Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper No. 25
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FINTIV, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`IPR2022-00976
`Patent 9,892,386 B2
`
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: August 23, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, MICHAEL R. ZECHER, and
`GEORGE R. HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00976
`Patent 9,892,386 B2
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`JONATHAN R. BOWSER, ESQUIRE
`Haynes and Boone, LLP
`800 17th Street NW, Suite 500
`Washington, D.C. 20006
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`BRANDON THEISS, ESQUIRE
`Volpe Koenig, P.C.
`30 S 17th Street, 18th Floor
`Philadelphia, PA 19103
`
`DAN GOLUB, ESQUIRE
`Volpe Koenig, P.C.
`30 S 17th Street, 18th Floor
`Philadelphia, PA 19103
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on August 23, 2023,
`commencing at 1:00 p.m., via video teleconference.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`(404) 684-6008
`
`Jamison Professional Services
`East Pointe, GA
`
`www.jps-online.com
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00976
`Patent 9,892,386 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE ZECHER: Great. Thank you. Good afternoon. I'm
`Judge Zecher. I have with me two of my colleagues, Judge Droesch and
`Judge Hoskins. This is an oral hearing for IPR2022-00976. The Petitioner
`in this case challenges Claims 1–3 of U.S. Patent No. 9,892,386. From this
`point forward we'll refer to the Patent as the '386 Patent. Let's begin the
`hearing by taking appearances from the parties. Let's hear from Petitioner,
`Apple, first.
`MR. EHMKE: Thank you, Your Honors. This is Andrew Ehmke.
`I am lead counsel on this case on behalf of Petitioner Apple. Joining me
`today are my colleagues, Jonathan Bowser, and Eugene Goryunov. Mr.
`Bowser will be presenting on behalf of Petitioner today.
`JUDGE ZECHER: Thank you, Mr. Ehmke. Let's hear from
`Patent Owner, Fintiv, please. Counsel, I think you're on mute.
`MR. THEISS: Board, can you hear us now?
`JUDGE ZECHER: Yes, we can hear you now.
`MR. THEISS: We apologize. It wouldn't be the modern era if we
`didn't have a slight technical issue. Lead counsel John Waldrop is unable to
`join us today. He had surgery last week. However, backup counsel, myself,
`and Dan Golub, will be presenting. I am Brandon Theiss. Last name is T-
`H-E-I-S-S.
`MR. GOLUB: And this is Dan Golub, G-O-L-U-B.
`JUDGE ZECHER: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Golub, and Mr. Theiss.
`You said Mr. Waldrop, the lead counsel, wouldn't be present today. Is that
`3
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`(404) 684-6008
`
`Jamison Professional Services
`East Pointe, GA
`
`www.jps-online.com
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2022-00976
`Patent 9,892,386 B2
`correct?
`
`MR. THEISS: That's correct. He had surgery last week and is
`recovering.
`JUDGE ZECHER: Okay. I guess it would've been appreciated if
`the panel was tipped off to that because I do think we indicated in our oral
`argument that lead counsel needs to be present. But given the circumstances
`here, we'll go ahead and give you a pass. Let's move on to the parameters of
`this oral argument. We issued a paper, paper 22 --
`JUDGE HOSKINS: Judge Zecher?
`JUDGE ZECHER: Yes.
`JUDGE HOSKINS: This is Judge Hoskins. I have a quick
`question. Are -- the two counsel for Patent Owner here today, are you
`entered in this case? I know you have been in other cases.
`MR. THEISS: Yes.
`JUDGE HOSKINS: Okay.
`MR. THEISS: We're entered as backup counsel. And we
`indicated to the Board secretary that we would be the ones presenting.
`JUDGE HOSKINS: Thank you.
`JUDGE ZECHER: Great. Thank you. Yes, I see you guys as
`counsel of record here. All right. So let's move to the terms of this oral
`argument.
