PGR2021-00028
`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`RFCYBER CORP.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Patent No. 10,600,046
`Filing Date: June 2, 2015
`Issue Date: March 24, 2020
`
`Inventors: Xiangzhen Xie, Liang Seng Koh, and Hsin Pan
`Title: METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR MOBILE PAYMENTS
`
`
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`RFCYBER CORP.’S
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`Case No. PGR2021-00028
`
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`

`

`PGR2021-00028
`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`V.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`THE ’046 PATENT ......................................................................................... 2
`A.
`The ’046 Patent’s Priority Chain ........................................................... 2
`B.
`The ’046 Patent’s Disclosure ................................................................ 3
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................. 5
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 5
`A.
`The Petition Should be Denied Because it Fails to Provide a
`Claim Construction Necessary to Resolve the Issues Before
`the Board ............................................................................................... 5
`“payment gateway” ............................................................................... 7
`B.
`“displaying a denial” ............................................................................. 8
`C.
`THE ’046 PATENT IS INELIGIBLE FOR POST-GRANT
`REVIEW .......................................................................................................... 9
`A.
`Legal Standard for Written Description ..............................................11
`B.
`The “Displaying a denial” Step of Claim 1 is Supported in the
`’832 Application and the ’802 Provisional .........................................12
`The “account and bank information of the registered
`merchant” ............................................................................................17
`1.
`Patent Owner Has Disclaimed Claims 6 and 15 and No
`PGR May Be Instituted Based on Those Claims ......................18
`The Limitation Was Disclosed in the ’802 Provisional
`Application ................................................................................22
`
`C.
`
`2.
`
`i
`
`

`

`PGR2021-00028
`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`
`
`E.
`
`D. All Steps of Claim 1 Are Supported and Described in the Pre-
`AIA Applications and the ’046 Patent ................................................24
`1.
`The Pre-AIA Applications Describe “sending the
`payment request to the payment gateway, wherein the
`balance is sufficient to honor the payment request” as
`claimed ......................................................................................24
`The Pre-AIA Applications Describe “displaying a
`confirmation in the mobile device that the balance in the
`e-purse has been reduced by the total amount” ........................29
`All Steps of Claim 12 Are Supported and Described in the
`Pre-AIA Applications ..........................................................................31
`1.
`The Pre-AIA Applications Describe “the payment
`request is sent to a payment gateway when the amount
`is less than a balance of an electronic purse (e-purse)
`maintained locally in the mobile device” .................................31
`The Pre-AIA Applications Describe “wherein the
`payment gateway is configured to cause the balance in
`the e-purse reduced by the amount” .........................................32
`(a)
`The ’802 Provisional Describes the Limitation on
`Page 3 ..............................................................................32
`The ’802 Provisional Describes this Limitation in
`its Appendix ....................................................................35
`Conclusion ...........................................................................................41
`F.
`VI. THE CLAIMS OF THE ’046 PATENT ARE FULLY SUPPORTED
`IN THE SPECIFICATION ............................................................................41
`VII. GOOGLE FAILS TO SHOW THAT THE CLAIMS OF THE ’046
`PATENT ARE INELIGIBLE UNDER 35 U.S.C. §101 ...............................43
`A.
`The Claims Are Not Directed to an Abstract Idea ..............................43
`
`(b)
`
`2.
`
`2.
`
`ii
`
`

`

`PGR2021-00028
`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Claims Related to Economic Practices Are Not Per Se
`Abstract .....................................................................................49
`The Claims Here Are Not Similar to Those of Trading
`Techs. ........................................................................................51
`The Use of “off-the-shelf” Components Does Not
`Render the Claims Ineligible ....................................................51
`The Claims Include an Inventive Concept ..........................................53
`B.
`VIII. THE PETITION SHOULD BE DENIED IN THE DISCRETION OF
`THE DIRECTOR UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 324(A) ...........................................56
`A.
`The Parallel District Court Litigation and the Petition Involve
`the Same Parties ..................................................................................58
`The District Court Litigation Involves the Same Claims and
`the Same Arguments ...........................................................................58
`These Issues Will be Resolved Before the Board Has an
`Opportunity to Enter a Written Decision ............................................59
`Significant Investment and Petitioner’s Delay in Filing the
`Petition .................................................................................................61
`No Stay of the Parallel District Court Litigation ................................62
`E.
`Other Factors Favor Denial .................................................................63
`F.
`IX. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................63
`
`D.
`
`iii
`
`

