UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`FINTIV, INC.,
`
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case No.: IPR2022-00976
`U.S. Patent No. 9,892,386
`
`Title: MONETARY TRANSACTION SYSTEM
`_________________________________
`
`
`DECLARATION OF MICHAEL I. SHAMOS, PH.D.
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00976
`Fintiv Ex. 2009 | Page 1 of 48
`
`

`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`I.
`QUALIFICATIONS ....................................................................................... 2
`II.
`III. COMPENSATION ......................................................................................... 4
`IV. MATERIALS CONSIDERED ....................................................................... 5
`V.
`SUMMARY OF MY OPINIONS .................................................................. 7
`VI. LEGAL PRINCIPLES .................................................................................... 7
`VII. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .......................................... 10
`VIII. THE ’386 PROSECUTION HISTORY ....................................................... 12
`IX. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 12
`A.
`“committing” a pending transaction .................................................................... 12
`B.
`“at least one of” .................................................................................................... 16
`C.
`“auditing financial transactions” .......................................................................... 17
`D.
`“error handling” ................................................................................................... 19
`E.
`“logging platform objects” ................................................................................... 21
`SUMMARY OF THE ’386 PATENT .......................................................... 23
`X.
`XI. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 1 AND 3 WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN
`OBVIOUS OVER THE COMBINATION OF DILL, VADHRI,
`AKASHIKA, AND HANSEN ..................................................................... 27
`A.
`Dill Does Not Teach the Deposit Transaction of Claim 1 ................................... 27
`1.
`Limitation 1.9.1: “wherein the monetary transaction system is
`implemented to deposit funds at an agent branch” Limitation
`1.9.2: “the funds being deposited by a subscriber at the agent
`branch using a mobile device configured to run a monetary
`transaction system application, the monetary transaction system
`performing the following steps” Limitation 1.10.3: “the
`communication message indicating that the subscriber desires to
`deposit a specified amount of funds into the subscriber's account”......... 27
`Dill Does Not Teach or Suggest “A Communication Message From The
`Mobile Device ... Indicating That The Subscriber Desires To Deposit A
`Specified Amount Of Funds Into The Subscriber's Account,” as Recited in
`Claim 1. ................................................................................................................ 30
`Dill Does Not Teach the Staged Commitment Process of Claim 1 ..................... 31
`-i-
`
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00976
`Fintiv Ex. 2009 | Page 2 of 48
`
`

`

`
`
`1.
`
`D.
`
`Limitation 1.10.5: “committing a pending transaction through the
`business process services” Limitation 1.10.6: “wherein the
`integration tier communicates a transaction commitment request to
`the business process services” Limitation 1.10.7: “receiving a
`confirmation from the business process services that the pending
`transaction has been committed” Limitation 1.10.9: “upon
`receiving a confirmation of commitment from the business process
`services, committing the pending transaction to the database
`services” ................................................................................................... 31
`Dill Does Not Teach the Claimed “Business Process Services” ......................... 38
`1.
`Dill Does Not Disclose “Auditing Financial Transactions” .................... 39
`2.
`Dill Does Not Disclose “Error Handling” ............................................... 40
`3.
`Dill Does Not Disclose “Logging Platform Objects” .............................. 41
`XII. GROUND 2: CLAIM 2 WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS
`OVER THE COMBINATION OF DILL, VADHRI, AKASHIKA,
`HANSEN AND LIAO .................................................................................. 42
`A.
`Dill Does Not Teach the Withdrawal Transaction of Claim 2............................. 42
`1.
`Limitation 2.12.1: “wherein the monetary transaction system is
`implemented to withdraw funds at an agent branch using the
`mobile device configured to run a monetary transaction system
`application” .............................................................................................. 42
`XIII. JURAT .......................................................................................................... 44
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00976
`Fintiv Ex. 2009 | Page 3 of 48
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1. My name is Michael Shamos. I have been retained as an expert
`
`witness by Patent Owner Fintiv, Inc. (“Fintiv” or “Patent Owner”) for this Inter
`
`Partes Review IPR2022-00976 of U.S. Patent No. 9,982,386 (the “’386 Patent”)
`
`filed by Apple Inc. (“Apple” or “Petitioner”). I have been asked to respond to
`
`provide this declaration in conjunction with Patent Owner’s Response.
`
`2.
`
`I previously submitted a declaration in this proceeding entitled
`
`“Declaration Of Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D.,” dated August 23, 2022 (“Initial
`
`Declaration,” Ex. 2001), which I incorporate here by reference.
`
`3.
`
`In the Petition, I understand that Petitioner is challenging the validity
`
`of Claims 1-3 (the “Challenged Claims”) of the ’386 Patent (Ex. APPL-1001),
`
`constituting all the claims of the ’386 Patent.
`
`4.
`
`I have been asked to consider whether the Challenged Claims of the
`
`’386 Patent would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(“POSITA”) as of the date of the invention. I was also asked to review and
`
`comment on several technical statements made by Petitioner in the Petition and by
`
`its expert, Dr. Henry Houh, in the “Declaration of Dr. Henry Houh, Under 37
`
`C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review,” dated May 5, 2022
`
`(“Houh Declaration, Ex. APPL-1003).
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00976
`Fintiv Ex. 2009 | Page 4 of 48
`
`