`In paper 22 we indicated that each party is going to get 45 minutes
`of total argument time to present their case. Because Petitioner, Apple, has
`the burden of persuasion, they will go first and they can reserve some
`rebuttal time, at which point Patent Owner, Fintiv, will present their case,
`
`
`
`4
`
`(404) 684-6008
`
`Jamison Professional Services
`East Pointe, GA
`
`www.jps-online.com
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00976
`Patent 9,892,386 B2
`and they can reserve some sur-rebuttal time. We'd appreciate it that if you're
`not presenting that you keep yourself on mute so we don't have any echoes
`here. If you run into any technical issues, please let us know immediately so
`we can pause the hearing and we can act accordingly.
`But I think that covers all the necessary aspects of what we need
`for this particular hearing. So we'll just go ahead and turn the floor over to
`Mr., I believe Bowser, who's going to be presenting for Apple. One last
`thing, too. I want to note we do have your slides and we have the
`demonstratives here. So when you are referring to those, please refer to the
`slide number so we can follow along with the presentation. So without
`further ado, Mr. Bowser, how much rebuttal time would you like to reserve?
`MR. BOWSER: Your Honor, I would like to reserve 10 minutes
`for rebuttal please.
`MR. ZECHER: Okay. Great. You can begin when ready.
`MR. BOWSER: All right. Your Honor, before I start would it be
`possible if I could share my screen with the slides, or would you prefer that
`I --
`
`JUDGE ZECHER: However you want to do it. If you want to
`share your screen we can follow along that way. Like I said, we have a copy
`in front of us we can follow as well.
`MR. BOWSER: Okay. Give me one moment here. I'm going to
`share my PowerPoint. And I will get started. Your Honors, thank you. This
`is Jonathan Bowser. I'm presenting for Petitioner Apple in the '386 IPR. I'm
`going to move to slide 2. This is an overview of the '386 Patent and it's
`going to be just brief. What I'm going to talk about here is just effectively
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`5
`
`(404) 684-6008
`
`Jamison Professional Services
`East Pointe, GA
`
`www.jps-online.com
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00976
`Patent 9,892,386 B2
`that the Patent is focused on having subscribers and what you can also do is
`you can have a mobile device. And what the '386 Patent purportedly
`introduces as well is that the transactions can be conducted with an agent.
`And as shown in the Petition, those concepts about conducting a
`mobile transaction and doing it with an agent, those are disclosed by the Dill
`reference. Moving on to slide 3 where we can see the Grounds, and what's
`in dispute between the parties is the Dill reference and the Liao reference.
`Patent Owner doesn't really dispute the disclosure of Liao, but they dispute
`the combination of Dill and Liao, and what we have in the '386 Patent are
`three claims, three Independent Claims, and they're generally similar to each
`other, but Claim 1 covers a deposit transaction, Claim 2 covers a withdrawal
`transaction, and Claim 3 covers a transaction between different subscribers
`when they're conducted between -- with a mobile device.
`Moving on to slide 4, there are effectively three main disputes
`between the parties. The first is Claim Construction. The second issue that
`I'm going to talk about is the fact that Dill discloses the deposit transactions
`in the claims. And the third issue is whether, you know, whether the
`combination of Dill and Liao render obvious the withdrawing of funds.
`And moving on to slide 5. So in the Petition we asserted that all
`claim terms should be construed according to their plain and ordinary
`meaning. And in the response, Patent Owner proposed to construe four
`terms, and we have identified those four terms on slide 5. And the
`constructions of those terms are important because in each instance Patent
`Owner's arguments about those limitations rely exclusively on their
`constructions. And I'm going to explain why their constructions are
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`6
`
`(404) 684-6008
`
`Jamison Professional Services
`East Pointe, GA
`
`www.jps-online.com
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00976
`Patent 9,892,386 B2
`incorrect and improper. We can see --
`JUDGE ZECHER: Mr. Bowser, this is Judge Zecher. Real quick,
`these four terms that were introduced at least in the Patent Owner Response,
`were they at issue in the District Court case? I didn't see that they were, so
`I'm just curious.