`

`PGR2021-00028
`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Google LLC,
`No. -2:2019-cv-00361-JRG, 2021 WL 465424 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 9,
`2021) ................................................................................................................... 62
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`573 U.S. 208 (2014) ...................................................................................... 49, 50
`Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc.,
`841 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................... 52, 53
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2020) ................................... 56, 59
`Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) .......................................................... 12
`Axon Enter., Inc. v. Dig. Ally, Inc.,
`PGR2018-00052, Paper No. 8 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 1, 2018) ............................... 18, 20
`BASCOM Global Internet Svcs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility Inc.,
`827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................... 53, 54
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Ramot at Tel Aviv Univ. Ltd.,
`IPR2020-00122, Paper 15 (P.T.A.B. May 15, 2020) ......................................... 60
`Cordis Corp. v. Medtronic AVE, Inc.,
`339 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ........................................................ 12, 13, 14, 28
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
`773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 49
`Diamond v. Diehr,
`450 U.S. 175 (1981) ............................................................................................ 52
`EcoServices, LLC v. Certified Aviation Servs., LLC,
`830 Fed. Appx. 634 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ...........................................................passim
`
`iv
`
`

`

`PGR2021-00028
`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 52
`Facebook, Inc. v. Skky, LLC,
`CBM2016-00092, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2017) ....................................... 19
`Gen. Plastic Indus. Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha,
`IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 6, 2017)........................................... 57
`Genetics Inst., LLC v. Novartis Vaccines & Diagnostics, Inc.,
`655 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .................................................................... 18, 21
`Google LLC v. RFCyber Corp.,
`PGR2021-00029, Paper No. 1 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 23, 2020) ................................... 49
`Guinn v. Kopf,
`96 F.3d 1419 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ............................................................................ 18
`Instrumentation Lab. Co. v. Hemosonics LLC,
`PGR2019-00047, Paper No. 8 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 24, 2019) ................................... 11
`In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Pat. Litig.,
`639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................ 5
`Lifescan Global Corp. v. Ikeda Food Research, Ltd.,
`PGR2019-00031, Paper No. 7 (P.T.A.B, Aug. 15, 2019) ...........................passim
`Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,
`107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .......................................................................... 12
`Mad Dogg Athletics, Inc. v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.,
`No. 2:20-cv-00382-JRG, Dkt. 43 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 31, 2021) ............................ 59
`Martek Biosciences Corp. v. Nutrinova, Inc.,
`579 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .................................................................... 11, 12
`McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc.,
`837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................ 46, 48, 49, 51
`
`v
`
`

`

`PGR2021-00028
`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`
`Next Caller Inc. v. TrustID, Inc.,
`IPR2019-00961, -00962, Paper 10, at 8-16 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 16,
`2019) ................................................................................................................... 60
`NHK Spring Co., Ltd. v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc.,
`IPR2018-00752, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 12, 2018)........................................... 57
`One World Techs., Inc. v. Chervon (HK) Ltd.,
`PGR2020-00061, Paper 16 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 7, 2020) ............................................ 9
`Orthopediatrics Corp. v. K2M, Inc.,
`IPR2018-01548, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 1, 2019) ........................................... 6, 7
`Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co, Inc.,
`772 F.2d 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1985) .......................................................................... 12
`RetailMeNot, Inc. v. Honey Sci. Grp.,
`PGR2019-00060, Paper No. 17 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 10, 2020) .......................... 20, 21
`Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC,
`IPR2019-01218, Paper 7 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 7, 2020) .............................................. 60
`Shieldmark, Inc. v. Lowe,
`PGR2019-00058, Paper No. 8 at 7 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 9, 2020) .............................. 11
`Solutran, Inc. v. Elavon, Inc.,
`931 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .......................................................................... 50
`Square Inc. v. Unwired Planet, LLC,
`CBM2014-00156, Paper 40 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2015) ................................ 54, 55
`Supercell Oy v. Gree, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00513, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. June 24, 2020) ......................................... 61
`Supercell OY v. Gree, Inc.,
`PGR2020-00039, Paper No. 14 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 14, 2020) .......................... 56, 57
`Supercell OY v. Gree, Inc.,
`PGR2020-00063, Paper No. 10 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 12, 2020) ................................ 28
`
`vi
`
`

