`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`———————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`———————
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`RFCYBER CORP.,
`Patent Owner
`
`———————
`
`PGR2021-00029
`U.S. Patent No. 10,600,046
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`
`(§ 103)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,600,046 (§ 103)
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................... 1
`
`A. Real Party-in-Interest................................................................................ 1
`
`B. Related Matters ......................................................................................... 1
`
`C. Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information .............................. 2
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING .......................................................................... 3
`
`IV. THE ’046 PATENT ........................................................................................... 3
`
`A. Overview of the ’046 Patent ..................................................................... 3
`
`B. Prosecution History .................................................................................. 6
`
`V. THE ’046 PATENT IS ELIGIBLE FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW ................ 6
`
`A. The ’046 Patent’s Broken Priority Chain Creates PGR Eligibility. ......... 7
`
`1. The “displaying a denial” step in claim 1 lacks written
`
`description support in the pre-AIA applications. ............................. 9
`
`2. The “account and bank information of the registered
`
`merchant” limitation in claims 6 and 15 lacks written
`
`description support in the pre-AIA applications. ........................... 13
`
`B. The ’046 Patent’s lack of written description for subject matter
`
`added by amendment creates PGR eligibility. ....................................... 16
`
`1. The specification does not describe a payment gateway
`
`configured to cause the balance in the e-purse to be
`
`reduced, as required by claim 12. .................................................. 16
`– ii –
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,600,046 (§ 103)
`
`
`
`C. Summary of Effective Filing Dates ........................................................ 20
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION.............................................................................20
`
`A.
`
`“e-purse” ................................................................................................. 20
`
`VII. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .............................................22
`
`VIII. RELIEF REQUESTED AND THE REASONS FOR THE REQUESTED
`
`RELIEF ....................................................................................................................23
`
`IX. IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGES ........................................................23
`
`X. THE BOARD SHOULD INSTITUTE POST-GRANT REVIEW .................24
`
`A. The challenges presented in this petition are not cumulative to
`
`prosecution of the ’046 Patent ................................................................ 24
`
`B. The Fintiv factors favor institution ......................................................... 25
`
`1.
`
`Factor 1 is neutral (possibility of a stay). ....................................... 25
`
`2.
`
`Factor 2 favors institution (proximity of trial date to final
`
`written decision). ............................................................................ 27
`
`3.
`
`Factor 3 favors institution (investment in parallel
`
`proceeding). .................................................................................... 28
`
`4.
`
`Factor 4 favors institution (overlap in issues). ............................... 28
`
`5.
`
`Factor 5 is neutral (overlap in parties). .......................................... 29
`
`6.
`
`Factor 6 favors institution (other circumstances). .......................... 29
`
`XI. IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE ......29
`
`
`
`– iii –
`
`
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,600,046 (§ 103)
`
`A. Challenge #1: Claims 1-5 and 12-14 are rendered obvious by
`
`Moshal in view of Jogu and Dessert. ..................................................... 30
`
`1. Overview of Moshal ....................................................................... 30
`
`2. Overview of Jogu ........................................................................... 33
`
`3. Overview of Dessert ....................................................................... 40
`
`4. Motivation to Modify Moshal with Jogu and Dessert ................... 42
`
`a. A POSITA would have been motivated to modify Moshal to
`
`include a local balance verification, as taught by Jogu. ......... 43
`
`b. A POSITA would have been motivated to modify Moshal so
`
`the payment gateway reduces the e-wallet balance of the
`
`mobile device, and the mobile device displays the updated
`
`balance. ................................................................................... 48
`
`c. A POSITA would have been motivated to modify Moshal to
`
`utilize different types of conventional, machine-readable tags.