`MR. BOWSER: No, they were not, Your Honor. And since you --
`it's good that you brought up the District Court case. I should point out that
`in the District Court case involving the '386 Patent, there that was a case in
`the Western District of Texas, and Judge Albright held that the Claims 1 to 3
`of the '386 Patent are indefinite because the term “payment handler”, which
`is in limitation 1.5, lacks structure. In that particular case the District Court
`construed that term as a means disfunction limitation and that there wasn't
`any structure. Now, in this particular IPR proceeding, the parties have not
`addressed whether or not those -- that particular term is a means to its
`function term.
`JUDGE ZECHER: What's the status of the District Court case
`right now?
`MR. BOWSER: So right now, Your Honor, on -- let me get the
`dates here. The plaintiff filed a motion to sever on July 5th, and the District
`Court granted that motion to sever. There were multiple patents that were
`found invalid, and in the motion to sever the plaintiff indicated that it would
`intend to appeal. But I didn't see anything in the public filings that the
`plaintiff has, in fact, appealed that particular ruling yet.
`JUDGE ZECHER: Okay. Thank you.
`MR. BOWSER: So on slide 6 I'm moving to, and as I indicated,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`7
`
`(404) 684-6008
`
`Jamison Professional Services
`East Pointe, GA
`
`www.jps-online.com
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00976
`Patent 9,892,386 B2
`the constructions that I'm going to talk about are important because Patent
`Owner's arguments are premised entirely on their incorrect constructions. I
`want to move to the first term that Patent Owner construes, and that's
`committing a pending transaction. And I should also point out that
`committing a pending transaction was addressed in terms of the meaning in
`the institution decision. It's on page 46. There was no express construction
`of this term in the institution decision, but the Board did take an opinion, at
`least preliminary opinion, that the term committing just simply means
`carrying out a pending transaction.
`We can see here on slide 8, which is Patent Owner's construction.
`What they're proposing is saving data permanently after a set of tentative
`changes, rather than rolling back the tentative changes. And there's multiple
`reasons why this construction is incorrect. First off, the term “committing”
`is not even used in the specification. It is used in a couple drawings in
`Figure 20B and 20E I believe, and the term is never defined.
`So what happened was during prosecution the applicant added a
`bunch of drawings, including Figures 20 to 22, and there's no description of
`these features. So the only thing that we have in the specification about the
`term committing is simply in the claims. But we can see on slide 8 there's a
`couple other reasons why this construction is improper. It's just unsupported
`by the claims, and I'm going to talk about this next. And also, Patent Owner
`has improperly imported limitations from the drawings, and also from an
`extrinsic, another extrinsic document.
`I would also like to point out, Your Honors, before I get into the
`specific instruction is the fact that Patent Owner raised this construction in
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`8
`
`(404) 684-6008
`
`Jamison Professional Services
`East Pointe, GA
`
`www.jps-online.com
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00976
`Patent 9,892,386 B2
`the Patent Owner Response and that's why I'm addressing it. But Patent
`Owner did not address it again in the sur-reply, and it's not in their
`demonstratives. So it's unclear whether or not Patent Owner has backed
`away from this, but I'm going to address it in any case.
`So there's a couple reasons, as I indicated, why the construction is
`incorrect. But one of the major reasons is because the structure of the claims
`makes it such that you cannot construe it this way. So effectively what
`Patent Owner's construction is is that the transaction is either made
`permanent, or it's only tentative. And what we can see in limitations 1.10.5
`and 1.10.7, there's this initial committing, right.
`And then in 1.10.7 it talks about the transaction has been
`committed. So what that means is that transaction is final, that's it, because
`according to Patent Owner's construction. But then if we skip ahead a little
`bit at 1.10.9, there's another committing transaction, or another committing
`step, right. So what we have is this incorrect combination of pending and
`final transactions. And so the structure of the claims itself doesn't lend itself
`to supporting Patent Owner's construction. One of terms were --
`JUDGE ZECHER: Mr. Bowser, can I ask you a quick question
`about this?
`MR. BOWSER: Sure.