`

`
`
`5.
`
`This Declaration contains statements of my opinions formed in this
`
`case to date and the bases and reasons for those opinions. I may offer additional
`
`opinions based on further review of materials in this case, including opinions
`
`and/or testimony of other expert witnesses.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`6.
`
`This section summarizes my educational background, career history,
`
`publications, and other relevant qualifications. My curriculum vitae is attached as
`
`Patent Owner’s Exhibit 2002, which includes my detailed employment
`
`background, professional experience, and list of publications.
`
`7.
`
`I have an A.B. degree from Princeton University in Physics, an M.A.
`
`degree from Vassar College in Physics, an M.S. degree from American University
`
`in Technology of Management, an M.S. degree from Yale University in Computer
`
`Science, an M. Phil. from Yale University in Computer Science, a Ph.D. from Yale
`
`University in Computer Science, and a J.D. degree from Duquesne University.
`
`8.
`
`I currently hold the title of Distinguished Career Professor in the
`
`School of Computer Science at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh,
`
`Pennsylvania. I am a member of two departments in that School, the Institute for
`
`Software Research and the Language Technologies Institute. I was a founder and
`
`Co-Director of the Institute for eCommerce at Carnegie Mellon from 1998-2004
`
`and from 2004-2018 have been Director of the eBusiness Technology graduate
`
`
`
`2
`
`IPR2022-00976
`Fintiv Ex. 2009 | Page 5 of 48
`
`

`

`
`
`program in the Carnegie Mellon University School of Computer Science. Since
`
`2018, I have been Director of the M.S. in Artificial Intelligence and Innovation
`
`degree program at Carnegie Mellon.
`
`9.
`
`I have taught graduate courses at Carnegie Mellon in Electronic
`
`Commerce, including eCommerce Technology, Electronic Payment Systems,
`
`Electronic Voting, Internet of Things, Ubiquitous Computing, Electronic Payment
`
`Systems and eCommerce Law and Regulation, as well as Analysis of Algorithms.
`
`Since 2007, I have taught an annual course in Law of Computer Technology. I
`
`currently also teach Artificial Intelligence and Future Markets.
`
`10.
`
`I am the author and lecturer in a 24-hour video course on Internet
`
`protocols and have taught computer networking, wireless communication and
`
`Internet architecture since 1999.
`
`11. Since 2001, I have been a Visiting Professor at the University of Hong
`
`Kong, where I teach an annual course in Electronic Payment Systems. This is one
`
`of only a handful of graduate courses taught on this subject in the world.
`
`12.
`
`I was the Director of Carnegie Mellon’s graduate degree program in
`
`eBusiness Technology from 1999-2018 and am now a faculty member in the
`
`Privacy Engineering degree program at Carnegie Mellon. My course on Law of
`
`Computer Technology is required for all students in that program. My principal
`
`
`
`3
`
`IPR2022-00976
`Fintiv Ex. 2009 | Page 6 of 48
`
`

