Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
` Paper No. 23
`Entered: November 14, 2023
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MOZIDO CORFIRE-KOREA, LTD.,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`IPR2022-01149
`Patent 10,233,692 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: October 3, 2023
`____________
`
`Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, MICHAEL R. ZECHER, and
`PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01149
`Patent 10,233,692 B2
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`ANDREW S. EHMKE, ESQUIRE
`JONATHAN BOWSER, ESQUIRE
`ANGELA OLIVER, ESQUIRE
`EUGENE GORYUNOV, ESQUIRE
`MICHAEL PARSONS, ESQUIRE
`CALMANN CLEMENTS, ESQUIRE
`Haynes and Boone, LLP
`2801 N. Harwood Street
`Suite 2300
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`(214) 651-5000
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`JONATHAN K. WALDROP, ESQUIRE
`JOHN W. DOWNING, ESQUIRE
`Kasowitz Benson Torres, LLP
`1633 Broadway
`New York, New York 10019
`(212) 506-1700
`
`BRANDON THEISS, ESQUIRE
`DANIEL GOLUB, ESQUIRE
`Volpe Koenig, PC
`30 S 17th Street, 18th Floor
`Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103
`(215) 568-6400
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday,
`October 3, 2023, commencing at 11:32 a.m., in hearing room D at the U.S.
`Patent and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01149
`Patent 10,233,692 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`- - - - -
`
`JUDGE KORNICZKY: Let’s start again. This hearing is Apple Inc.
`
`versus Mozido Corfire-Korea Ltd. It’s case IPR2022-01149. Counsel for
`
`Petitioner, will you please introduce yourselves again?
`
`MR. EHMKE: Your Honor, this is Andrew Ehmke. With me are
`
`Jonathan Bowser, Eugene Goryunov, and Calmann Clements. Mr. Bowser
`
`will be presenting.
`
`JUDGE KORNICZKY: Counsel for Patent Owner, will you please
`
`introduce yourself?
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`MR. THEISS: Hello, I’m Brandon Theiss. I’m counsel for the Patent
`
`11
`
`Owner. Also with me is Dan Golub and I will be arguing this case.
`
`12
`
`JUDGE KORNICZKY: Very good. Real quick, as I said earlier, as
`
`13
`
`you go through the slides, please make sure you identify a slide number.
`
`14
`
`Mr. Bowser, you earlier said that you wanted to save ten minutes for rebuttal
`
`15
`
`and I assume that’s the same.
`
`16
`
`17
`
`MR. BOWSER: Yes, your Honor.
`
`JUDGE KORNICZKY: Okay. Would you please restart your
`
`18
`
`presentation? And I request -- we’re familiar with the spec and the claim.
`
`19
`
`We’ll just jump into, I guess, the claim construction issue, the temporary
`
`20
`
`payment card. And restart your argument.
`
`21
`
`MR. BOWSER: Okay, yes. And your Honor, I have a question just
`
`22
`
`for the completeness of the record. Would you like me to address the error
`
`23
`
`in the construction as well or did you get my (inaudible) for that?
`
`24
`
`JUDGE KORNICZKY: Actually, would you just go to -- I think it
`
`25
`
`was your slide 3. All right, it’s slide 8, okay. And my understanding is that
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01149
`Patent 10,233,692 B2
`
`on slide 8 you have limitation 1.6.2 and it says there’s a first distance from
`
`the first portion of the screen towards a second portion of the touchscreen.
`
`And I understand from your statements earlier and the briefs that the parties
`
`agree that that is an error in the claim and that it should correctly say, a first
`
`distance from the second portion of the screen towards a first portion of the
`
`touchscreen. Is that correct?
`
`MR. BOWSER: That is correct.
`
`JUDGE KORNICZKY: Right. So and after we discussed that earlier
`
`before the court reporter lost us, after that, we went into the what the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`meaning of temporary payment card is. And I -- is that correct?
`
`11
`
`12
`
`MR. BOWSER: Yes.