`
` ................................................................................................. 57
`
`5. Analysis .......................................................................................... 61
`
`a. Claim 1 .................................................................................... 62
`
`b. Claim 2 .................................................................................. 108
`
`c. Claim 4 .................................................................................. 109
`
`d. Claim 5 .................................................................................. 111
`
`e. Claim 12 ................................................................................ 116
`
`f. Claim 13 ................................................................................ 132
`
`– iv –
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,600,046 (§ 103)
`
`
`
`g. Claims 3 and 14 .................................................................... 132
`
`B. Challenge #2: Claims 6, 15, and 16 are rendered obvious by Moshal
`
`in view of Jogu, Dessert, and Ohlhausen ............................................. 135
`
`1. Claim 6 ......................................................................................... 135
`
`2. Claim 16 ....................................................................................... 138
`
`C. Challenge #3: Claims 7-11 and 17 are rendered obvious by Moshal
`
`in view of Jogu, Dessert, Ohlhausen, and Aabye ................................. 140
`
`1. Overview of Aabye ...................................................................... 140
`
`2. Claim 7 ......................................................................................... 143
`
`3. Claim 8 ......................................................................................... 150
`
`4. Claims 9 and 17 ............................................................................ 155
`
`5. Claim 10 ....................................................................................... 155
`
`6. Claim 11 ....................................................................................... 157
`
`XII. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................159
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`– v –
`
`
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,600,046 (§ 103)
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`GOOG-1001 U.S. Patent No. 10,600,046 to Xie et al. (“’046 Patent”)
`GOOG-1002 Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 10,600,046 (“’046 PH”)
`GOOG-1003 Declaration of Mr. Stephen Gray under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`GOOG-1004 Curriculum Vitae of Mr. Gray
`GOOG-1005 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0310117 to Moshal
`(“Moshal”)
`GOOG-1006 Verified English Language Translation of Japanese Patent No.
`4901053 B2 (“Jogu”)
`GOOG-1007 U.S. Patent No. 9,027,827 to Dessert et al. (“Dessert”)
`GOOG-1008 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0365371 to
`Ohlhausen (“Ohlhausen”)
`GOOG-1009 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0211507 to Aabye et
`al. (“Aabye”)
`GOOG-1010 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0297381 to Park
`(“Park”)
`GOOG-1011 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0066550 to Shank et
`al. (“Shank”)
`GOOG-1012 U.S. Patent No. 8,170,527 to Granucci (“Granucci”)
`GOOG-1013 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0166448 to
`Narayanan (“Narayanan”)
`GOOG-1014 Japanese Patent No. 4901053 B2 to Jogu
`GOOG-1015 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0173060 to Gallagher
`(“Gallagher”)
`GOOG-1016 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0048717 to Brendell
`et al.
`GOOG-1017 U.S. Patent No. 9,202,330 to Boucher (“Boucher”)
`GOOG-1018 Mifare in Action, Card Technology Today (Mar. 2003)
`GOOG-1019 U.S. Patent No. 7,890,371 to Chao
`GOOG-1020 U.S. Patent No. 10,380,573 to Lin
`GOOG-1021 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0094123 to Killian
`GOOG-1022 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0174650 to Nonaka
`
`– vi –
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,600,046 (§ 103)
`
`GOOG-1023 Reserved
`GOOG-1024 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0296819 to Lu
`GOOG-1025 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0287095 to Ueno
`(“Ueno”)
`GOOG-1026 Comparison (not including figures) of the specification of U.S.
`Application No. 13/350,832 (as published in U.S. Patent
`Application Publication No. 2012/0130838) and the specification of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,047,601
`GOOG-1027 Comparison (not including figures) of the specification of U.S.
