PGR2021-00029
`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. PGR2021-00029
`
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`PGR2021-00029
`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`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 ..............................................10
`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 6-11 and 15-16
`and No PGR May Be Instituted Based on Those Claims .........18
`The Limitation Was Disclosed in the ’802 Provisional
`Application ................................................................................22
`The pre-AIA Applications Describe “wherein the payment
`gateway is configured to cause the balance in the e-purse
`reduced by the amount” .......................................................................23
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`2.
`
`i
`
`

`

`PGR2021-00029
`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`1.
`2.
`
`The ’802 Provisional Describes the Limitation on Page 3 .......24
`The ’802 Provisional Describes this Limitation in its
`Appendix ...................................................................................27
`Conclusion ...........................................................................................33
`E.
`VI. THE MOSHAL REFERENCE IS NOT PRIOR ART TO ANY
`CLAIMS OF THE ’046 PATENT.................................................................33
`VII. THE PETITION SHOULD BE DENIED IN THE DISCRETION OF
`THE DIRECTOR UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 324(A) ...........................................34
`A.
`The Parallel District Court Litigation and the Petition Involve
`the Same Parties ..................................................................................36
`The District Court Litigation Involves the Same Claims and
`the Same Arguments ...........................................................................36
`These Issues Will be Resolved Before the Board Has an
`Opportunity to Enter a Written Decision ............................................37
`Significant Investment and Petitioner’s Delay in Filing the
`Petition .................................................................................................39
`No Stay of the Parallel District Court Litigation ................................40
`E.
`Other Factors Favor Denial .................................................................41
`F.
`VIII. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................41
`
`
`D.
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`PGR2021-00029
`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Google LLC,
`No. 2:19-cv-00361-JRG, 2021 WL 465424 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 9,
`2021) ................................................................................................................... 40
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2020) ............................. 34, 35, 37
`Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) .......................................................... 11
`Axon Enter., Inc. v. Dig. Ally, Inc.,
`PGR2018-00052, Paper No. 8 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 1, 2018) ............................... 18, 20
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Ramot at Tel Aviv Univ. Ltd.,
`IPR2020-00122, Paper 15 (P.T.A.B. May 15, 2020) ......................................... 38
`Cordis Corp. v. Medtronic AVE, Inc.,
`339 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .............................................................. 12, 13, 14
`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)........................................... 36
`Genetics Inst., LLC v. Novartis Vaccines & Diagnostics, Inc.,
`655 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .................................................................... 18, 21
`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
`
`iii
`
`

`

`PGR2021-00029
`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`
`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) .......................................................................... 11
`Mad Dogg Athletics, Inc. v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.,
`No. 2:20-cv-00382-JRG, Dkt. 43 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 31, 2021) ............................ 37
`Martek Biosciences Corp. v. Nutrinova, Inc.,
`579 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................................................... 11
`Next Caller Inc. v. TrustID, Inc.,
`IPR2019-00961, -00962, Paper 10, at 8-16 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 16,
`2019) ................................................................................................................... 38
`NHK Spring Co. v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc.,
`IPR2018-00752, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 12, 2018)........................................... 36
`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) .......................................................................... 11
`RetailMeNot, Inc. v. Honey Sci. Corp.,
`PGR2019-00060, Paper No. 17 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 10, 2020) .......................... 20, 21
`RFCyber Corp. v. Google LLC, et al.,
`No. 2:20-cv-00274-JRG (E.D. Tex.) .................................................................. 34
`Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC,
`IPR2019-01218, Paper 7 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 7, 2020) .............................................. 38
`Shieldmark, Inc. v. Lowe,
`PGR2019-00058, Paper No. 8 at 7 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 9, 2020) .............................. 10
`Supercell Oy v. Gree, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00513, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. June 24, 2020) ......................................... 39
`
`iv
`
`