`
`JUDGE KORNICZKY: So why don’t we restart that? Because that
`
`13
`
`is an important issue in this case, and hopefully you can remember what you
`
`14
`
`were saying and we can start from there, what that term means.
`
`15
`
`MR. BOWSER: Okay, thank you, your Honor. So I’m moving to
`
`16
`
`slide 9. And we see on slide 9 the instances of the term temporary payment
`
`17
`
`card. And it’s used in three limitations, 1.0, 1.4, 1.8, and our position all
`
`18
`
`along has been that this term should be construed according to its plain and
`
`19
`
`ordinary meaning. And the plain and ordinary meaning of this term is
`
`20
`
`simply just a payment card that can be used for a limited time. I would point
`
`21
`
`out too, your Honors, that in column 4, lines 25 to 28, that’s where it first
`
`22
`
`introduces the concept of a temporary payment card and there’s just simply
`
`23
`
`no definition.
`
`24
`
`What we have from the Specification of the ’692 patent is simply that
`
`25
`
`a temporary payment card is a card other than the main payment card.
`
`26
`
`Moving to slide 10, we see here on -- this is Dr. Houh, Petitioner’s expert,
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01149
`Patent 10,233,692 B2
`
`has pointed out that the term temporary payment card just simply means a
`
`card that should be used for a limited time. And we pointed out some
`
`dictionary definitions of the adjective temporary and the adjective temporary
`
`modifies the term payment card in the claims. And it’s just simply a
`
`payment card that can be used for a limited time.
`
`The terms temporary payment card or temporary card -- and we’ve
`
`argued and Patent Owner has as well, that the terms are synonymous, but
`
`Petitioner has indicated that this should be construed according to its plain
`
`and ordinary meaning. I’m going to turn to slide 11, which is the Patent
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`Owner’s construction. And there are several reasons why the construction is
`
`11
`
`incorrect. We see on the right-hand side of slide 11, it’s a payment card that
`
`12
`
`can only be used for a payable time. We look back on -- if we can go back
`
`13
`
`to slide 9 here just briefly, you’ll see that that concept is recited nowhere in
`
`14
`
`claim 1. And it’s not recited in any specific claim. So what they’re doing is
`
`15
`
`they’re improperly reading limitations into the claim. And this is sort of
`
`16
`
`bedrock claim construction law. You should not read limitations into a
`
`17
`
`claim that are not required.
`
`18
`
`I’m going to cover -- we’ve identified here on slide 11 four main
`
`19
`
`reasons why the construction is incorrect, but I’m just going to cover two
`
`20
`
`and I’ll answer any questions you have. So what we have on slide 12 is we
`
`21
`
`have the reproduction of the limitations of 1.0, 1.4, and 1.8, along with
`
`22
`
`Patent Owner’s construction. And we can see side by side here that concept,
`
`23
`
`“can only be used for a payable time,” it’s just simply not recited at all.
`
`24
`
`Nowhere in claim 1.
`
`25
`
`Moving to slide 13, another reason why the term temporary payment
`
`26
`
`card should not be construed according to Patent Owner’s construction is
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01149
`Patent 10,233,692 B2
`
`because it renders a condition in limitation 1.8 superfluous. Now, what see
`
`is two different concepts in 1.8. We see resetting of the temporary payment
`
`card and then we see a condition, when the payable time passes. So these
`
`are different concepts, right? If you read out the underlined portion of
`
`“when the payable time passes,” it just says resetting the card. That’s it.
`
`So then the claim 1.8 actually introduces a concept about the payable
`
`time. It adds the condition that you reset it when the payable time passes.
`
`So if you construe payable time -- I’m sorry -- temporary payment card
`
`according to Patent Owner’s unsupported and narrow construction, what it
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`effectively does is it reads out that condition in limitation 1.8. And that it is
`
`11
`
`incorrect.
`
`12
`
`JUDGE KORNICZKY: So Counsel, this is Judge Korniczky. When
`
`13
`
`is the temporary payment card used? Let me restate the question. Isn’t it
`
`14
`
`true that the temporary payment card is only used during the payable time?