`Provisional No. 61/618,802 and the specification of U.S. Patent
`9,047,601
`GOOG-1028 U.S. Patent No. 8,118,218 (“the ʼ218 Patent”)
`GOOG-1029 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0130838 (publication
`of U.S. Application 13/350,832) (“the ʼ832 application”)
`GOOG-1030 U.S. Provisional No. 61/618,802
`GOOG-1031 U.S. Patent 9,047,601 (“the ʼ601 Patent”)
`GOOG-1032 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0246258
`GOOG-1033 U.S. Patent No. 8,601,266
`GOOG-1034 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0211504
`GOOG-1035 Petri Vuorinen, Applying the RFID technology for field force
`solution (Oct. 2005), available at
`https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/1107548.1107564
`GOOG-1036 Carol L. Clark, Shopping without cash: The emergence of the e-
`purse, Economic Perspectives (2005) (“Shopping without cash”)
`GOOG-1037 History of Money and Payments,
`https://squareup.com/us/en/townsquare/history-of-money-and-
`payments
`GOOG-1038 Reserved
`GOOG-1039 PayPal, Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/topic/PayPal
`GOOG-1040 U.S. Patent No. 7,597,250
`GOOG-1041 Complaint for Patent Infringement, RFCyber Corp. v. Google LLC
`et al., 2:20-cv-00274 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 21, 2020)
`
`– vii –
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,600,046 (§ 103)
`
`GOOG-1042 Affidavits of Service in RFCyber Corp. v. Google LLC et al., 2:20-
`cv-00274 (E.D. Tex.)
`GOOG-1043 Infernal Technology, LLC v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC,
`No. 2:19-cv-249, ECF No. 261 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 20, 2020)
`GOOG-1044 Ramot at Tel Aviv Univ. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., No. 2:19-cv-225, ECF
`No. 203 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 20, 2020)
`GOOG-1045 Solas Oled Ltd. v. Samsung Display Co., Ltd., No. 2:19-cv-152,
`ECF No. 302 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 20, 2020)
`
`– viii –
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,600,046 (§ 103)
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Google LLC (“Petitioner”) respectfully requests that the Board review and
`
`cancel as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 claims 1-17 (“challenged claims”) of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,600,046 (“the ’046 Patent,” GOOG-1001).
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`
`The real parties-in-interest are Google LLC1 and Google Payment Corp.
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2), to the best knowledge of the Petitioner,
`
`the ’046 Patent is or was involved in the following cases (“Related Litigation”):
`
`Case Heading
`
`Number
`
`Court
`
`Filed
`
`RFCyber Corp. v. Google LLC et al. 2:20-cv-00274 EDTX Aug. 21, 2020
`RFCyber Corp. v. LG Electronics,
`2:20-cv-00336 EDTX Oct. 16, 2020
`Inc.
`RFCyber Corp. v. Samsung
`Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.
`
`
`2:20-cv-00335 EDTX Oct. 16, 2020
`
`
`
`1 Google LLC is a subsidiary of XXVI Holdings Inc., which is a subsidiary of
`
`Alphabet Inc. XXVI Holdings Inc. and Alphabet Inc. are not real parties in interest
`
`to this proceeding.
`
`
`
`– 1 –
`
`
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,600,046 (§ 103)
`
`
`
`Petitioner is also concurrently filing a petition for post-grant review of the
`
`’046 Patent that challenges claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 112(a) and 101
`
`(PGR2021-00028).
`
`C. Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information
`
`Lead Counsel
`Andrew S. Ehmke
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Scott T. Jarratt
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`Jonathan R. Bowser
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`Angela M. Oliver
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`
`Phone: (214) 651-5116
`Fax: (214) 200-0853
`andy.ehmke.ipr@haynesboone.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 50,271
`
`
`Phone: (972) 739-8663
`Fax: (214) 200-0853
`scott.jarratt.ipr@haynesboone.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 70,297
`
`Phone: (202) 654-4503
`Fax: (214) 200-0853
`jon.bowser.ipr@haynesboone.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 54, 574
`
`Phone: (202) 654-4552
`Fax: (214) 200-0853
`angela.oliver.ipr@haynesboone.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 73,271
`
`
`Please address all correspondence to lead and back-up counsel. Petitioner
`
`consents to electronic service via email.
`
`– 2 –
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,600,046 (§ 103)
`
`
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’046 Patent is eligible for post-grant review
`
`because it contains at least one claim with an effective filing date after March 16,
`
`2013, as described below in Section V. See AIA §§ 3(n)(1) and 6(f)(2)(A).
`
`Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting post-grant review challenging
`
`the patent claims on the grounds identified in this petition. Petitioner has not filed
`
`a civil action challenging the validity of any claim of the ’046 Patent.