`

`PGR2021-00028
`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`
`In re TLI Commc’ns LLC,
`823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 52
`Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC,
`921 F.3d 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .......................................................................... 51
`Ultratec, Inc. v. Captioncall L.L.C.,
`PGR2016-00037, Paper No. 10 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 2017) ................................. 49
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Pebble Tide, LLC,
`PGR2020-00011, Paper No. 12 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 7, 2020) .............................. 20, 21
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Avaya Inc.,
`No. 6:15-CV-1168-JRG, 2017 WL 2882725 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 19,
`2017) ................................................................................................................... 63
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Sega of Am., Inc.,
`711 Fed. Appx. 986 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .................................................................... 5
`Vectra Fitness, Inc. v. TNWK Corp.,
`162 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .......................................................................... 18
`X2Y Attenuators, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`757 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................ 6
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 101 .................................................................................................passim
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................ 53
`35 U.S.C. § 112 .................................................................................................... 7, 63
`35 U.S.C. § 253(a) ................................................................................................... 18
`35 U.S.C. § 324(a) ............................................................................................passim
`35 U.S.C. § 325(e)(2) ............................................................................................... 58
`35 U.S.C. § 326(a)(11) ............................................................................................. 60
`
`vii
`
`

`

`PGR2021-00028
`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a) ................................................................................................. 18
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ............................................................................................ 6
`37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(3) ............................................................................................ 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.207(e) ................................................................................... 18, 20, 22
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`PGR2021-00028
`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`Merriam-Webster definition of “denial”
`
`Statutory Disclaimer Filed Under 35 U.S.C. § 253(a) and 37
`C.F.R. § 1.321(a)
`
`USPTO § 101 Rejection in Application No. 13/853,937, dated
`October 15, 2014
`
`Order Setting a Scheduling Conference for May 12, 2021 in
`RFCyber Corp. v. Google LLC, et al., No. 2:20-cv-0274- JRG,
`Dkt. 45 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 20, 2021)
`
`Scheduling Order in Mad Dogg Athletics, Inc. v. Peloton
`Interactive, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-00382-JRG, Dkt. 43 (E.D. Tex.
`Mar. 31, 2021)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`

`PGR2021-00028
`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`
`I.
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`On December 23, 2020, Google LLC (“Petitioner”) filed a petition
`
`requesting post-grant review of claims 1-17 (“challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 10,600,046 (GOOG-1001, “’046 Patent”). Paper 1. (“Petition” or “Pet.”). The
`
`Declaration of Stephen Gray (GOOG-1003, “Gray Declaration”) accompanied the
`
`Petition. On January 25, 2021, the Board issued a Notice of Filing Date Accorded
`
`for the post-grant petition and set the time for filing patent owner’s preliminary
`
`response. Paper 6.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner respectfully submits that Google has not shown that it is more
`
`likely than not that the ’046 Patent is eligible for post-grant review. In particular,
`
`each claim has an effective filing date prior to March 16, 2013 because all of the
`
`limitations Google identifies are fully described in the Provisional Application,
`
`which has a filing date of April 1, 2012. Accordingly, the Board should deny
`
`institution.
`
`
`
`However, even if the Board determines that the ’046 Patent is eligible for
`
`post-grant review, the Board should still deny institution because each of the
`
`limitations Google identifies are described in the ’046 Patent specification itself.
`
`Moreover, the claims of the ’046 Patent are not directed to an abstract idea and
`
`contain inventive concepts. Indeed, despite its arguments in the Petition, Google
`
`1
`
`

`

`PGR2021-00028
`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`
`did not file a § 101 motion in the pending District Court litigation.
`
`
`
`Finally, the Board should exercise its discretion and deny Google’s Petition
`
`in view of 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). The Court in the pending Eastern District of Texas
`
`litigation between Google and Patent Owner with respect to the ’046 Patent (“the
`
`Texas Action”) recently set a scheduling conference for May 12, 2021. The same
`
`Court’s most recently-issued scheduling orders for patent cases, issued after a
`
`March 12, 2021 scheduling conference, set trial in December 2021. The Court
`
`thus will likely set trial in February 2021 for the Texas Action, long before the
`
`projected statutory date for a Final Written Decision on this Petition. Google has
`
`not requested that the Court stay the Texas Action, and the practice and precedent
`
`of the Eastern District shows that no stay would be granted. Instituting will thus
`
`waste numerous party and Board resources to reach decisions on issues that will be
`
`decided by the District Court.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, the Board should deny the Petition.
`
`II. THE ’046 PATENT
`A. The ’046 Patent’s Priority Chain
`The ’046 Patent is a continuation of Application No. 13/853,937 (the “’937
`
`
`
`Application”), which issued as U.S. Patent No. 9,047,601. The ’937 Application is
`
`a continuation-in-part of Application No. 13/350,832 (the “’832 Application”),
`
`2
`
`

