`
`DOCKET NO.: 1652875-00151US12
`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)
`
`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
`
`
`
`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 IPR2022-00050
`U.S. Patent No. 10,402,638
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF CLAIMS 1-30
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00050
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,402,638
`
`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 ............................................................... 5 
`THE ’638 PATENT ......................................................................... 6 
`Brief Description ....................................................................... 6 
`Prosecution History ................................................................... 8 
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................. 9 
`“Handheld Mobile Device” and “Digital Camera” ................. 10 
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ......................... 11 
`THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO A
`PRIORITY DATE EARLIER THAN JULY 28, 2017. ................. 11 
`Legal Standard ......................................................................... 12 
`- i -
`
`VII. 
`VIII. 
`
`A. 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00050
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,402,638
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`A. 
`B. 
`
`A. 
`
`The ’974 Application Lacks Written Description Support for
`Using an Integrated Digital Camera to Capture an Image of a
`Check. ...................................................................................... 13 
`1.  The ’974 Application Does Not Contain Written
`Description Support for Using Integrated Digital Camera
`to Capture Check Image. ................................................... 14 
`2.  The ’974 Application Does Not Contain Written
`Description Support for Genus that Includes Using
`Integrated Digital Camera to Capture Check Image. ........ 22 
`The ’974 Application Does Not Provide Written Description
`Support for Checking for Errors Before Handheld Mobile
`Device Submits the Check. ...................................................... 26 
`The ’974 Application Does Not Provide Written Description
`Support for Claimed Confirming. ............................................ 27 
`The ’974 Application Does Not Provide Written Description
`Support for Claimed Ordering of Steps. .................................. 28 
`1. 
`“after the receiving, instructing the customer to take a
`photo of the check” ............................................................ 28 
`“initiat[ing] the mobile check deposit after the confirming
`step is performed” ............................................................. 29 
`PRINCIPAL PRIOR ART REFERENCES ................................... 29 
`Oakes-I (EX1003) .................................................................... 29 
`Oakes-II (EX1004) .................................................................. 30 
`SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY ................... 32 
`Ground I: Claims 23-25, 28-30 Are Obvious Over Oakes-I and
`Oakes-II. .................................................................................. 32 
`1.  Claim 23 ............................................................................ 32 
`2.  Claim 24 ............................................................................ 58 
`- ii -
`
`2. 
`
`IX. 
`
`X. 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00050
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,402,638
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`3.  Claim 25 ............................................................................ 59 
`4.  Claim 28 ............................................................................ 59 
`5.  Claim 29 ............................................................................ 70 
`6.  Claim 30 ............................................................................ 70 
`Ground II: Claims 23-25 Are Obvious Over Oakes-I, Oakes-II,
`and Medina. ............................................................................. 71 
`1.  Claim 23 ............................................................................ 71 
`2.  Claims 24-25 ..................................................................... 74 
`Ground III: Claims 1-22, 26, 27 Are Obvious Over Oakes-I,
`Oakes-II, and Roach. ............................................................... 74 
`1.  Claim 1 .............................................................................. 74 
`2.  Claim 2 .............................................................................. 84 
`3.  Claim 3 .............................................................................. 85 
`4.  Claim 4 .............................................................................. 85 
`5.  Claim 5 .............................................................................. 87 
`6.  Claim 6 .............................................................................. 87 
`7.  Claim 7 .............................................................................. 87 
`8.  Claim 8 .............................................................................. 88 
`9.  Claim 9 .............................................................................. 88 
`10.  Claim 10 ............................................................................ 88 
`11.  Claim 11 ............................................................................ 91 
`12.  Claim 12 ............................................................................ 91 
`13.  Claim 13 ............................................................................ 92 
`
`- iii -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00050
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,402,638
`
`14.  Claim 14 ............................................................................ 92 
`15.  Claim 15 ............................................................................ 93 
`16.  Claim 16 ............................................................................ 93 
`17.  Claim 17 ............................................................................ 93 
`18.  Claim 18 ............................................................................ 96 
`19.  Claim 19 ............................................................................ 96 
`20.  Claim 20 ............................................................................ 96 
`21.  Claim 21 ............................................................................ 98 
`22.  Claim 22 ............................................................................ 98 
`23.  Claim 26 ............................................................................ 99 
`24.  Claim 27 ..........................................................................100 
`DISCRETIONARY DENIAL IS NOT WARRANTED ............. 100 
`Fintiv Factors Favor Institution. ............................................100 
`New Prior Art and Arguments Favor Institution. ..................101 
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................ 102 
`
`A. 