`JUDGE ZECHER: I'm reading through their Patent Owner
`Response when they got to this construction of committing. They made kind
`of an interesting statement to me. It says committing is a concept from the
`database art. Would you consider us to be in the database art here, or what
`would you consider the art, or the relevant field of endeavor here?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`9
`
`(404) 684-6008
`
`Jamison Professional Services
`East Pointe, GA
`
`www.jps-online.com
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00976
`Patent 9,892,386 B2
`MR. BOWSER: The relevant field of endeavor here, Your Honor,
`is financial transactions. And we disagree with the concept that this is from
`a database. Now, there is a concept that data is stored, but we don't agree
`that this is -- you should look to a document from the database arts. Let me
`actually get to that if I may here. I'm on slide 13. So in order to support
`their improper construction, what Patent Owner did is they referred to this
`Exhibit 2009. I'm sorry, this is 2010 I think.
`And what it's referring to is this concept of distributed transaction
`processing. Now, the '386 Patent doesn't ever describe it being directed to
`distributed transaction processing. What we have is a very general reference
`in column 5 of the Patent which talks about embodiments described herein
`may also be practiced in distributed system environments. That's it. It's not
`directed to distributed transaction processing. So Patent Owner's own
`reliance on this document is incorrect.
`I want to move to the construction of auditing financial
`transactions, and I'm on slide 14 moving on to slide 15. And here we can
`see on slide 15 what is Patent Owner's construction, performing
`retrospective inspection and verification of financial transactions. And this
`is just sort of out of left field where Patent Owner gets this. I want to if I
`could move ahead here. Let me -- I think for everyone's benefit if I can go
`to slide 28. And the reason I'm going to slide 28 is not -- it doesn't deal with
`the auditing financial transactions, but what we can see is column 13, lines
`25 to 29. This is the only portion in the specification that uses the term
`“auditing financial transactions.” That's it. We can see on line 3, and what
`we have here is business process services 104 are configured to implement
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`10
`
`(404) 684-6008
`
`Jamison Professional Services
`East Pointe, GA
`
`www.jps-online.com
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00976
`Patent 9,892,386 B2
`business workflows. And there's this list of things that can be conducted,
`auditing financial transactions, handling errors, and logging platform
`objects. Those three terms, this is the only instance in the specification that
`ever uses the terms auditing financial transactions, handling errors, or
`logging platform objects.
`Going back to -- and I'll refer to that so we can all just see the
`language. And again, that's in column 13, lines 25 to 29. I'm going back to
`slide 15. And this is, again this is Patent Owner's construction performing
`retrospective inspection and verification of financial transactions. And
`during the deposition of Dr. Shamos, which is Patent Owner's expert, Dr.
`Shamos indicated that the term retrospective, the adjective there, applies to
`both inspection and verification. Now, this concept of retrospective
`inspection not disclosed in the spec. This concept of retrospective
`verification not disclosed in the spec at all. So moving to slide 16 and we
`can see that, and that's exactly what the situation is. There's no mention
`whatsoever of auditing financial transactions.
`Moving on to slide 17 – sorry, 18, what we see is what Patent
`Owner has relied on. They've relied on an extrinsic document. So just to be
`clear, there is no definition of auditing in the specification. There's no
`prosecution disclaimer. The plain and ordinary meaning should uphold, and
`that's what we've argued all throughout. If you look --
`JUDGE : Counsel.
`MR. BOWSER: Yes.
`JUDGE HOSKINS: This is Judge Hoskins. What is your position
`on the plain and ordinary meaning of audit? What does it mean?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`11
`
`(404) 684-6008
`
`Jamison Professional Services
`East Pointe, GA
`
`www.jps-online.com
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00976
`Patent 9,892,386 B2
`MR. BOWSER: Auditing is looking at the data and determining
`whether you can proceed with the transaction. So that's supported if we look
`on slide 17, Your Honor, is that what Patent Owner has done throughout this
`is saying that an auditing can only be a lookback. You cannot have an audit
`that looks at a current transaction. But what we showed here in slide 17, and
`this is the Patent Number 9,147,184, which is evidence of a POSITA
`knowledge, is that the term audit can be used for determining whether or not
`a transaction can go forward. So that's what auditing means.