`

`PGR2021-00029
`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`
`Supercell OY v. Gree, Inc.,
`PGR2020-00039, Paper No. 14 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 14, 2020) ................................ 35
`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-01168-JRG, 2017 WL 2882725 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 19,
`2017) ................................................................................................................... 41
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Sega of Am., Inc.,
`711 Fed. Appx. 986 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .................................................................... 6
`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. § 102(a)(2) ............................................................................................... 33
`35 U.S.C. §112 ........................................................................................................... 7
`35 U.S.C. § 253(a) ................................................................................................... 18
`35 U.S.C. §324(a) .............................................................................................passim
`35 U.S.C. §325(e)(2) ................................................................................................ 37
`35 U.S.C. § 326(a)(11) ............................................................................................. 38
`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, 21
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`PGR2021-00029
`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`Merriam-Webster definition of “denial”
`
`Statutory Disclaimer Filed Under 35 U.S.C. § 253(a) and 37
`C.F.R. § 1.321(a)
`
`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)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`I.
`
`PGR2021-00029
`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`INTRODUCTION
`On December 23, 2020, Google LLC (“Petitioner” or “Google”) 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 based on limitations of certain claims, the Board should
`
`nevertheless deny institution because Google’s primary reference, U.S. Patent
`
`Publ. No. 2014/0310117 (GOOG-1005, “Moshal”), is not prior art to the claims of
`
`the ’046 Patent. As shown below, claims 1 and 12 of the ’046 Patent each properly
`
`claim priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Appl. No. 61/618,802 (“the ’802
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`Provisional”) and therefore have effective filing dates of April 1, 2012, the ’802
`
`PGR2021-00029
`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`Provisional’s filing date, which predates Moshal’s Nov. 12, 2012 prior art date.
`
`Each of Google’s Grounds relies on Moshal as its primary reference.
`
`
`
`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 2022 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, Google cannot show that it is more likely than not that any
`
`claim of the ’046 Patent is unpatentable, and the Board should deny institution.
`
`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
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`Application”), which issued as U.S. Patent No. 9,047,601. The ’937 Application is
`
`PGR2021-00029
`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`a continuation-in-part of Application No. 13/350,832 (the “’832 Application”),
`
`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 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
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`PGR2021-00029
`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`troublesome when a PIN is needed to authorize the transaction at the
`POS.
`
`GOOG-1001 (the “’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
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`PGR2021-00029
`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`network for payment that is configured to proceed with the payment
`in accordance with a chosen payment method.
`
`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 22.
`
`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 requires 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 of any term other than “e-purse,” that “All
`
`terms should have their plain and ordinary meaning.” (Pet. at 20-22.)
`
`
`
`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
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`analysis.”); Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Sega of Am., Inc., 711 Fed. Appx. 986, 990 (Fed.
`
`PGR2021-00029
`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
`
`

`

`The situation here is similar; given the well-established law that claim
`
`PGR2021-00029
`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`
`
`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 the terms below, 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 20-22;
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`Gray Declaration, ¶¶ 63-67. Similarly, neither Google nor its expert present the
`
`PGR2021-00029
`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 20-22; 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 (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
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`receiving the rejection, the bill application in the mobile device displays the
`
`PGR2021-00029
`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`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; and
`
`- “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
`
`PGR2021-00029
`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`
`
`15.
`
`Pet. at 9-15.
`
`
`
`Google further argues that the following limitation is unsupported in the
`
`’046 Patent’s specification, and that that alleged lack of support renders the ’046
`
`Patent eligible for PGR:
`
`- “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 16-20. 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
`
`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
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`demonstrating that it is more likely than not that the ʼ664 patent has at least one
`
`PGR2021-00029
`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`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
`
`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 &
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The written description need
`
`PGR2021-00029
`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`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
`
`