`B. 
`
`XI. 
`
`XII. 
`
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00050
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,402,638
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`U.S. Patent No. 10,402,638 (the “’638 patent”) was filed in 2018 and
`
`purports to claim priority to a patent application filed in 2006. The ’638 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 ’638 patent claims are not
`
`entitled to the claimed 2006 priority date. In fact, the ’638 patent claims are not
`
`entitled to a priority date earlier than July 28, 2017—the filing date of its grand-
`
`parent patent, U.S. Patent No. 10,013,605.
`
`With the earliest priority date being July 28, 2017, U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,708,227 (“Oakes-I”)—the patent that issued from the 2006 patent application—is
`
`prior art to the ’638 patent claims. As discussed below, Oakes-I in combination
`
`with secondary references renders the ’638 patent claims unpatentable.
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner respectfully requests cancellation of the ’638 patent claims.
`
`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 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00050
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,402,638
`
`
`B. Related Matters
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2), Petitioner states that Patent Owner (“PO”) has
`
`asserted the ’638 patent and two additional patents in United Servs. Auto. Ass’n
`
`(“USAA”) v. PNC Bank N.A., Case No. 2:21-cv-00246-JRG (E.D. Tex.) (“PNC
`
`III”). 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”) and two additional patents—including a
`
`grand-parent of the ’638 patent—in USAA v. PNC Bank N.A., Case No. 2:21-cv-
`
`00110-JRG (E.D. Tex.) (“PNC II”). 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. USAA v. PNC Bank, N.A.,
`
`IPR2021-01163, IPR2021-01248.
`
`Three prior post-grant proceedings pertaining to the ’638 patent family have
`
`been filed by third parties:
`
`Challenged Patent
`U.S. 10,013,605
`
`U.S. 10,402,638
`
`Case Nos.
`IPR2020-01742
`CBM2019-00029
`IPR2020-01516
`
`Petitioner is concurrently filing an inter partes review petition (IPR2022-
`
`00049) challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,402,638. Petitioner has also filed inter
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00050
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,402,638
`
`
`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
`IPR2021-01381
`
`U.S. 10,013,605
`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)
`
`D.
`Service Information
`E-mail:
`
`
`monica.grewal@wilmerhale.com
`david.cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`gregory.lantier@wilmerhale.com
`tim.cho@wilmerhale.com
`
`Post and hand delivery: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, MA 02109
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00050
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,402,638
`
`
`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 1-30 of the ’638 patent.
`
`A.
`Prior Art References
`As discussed in Section VIII [Priority], the ’638 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”) (EX1003), issued
`
`April 29, 2014, is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1).
`
`
`1 The Petition applies AIA provisions of 35 U.S.C. §§102,103.
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00050
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,402,638
`
`
`2. U.S. Patent No. 7,873,200 to Oakes, et al. (“Oakes-II”) (EX1004), issued
`
`January 18, 2011, is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1).
`
`3. U.S. Patent No. 9,129,340 to Medina et al. (“Medina”) (EX1005), issued
`
`September 8, 2015, is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1).
`
`4. U.S. Publication No. 2013/0155474 to Roach, et al. (“Roach”) (EX1006),
`
`published June 20, 2013, is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1).
`
`Oakes-I, Oakes-II, and Medina are of record on the face of the ’638 patent
`
`but did not form the basis of a rejection during prosecution. Roach is not of record
`
`on the face of the ’638 patent.
`
`B. Grounds for Challenge
`Petitioner requests cancellation of claims 1-30 of the ’638 patent as
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The grounds for challenge are
`
`Ground
`
`References
`
`Basis
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`I
`II
`III
`
`Oakes-I, Oakes-II
`Oakes-I, Oakes-II, Medina
`Oakes-I, Oakes-II, Roach
`
`103
`103
`103
`
`23-25, 28-30
`23-25
`1-22, 26, 27
`
`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).