`
`15
`
`MR. BOWSER: Well, so to that point, your Honors, let me move to
`
`16
`
`slide 15. Here’s an example when the temporary payment card is used --
`
`17
`
`that it’s not linked necessarily to the payment card. We have a specific
`
`18
`
`example in the Specification where the user can reset the temporary payment
`
`19
`
`card even if payable time still remains. So the concept of setting and
`
`20
`
`resetting the temporary payment card is different from the payable time
`
`21
`
`because the user can set and reset the payable time and not have it be
`
`22
`
`specifically limited to the payable time.
`
`23
`
`Now, we acknowledge that there are examples in the Specification,
`
`24
`
`especially, for example, Figures 15 to 17, where the temporary card moves
`
`25
`
`down to reflect the elapse of the payable time. But that doesn’t necessarily
`
`26
`
`mean that the temporary payment card has to be limited to the temporary --
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01149
`Patent 10,233,692 B2
`
`I’m sorry, the payable time -- because we can see in Figure 15 -- sorry,
`
`Figure 13 on side slide 15 that the user can reset the temporary payment card
`
`even if payable time still remains.
`
`JUDGE KORNICZKY: Well, so as I understand it from this example
`
`here on slide 15, the temporary payment card is only being used during the
`
`payable time. It’s 30 seconds or less.
`
`MR. BOWSER: So, your Honors, this example, you’re correct that
`
`it’s used during a table time, but this concept of “only used during a payable
`
`time,” that’s just not a limitation that’s recited in the claims. I mean, this is a
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`simple example where if the Patent Owner wanted to have that concept
`
`11
`
`recited in the claims, they should have recited it in the claims. We have just
`
`12
`
`a very broad concept -- and I’m pointing this out here on slide 12. The term
`
`13
`
`“temporary payment card,” that’s all that’s recited. Just the term itself with
`
`14
`
`the adjective of the word temporary. And that just means for a limited time.
`
`15
`
`We have a specific condition about what the payable time passes, but that
`
`16
`
`doesn’t modify what’s the term temporary payment card or temporary card
`
`17
`
`should mean by itself. There’s just simply no limitation.
`
`18
`
`JUDGE KORNICZKY: I understand that. I understood that you were
`
`19
`
`saying that the temporary payment card could be used outside of the payable
`
`20
`
`time?
`
`21
`
`MR. BOWSER: No, your Honor. I did not say that. I’m just saying
`
`22
`
`that the -- if I go back to slide 15, what -- the concepts are different in terms
`
`23
`
`of -- the term temporary payment card and the payable time, those are
`
`24
`
`distinct concepts. The user sets a temporary payment card because the user
`
`25
`
`selects the payment card and pushes it up, right? But there’s a condition
`
`26
`
`that’s recited in the claim about resetting it when the payable time passes,
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01149
`Patent 10,233,692 B2
`
`but that’s independent from what is actually recited in terms of the
`
`temporary payment card.
`
`If I can go back to slide 12, we can see. How does the user set the
`
`temporary card? The user just slides the mobile payment card up. That’s it.
`
`That’s the only recitation.
`
`JUDGE KORNICZKY: No, I understand that. But let me go on to --
`
`if you go back to your slide 11, in your third bullet point, you say that Patent
`
`Owner’s construction is incorrect because it imports limitations from the
`
`Specification based on two conditions that are not required by the claims.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`And what are those two conditions?
`
`11
`
`MR. BOWSER: Okay, I’m going to go to slide 14, your Honor. And
`
`12
`
`these are the two conditions that -- these are from Dr. Shamos’s declaration,
`
`13
`
`but it’s repeated in the Patent Owner Response. The two conditions are if a
`
`14
`
`payment is made during the payable time, the payment card is reset that
`
`15
`
`condition is not recited in the claims. Nowhere. And then the second
`
`16
`
`condition, only part of that condition is recited in the claims. It says if no
`
`17
`
`payment is made during the payable time. Now, remember or keep in mind
`
`18
`
`that that concept is nowhere recited in the claims. The second portion of
`
`19
`
`condition two is the main payment card is reset at the expiration of the
`
`20
`
`payable time. That’s the only condition that’s recited in claim 1, but it refers
`
`21
`
`--
`
`22
`
`JUDGE KORNICZKY: Wait, this blue limitation that you label
`
`23
`
`number 2, that is in the claim?