`And in the Petition, Your Honor, on pages 28 to 29, and there
`we're talking about construction, but what we showed is that Dill teaches an
`auditing by determining whether or not a transaction can go forward based
`on a unique identifier. That's exactly what auditing is. Auditing is
`determining whether or not -- sorry, a transaction can proceed. And I want
`to go back to slide 18, Your Honor, and even Patent Owner's own extrinsic
`evidence, which is this auditing textbook, it doesn't support that an audit has
`to be both retrospective, and an inspection in the verification. So we see on
`slide 18, this is from the auditing textbook, what is an audit, right. And
`we've got this definition from a gentleman by the name of Montgomery
`saying it's checking or verifying. That's what auditing means, and that's
`exactly what Dill discloses. And we showed that on pages 28 and 29 of the
`Petition.
`So I want to move next, Your Honors to the construction of
`handling errors. And this is another instance where Patent Owner is using
`an extrinsic document to define the term when in fact the term is not ever
`described in the specification. So I indicated earlier about how handling
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`12
`
`(404) 684-6008
`
`Jamison Professional Services
`East Pointe, GA
`
`www.jps-online.com
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00976
`Patent 9,892,386 B2
`errors, and we looked at column 13, lines 25 to 29. That's the only time that
`the term handling errors is ever used in the specification, and it is just simply
`the language of limitation 1.3.
`Now, we see at the top of slide 20 that it says error handling, and
`that was just a mistake and we pointed this out, and Patent Owner -- there's
`no dispute here what Patent Owner really means is handling errors. But
`what is in dispute is the fact that their construction, Patent Owner's
`construction, is just not supportable. So Patent Owner's construction
`requires two things. Number one, it requires responding to an error, and
`number two, recovering from an error.
`Now, if you look through the specification, you'll find that this
`concept is not disclosed at all. The specification, I'm on slide 21, contains
`no disclosure, or any meaning of error handling. It doesn't even describe
`responding or recovering, right. The only thing that Patent Owner points to
`as alleged support is what's the concept of handling errors in Figure 20C.
`Okay. Well, let's look at, you know, Figure 20C.
`If you look at 20C in the corresponding description in the
`specification, I would invite you to look at column 30, lines 14 to 23. That
`right there, 10 lines of the specification, is the description of what's
`contained in Figures 20A to 20F. And if you look there, there's no
`discussion at all about error handling or handling errors. The only time
`again that we see the term handling errors is in column 13, lines 25 to 29
`where it's just the same language that's in limitation 1.3.
`So what Patent Owner does, and I'm on slide 22, Your Honors, is
`they look to this other extraneous document, VBScript Programmer's
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`13
`
`(404) 684-6008
`
`Jamison Professional Services
`East Pointe, GA
`
`www.jps-online.com
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00976
`Patent 9,892,386 B2
`Reference. And the only thing Patent Owner does is they say it's relevant.
`Well, it's not a definitional document. We can see in Dr. Houh's
`supplemental declaration here. He indicated it's not the type of document I
`would expect a POSITA to rely on to obtain the meaning for technical terms.
`All right. This is a specific use case for VBScript. It is not a general
`financial transaction document. It doesn't pertain to conducting financial
`transactions with mobile devices. This is just sort out of thin air that Patent
`Owner has looked at.
`And, you know, if you look, and I'm moving to slide 23, we asked
`Dr. Shamos in his deposition, you know, does this document, this is
`basically all he's relying, does this document support your construction?
`And remember, there were two parts. There was responding to and
`recovering, right. So when I asked him during the deposition, you know,
`where do you get this recovering portion? And he says, well everybody
`knows. Well, all he's looking to is the knowledge of a POSITA. Right there
`is Dr. Shamos' that's his support, the knowledge of a POSITA. And you
`shouldn't credit that testimony under 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) because Patent
`Owner's expert has not pointed to any document to support his construction.
