As noted in the
`
`Introduction section of the Sklovsky prior art patent application publication, “the
`
`demand for mobile devices that allow users to conduct contactless transactions is
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,652,771
`
`increasing. Near Field Communication technology (NFC) enables mobile devices
`
`to act as an electronic data transaction device.” Ex. 1006 (Sklovsky), [0003]. For
`
`example, “NFC can be used to perform contactless financial transactions such as
`
`those requiring a credit card. The user may select credit card information stored in
`
`the mobile device and perform contactless payments in a quick way by ‘tapping’ or
`
`‘waving’ the mobile device in front of a contactless reader terminal.” Id.
`
`Security is of paramount importance in contactless financial transactions and
`
`is commonly provided by coupling the NFC communication module of the mobile
`
`device with a secure module, so that “[t]he secure module can provide secure credit
`
`card information to the reader terminal using the NFC technology.” Id.; Ex. 1003,
`
`¶47.
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE ʼ771 PATENT
`The ʼ771 patent is titled “Induction based transactions at a mobile device with
`
`authentication,” and it issued on May 16, 2017. It was prosecuted as Application
`
`No. 15/175,150 (the “’150 Application”), filed on June 7, 2016, which is a
`
`continuation of Application No. 13/620,632 (the “’632 Application”), filed Sep. 14,
`
`2012, which is a continuation of Application No. 11/939,821, filed on Nov. 14, 2007.
`
`The ’632 Application issued as U.S. Patent No. 9,378,493 (the “’493 Patent”).
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,652,771
`
`A. The Alleged Invention
`The alleged invention of the ’771 Patent relates to a system and “a method for
`
`transmitting data between a mobile communication device and a server.” Ex. 1001,
`
`1:47–49. The mobile device—which can be a “cellular phone[], personal digital
`
`assistant[], and the like”— is used “to conduct payment transactions,” including
`
`using “induction” Id., 1:26–29, Title. The ’771 Patent states that, “[g]iven the
`
`sensitive nature of personal money or banking data that may be stored on a mobile
`
`communication device as a result of the ability to transact payments, it is critical to
`
`protect a user from fraudulent usage due to, e.g., loss or theft of a mobile
`
`communication device.” Id., 1:38–43.
`
`The specification is directed generally to a “mobile application running on the
`
`mobile communication device,” such as a “[m]obile [w]allet application,” that is
`
`used at a point of sale device. Id., 1:62–63, 3:18–19. The specification also
`
`discusses common procedures to authenticate the user and approve payments, such
`
`as “a multi-factored PIN-based login and authentication,” and “biometrics to
`
`authenticate the user before authorizing the transaction.” Id., 2:8–10; 3:3–5. Figure
`
`1 illustrates the basic disclosure in the ’771 Patent:
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,652,771
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, Fig. 1. Despite the simplicity of this figure, the claims recite a mobile
`
`device architecture with at least two processors (a “mobile device processor” and an
`
`“NFC processor”), at least two memories (a “mobile device memory” and a “secure
`
`element memory”), at least two communication transceivers (a “mobile device
`
`transceiver” and an “NFC transceiver”), and at least two software elements (a “non-
`
`browser based application” and a “secure element application”). Id., Claims 1, 10,
`
`19. The specification of the ’771 Patent does not, however, describe all of these
`
`elements.
`
`For example, the specification does not describe a non-browser based
`
`application. The specification also does not describe a secure element architecture
`
`on the mobile device. In particular, the specification does not describe an NFC
`
`processor for executing a secure application and a secure memory that are,
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,652,771
`
`furthermore, separate and distinct from the mobile device’s processor and memory,
`
`as claimed. Ex. 1003, ¶¶50-55.
`
`B.
`Summary of the Prosecution History
`Applicant made numerous arguments to overcome prior art rejections and to
`
`identify alleged support for certain claim elements during prosecution of the parent
`
`’632 Application (which issued as the ’493 Patent) and of the ’150 Application
`
`(which issued as the ’771 Patent), as detailed below.
`
`1.
`Prosecution of the parent ’632 Application
`The Examiner rejected the claims of the parent ’632 Application numerous
`
`times over the prior art. The claims were at first rejected as being obvious over
`
`Jogand (Ex. 1018) in combination with Petralia (Ex. 1019) and another art. See Ex.