`

`
`
`role currently is as Director of the graduate program in Artificial Intelligence and
`
`Innovation.
`
`13. From 1979-1987 I was the founder and president of two computer
`
`software development companies in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Unilogic, Ltd. and
`
`Lexeme Corporation.
`
`14.
`
`I am an attorney admitted to practice in Pennsylvania and have been
`
`admitted to the Bar of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office since 1981. I have
`
`been asked to render opinions in this declaration as a technical expert. I have not
`
`been asked to offer any opinions on patent law in this proceeding.
`
`15.
`
`I have previously served as an expert in over 325 cases concerning
`
`computer technology. In particular, I have been involved in at least 35 cases
`
`involving electronic payment systems.
`
`III. COMPENSATION
`16.
`I am being compensated for my work in this case at the rate of $575
`
`per hour. I am also reimbursed for all reasonable expenses that I incur during the
`
`course of this case. My compensation does not depend upon the results of my
`
`analysis or the substance of my testimony, nor does my compensation depend on
`
`the outcome of this or any related proceeding. I have no personal interest in the
`
`outcome of this matter. I have no financial interest in Patent Owner or affiliation
`
`with any of the real parties in interest, the Patent Owner or the named inventor of
`
`
`
`4
`
`IPR2022-00976
`Fintiv Ex. 2009 | Page 7 of 48
`
`

`

`
`
`the ’386 Patent. It is conceivable that I may own mutual funds whose portfolios
`
`include stock in Petitioner. If this is the case, the value of such holding would not
`
`constitute a material part of my net worth.
`
`17. The statements made and opinions provided in this Declaration are
`
`based on my own personal knowledge and, if called as a witness, I could and
`
`would testify in a manner consistent with this Declaration.
`
`18.
`
`In this Declaration, all emphasis in boldface has been added unless
`
`otherwise noted.
`
`IV. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`19.
`I have reviewed the following documents in forming the opinions
`
`expressed in this Declaration:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`All materials filed in this IPR to date
`
`U.S. Patent Application 13/484,199, now U.S. Patent 8,538,845, and
`
`its prosecution history
`
`U.S. Patent Application 13/964,707, and its prosecution history
`
`U.S. Patent Application 14/213,543, and its prosecution history
`
`U.S. Provisional Patent Application 61/493,064
`
`U.S. Provisional Patent Application 61/522,099
`
`
`
`5
`
`IPR2022-00976
`Fintiv Ex. 2009 | Page 8 of 48
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent Application 12/146,650 (abandoned) (incorporated by
`
`reference in Dill et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication
`
`2009/0265252 (“Dill”))
`
`U.S. provisional patent application 60/980,675 (“Dill Provisional”)
`
`(incorporated by reference in Dill).
`
`U.S. patent application 11/462,222 (incorporated by reference in the
`
`Dill Provisional), which issued as Blair et al. U.S. Patent 8,510,223
`
`(“Blair”), assigned to Western Union.
`
`Exhibits 2010-2017
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response (Paper 7, “POR”)
`
`Petitioner’s Authorized Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`
`Response (Paper 8, “Reply”)
`
`Institution Decision (Paper 9)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`20.
`
`I have also relied on my education, skill, training, and experience in
`
`the relevant fields of technology in forming my opinions. I have further
`
`considered the viewpoint of a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) as of
`
`the time of the inventions of the ’386 Patent. I provide my opinion as to the proper
`
`level of skill of a POSITA in Section VII of this Declaration.
`
`
`
`6
`
`IPR2022-00976
`Fintiv Ex. 2009 | Page 9 of 48
`
`

`

`
`
`21.
`
`I reserve the right to supplement my opinions as expressed in this
`
`Declaration to address any new information obtained in the course of this
`
`proceeding, or based on any new positions taken by Petitioner.
`
`V.
`
`SUMMARY OF MY OPINIONS
`22.
`It is my understanding that the following table summarizes the
`
`grounds of challenge to the Challenged Claims raised in the Petition:
`Ground Invalidity
`Challenge
`1
`§ 103
`2
`§ 103
`
`Challenged
`Claims
`1, 3
`2
`
`References
`
`Dill, Vadhri, Akashika, and Hansen
`Dill, Vadhri, Akashika, Hansen and
`Liao
`
`
`23. After a review of the alleged prior art asserted by Petitioner and the
`
`Houh Declaration, it is my opinion that Petitioner has not shown that any
`
`Challenged Claim would have been obvious in light of the asserted prior art at the
`
`time of the invention. My opinions, and the bases therefore, are detailed
`
`throughout this Declaration.
`
`VI. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`24. Counsel for Patent Owner has informed me of the legal principles that
`
`apply in this proceeding.
`
`25.
`
`I have been informed that Petitioner has the burden to prove that the
`
`claims challenged in the Petition are not patentable by a preponderance of the
`
`
`
`7
`
`IPR2022-00976
`Fintiv Ex. 2009 | Page 10 of 48
`
`

