Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,892,386
`
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., Case IPR2022-00976
`
`Jonathan Bowser,
`Haynes Boone, LLP
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1
`
`APPL-1020 / IPR2022-00976 / Page 1 of 41
`APPLE INC. v. FINTIV, INC.
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,892,386
`
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., Case IPR2022-00976
`
`Jonathan Bowser,
`Haynes Boone, LLP
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1
`
`APPL-1020 / IPR2022-00976 / Page 1 of 41
`APPLE INC. v. FINTIV, INC.
`
`
`
`Background on ’386 Patent
`
`APPL-1001 (’386 Patent), Abstract, Fig. 2; Pet., 3.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`2
`
`2
`
`
`
`Instituted Claims and Grounds
`
`PO contests claims 1-3 under Grounds 1 and 2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Pet., 6; Institution Decision, 8.
`3
`
`3
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`
`Dill discloses a subscriber depositing funds into its own account
`
`Dill discloses receiving a message that “indicat[es] that the subscriber
`desires to deposit…into the subscriber’s account”
`
`The combination of Dill and Liao renders obvious withdrawing funds
`from “an account associated with the subscriber”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`4
`
`4
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`
`Petitioner’s Constructions
`
`Patent Owner Seeks to Construe:
`
`•
`•
`•
`•
`
`“Committing” a Pending Transaction
`“Auditing Financial Transactions”
`“Handling Errors”
`“Logging” Platform Objects
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Pet., 5; Response, i.
`5
`5
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Challenge
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply, 26.
`6
`6
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`
`“Committing” a Pending Transaction
`“Auditing Financial Transactions”
`“Handling Errors”
`“Logging” Platform Objects
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`7
`
`7
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Construction of “Committing” is Wrong
`
`Patent Owner’s Construction
`
`• Patent Owner’s construction is unsupported by the claims.
`• Patent Owner’s construction imports limitations from the
`figures.
`• Patent Owner’s construction relies on an extrinsic
`document not cited in the ’386 patent or file history.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`POR, 16-19; Reply, 7-12.
`8
`8
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Construction of “Committing” is Unsupported by the Structure of
`the Claims
`
`Claim 1
`
`• Patent Owner’s proposed construction, and reliance on
`Ex.2010, would end the transaction at [1.10.7].
`• But the claim goes on to, again, “commit” the pending
`transaction.
`
`APPL-1001, claim 1 (Pet., 115 Claim Appendix); Reply, 10-11.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`9
`9
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Construction of “Committing” Imports Details from the Figures
`Without Specification Support
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert
`
`Ex.2009, ¶81-82; POR, 19; APPL-1017,¶18; Reply, 9.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`10
`10
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Construction of “Committing” Imports Details from the Figures
`Without Specification Support
`
`• Figures illustrate “embodiments of communications
`between specific components.” APPL-1001, 3:28-29.
`• Figures do not support importing a negative limitation.
`
`APPL-1001 (’386 Patent), Fig. 20C; POR, 19; APPL-1017,¶18; Reply, 9.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`11
`11
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Construction of “Committing” Imports Unrecited Limitations
`
`Patent Owner’s Construction
`
`Patent Owner’s construction imports unrecited limitations:
`•
`“Commit” and its variants do not appear in the specification.
`•
`“Permanent” and “tentative” do not appear in the ’386 patent.
`• No disclosure of a “staged, sequential commitment process.”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`POR, 9, 33-38; Reply, 11-12.
`12
`12
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Construction of “Committing” Relies on Uncited Extrinsic
`Document
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert
`
`• Ex.2010 not cited in the ’386 patent or file history.
`• Reliance assumes (without support) that ’386 patent uses
`“Distributed Transaction Processing.”
`
`Ex.2009, ¶39-43; POR, 16-19; Ex.2010, 1; Reply, 8-9; APPL-1017, ¶15, 17.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`13
`13
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`
`“Committing” a Pending Transaction
`“Auditing Financial Transactions”
`“Handling Errors”
`“Logging” Platform Objects
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`14
`
`14
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Construction of “Auditing Financial Transactions” is Wrong
`
`Patent Owner’s Construction
`
`• Patent Owner’s construction is not supported by specification.
`• Patent Owner’s construction contradicts the knowledge of a
`POSITA.
`• Patent Owner’s construction is not supported by the extrinsic
`evidence.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`POR, 21-22; Reply, 12-14.