`
`1017 (’493 FH), 150-58. In response, Applicant argued in particular that Jogand
`
`does not disclose a secure element application and that Petralia does not disclose a
`
`processor in a secure element. Id., 179, 181. The Examiner found Applicant’s
`
`arguments to be persuasive and withdrew this first set of rejection. Id., 211.
`
`The Examiner then rejected the claims as being obvious over Furayama (Ex.
`
`1020) and Hammad (Ex. 1021). Id., 211-20. In response, Applicant submitted an
`
`affidavit under 37 CFR 1.131 to swear behind Hammad. Id., 296-309. The
`
`Examiner agreed that the affidavit was sufficient to overcome Hammad and
`
`withdrew this second set of rejection. Id., 319.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,652,771
`
`The Examiner then rejected the claims as obvious over Furayama in view of
`
`Sandberg (Ex. 1022). Id., 319-28. In response, Applicant distinguished Sandberg
`
`on the ground that it does not disclose a secure element, a secure element application
`
`or storing transaction data in the secure element. Id., 339-41. Applicant further
`
`distinguished Sandberg on the ground that Sandberg’s RFID is different from the
`
`claimed NFC protocol, in particular because an RFID-equipped terminal does not
`
`“trigger” a secure element application stored in the secure element of a mobile device
`
`via inductive coupling as an NFC-equipped terminal would, and because RFID
`
`operates at a different frequency than the “13.56MHz” NFC frequency. Id., 373-
`
`375. Applicant distinguished Furayama on the ground that in Furayama, transaction
`
`information is not sent to a server because the transaction is processed locally at the
`
`terminal (e.g., a ticket gate). Id., 396.
`
`2.
`Prosecution of the ’150 Application
`The claims of the ’771 Patent issued without any rejection following a
`
`preliminary amendment. See Ex. 1002, 65 (Notice of Allowance). In Remarks in
`
`support of the preliminary amendment, the Applicant purported to identify support
`
`for various claim terms. Id., 59. Notably, Applicant represented that support for the
`
`claimed non-browser based-application (“Not browser based”) is found in an
`
`incorporated by reference application, which states that “in one implementation, the
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,652,771
`
`mobile application 910 is not browser HTTP based, and delivers banking and
`
`money management services.” Ex. 1002, 59-60.3
`
`C.
`Person of Ordinary Skill In The Art
`As explained by Dr. Chatterjee, a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(“POSITA”) at the time of the alleged invention would have had a B.S. in Computer
`
`Engineering or a related field, or equivalent experience, and two or more years of
`
`industry or research experience in data communications, wireless devices, and/or
`
`mobile payment systems. Ex. 1003, ¶34. Additional education might compensate
`
`for less experience, and vice-versa. Id.
`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`“[W]ords of a claim ‘are generally given their ordinary and customary
`
`meaning,” which is “the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing
`
`date of the patent application.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Petitioner submits that the
`
`Board does not need to construe any terms to resolve the arguments presented herein.
`
`
`3 All emphases added, unless otherwise noted.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,652,771
`
`IX. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART
`A. Huomo (Ex. 1005)
`Like the ’771 Patent, Huomo is directed to mobile devices “equipped with
`
`smartcard and near field communication means” to conduct payment/ticketing
`
`transactions with NFC-equipped point-of-sale (POS) terminals. Ex. 1005, 1:7-8,
`
`17:10-14.
`
`Huomo focuses on providing “maximum security” for such mobile devices.
`
`Id., 12:10-23. Figure 2a illustrates a mobile device in which the core components
`
`for performing NFC transactions—the Secure Smartcard Module 200 (SSM) (red)
`
`and NFC module 201 (blue)—form a secure enclave (secure element) that is
`
`segregated from other components of the device, such as the device’s processor
`
`(MCU 510) (green) and memory 530 (purple). Ex. 1005, 13:1-15. In addition, a
`
`“secure storage module 201” (yellow) of the SSM is dedicated to storing “secure
`
`applications, private data, important receipts or the like” “in a tamperproof
`
`environment on the smartcard.” Id. Huomo explains that, with this architecture, the
`
`“smartcard module 200 serves as a tamperproof processing and storage unit” and
`
`provides the mobile device “with a secure and tamperproof environment” for
`
`smartcard transactions. Id., 16:16-20; Ex. 1003, ¶¶62-64.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,652,771
`
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 2a.4
`
`
`
`Huomo Figure 3 illustrates the communication flows among a mobile device
`
`(magenta), a point-of-sale (POS) terminal (dark blue), and remote servers in the
`
`service provider network (tan) to complete a typical smartcard transaction. Ex.