`

`
`
`evidence, which I understand to be just enough evidence to make it more likely
`
`than not that Petitioner’s argument is correct.
`
`26. A claim is invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences
`
`between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the
`
`subject matter of the claim as a whole would have been obvious at the time of the
`
`invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the invention
`
`pertains. I have been informed that the following factors are used to determine
`
`whether or not the claimed subject matter would have been obvious: (i) the scope
`
`and content of the prior art; (ii) the differences, if any, between the prior art and the
`
`claimed invention; (iii) the level of ordinary skill in the field of the invention; and
`
`(iv) any relevant objective considerations of non-obviousness.
`
`27. A party asserting obviousness based on a combination of prior art
`
`references must demonstrate that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
`
`motivated to combine the teachings of those references to achieve the claimed
`
`invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of
`
`success in doing so. It is my understanding that it is not enough to show that one
`
`skilled in the art could combine elements of multiple references, but instead there
`
`must be some reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`to combine the elements in the way the claimed invention does. I understand that
`
`
`
`8
`
`IPR2022-00976
`Fintiv Ex. 2009 | Page 11 of 48
`
`

`

`
`
`there must be some reasoned explanation as to why one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would combine the references.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that obviousness may be shown by considering more
`
`than one item of prior art and by considering the knowledge of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art, and that obviousness may be based on various rationales including:
`
`(i) combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable
`
`results; (ii) simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
`
`predictable results; (iii) use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the
`
`same way; (iv) applying a known technique to a known device ready for
`
`improvement to yield predictable results; (v) “obvious to try” – choosing from a
`
`finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of
`
`success; (vi) known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for
`
`use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other
`
`market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; and
`
`(vii) some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior that would have led one
`
`of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference
`
`teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`29. A combination of references would not have been obvious if the
`
`alleged modification(s) to be made to the reference(s) would have been
`
`inconsistent with the reference’s stated goals or method of operation or would have
`
`
`
`9
`
`IPR2022-00976
`Fintiv Ex. 2009 | Page 12 of 48
`
`

`

`
`
`rendered the combination inoperable for its intended purpose. I further understand
`
`that for something to have been obvious, the party asserting obviousness must
`
`explain why a POSITA would have selected components for combination in the
`
`manner claimed.
`
`30.
`
`I further understand that a claim is not obvious over a combination of
`
`prior art references if such references “teach away” from the claimed combination,
`
`if there is no motivation to combine such references, or if the combination would
`
`lead to waste and inefficiencies not present in one or more of the references in
`
`isolation.
`
`31.
`
`It is my further understanding that obviousness cannot be based on a
`
`hindsight combination of components selected from prior art references. For
`
`example, the challenged patent itself cannot be used as a basis for combining prior
`
`art references absent such a teaching in the patent. I also understand that an
`
`invention would not have been obvious simply because all of the elements of the
`
`invention may have been known separately in the prior art.
`
`VII. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`32.
`I understand that the hypothetical POSITA is considered to have the
`
`normal skills and knowledge of a person in a certain technical field, as of the time
`
`of the invention at issue. I understand that factors that may be considered in
`
`determining the level of ordinary skill in the art include: (1) the types of problems
`
`
`
`10
`
`IPR2022-00976
`Fintiv Ex. 2009 | Page 13 of 48
`
`