`
`24
`
`MR. BOWSER: Only part of it, your Honor. So the first portion that
`
`25
`
`says if no payment is made during the payable time, that is not recited at all
`
`26
`
`in the claim.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01149
`Patent 10,233,692 B2
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`JUDGE KORNICZKY: Oh, okay, I see what you’re saying. Well,
`
`let’s go back to the first limitation that you have right here on slide 14. So
`
`as I understand it, so you’re saying that if the payable time is 30 seconds and
`
`the payment is made at 15 seconds, the main payment card is not reset until
`
`the expiration of the entire 30 seconds?
`
`MR. BOWSER: Well, your Honor, the Specification discloses an
`
`example where if make a payment during the payable time, then it’s reset.
`
`But that concept, your Honor, is just simply not recited in the claim. We
`
`have to be guided --
`
`JUDGE KORNICZKY: Oh, I see what you’re saying. Okay. I get it.
`
`MR. BOWSER: -- by the scope of the claims. We have to be guided
`
`12
`
`by what’s in the claims, not what’s in the Specification.
`
`13
`
`JUDGE KORNICZKY: But is this even -- this first limitation in red
`
`14
`
`on slide 14, is that part of Patent Owner’s definition of temporary card?
`
`15
`
`MR. BOWSER: Well, so in paragraph 39 of Dr. Shamos’s
`
`16
`
`Declaration, these are the two concepts. These are the two conditions that
`
`17
`
`Dr. Shamos, and then by extension, Patent Owner, has relied on in order to
`
`18
`
`inform its construction. We’re pointing out that the first condition is
`
`19
`
`nowhere recited at all in the claims and only part of the second condition is
`
`20
`
`recited.
`
`21
`
`JUDGE KORNICZKY: But this isn’t part of Patent Owner’s
`
`22
`
`definition. I don’t understand what the point is you’re trying to make.
`
`23
`
`MR. BOWSER: The point that we’re trying to make, your Honor, is
`
`24
`
`simple, that there’s no support for having the term temporary payment card
`
`25
`
`by itself be construed so that it can only be used for a payable time. But if
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01149
`Patent 10,233,692 B2
`
`you construe the term temporary payment card according to Patent Owner’s
`
`definition, it improperly imports limitations from the Specification.
`
`JUDGE KORNICZKY: But how --
`
`JUDGE ZECHER: Mr. Bowser, this is Judge Zecher. Can I get at
`
`this a little differently? Can you go to slide 12. And so this is Patent
`
`Owner’s proposed construction, right? Nobody’s arguing here there’s a
`
`special definition or an lexicographic definition of a payment card, correct?
`
`We’re all talking about what the plain and ordinary meaning is. Is that fair?
`
`MR. BOWSER: Yes.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`JUDGE ZECHER: Okay. With that premise and we’re walking
`
`11
`
`through our canons of claim construction -- I guess I’m not aware but maybe
`
`12
`
`you can enlighten me -- can “only” be used. “Only” is an absolute term. It
`
`13
`
`seems to kind of confine the construction of what a payment card can do.
`
`14
`
`Are you aware of any reason we should read in such an absolute term into
`
`15
`
`the construction of this payment card?
`
`16
`
`17
`
`MR. BOWSER: I’m not aware of any, your Honor.
`
`JUDGE ZECHER: Okay, so with that premise, I think what you’re
`
`18
`
`trying to say is that it shouldn’t be construed this narrowly. I understand you
`
`19
`
`to be arguing that the payable time passes is in limitation 1.8, which is, in
`
`20
`
`and of itself, sufficient so demonstrate what the payment card does in the
`
`21
`
`claim. So we don’t need to import the payment time into the construction of
`
`22
`
`this term based on this absolute construction of “only” to be used. Is that
`
`23
`
`fair?