`

`PGR2021-00028
`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`
`filed on Jan. 16, 2012, which is a continuation-in-part of Application No.
`
`11/534,653, which issued as U.S. Patent No. 8,118,218.
`
`
`
`The ’046 Patent further claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No.
`
`61/618,802 (the “’802 Provisional”), which was filed on April 1, 2012.
`
`The ’046 Patent’s Disclosure
`B.
`The ’046 Patent describes methods and apparatuses for secure contactless
`
`
`
`payment using mobile devices. The inventors, Xiangzhen Xie, Liang Seng Koh,
`
`and Hsin Pan, recognized that existing payment methods were inefficient and time-
`
`consuming:
`
`For many credit or debit card transactions, the payment process is
`started by a customer asking for a bill when checking out a purchase.
`A cashier or service member brings a bill to the customer for
`verification. The customer then hands out a credit/debit card to the
`service member. The service member brings the card to a Point of
`Sales (POS) counter to initiate a transaction payment. The service
`member then brings back a receipt to the customer for signature to
`authorize the transaction. It is a lengthy process that typically takes a
`couple of minutes or much longer when the service member has to
`take care of multiple payment transactions at a time. In addition, in the
`case for the debit card transactions, the process may be even more
`troublesome when a PIN is needed to authorize the transaction at the
`POS.
`
`3
`
`

`

`PGR2021-00028
`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`
`’046 Patent at 1:25-39. The inventors realized that the growing ubiquity of
`
`personal mobile devices allowed for the use of those devices in sales transactions:
`
`With the advancement in mobile devices, it is anticipated that many
`
`consumers will carry one with them. Thus there is an opportunity of
`
`using a mobile device to quickly settle the payment at a point of sale
`
`(POS).
`
`Id. at 1:40-44.
`
`
`
`The inventors of the ’046 Patent designed an apparatus and method for using
`
`mobile devices to quickly and efficiently settle payments:
`
`The present invention is related to techniques for mobile devices
`configured to support settlement of charges in electronic invoices or
`bills. According to one aspect of the present invention, a mobile
`device embedded with a secure element generates or is loaded with an
`electronic invoice. When the mobile device is brought to a consumer
`with an NFC mobile device, the data including the electronic invoice
`and other information regarding the mobile device or an owner thereof
`is read off wirelessly into the NFC mobile device. After the user
`verifies the amount being charged and authorizes the payment, the
`NFC mobile device communicates with a payment gateway or
`network for payment that is configured to proceed with the payment
`in accordance with a chosen payment method.
`
`4
`
`

`

`PGR2021-00028
`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`
`Id. at 1:54-67.
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`For the purposes of this Preliminary Response only, Patent Owner uses
`
`Google’s proposed level of skill in the art: bachelor’s degree in computer science,
`
`computer engineering, or an equivalent, and one year of professional experience
`
`relating to mobile payment technology. Lack of professional experience could be
`
`remedied by additional education, and vice versa. Pet. at 26-27.
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A. The Petition Should be Denied Because it Fails to Provide
`a Claim Construction Necessary to Resolve the Issues
`Before the Board
`The Board’s Rules require that Petitioner “must identify: . . . [h]ow the
`
`
`
`challenged claim is to be construed.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(3). Here, Google
`
`states, without substantive discussion, that “[n]o terms require construction to
`
`determine that claims 1-17 are invalid under §§ 112(a) and 101.” Pet. at 25-26.
`
`But to determine whether the claims have support—in either the pre-AIA
`
`applications or the as-filed specification of the ’046 Patent—the claims must be
`
`construed. In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Pat. Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1319
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim construction is inherent in any written description
`
`analysis.”); Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Sega of Am., Inc., 711 Fed. Appx. 986, 990 (Fed.
`
`5
`
`