`

`
`
`encountered in the art; (2) the prior art solutions to those problems; (3) rapidity
`
`with which innovations are made; (4) the sophistication of the technology; and (5)
`
`the education level of active workers in the field. I also understand that “the
`
`person of ordinary skill” is a hypothetical person who is presumed to be aware of
`
`the universe of available prior art. Therefore, no such person actually exists.
`
`33. Petitioner has proposed that a POSITA for the ’386 Patent would have
`
`had “a working knowledge of monetary transaction systems pertinent to the ’386
`
`patent, including software development in the field of mobile payment techniques.
`
`Such POSITA would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering,
`
`computer science, or equivalent training, and approximately two years of work
`
`experience in software development. Lack of work experience can be remedied by
`
`additional education, and vice versa.” (Pet. at 4; Ex. APPL-1003, “Houh
`
`Declaration” ¶¶ 20-21.)
`
`34.
`
`I do not agree that this is a proper characterization of the level of
`
`ordinary skill because the phrase “working knowledge of monetary transaction
`
`systems pertinent to the ’386 patent” causes the characterization to be circular,
`
`essentially saying that the necessary level of skill is the necessary level of skill.
`
`35.
`
`I believe that the problem can be remedied by adopting this
`
`characterization: “A POSITA would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical
`
`engineering, computer science, or equivalent training, and approximately two years
`
`
`
`11
`
`IPR2022-00976
`Fintiv Ex. 2009 | Page 14 of 48
`
`

`

`
`
`of work experience in software development involving monetary transaction
`
`systems. Lack of work experience can be remedied by additional education, and
`
`vice versa.” I believe that this characterization simply restates Petitioner’s
`
`proposed characterization in a cleaner form.
`
`36. The opinions I express herein are from the viewpoint of such a
`
`POSITA as of June 3, 2011, the priority date assumed by Petitioner. Pet. at 4.
`
`VIII. THE ’386 PROSECUTION HISTORY
`37. The ’386 prosecution was uneventful and took only 20 months. The
`
`Examiner considered 541 separate references, including Petitioner’s primary
`
`reference, Dill, but did not issue a single prior art rejection. There were two
`
`rejections based on § 101, and these were overcome by minor amendments to the
`
`claims.
`
`IX. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`38. Prior to the Institution Decision, I understand that neither party
`
`believed that any claim terms required construction. In light of the Reply and the
`
`Institution Decision, I understand that Patent Owner now believes that the plain
`
`and ordinary meaning to a POSITA of several terms need to be stated expressly.
`
`A.
`“committing” a pending transaction
`Claim Phrase
`Plain and Ordinary Meaning
`“committing” [a
`“saving data permanently after a tentative set of
`pending transaction]
`changes , rather than rolling back the tentative
`
`changes”
`
`
`
`12
`
`IPR2022-00976
`Fintiv Ex. 2009 | Page 15 of 48
`
`

`

`
`
`(Claims 1-3)
`
`
`
`39.
`
`“Committing” is a concept from the database art. It does not refer to
`
`performing an act (as, “committing a murder”) and does not refer to entering into a
`
`legal commitment (as in a contract). It refers instead to finalizing data so that it
`
`can be saved permanently. The ’386 Patent refers at 5:32-40 to performing
`
`financial transactions in “distributed system environments.” A relevant reference
`
`is “Distributed Transaction Processing: Reference Model, Version 3” (Ex. 2010),
`
`which explains:
`
`Distributed transaction processing provides the necessary mechanism
`to combine multiple software components into a cooperating unit that
`can maintain shared data, potentially spanning multiple physical
`processors or locations, or both. This enables construction of
`applications that manipulate data consistently using multiple products,
`that can easily incorporate additional components, and that can be
`scaled by adding additional hardware and software components. Ex.
`2010, 1.
`
`40.
`
`In distributed systems, different portions of a financial transaction are
`
`performed on different computers (“distributed”), and so are decomposed into
`
`individual “units of work,” each of which in the distributed system art is also
`
`referred to as a “transaction.”
`
`
`
`13
`
`IPR2022-00976
`Fintiv Ex. 2009 | Page 16 of 48
`
`