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`MR. BOWSER: That is correct.
`
`JUDGE ZECHER: Okay. All right. Thank you.
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01149
`Patent 10,233,692 B2
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`MR. BOWSER: And I’d next like to turn to slide 17, which covers
`
`why the prior art teaches the limitations. So first off, we have the Hurtel
`
`reference, which is --
`
`JUDGE KORNICZKY: Counsel, I want to go back to slide 11 for a
`
`second. I want to understand your temporary card argument. The last prong
`
`or the last argument you say is that Patent Owner’s construction is incorrect
`
`because it excludes embodiments from the Specification. What
`
`embodiments is it excluding?
`
`MR. BOWSER: It excludes -- let me move to slide 15. We covered
`
`10
`
`this before. But it excludes this condition, right? So it excludes the
`
`11
`
`condition because the resetting of the card happens even if payable time still
`
`12
`
`remains. And that’s just simply not encompassed within Patent Owner’s
`
`13
`
`construction.
`
`14
`
`So moving to slide 17, again, we have Hurtel. And this is the primary
`
`15
`
`reference. And as -- I’m not sure if this was captured in the second session
`
`16
`
`here, but we have argued in the Petition that the preamble is not limiting, but
`
`17
`
`the preamble is disclosed in two different ways. First, it’s disclosed by
`
`18
`
`Hurtel, which is the primary reference that’s cited in the Petition. And the
`
`19
`
`reason that Hurtel discloses the temporary payment card is it discloses a
`
`20
`
`payment card for a single use transaction. And the way that Hurtel works is
`
`21
`
`that we have a digital object on the left-hand side, number 237. That is a
`
`22
`
`card that the user has selected from within her electronic wallet. And it’s not
`
`23
`
`shown in this particular slide, but we did show it in the Petition in terms of
`
`24
`
`there being a list.
`
`25
`
`But there’s a small rectangular box and you can see at the bottom of
`
`26
`
`the electronic wallet where I’m pointing, that is a list of cards. And the user
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01149
`Patent 10,233,692 B2
`
`selects a particular card for a particular transaction and the user does it by
`
`dragging and dropping, which is a sliding operation. The user will drag and
`
`drop a card over to make a specific payment. And because Hurtel discloses
`
`the concept of selecting a card for a particular transaction, that is a
`
`temporary payment card because it’s used for a specific transaction.
`
`And I want to point out too, just to be clear here, that Hurtel also
`
`discloses this concept being carried out on a mobile phone. We can see in
`
`paragraph 230 in the first highlighted portion, it says the user drags and
`
`drops, e.g., with touch sensitive screen elements of a mobile phone. We also
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`point it out that this is done in a mobile phone with respect to Figure 2 and in
`
`11
`
`paragraph 58 and 95 of Hurtel. So the reason -- moving to slide 18 next -- is
`
`12
`
`that I just want to point out too that Patent Owner’s arguments with respect
`
`13
`
`to the temporary payment card limitations are all based on their incorrect
`
`14
`
`construction. Patent Owner has not and cannot argue that the prior art that
`
`15
`
`we’ve cited in the Petition does not teach a temporary payment card
`
`16
`
`according to its plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`17
`
`We see at the top of slide 18, this is the overview section of the Patent
`
`18
`
`Owner Response. And what Patent Owner did is they provided kind of an
`
`19
`
`overview of the references and then referred back to that overview. And
`
`20
`
`we’ve reproduced portions of this, the relevant portions. At the top is the
`
`21
`
`overview section, and you can clearly see that a temporary payment card is
`
`22
`
`active for a given time period. And again, Hurtel does not disclose a
`
`23
`
`temporary card that is a card usable only -- again, we have that extreme
`
`24
`
`condition -- for a particular payable time.