`I want to move next to the last term which is logging platform
`objects. This is another indication, or another instance, Your Honors, where
`Patent Owner is misconstruing the terms, okay. Now, what we see on slide
`25 is Patent Owner's construction about logging platform objects, storing or
`recording platform objects in a log. Now, we referred earlier to column 13,
`lines 25 to 29, it uses the term logging platform objects. And that is the only
`place in the specification that ever mentions logging platform objects.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`14
`
`(404) 684-6008
`
`Jamison Professional Services
`East Pointe, GA
`
`www.jps-online.com
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00976
`Patent 9,892,386 B2
`I'm going to move to slide 26. We can see that, you know, on this
`slide that concept about logging platform objects it's not described in the
`specification at all except for column 13, lines 25 to 29, which again is the
`language in limitation 1.3. What the specification talks about is a
`transaction log, or a verb of logging the transaction. There's no mention
`whatsoever of a logging platform objects. We can see this is what Patent
`Owner has pointed to as on slide 27, Your Honors, about this support. And
`there's a couple instances. Transaction logs, you know, at the first
`paragraph, transaction data and logs.
`And then we've got another instance in the fourth paragraph logs
`and transaction, transaction logs. During the deposition of Dr. Shamos we
`asked him to go through 21 instances where the specification uses the phrase
`logs the transaction, the verb form, right. And he admitted that those are
`disclosed, but Patent Owner is just effectively ignoring those because what
`they want to do is they want to say well, you have to log a platform object in
`a log. That's effectively what their construction is, and that's just not
`supported.
`JUDGE ZECHER: Mr. Bowser, what's your understanding --
`MR. BOWSER: Yes?
`JUDGE ZECHER: -- of what a platform object is in light of this
`
`Patent?
`
`MR. BOWSER: So, Your Honor, the term platform object, that
`was not addressed in the briefing. But what we understand platform objects
`to mean is that it's an object within the financial transaction platform. All
`right. So if you look at how we mapped the Dill reference, we show --
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`15
`
`(404) 684-6008
`
`Jamison Professional Services
`East Pointe, GA
`
`www.jps-online.com
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00976
`Patent 9,892,386 B2
`JUDGE ZECHER: Object being what? Any sort of data relating
`to the transaction itself?
`MR. BOWSER: Yes, Your Honor. So what we showed with
`respect to the Dill reference, and this is on Petition pages 30 to 31, the
`platform object is information about the transaction and that information is
`stored, it's logged in a database. And then it's also accessed from the
`database. And that's how we showed that Dill teaches the concept of
`logging a platform object. And again, that's on pages 30 to 31 of the
`Petition. I want to turn -- well yeah, sorry. The one other thing here with
`respect to the logging of platform objects.
`So what Patent Owner again is relying on extrinsic document, here
`a dictionary. And what we see in the middle of the definition at the top of
`slide 29, it says enter something in a log, right. But what they also don't
`point out is that there's another definition, making a systematic recording of
`events, right. So recording information is a log, right? So Patent Owner's
`own exhibit does not require logging to be in a log. It's one type of
`definition. We're not saying it can never be in a log. It's just that the plain
`and ordinary meaning should control here about what a logging platform
`objects mean. I want to turn next --
`JUDGE HOSKINS: Mr. Bowser, this is Judge Hoskins again. So
`inferring a little bit from that is it your position that the plain and ordinary
`meaning of the term logging is simply a recording?
`MR. BOWSER: Yes, logging means storing or recording.
`JUDGE HOSKINS: Okay. Thank you.