`

`
`
`A transaction is a complete unit of work which, in general terms, can
`apply to many contexts. It may comprise many computational tasks
`including user interfaces, data retrieval and communications. A typical
`transaction modifies resources. The model described in the referenced
`OSI TP standards defines the term transaction more precisely. Ex.
`2010, 3 (emphasis in original).
`
`In Distributed Transaction Processing, a transaction has the following properties
`
`that are often referred to by the acronym ACID:
`
`Atomicity
`
`The results of the transaction’s execution are
`either all committed or all rolled back.
`
`Consistency A completed transaction transforms a shared
`resource from one valid state to another valid
`state.
`
`Isolation
`
`Durability
`
`Changes to shared resources that a transaction
`effects do not become visible outside the
`transaction until the transaction commits.
`
`The changes that result from transaction
`commitment survive subsequent system or media
`failures. Ex. 2010, 3 (emphasis in original).
`
`In the ACID framework, each unit of work is completed when it is either
`
`“committed” or rolled back. As explained in the “Distributed Transaction
`
`Processing: Reference Model, Version 3”:
`
`
`
`14
`
`IPR2022-00976
`Fintiv Ex. 2009 | Page 17 of 48
`
`

`

`
`
`Commitment
`Commitment is the act that ends a transaction and makes
`permanent all changes to resources specified during that
`transaction.
`
`Rollback
`Rollback is the act that ends a transaction and nullifies or
`undoes all changes to resources specified during that
`transaction.
`
`Transaction Completion
`Transaction completion means either commitment or rollback.
`Ex 2010, 4 (emphasis in original).
`
`41.
`
` A critical requirement in transaction processing is the above concept
`
`of “atomicity,” which means that the transaction must be performed entirely or not
`
`at all. That is, if some aspect of the transaction fails, the parties must be returned
`
`(“rolled back”) to the state they were in prior to the transaction and not
`
`“committed.”. For example, in a deposit transaction, the subscriber provides cash
`
`to the agent. It would be unacceptable for the agent to keep the cash without also
`
`causing the subscriber’s account to be credited. If there is some problem in
`
`crediting the subscriber’s account, the cash must be returned to the subscriber. The
`
`Patent achieves atomicity through its series of staged commitments. If committed
`
`data is found to be erroneous (e.g., the identified subscriber account does not
`
`
`
`15
`
`IPR2022-00976
`Fintiv Ex. 2009 | Page 18 of 48
`
`

`

`
`
`exist), the data is “rolled back,” as shown in Figs. 20C and 20E in the dotted
`
`rectangles labeled “[On Error].”
`
`42. When data is proposed to be entered for a transaction, a commit
`
`message is sent indicating that the data has been finalized. This concept is so
`
`fundamental that it was made part of Structured Query Language (SQL), a
`
`language widely employed in querying relational databases. As explained in the
`
`Technical Standard “Data Management: Structured Query Language (SQL)
`
`Version 2” (1996)1 at p. 28 (Ex. 2017):
`
`A transaction is a sequence of executable SQL statements that is
`atomic with respect to recovery and concurrency. With one exception
`described below, changes that an application makes to a database can
`be perceived by that application but cannot be perceived by other
`applications unless and until the original transaction ends with a
`COMMIT statement.
`
`43. Therefore, a POSITA would understand
`
`that “commit” and
`
`“committing” in the Patent are used in their plain and ordinary meaning as “saving
`
`data permanently after a tentative set of changes, rather than rolling back the
`
`tentative changes.
`
`B.
`“at least one of”
`Claim Phrase
`
`Plain and Ordinary Meaning
`
`
`1 Available at https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9695959099/toc.pdf
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00976
`Fintiv Ex. 2009 | Page 19 of 48
`
`