`
`25
`
`Moving on to slide 19, I want to just also point out too that this is
`
`26
`
`Patent Owner’s expert. He said that temporary payment is time limited or
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01149
`Patent 10,233,692 B2
`
`transaction limited. So clearly, Hurtel discloses a transaction limited card
`
`because it uses a card for a specific transaction. But even Patent Owner’s
`
`expert admitted that a time limit card is a card that you can use for one
`
`transaction. During his deposition, I asked him, when you say time limit,
`
`you’re only talking about a specific transaction, right? Yes. Because if you
`
`engage in a transaction, that also ends the payable time. So when you have a
`
`card that’s used for a specific transaction, it is a temporary payment card.
`
`So even under Patent Owner’s construction, Hurtel discloses it.
`
`I want to move to slide 20 because this is also important. This is a
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`second reason that the Petition showed that the preamble, which again is not
`
`11
`
`limiting, but the preamble was taught. So first, we show that it was taught as
`
`12
`
`being disclosed by Hurtel, but we also showed that it was obvious over
`
`13
`
`Hurtel in view of Chitti. And the Patent Owner didn’t respond to that. So
`
`14
`
`this is an uncontested showing that we have in the Petition. Hurtel and
`
`15
`
`Chitti renders this limitation obvious. And this is not something that maybe
`
`16
`
`Patent Owner missed for the first time. In the Institution Decision -- I would
`
`17
`
`suggest that you look at this because in the Institution Decision on page 24,
`
`18
`
`the board pointed out that Patent Owner does not address the contention that
`
`19
`
`the combined teaching of Hurtel and Chitti disclose a t emporary payment
`
`20
`
`card. So we have this concept.
`
`21
`
`I’m going to briefly touch on Chitti. And we can see very clearly that
`
`22
`
`Chitti discloses the concept of a temporary payment card. We have a default
`
`23
`
`card. The terms are a little bit different here. When Chitti, on the left-hand
`
`24
`
`side, we can see it uses this concept of the top of a wallet card. And if you
`
`25
`
`look at Figure 1 of Chitti, there’s a phone and there’s a bunch of cards that
`
`26
`
`are listed there. And then the user can set one of the cards to the top of the
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01149
`Patent 10,233,692 B2
`
`wallet and that becomes the user’s default card. So that’s what basically --
`
`that’s what corresponds to the main card that’s used in the claims.
`
`And then the user can set a different card for a number of different
`
`reasons. They can do it for a particular transaction. They can do it
`
`whenever they’re entering into a location. There’s all sorts of things that the
`
`user can do in order to set any of those virtual cards as a temporary payment
`
`card. And they move it to the top of the wallet and then for that period, that
`
`becomes the temporary payment card. And then Chitti also discloses
`
`reverting back to the main card.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`And also, Chitti, I should point out to you that the cards are credit
`
`11
`
`cards and that’s in paragraphs 25 and 26 very clearly that Chitti’s talking
`
`12
`
`about cards. So I want to introduce the next concept about Spodak. And
`
`13
`
`I’m going to go to slide 23. Getting ahead, but the reason I’m doing this is
`
`14
`
`because I’m next going to touch on limitation 1.8. And limitation 1.8
`
`15
`
`follows limitation 1.5 and it refers to this concept of a payable time. On the
`
`16
`
`right-hand side, we see Spodak, which teaches a temporary payment card.
`
`17
`
`And the green highlighted portion, we have the default card, which is
`
`18
`
`normally the VISA card. And the example given, when the user might enter
`
`19
`
`a mall, the user might decide, you know what? I normally use the VISA
`
`20
`
`card, but for this time period, I want to use the DISCOVER card. And we
`
`21
`
`see very clearly that Spodak discloses a payable time. And when you use a
`
`22
`
`temporary payment card -- we have Petitioner’s expert showing the
`
`23
`
`motivation to combine is that when you have a temporary payment card and
`
`24
`
`it’s limited to a specific time period, you know, you would want to limit it to
`
`25
`
`that particular time.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01149
`Patent 10,233,692 B2
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`So going back to slide 22, the reason I introduced Spodak there is
`
`because when we look at the third and final temporary payment card
`
`limitation -- this is 1.8. This is about resetting the temporary payment card.