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00050
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,402,638
`
`
`V. THE ’638 PATENT
`A. Brief Description
`The ’638 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, 4:7-24. EX1002,
`
`¶34.
`
`
`In this Petition, color annotations and emphases are added unless noted
`
`2
`
`otherwise.
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00050
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,402,638
`
`
`
`
`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, 13:63-14:2, 14:20-28. Once
`
`the requisite check images are received at the server, the financial institution
`
`processes the check images using routine check and image processing techniques
`
`and initiates the check deposit. Id., 11:38-50, 12:46-57. EX1002, ¶¶35-36.
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00050
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,402,638
`
`
`B.
`Prosecution History
`The ’638 patent, filed on October 19, 2018, claims priority to U.S. Patent
`
`Application No. 11/590,974 (issued as U.S. Patent No. 8,708,227) filed on October
`
`31, 2006, through three intervening applications. EX1008 [’638 Patent FH], 7, 16.
`
`This priority chain is illustrated below. EX1002, ¶37.
`
`EX1002, ¶37.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00050
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,402,638
`
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Petitioner and PO have yet to propose constructions for the ’638 patent
`
`claim terms in the co-pending district court litigation PNC III. However, in PNC II
`
`that involves a grand-parent of the ’638 patent—U.S. Patent No. 10,013,605 (the
`
`“’605 patent”)—the parties have proposed and are currently briefing constructions
`
`of the ’605 patent claim terms that also appear in the ’638 patent claims. See
`
`EX1009 [PNC II Joint Claim Construction Statement], 6, 9-10, 52-58, 103-110. It
`
`is presumed that the parties will propose the same constructions for these
`
`overlapping terms in PNC III unless otherwise compelled. See z4 Techs., Inc. v.
`
`Microsoft Corp., 507 F.3d 1340, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“[W]e presume, unless
`
`otherwise compelled, that the same claim term in the … related patents carries the
`
`same construed meaning.”). EX1002, ¶42.
`
`In this IPR proceeding, other than “handheld mobile device” and “digital
`
`camera,” resolving potential disputes over the overlapping terms is unnecessary
`
`because those terms are taught by the prior art references regardless of the
`
`construction. Any term not construed shall be understood according to ordinary
`
`and customary meaning. 37 C.F.R. §42.100(b); Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
`
`1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). EX1002, ¶¶43-45.
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00050
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,402,638
`
`
`A.
`“Handheld Mobile Device” and “Digital Camera”
`For purposes of this IPR proceeding, Petitioner relies on PO’s district court
`
`construction for the terms “handheld mobile device” and “digital camera” found in
`
`the ’605 patent—a grand-parent of the ’638 patent—reproduced below. See z4
`
`Techs, 507 F.3d at 1348. 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 Techs. Inc., IPR2018-00084, Paper 14, 11-12 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 25,
`
`2018). EX1002, ¶43.
`
`Term
`“handheld mobile
`device”
`“digital camera”
`
`EX1009, 17. EX1002, ¶43.
`
`PO’s Proposed Construction
`“handheld computing device”
`
`No further construction necessary.
`
`For purposes of this IPR proceeding, Petitioner also applies PO’s
`
`interpretation of these claim terms. In PNC II, PO asserts that the claimed
`
`“handheld mobile device” and “digital camera” in the ’605 patent are broad
`
`enough to read on a mobile device with an integrated digital camera. Specifically,
`
`PO alleges that a mobile phone purportedly running downloaded banking software
`
`shows the claimed “mobile device that includes a downloaded software or app,”
`
`and “the camera in the personal or mobile device” shows the claimed “digital
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00050
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,402,638
`
`
`camera.” EX1010 [PNC II Complaint], ¶¶ 47, 49, 51. PO also alleged, in a prior
`
`CBM proceeding involving the ’605 patent 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.
`
`USAA, CBM2019-00029, Paper 10, 37 (P.T.A.B. July 17, 2019) (“Wells Fargo”)
`
`(emphasis added). Petitioner relies on these interpretations in the analysis below.
`
`EX1002, ¶44.