`
`1005, 17:6-18:29, Fig. 3. In the exemplary context of a credit card purchase, Huomo
`
`explains that “terminal 100 [magenta] provides credit card information [and the]
`
`necessary information for conducting the payment for the amount provided by the
`
`POS terminal 310 [dark blue].” Id., 18:14-17. Huomo further explains that “the
`
`POS 310 forwards the transaction information to a service providing authority 340
`
`[tan], which completes the transaction.” Id., 18:25-28. The forwarding of transaction
`
`
`4 All colors and colored annotations added unless otherwise noted.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,652,771
`
`information (such as credit card information) to the service provider (SP) (tan) is
`
`illustrated in green dotted lines in Figure 3. Ex. 1003, ¶¶65-67.
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 3. Huomo explains that, after transaction completion, the service
`
`provider can flexibly send receipts to the user mobile device via NFC or via
`
`GSM/UMTS cellular network, as illustrated in Figure 4b below. Id., 23:16-30.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 4b.
`
`
`
`B.
`Sklovsky (Ex. 1006)
`Like the ’771 Patent, Sklovsky is directed to “NFC/SIM contactless
`
`transaction system [] used for applications such as ticketing, control card access,
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,652,771
`
`loyalty programs [] hosted by contactless applications on the mobile device.” Ex.
`
`1006, [0038]. Figure 4 illustrates such a system. As shown, a mobile device
`
`(magenta dotted line) includes a “mobile host” or “application processor” (green), a
`
`“secure controller” (red box) and an “NFC modem” (blue) integrated in the device.
`
`Id., [0036]. The mobile host (green) has “access to the mobile device’s computing
`
`and user interface resources” and executes “[c]ontactless applications” such as
`
`“virtual payment cards” and “smart card applications[.]” Id., [0007], [0036], [0038].
`
`The secure controller (red box) and NFC modem (blue) allow the contactless
`
`applications to securely communicate with a Point-of-Sale (POS) terminal equipped
`
`with an NFC reader (dark blue box) using the NFC protocol:
`
`Id., Fig. 4, [0043-44]. The secure controller (red) includes a processor (tan) that
`
`executes software (secure controller software) and a “secure protected memory”
`
`(yellow) for storing sensitive “data and transaction events.” Id.; Ex. 1003, ¶¶69-71.
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,652,771
`
`Sklovsky Figure 10 illustrates the communication flows among a mobile
`
`device (magenta dotted line), a POS terminal (dark blue) and remote merchant and
`
`financial back-end systems (“Authorization Backend 175”) (gold) in a typical NFC
`
`“secure contactless transaction.” Ex. 1006, [0063].
`
`Id., Fig. 10. In such a transaction, the “NFC/Secure Controller” (red) of the mobile
`
`device transmits “credit card information, account information, or any other
`
`information associated with the transaction for making a payment” (358, light blue)
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,652,771
`
`to the POS terminal (dark blue), which forwards it to the Authorization Backend
`
`network (gold) for payment authorization (370, brown). Id., [0063]; Ex. 1003, ¶¶72-
`
`73.
`
`C. Dua (Ex. 1008)
`Like the ’771 Patent, Dua is directed to “conducting financial and other
`
`transactions using a wireless device” with “a point-of-sale terminal.” Ex. 1008,
`
`Abstract. Dua explains that the use of “electronic wallet software” operating on such
`
`mobile devices equipped with “Near Field Communication (NFC) technology” was
`
`already well-known. Id., 3:23-27, 3:35-40; Ex. 1003, ¶¶75-76.
`
`Of particular relevance to the instant Petition, Dua describes in detail the
`
`merchant and financial institution infrastructures that enable s