`

`
`
`PGR2021-00029
`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`GOOG-1030 (the “’802 Provisional”) Fig. 6C
`
`
`
`
`
`At step 656 of the Fig. 6C process, the process verifies whether there is
`
`enough balance in the e-token to cover the amount. Id., Fig. 6C, [0136] (“[T]he
`
`process 650 following the ‘yes’ branch to 656, in which it is determined whether
`
`there is enough balance in the retrieved e-token to cover the cost of the current
`
`transaction.”) If there is not enough balance, the application describes offering the
`
`holder the option to “top-up” the e-token. Id. (“If the result is ‘no’ at 656, the
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`process 650 may optionally offer the holder to top-up (i.e., load, fund, finance) the
`
`PGR2021-00029
`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`e-token at 657.”) If the holder chooses not to top up, the process ends.
`
`
`
`One of skill in the art would recognize that offering to top-up the e-token to
`
`cover the amount is “displaying a denial.” First, the process does not offer the
`
`option if the balance is sufficient; instead, the process only offers the top-up option
`
`if the balance is too low to cover the amount and will not proceed absent the top-
`
`up. One of skill in the art would understand that the top-up option is thus a denial,
`
`because the transaction will not proceed without the top-up. Id. (“If ‘no’ [to the
`
`top-up], the process 650 ends.”) Further, the option must necessarily be displayed
`
`because the holder must provide a selection (yes or no). One of skill in the art
`
`would understand, as Google admits, that the option is displayed. Pet. at 18. The
`
`relevant portions of Fig. 6C and paragraph [0136] are also found in the ’832
`
`Application (GOOG-1029) and the ’046 Patent. ’832 Application at Fig. 6C,
`
`[0174]; ’046 Patent at Fig. 6C, 20:4-51.
`
`
`
`The ’802 Provisional provides a similar description of displaying a denial in
`
`Fig. 6D and [0139].
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`PGR2021-00029
`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`
`
`Figure 6D does not explicitly show the top-up offer. However, the
`
`
`
`accompanying explanation states that “when there is not enough balance in the e-
`
`token enabled device, a top-up or funding operation may be performed using the
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`process 400 illustrated in FIG. 4A and FIG. 4B.” Id. at [00139]. One of skill in
`
`PGR2021-00029
`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`the art, reading paragraph [0139] in conjunction with paragraph [0136], would
`
`understand that, as with Fig. 6C, the process of Fig. 6D must display the top-up
`
`offer so that the user can select yes or no. Further, the top-up offer of Fig. 6D
`
`would similarly act as a denial because the transaction ends if the top-up is not
`
`accepted. See Fig. 6D (showing that if there is not enough balance at step 674, the
`
`process ends); [0139]. The relevant portions of Fig. 6D and paragraph [00139] are
`
`also found in the ’832 Application at Fig. 6D, [0177] and the ’046 Patent at Fig.
`
`6D, 21:15-22:2.
`
`
`
`Google does not substantively address either of the Fig. 6C or 6D processes,
`
`and its failure to provide a construction for “displaying a denial” is fatal to the
`
`Petition. Pet. at 9-13. With respect to Fig. 6C, Google admits that the top-up
`
`option is displayed, but states (providing no analysis or evidence) that the option is
`
`not a denial. Pet. at 10 (“In the embodiment of Figure 6C, shown below, when the
`
`balance is insufficient at step 656, the process displays an option to ‘top-up’ the
`
`balance, but does not display a denial.”) As shown above, the top-up option is a
`
`denial, and Google provides no evidence otherwise nor explains how the top-up
`
`option fails to meet any construction of “denial.” Id. With respect to Fig. 6D,
`
`Google merely states that “[n]o denial is displayed in the mobile device.” Id. at
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`11-12. Google does not address paragraph [0177]’s explicit description of a top-up
`
`PGR2021-00029
`PATENT NO. 10,600,046
`
`option.
`
`
`
`Google further conclusorily states, citing no evidence, that the denials of
`
`Fig. 6C and 6D cannot meet the claims because those Figures do not explicitly call
`
`out verifying the balance against the purchase amount plus an optional gratuity.
`
`Pet. at 11-12. One of skill in the art would understand that the Figures 6C and 6D
`
`processes operate for any purchase amount (and Google does not suggest that
`
`adding a gratuity is unsupported). Moreover, the ’802 Provisional explicitly
`
`describes a payment amount “includi