`

`“auditing at least one financial transaction,
`handling at least one error, and logging at least
`one platform object”
`
`
`
`
`“at least one of
`executing financial
`transactions, auditing
`financial transactions,
`invoking third-party
`services, handling
`errors, and logging
`platform objects”
`
`(Claims 1-3)
`44.
`
`I understand that the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim phrase
`
`“at least one of A, B, C, D and E” has been construed by the Federal Circuit in
`
`SuperGuide Corp. v. DirectTV Enters., 358 F.3d 870, 885-886 (Fed. Cir. 2004) to
`
`require at least one of each of A, B, C, D and E, and not simply one selection from
`
`the group consisting of A, B, C, D and E.
`
`45.
`
`I understand that this interpretation is a matter of law for which no
`
`expert support is necessary. In my analysis, I have applied the plain and ordinary
`
`meaning given above.
`
`C.
`“auditing financial transactions”
`Claim Phrase
`Plain and Ordinary Meaning
`“auditing financial
`“performing retrospective inspection and
`transactions”
`verification of financial transactions”
`
`
`(Claims 1-3)
`46. A POSITA would understand the plain and ordinary meaning of
`
`“auditing” a transaction to be independently reviewing the transaction for validity
`
`to ensure that it is legitimate. Auditing a financial transaction commonly involves
`
`
`
`17
`
`IPR2022-00976
`Fintiv Ex. 2009 | Page 20 of 48
`
`

`

`
`
`determining if the transaction was properly entered into, and the sampling and
`
`cross-checking of records to determine validity. For example, auditing a deposit
`
`transaction commonly involves checking with a bank to learn whether the deposit
`
`was actually made.
`
`47. A transaction cannot be audited until it has occurred because, prior to
`
`that time there is nothing to audit. Therefore, auditing is a retrospective operation
`
`performed after the close of the transaction. So much is explained in Auditing:
`
`Principles and Techniques, Pearson Education, 2006 (Ex. 2011), pp. 3-4 :
`
`The dictionary meaning of audit is official examination of
`accounts. Obviously the person who examines the accounts must be a
`person who knows what to examine, how to examine and to whom his
`examination report and observations are to be submitted. In brief, it
`can be said that auditing is the process by which competent
`independent individuals collect and evaluate evidence to form an
`opinion and communicate their opinion to the person interested
`through their audit report.
`…
`
`Montgomery, a leading American accountant, defines auditing
`as “a systematic examination of the books and records of a business or
`other organisations, in order to check or verify and to report upon
`results thereof”.
`
`The ICAI has defined auditing in its Auditing and Assurance
`
`Standard -1 (AAS-1) as "the independent examination of financial
`
`
`
`18
`
`IPR2022-00976
`Fintiv Ex. 2009 | Page 21 of 48
`
`

`

`
`
`information of any entity, whether profit oriented or not and
`irrespective of its size or legal form, when such an examination is con-
`ducted with a view to express an opinion thereon".
`
`From the above definitions, it is seen that an auditor has not
`
`only to see the arithmetical accuracy of the books of accounts but also
`has to go further and find out whether the transactions entered in the
`books of original entry are correct or not. It is possible to perform this
`function by inspecting, comparing, checking, reviewing, scrutinising
`the vouchers supporting the transactions in the books of accounts and
`examining the correspondence, minute books of the shareholders’ and
`directors’ meeting.
`
`48. Therefore, a POSITA would have understood “auditing financial
`
`transactions,” as used in the Patent to mean. “performing retrospective inspection
`
`and verification of financial transactions.”
`
`D.
`“error handling”
`Claim Phrase
`“error handling”
`
`(Claims 1-3)
`
`Plain and Ordinary Meaning
`“procedures for responding to and recovering
`from errors”
`
`
`49.
`
`“Error handling,” to a POSITA means detecting and responding to an
`
`error. A well-known programming textbook, Kingsley-Hughes et al., VBScript
`
`Programmer’s Reference, United Kingdom, Wiley, 2007 (Ex. 2012) explains the
`
`term:
`
`
`
`19
`
`IPR2022-00976
`Fintiv Ex. 2009 | Page 22 of 48
`
`

`

`
`
`What exactly does error handling mean? In the purest definition, it
`means taking an active, rather than passive, approach when
`responding to errors, including having extra code built into your script
`to deal with errors in case they occur. This can take the form of a
`global error handling scheme that does something such as:
`
` Display the error to a user
`
` Log the error to a file, database, or the Windows Event Log
`
` Email the error to a system administrator
`
` Page the system administrator
`
` Some combination of all of the these
`
`50. Error “handling” involves more than detecting an error – it also
`
`requires dealing with the error to prevent subsequent downstream processes from
`
`being affected by the error.
`
`51. The rollback processes described in the ’386 Patent are examples of
`
`error handling, i.e., providing a process for recovering from