`
`And it does mention when the payable time passes, right? So the payable
`
`time is clearly taught by Spodak. And what we see in the Petition that it’s
`
`the combination of Hurtel in view of Chitti and Spodak (inaudible) But then
`
`in the Patent Owner Response, what the Patent Owner did is they referred --
`
`well, actually, Spodak doesn’t teach the sliding limitation from limitation
`
`1.3. But that’s a combination that wasn’t presented in the Petition. The
`
`10
`
`Petition shows very clearly that Hurtel, in pages 28 to 35, discloses this
`
`11
`
`sliding motion. And so what Patent Owner is doing is they’re arguing
`
`12
`
`against a limitation that’s just simply not recited.
`
`13
`
`I want to go back just quickly here to slide 5 just so we can get on the
`
`14
`
`same page again for the limitation 1.5. Sorry, I’m going to move the
`
`15
`
`thumbnails here. I’m going to remove them for a second. So on 1.5, we
`
`16
`
`have displaying a numerical indicator of a payable time. And there’s two
`
`17
`
`concepts there. There’s a numerical indicator and there’s the payable time.
`
`18
`
`And Spodak teaches the payable and Tedesco shows that it was well known
`
`19
`
`to display a numerical indicator. Let me hide these, sorry. Go back to slide
`
`20
`
`25. I’m going to just do this real quick here.
`
`21
`
`So slide 25, we covered here about Spodak teaches the payable time
`
`22
`
`and that’s quite clear. Patent Owner has not contested the fact that Spodak
`
`23
`
`teaches a payable time. What we have is then we have Tedesco.
`
`24
`
`Now, Tedesco is a patent that is directed to informing the user about
`
`25
`
`upcoming changes. And one of the ways it does that is it displays a digital
`
`26
`
`countdown, and that’s exactly what’s disclosed. In Tedesco on the right-
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01149
`Patent 10,233,692 B2
`
`hand side, we see a digital countdown. Now, there’s two ways that time is
`
`disclosed. The first is we have a graphical timer and that moves down as
`
`time elapses. And we also have a digital countdown number 224, and that
`
`shows the numerical countdown indicator that’s disclosed -- I’m sorry,
`
`recited in limitation 1.5.
`
`I want to point out here too that there’s the dispute between the parties
`
`as to whether or not Tedesco is analogous art. And we’ve shown all along
`
`that Tedesco is analogous art because it’s reasonably pertinent to a problem
`
`with which the inventor was involved. One of the issues or one of the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`problems that the ’692 patent is trying to address is how to intuitively inform
`
`11
`
`the user about changes, especially with regard to a temporary payment card.
`
`12
`
`What Patent Owner did in terms of dealing with the analogous art is that
`
`13
`
`they argued only in their Patent Owner Response that Tedesco cannot be
`
`14
`
`analogous art because it’s not directed to the same field of endeavor. Dr.
`
`15
`
`Shamos, Patent Owner’s expert, same argument. Didn’t even address the
`
`16
`
`fact that Tedesco was analogous art under reasonably pertinent.
`
`17
`
`Now, what we’ve shown is that Tedesco is analogous art because it’s
`
`18
`
`reasonably pertinent. Now, reasonably pertinent just means that it has to be
`
`19
`
`relevant or applicable to the problems that are addressed. And we have here
`
`20
`
`visual display techniques. We’ve shown with Tedesco it has a visual display
`
`21
`
`technique about informing the user about time passing. So Tedesco --
`
`22
`
`JUDGE KORNICZKY: Counsel, this is Judge Korniczky. What is
`
`23
`
`your position or response to Patent Owner’s argument in the Sur-reply about
`
`24
`
`its analogous art and the pertinent problem?