`15
`15
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Construction of “Auditing Financial Transactions” Has No
`Support From the Specification
`
`Patent Owner’s Construction
`
`• The specification contains no disclosure of any meaning
`for “auditing financial transactions.”
`• The specification does not describe or discuss
`“retrospective,” “inspection,” or “inspect.”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`POR, 21-22; Reply, 13-14.
`16
`16
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Construction of “Auditing Financial Transactions” Contradicts
`the Knowledge of a POSITA
`
`POSITAs knew that audits may not be retrospective and could be
`performed as part of a transaction before it is completed:
`
`APPL-1019 (U.S. 9,147,184), 5:27-34; POR, 21-22; Reply, 13-14.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`17
`17
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Construction of “Auditing Financial Transactions” is not
`Supported by its Extrinsic Document
`Auditing Principles & Techniques
`
`• Nothing establishes that an audit must be retrospective or
`include both an “inspection” and “verification.”
`
`Ex.2011, 3; POR, 21-22; Reply, 13-14; APPL-1017, ¶28.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`18
`18
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`
`“Committing” a Pending Transaction
`“Auditing Financial Transactions”
`“Handling Errors”
`“Logging” Platform Objects
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`19
`
`19
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Construction of “Error Handling” is Wrong
`
`Patent Owner’s Construction
`
`• Patent Owner’s construction imports unrecited limitations.
`• Patent Owner’s construction is unsupported by the extrinsic
`evidence.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`POR, 22; Reply, 14-17.
`20
`20
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Construction of “Error Handling” Imports Unrecited Limitations
`
`Patent Owner’s Construction
`
`• The specification contains no disclosure of any meaning for
`“error handling.”
`• The specification does not describe or discuss “responding” or
`“recovering.”
`• The specification does not require that the “rollback process” of
`Fig. 20C must be part of “handling errors.”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`POR, 22; Reply, 15-16.
`21
`21
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Construction of “Error Handling” is not Supported by its
`Extrinsic Document
`
`Petitioner’s Expert
`
`• Ex.2012 not cited in the ’386 patent or
`file history.
`• A POSITA would not consider a VBScript
`programming manual as a definitional
`document.
`
`APPL-1017, ¶36; POR, 22; Ex.2012, 1; Reply, 16-17.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`22
`22
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Construction of “Error Handling” is not Supported by its
`Extrinsic Document
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert
`
`• Patent Owner’s
`expert did not rely on
`Ex.2012 for the
`“recovering” portion
`of Patent Owner’s
`construction.
`
`APPL-1018 (Shamos Dep. Tr.), 108:12-109:2; POR, 22; Ex.2012, 1; APPL-1017, ¶36; Reply, 16-17.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`23
`23
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`
`“Committing” a Pending Transaction
`“Auditing Financial Transactions”
`“Handling Errors”
`“Logging” Platform Objects
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`24
`
`24
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Construction of “Logging” is Wrong
`
`Patent Owner’s Construction
`
`• Patent Owner’s construction is unsupported by the
`specification.
`• Patent Owner’s construction is unsupported by the extrinsic
`evidence.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`POR, 23; Reply, 17-18.
`25
`25
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Construction of “Logging” is Wrong
`
`Patent Owner’s Construction
`
`Patent Owner’s construction imports unrequired limitations:
`• The specification does not require that platform objects be logged “in
`a log.”
`• Patent Owner’s citations to the specification relate to logging
`transactions, not the logging the claimed platform objects.
`• Patent Owner ignores numerous instances in the specification where
`logging is discussed without reference to “a log.”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`POR, 23; Reply, 17-18.
`26
`26
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Relies on Irrelevant Portions of the Specification
`
`Patent Owner Response
`
`• These citations relate to
`transactions, not the
`claimed platform objects.
`• Patent Owner ignores at
`least 21 instances in the
`specification where
`logging is discussed
`without reference to “a
`log.” See Reply, 18.
`
`POR, 23; Reply, 17-18; APPL-1001, 8:51-56, 10:4-8, 13:23-29; 16:5-10; 17:1-5.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`27
`27
`
`
`
`The Relevant Portion of the Specification Does Not Require “in a log”
`
`“logging platform objects”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`APPL-1001, 13:25-29; Reply, 17-18.
`28
`28
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Construction of “Logging” is not Supported by its Extrinsic
`Document
`
`Oxford English Dictionary
`
`• Ex.2013 does not require logging be “in a log.”
`• Additional limitations suggested by Ex.2013 are not
`required by the claims or specification.