`
`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 ’638 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, ¶¶38-40.
`
`VIII. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO A
`PRIORITY DATE EARLIER THAN JULY 28, 2017.
`The ’638 patent is not entitled to the claimed priority date of the ’974
`
`Application (October 31, 2006) because the ’974 Application fails to provide
`
`written description support for multiple claim limitations in the ’638 patent’s
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00050
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,402,638
`
`
`independent claims. U.S. Patent Application Nos. 14/225,090 (EX1011) and
`
`16/025,679 (EX1012)—the applications in the claimed priority chain to the ’974
`
`Application—also fail to provide written description support for the ’638 patent
`
`because they share the same disclosure as the ’974 Application. U.S. Patent
`
`Application No. 15/663,284 (“’284 Application”) (EX1013), also in the claimed
`
`priority chain and later issued as the ’605 patent, included claims that might
`
`arguably provide written description support for some of the claims in the ’638
`
`patent. Even if true, however, the earliest priority date for those claims would be
`
`the filing date of the ’284 Application: July 28, 2017. EX1002, ¶¶46-52.
`
`A. Legal Standard
`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 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
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00050
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,402,638
`
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1998) (“claims may be no broader than the supporting disclosure, and
`
`therefore … a narrow disclosure will limit claim breadth.”). 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 (“[D]escription that
`
`merely renders the invention obvious does not satisfy the requirement.”).
`
`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 v. Tela, 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 v. Ansell Healthcare Products, IPR2017-00063,
`
`Paper 38 (Jan. 30, 2018) (“Reckitt”).
`
`B.
`
`The ’974 Application Lacks Written Description Support for
`Using an Integrated Digital Camera to Capture an Image of a
`Check.
`The ’638 patent’s claims 1-5, 7-19, 23, 25-30 require a “handheld mobile
`
`device” and “a digital camera.” As discussed in Section VI [Claim Construction],
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00050
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,402,638
`
`
`PO alleges that these claim terms encompass a mobile device with an integrated
`
`digital camera. But the ’974 Application lacks written description support for
`
`using an integrated digital camera to capture an image of a check, as claimed.3 The
`
`only image capture devices described in the ’974 Application are the ones separate
`
`from the mobile device. This lack of written description support is fatal to the
`
`priority claim. EX1002, ¶53.
`
`1.
`
`The ’974 Application Does Not Contain Written Description
`Support for Using Integrated Digital Camera to Capture
`Check Image.
`The ’974 Application fails to provide written description support for a
`
`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.”
`
`
`3 See Celltrion v. Biogen, IPR2017-01095, Paper 60, 16 (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 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00050
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,402,638
`
`
`Reckitt, 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....” Id. 12. The Board thus construed the challenged claims
`
`to encompass synthetic polyisoprene articles that both (1) include pre-vulcanized
`
`synthetic polyisoprene particles and (2) do not include pre-vulcanized synthetic
`
`polyisoprene particles. Id. 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. Id. 12-15. As a result, the
`
`Board found that the challenged claims were anticipated by a parent application’s
`
`publication. Id. 15-17.
`
`The same situation exists here. After prosecuting a chain of priority
`
`applications, PO pursued claims to a mobile device and a digital camera. The PO
`
`now applies these claims to encompass both (1) a mobile device separate from the
`
`digital camera used to capture check images (EX1001, claims 6, 24, 29), and (2) a
`
`mobile device with an integrated digital camera used to capture check images
`
`(EX1010 [PNC II Complaint], ¶¶ 47, 49, 51; Wells Fargo at 37). See also Section
`
`VI [Claim Construction]. As detailed below, these claims are not entitled to claim
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00050
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,402,638
`
`
`priority to the applications in its priority chain because none of the priority
`
`applications provide adequate written description support for a mobile device with
`
`an integrated digital camera that is used to capture check images.
`
`More specifically, the ’974 Application discloses an “image capture device
`
`112” that is used for capturing an image. EX1007, [0033]. This image capture
`
`device 112 “may be communicatively coupled to the computer 111” as illustrated
`
`by FIG. 1 of the ’974 Application. Id. EX1002, ¶¶54-55.
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00050
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,402,638
`
`
`
`
`EX1007, FIG. 1. EX1002, ¶55.