`

`PGR2021-00028
`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`
`Cir. 2017) (“When determining priority, the Board must first construe the relevant
`
`claim terms.”). Google’s failure to provide a construction infects its written
`
`description arguments—indeed, as discussed below, Google’s arguments regarding
`
`multiple limitations are based solely on the alleged lack of particular words in the
`
`relevant specifications, and not an analysis of what those specifications disclose to
`
`one of ordinary skill. Accordingly, Google’s failure to offer any construction in
`
`this proceeding is fatal to the Petition, and the Board should deny institution. See
`
`X2Y Attenuators, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 757 F.3d 1358, 1365 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2014) (“Where the claims have not been properly construed, the full scope of the
`
`claim is unknown, thereby rendering baseless any determination of written support
`
`in an earlier patent.”).
`
`The Board has dealt with similar issues, in an IPR context, before. In
`
`Orthopediatrics Corp. v. K2M, Inc., IPR2018-01548, Paper 9, at 10 (P.T.A.B. Mar.
`
`1, 2019), the Board denied institution because Petitioner failed to provide a claim
`
`construction on a key term. There, Petitioner had proposed no construction for a
`
`term that it had argued in District Court was a means-plus-function term. (Id. at 9-
`
`10.) Because construing the term was necessary to resolve the issues before the
`
`Board, failure to provide a construction meant the Petition failed to comply with 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). (Id.)
`
`6
`
`

`

`PGR2021-00028
`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`
`
`The situation here is similar; given the well-established law that claim
`
`construction is necessary to determine written description, “Petitioner should have
`
`known” that the construction of the terms below was “likely to be at issue in this
`
`proceeding.” Orthopediatrics, IPR2018-01548, Paper 9, at 10. Accordingly,
`
`Google should have provided a claim construction or provided reasons why the
`
`term needs no construction. Id.
`
`By failing to set forth a construction for “payment gateway” and “displaying
`
`a denial,” the Petition cannot show how the challenged claims are to be construed
`
`and, therefore, cannot show how they lack support under 35 U.S.C. § 112 in the
`
`pre-AIA applications. Accordingly, Google has not shown that the ’046 Patent is
`
`eligible for post-grant review, and the Petition should be denied.
`
`B.
`Term
`
`“payment gateway”
`Petitioner Construction
`
`Patent Owner Construction
`
`“payment gateway”
`
`None provided
`
`“a server or collection of
`
`servers for settling a
`
`payment”
`
`
`
`The term “payment gateway” appears in claims 1 and 12. Neither Google
`
`nor its expert offers any analysis of the meaning of this term. See Pet. at 25-26;
`
`Gray Declaration, ¶¶ 63-67. Similarly, neither Google nor its expert present the
`
`7
`
`

`

`PGR2021-00028
`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`
`term as having a plain and ordinary meaning to one of skill in the art.
`
`
`
`The ’046 Patent explicitly defines “payment gateway” as “a gateway
`
`provided for settling a payment, the gateway may include a server or collection of
`
`servers.” ’046 Patent at 3:8-10. Accordingly, “payment gateway” should be
`
`construed as “a server or collection of servers for settling a payment.”
`
`C.
`Term
`
`“displaying a denial”
`Petitioner Construction
`
`Patent Owner Construction
`
`“displaying a denial” None provided
`
`“displaying a message
`
`indicating that the
`
`transaction cannot proceed”
`
`
`
`
`The term “displaying a denial” appears in claim 1. Neither Google nor its
`
`expert offers any analysis of the meaning of this term. See Pet. at 25-26; Gray
`
`Declaration, ¶¶ 63-67. Similarly, neither Google nor its expert present the term as
`
`having a plain and ordinary meaning to one of skill in the art.
`
`
`
`The plain meaning of denial is a “refusal to satisfy a request or desire”. See
`
`Ex. 2001 ([m-w.com] defining “denial” as “refusal to satisfy a request or desire.”).
`
`The ’046 Patent specification further explains that the denial or rejection indicates
`
`that the transaction cannot proceed without user input. ’046 Patent at 8:9-13
`
`(“Upon receiving the rejection, the bill application in the mobile device displays
`
`8
`
`