`
`Ex.2013, 1, 4; APPL-1017, ¶42; POR, 23; Reply, 18.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`29
`29
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`
`Dill discloses a subscriber depositing funds into its own account
`
`Dill discloses receiving a message that “indicat[es] that the subscriber
`desires to deposit…into the subscriber’s account”
`
`The combination of Dill and Liao renders obvious withdrawing funds
`from “an account associated with the subscriber”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`30
`
`30
`
`
`
`Dill Discloses a Subscriber Depositing Funds into the Subscriber’s Account
`
`Dill ¶ 101
`
`• By delivering funds to a
`funds withholding system,
`the funds are transferred
`to the subscriber’s own
`account.
`
`Petitioner’s Expert
`
`APPL-1005, ¶101; APPL-1003, ¶144; Pet., 48, 57; Reply, 20.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`31
`31
`
`
`
`Dill Discloses a Subscriber Depositing Funds
`into the Subscriber’s Account (Limitations [1.9.1] and [1.10.3])
`
`Dill, ¶ 52
`
`• The function of Dill’s sender and recipient is expressed in terms of
`“time,” not a transaction. Dill, ¶ 52.
`• Dill’s sender and recipient “may act as a ‘sender’ at a first time in the
`transaction and a ‘recipient’ at a second time in the same transaction.
`
`APPL-1005, ¶52; Pet., 48; Reply, 21-22.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`32
`32
`
`
`
`Dill Discloses a Subscriber Depositing Funds into the Subscriber’s Account
`
`Dill
`
`• Patent Owner’s reliance on Dill’s paragraph 57 is unavailing at least
`because it is merely an example.
`
`APPL-1005, ¶57; Pet., 48; Reply, 21-22.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`33
`33
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`
`Dill discloses a subscriber depositing funds into its own account
`
`Dill discloses receiving a message that “indicat[es] that the subscriber
`desires to deposit…into the subscriber’s account”
`
`The combination of Dill and Liao renders obvious withdrawing funds
`from “an account associated with the subscriber”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`34
`
`34
`
`
`
`Dill Discloses Receiving a Message that “Indicat[es]
`that the Subscriber Desires to Deposit…into the Subscriber’s Account”
`
`Dill
`
`APPL-1005, Fig. 5, ¶101; Pet., 56-57; Reply, 22-23.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`35
`35
`
`
`
`Dill Discloses Receiving a Message that “Indicat[es] that
`the Subscriber Desires to Deposit…into the Subscriber’s Account”
`
`Dill
`
`•
`
`•
`
`In step 515, the sender sends a
`request
`o Request identifies: sender,
`recipient, and amount.
`In step 565, a message is sent to
`transfer funds to the identified
`account is initiated.
`
`APPL-1005, ¶77, 81; Pet., 56-57; Reply, 22-23.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`36
`36
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`
`Dill discloses a subscriber depositing funds into its own account
`
`Dill discloses receiving a message that “indicat[es] that the subscriber
`desires to deposit…into the subscriber’s account”
`
`The combination of Dill and Liao renders obvious withdrawing funds
`from “an account associated with the subscriber”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`37
`
`37
`
`
`
`Dill Contemplates a Withdrawal Transaction
`
`Dill
`
`• Dill discloses two types of
`transactions that involve
`withdrawing funds.
`
`Petitioner’s Expert
`
`APPL-1005, ¶101; Pet., 97; APPL-1003, ¶239; Reply, 23-24.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`38
`38
`
`
`
`The Combination of Dill and Liao Renders Obvious
`Withdrawing Funds From “an Account Associated with the Subscriber”
`Dill
`
`Liao
`
`• Dill’s sender and recipient
`“may act as a ‘sender’ at a first
`time in the transaction and a
`‘recipient’ at a second time in
`the same transaction.
`• Petition points to Liao for its
`use of a mobile wallet “to
`withdraw funds from an
`account of the mobile device
`user.”
`
`APPL-1005, ¶52; APPL-1009, 5:44-55; Pet., 48, 97; Reply, 24.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`39
`39
`
`
`
`The Combination of Dill and Liao Renders Obvious
`Withdrawing Funds From “an Account Associated with the Subscriber”
`
`Petitioner’s Expert
`
`APPL-1003, ¶245-246; Pet., 98-99; Reply, 25-26.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`40
`40
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,892,386
`
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., Case IPR2022-00976
`
`Jonathan Bowser,
`Haynes Boone, LLP
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`41
`
`41
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