`MR. BOWSER: Sure. So I'm going to turn next to the whether or
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`16
`
`(404) 684-6008
`
`Jamison Professional Services
`East Pointe, GA
`
`www.jps-online.com
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00976
`Patent 9,892,386 B2
`not Dill discloses a subscriber depositing funds into her own account, and
`Dill does in fact. And I'm going to deal with this in two parts. I'm on slide
`31. So first, we have just a general concept, and this is Dill paragraph 101 at
`the top of slide 31, which talks about delivering funds to a funds withholding
`system. Right there, that is a description of Dill's depositing. And we also
`have Dr. Houh explaining in I would invite you to look at paragraphs 132
`and 133, this is Dr. Houh explaining -- I'm sorry 131 to 133, this is Dill --
`I'm sorry Dr. Houh explaining how Dill teaches a deposit transaction. So
`first off Dill teaches a deposit because Dill teaches delivering funds to a
`funds withholding system. That right there is a deposit.
`Moving on to slide 32. What is in dispute between the parties is
`whether or not Dill teaches that a subscriber can deposit funds into her own
`account. And as we showed in the Petition, Dill does in fact teach that. And
`the reason for that is in paragraph 101, which we just talked about the funds
`withholding system, and paragraph 52. And this is important that we cover
`this because Dill expressly teaches that the word sender and recipient, those
`terms are used to describe a function at a given time, right.
`What Patent Owner has done is they've latched on to the word
`alternately in this portion of paragraph 52, and said well that means that a
`sender and the recipient can't be for the same transaction. But that's not
`what Dill's teaching expressly says. I would -- I think here an analogy is
`instructive, okay. So if you, you know, I do this occasionally. Sometimes I
`will send myself an email, right. I am sending myself an email at a first
`point in time, and then when that email comes in I'm receiving that email at
`a different point in time, a couple seconds later. That's exactly what Dill is
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`17
`
`(404) 684-6008
`
`Jamison Professional Services
`East Pointe, GA
`
`www.jps-online.com
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00976
`Patent 9,892,386 B2
`talking about. Dill is talking about sender and recipient in terms of the
`functions that are being performed. Dill does not ever describe that a sender
`and a receiver have to be different for a transaction.
`So there's two things that Patent Owner relies on. Number one,
`they rely on this word alternately in orange on slide 32. So they take that,
`and they take that out of context, and then I'm moving to slide 33. Next,
`they take that word alternately and they put it together with this description
`in paragraph 57. And paragraph 57, you can see on the third line it says,
`starting with the third line, to provide a structured settlement between
`unrelated entities such as the sending mobile wallet and the receiving mobile
`wallet.
`
`So Patent Owner argues that well this means unequivocally, and
`I'm using their word unequivocally, that the sender and the recipient have to
`be different parties for the same transaction. What they've done is they've
`taken this completely out of context, right. Look at paragraph 57, it's very
`clear. It uses the words such as, so it's giving an example, unrelated entities
`such as. So in one example there's an unrelated entity where it's a sending
`mobile wallet, and the receiving mobile wallet. That's an example. So
`Patent Owner's argument all along has been effectively that they have to be
`different entities for the transaction because of the word alternately in
`paragraph 52, and the word unrelated entities in paragraph 57. But what
`they've done is looked at this out of context.
`I want to address one thing that Patent Owner has made and says,
`well Dr. Houh relied, five times, on the disclosure of paragraph 57, and this
`is on the Patent Owner Response page 29, footnote four, and I just want to
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`18
`
`(404) 684-6008
`
`Jamison Professional Services
`East Pointe, GA
`
`www.jps-online.com
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00976
`Patent 9,892,386 B2
`address this because this is important too because they're saying effectively
`that we're trying to have our cake and eat it too in the sense that we rely on
`paragraph 57 for some limitations but not others. Well, but if you look at
`how Dr. Houh referred to paragraph 57, he's talking about the money
`transfer facilitator 140 and he's just quoting that sentence. At no point in
`any of those instances where Dr. Houh refers to paragraph 57 does he ever
`suggest that Dill requires the sender and the recipient to be in different
`parties.
`
`I want to move next to the Dill teaching the fact that a subscriber,
`and I'm on slide 35, can indicate with a message that the subscriber desires
`to deposit money into the subscriber's account. And what we see on slide 35
`is the request on step 515, and I'm g