`
`The description of FIG. 1 provides 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”;
` “[M]odern scanner users may be familiar with the TWAIN®
`software is often used to control image capture from a computer
`111”; and
`
`- 17 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00050
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,402,638
`
`
` “[D]igital cameras often ship along with software that allows users
`to move images from the camera to a computer 111….”
`EX1007, [0033]. EX1002, ¶56.
`
`Similarly, FIG. 2 shows a discrete “exemplary general purpose computing
`
`device that is communicatively coupled to … an image capture device” (EX1007,
`
`[0013]) where the “exemplary general purpose computer 111” (id., [0022]) has a
`
`“[c]omputing architecture 202” (id., [0023]) coupled to “input devices such as”
`
`“[a]n image capture device 246” “through interfaces 240 that are coupled to the
`
`bus 208.” Id., [0024]. EX1002, ¶57.
`
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00050
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,402,638
`
`
`EX1007, FIG. 2. EX1002, ¶57.
`
`
`
`- 19 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00050
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,402,638
`
`
`Further, FIG. 3 depicts an “exemplary image capture device architecture
`
`300” including “communication connections 308” that “may serve to
`
`communicatively couple device to a general purpose computer such as provided
`
`in Fig. 2” (i.e., “a general purpose computer” separate from the image capture
`
`device). EX1007, [0034]. EX1002, ¶58.
`
`
`
`EX1007, FIG. 3. EX1002, ¶58.
`
`Finally, FIG. 5 depicts a computer 530 with “image capture device control
`
`software and/or image edit software 531” that may “execute on the computer 530”
`
`and “interface[] with [a separate] image capture” device 540. EX1007, [0069].
`
`
`
`- 20 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00050
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,402,638
`
`
`The software “may serve functions such as initiating image capture, managing
`
`image retrieval, facilitating image editing, and so forth.” Id. EX1002, ¶59.
`
`EX1007, FIG. 5. EX1002, ¶59.
`
`
`
`- 21 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2022-00050
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,402,638
`
`The ’974 Application’s lone disclosure that the “general purpose computer
`
`
`
`111” “may be in a … laptop configuration” (EX1007, [0021]) or that it may be a
`
`PDA (id., [0042], [0044]) is cabined by the scope of the disclosure regarding the
`
`general purpose computer 111 which, as explained above, does not disclose or use
`
`an integrated digital camera. These references do not disclose that an integrated
`
`digital camera in a general purpose computer is used to capture a check image.
`
`Nor does the ’974 Application disclose a laptop or PDA with an integrated camera,
`
`much less one configured to take a photo of a check as claimed by the ’638 patent.
`
`See id., [0009], [0058]; EX1014, 11:4-8. This deficiency is dispositive. EX1002,
`
`¶¶60-62.
`
`Because the ’974 Application does not disclose an integrated camera used to
`
`capture check images, a POSITA would not have understood the ’974 Application
`
`to demonstrate that the inventors had possession of the ’638 patent’s claims that
`
`encompass a mobile device and an integrated digital camera used to capture check
`
`images. EX1002, ¶63.
`
`2.
`
`The ’974 Application Does Not Contain Written Description
`Support for Genus that Includes Using Integrated Digital
`Camera to Capture Check Image.
`The ’974 Application also fails to provide written description support for the
`
`full scope of the genus allegedly claimed in the ’638 patent. Specifically, the only
`
`
`
`- 22 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00050
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,402,638
`
`
`conceivable “mobile device” disclosed in the ’974 Application is a laptop or a
`
`PDA, but the ’974 Application does not disclose a laptop or PDA (or any other
`
`mobile device) with an integrated digital camera that takes a photo of a check as
`
`claimed. This single species (general purpose computer separate from the digital
`
`camera) fails to provide written description support for the full scope of the genus
`
`claimed in the ’638 patent which, according to PO, includes a mobile device
`
`having an integrated digital camera that takes a photo of a check as claimed.
`
`LizardTech v. Earth Res. Mapping, 424 F.3d 1336, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`
`(specification does not satisfy written description requirement “merely by clearly
`
`describing one embodiment of the thing claimed”). EX1002,