`
`25
`
`MR. BOWSER: Well, the argument is -- our argument in response --
`
`26
`
`and just to be clear, we couldn’t address this argument because it was in the
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01149
`Patent 10,233,692 B2
`
`Sur-reply and it was never raised and we didn’t get another chance for a
`
`brief, but the argument that we raised --
`
`JUDGE KORNICZKY: Are you objecting that it’s a new argument?
`
`MR. BOWSER: What?
`
`JUDGE KORNICZKY: Are you objecting that Patent Owner is
`
`presenting a new argument in this Sur-reply?
`
`MR. BOWSER: We are not objecting formally that it’s a new
`
`argument because frankly, the argument is wrong. So what Patent Owner
`
`did is they’re focusing solely on the problem that’s described in column 1,
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`lines 50 to 57. They’re very narrowly sort of defining what the problem is,
`
`11
`
`but they don’t consider the fact that it’s not the only problem. I want to
`
`12
`
`point out something here. And this is Dr. Shamos. I’m just going to move
`
`13
`
`ahead since we’re on this topic. This is --
`
`14
`
`JUDGE ZECHER: Mr. Bowser, before you move off this slide, one
`
`15
`
`thing I wanted to drill down here a little bit was these citations that your
`
`16
`
`expert provides. And we’re looking at the ’692 patent, he’s citing column 2
`
`17
`
`lines 11 through 13 and column 2, lines 24 through 28. And I read those
`
`18
`
`cites and what I get is a discussion as to the solutions that the patent is
`
`19
`
`providing, not really the problems it’s addressing. So I guess in my view,
`
`20
`
`there’s a little bit of a disconnect here. Can you kind of elaborate on that? I
`
`21
`
`don’t really understand these citations that you’ve provided here.
`
`22
`
`MR. BOWSER: So the overall technical problem, your Honor, is
`
`23
`
`about --
`
`24
`
`JUDGE ZECHER: I mean, it’s just an unusual patent in the sense that
`
`25
`
`it actually gives us the technical problem in a header at column 1, basically,
`
`26
`
`line 48. So I mean, it spells out the technical problem, so I think we can
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01149
`Patent 10,233,692 B2
`
`read that ourselves. But when you cite to the technical solution to support
`
`your problem argument, isn’t that kind of an issue?
`
`MR. BOWSER: No, your Honor, we don’t believe it is an issue,
`
`because certainly, there’s an explanation of the technical problem, but it’s
`
`not necessarily limited to solving that exact same problem. Effectively,
`
`what Patent Owner is doing is they’re mixing and matching the field of
`
`endeavors with saying, hey, it has to be directed to our exact problem. But
`
`that’s not the thing. So you pointed out, your Honor, about columns 2, lines
`
`11 to 13, and 24 to 28. Those are ways in which the inventor addressed the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`problem. The problem is how to more easily, swiftly, naturally, amusingly,
`
`11
`
`and intuitively display information. And so Tedesco was clearly directed to
`
`12
`
`that because it’s showing how the user can intuitively direct things.
`
`13
`
`I would also point out too on pages 40 to 41, we’ve showed that the
`
`14
`
`numerical indication of a timer provides an accurate, informative, and
`
`15
`
`intuitive way to convey time remaining to use as a temporary payment card.
`
`16
`
`So while certainly Tedesco, we have not argued that it is directed to the
`
`17
`
`same exact problem as what Patent Owner has pointed out, but it’s relevant
`
`18
`
`and applicable and therefore pertinent to that problem because it’s showing
`
`19
`
`how a user will be informed of the elapse of time. And that’s exactly what
`
`20
`
`Tedesco discloses.
`
`21
`
`JUDGE ZECHER: All right, Mr. Bowser, thank you for the
`
`22
`
`explanation. I do have a question just taking it a step back because I
`
`23
`
`understood you were relying on Spodak to teach the three hour time period.
`
`24
`
`How was that disclosed to the user in Spodak? How do they know that they
`
`25
`
`have time remaining within that three hour time period?
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01149
`Patent 10,233,692 B2
`
`
`1
`
`2
`