`

`PGR2021-00028
`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`
`the rejection to get attention from the consumer so that an appropriate step may be
`
`taken to proceed with the payment.”). Because it must be displayed, the denial
`
`must also be a displayable message. Thus, a “denial” within the meaning of the
`
`’046 Patent is a message indicating to the user that the transaction cannot be
`
`completed. “Displaying a denial” is therefore “displaying a message indicating
`
`that the transaction cannot proceed.”
`
`V. THE ’046 PATENT IS INELIGIBLE FOR POST-GRANT
`REVIEW
`Each claim of the ’046 Patent has an effective filing date prior to March 16,
`
`
`
`2013. Accordingly, the ’046 Patent is not eligible for post-grant review. E.g., One
`
`World Techs., Inc. v. Chervon (HK) Ltd., PGR2020-00061, Paper 16 at 10
`
`(P.T.A.B. Dec. 7, 2020).
`
`
`
`Google does not allege that the ’046 Patent failed to meet any formalities
`
`required to claim priority. Pet. at 17. Instead, Google argues that the following
`
`limitations are unsupported in any of the pre-AIA applications, rendering the ’046
`
`Patent eligible for PGR:
`
`- “displaying a denial” as recited in claim 1
`
`- “wherein the data further includes security information about the merchant
`
`associated with the POS device, the security information includes an account
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`and bank information of the registered merchant” as recited in claims 6 and
`
`PGR2021-00028
`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`15
`
`Pet. at 17-24.
`
`
`
`Google further argues that the following limitations are unsupported in the
`
`’046 Patent’s specification, and that that alleged lack of support renders the ’046
`
`Patent eligible for PGR:
`
`- “sending the payment request to the payment gateway, wherein the balance
`
`is sufficient to honor the payment request” as recited in claim 1;
`
`- “displaying a confirmation in the mobile device that the balance in the e-
`
`purse has been reduced by the total amount” as recited in claim 1;
`
`- “the payment request is sent to a payment gateway when the amount is less
`
`than a balance of an electronic purse (e-purse) maintained locally in the
`
`mobile device” as recited in claim 12; and
`
`- “wherein the payment gateway is configured to cause the balance in the e-
`
`purse reduced by the amount” as recited in claim 12.
`
`Pet. at 25, 34-58. Google is wrong. As discussed below, each of the limitations, as
`
`properly construed, is described in the pre-AIA applications. Indeed, the Examiner
`
`did not issue a single rejection or objection for lack of written description support
`
`during prosecution of the ’046 Patent. See generally GOOG-1002. Moreover, the
`
`10
`
`

`

`PGR2021-00028
`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`
`Examiner treated the application as a pre-AIA application. Id. at 622-23. Google
`
`does not address these points.
`
`A. Legal Standard for Written Description
`Google bears the burden of proving that it is more likely than not that the
`
`
`
`’046 Patent is eligible for post-grant review, and thus the burden of showing that
`
`’046 Patent is not entitled to a pre-March 16, 2013 priority date. Shieldmark, Inc.
`
`v. Lowe, PGR2019-00058, Paper No. 8 at 7 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 9, 2020) (“To establish
`
`that the ʼ664 patent is eligible for post-grant review, Petitioner has the burden of
`
`demonstrating that it is more likely than not that the ʼ664 patent has at least one
`
`claim with an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013.”). “In particular,
`
`Petitioner must prove that at least one of the challenged claims of the ’144 patent
`
`was not disclosed in compliance with the written description and enablement
`
`requirements of § 112(a) in the earlier application for which the benefit of an
`
`earlier filing date prior to March 16, 2013 was sought.” Instrumentation Lab. Co.
`
`v. Hemosonics LLC, PGR2019-00047, Paper No. 8 at 8 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 24, 2019)
`
`(internal quotations and citation omitted).
`
`“[T]he test for sufficiency of support in a parent application is whether the
`
`disclosure of the application relied upon ‘reasonably conveys to the artisan that the
`
`inventor had possession at that time of the later claimed subject matter.’” Martek
`
`11
`
`

`

`PGR2021-00028
`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`
`Biosciences Corp. v. Nutrinova, Inc., 579 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
`
`(quoting Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co, Inc., 772 F.2d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1985)). If the parent application provides sufficient written description support for
`
`the claims, then the claims are entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the parent
`
`application. Id. (citing Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1997).) “We have made clear that the written description requirement does
`
`not demand either examples or an actual reduction to practice; a constructive
`
`reduction to practice that in a definite way identifies the claimed invention can
`
`satisfy the written description requirement.” Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly &
`
`Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The written description need
`
`not use the exact words of the claim. Cordis Corp. v. Medtronic AVE, Inc., 339
`
`F.3d 1352, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“The disclosure as originally filed does not,
`
`however, have to provide in haec verba support for the claimed subject matter at
`
`issue.”).
`
`B.
`
`The “Displaying a denial” Step of Claim 1 is Supported in
`the ’832 Application and the ’802 Provisional
`The ’802 Provisional was filed on April 1, 2012 (prior to March 13, 2013)
`
`
`
`and describes an example purchasing process using the claimed invention in Fig.
`
`6C and paragraph [00136]:
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`PGR2021-00028
`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`GOOG