`
`IV. THE ’046 PATENT2
`
`A. Overview of the ’046 Patent
`
`The ’046 Patent pertains to a method of presenting and settling an invoice.
`
`GOOG-1001, Abstract. While the specification describes many different
`
`embodiments, the challenged claims generally correspond to Figures 1A and 1B
`
`(but with several important differences). Figures 1A and 1B describe a method in
`
`which a restaurant waiter delivers a bill/invoice to a customer via a “tag” or
`
`“contactless card,” rather than on paper. GOOG-1001, 7:19-26. The customer uses
`
`
`
`2 Unless otherwise specified, all bold and bold italics emphasis below has been
`
`added.
`
`
`
`– 3 –
`
`
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,600,046 (§ 103)
`
`
`
`a mobile device (e.g., a smartphone) to read the invoice, select a payment method,
`
`and settle the invoice by sending a payment request to a payment server (e.g., a
`
`“payment gateway”). GOOG-1001, 7:25-8:24. Figure 1A illustrates the system for
`
`carrying out this method:
`
`Payment
`gateway
`
`Point-of-sale
`device
`
`Customer’s
`mobile device
`
`Tag storing invoice
`
`
`
`GOOG-1001, Fig. 1A (annotated); GOOG-1003, ¶39.
`
`Figure 1B illustrates that the merchant’s point-of-sale (POS) device 106
`
`generates a bill that is written to the tag 108 (step 122). When the tag 108 is
`
`presented to the customer (step 124), an application on the mobile device reads the
`
`tag 108 (step 126), and the bill is displayed on the mobile device. GOOG-1001,
`
`– 4 –
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,600,046 (§ 103)
`
`
`
`7:19-33. The user can optionally add a tip (step 128). GOOG-1001, 7:59-61. The
`
`mobile device user selects a payment instrument, such as “an electronic wallet or
`
`purse (a.k.a. e-purse) already created in the mobile device” (step 130). GOOG-
`
`1001, 7:48-50, 7:57-59. The mobile device then transmits a payment request to a
`
`payment gateway 104 (step 132). GOOG-1001, 7:62-65. The payment gateway
`
`104 verifies whether the payment request authorized by the customer is sufficient
`
`to cover the amount on the bill (step 134), and, if so, authorizes the payment with a
`
`financial payment network (step 136). Once the transaction is approved or denied,
`
`the payment server notifies the merchant as to whether payment has been
`
`authorized (step 138). GOOG-1001, 7:65-8:15; GOOG-1003, ¶40.
`
`The methods in independent claims 1 and 12 fundamentally differ from the
`
`embodiment of Figures 1A and 1B in that they each require an e-purse balance
`
`verification on the mobile device before sending the payment request to the
`
`payment gateway. The claims require that, after the mobile device calculates the
`
`total amount (invoice amount + tip), it “verif[ies] the total amount with a balance
`
`in the e-purse…without sending the payment request to a payment gateway.”
`
`GOOG-1001, 25:47-51. “[W]hen the balance is less than the total amount,” the
`
`mobile device “display[s] a denial of the payment request.” GOOG-1001, 25:52-
`
`53. Alternatively, when “the balance is sufficient to honor the payment request,”
`
`
`
`– 5 –
`
`
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,600,046 (§ 103)
`
`
`
`the mobile device “send[s] the payment request from the mobile device to the
`
`payment gateway.” GOOG-1001, 25:55-56; GOOG-1003, ¶41.
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`The ’046 Patent issued on March 24, 2020 from U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`14/728,349 (“the ’349 application”) filed June 2, 2015.
`
`During a prolonged prosecution, the Examiner repeatedly rejected the claims
`
`of the ’349 application over various references. GOOG-1002, 622, 468, 370, 266,
`
`166. After each rejection, the applicants amended the claims to avoid the prior art.
`
`GOOG-1002, 561, 451, 357, 253, 153. To gain allowance, the applicants added the
`
`concept of an “e-purse” and related functionality to the claims (“the E-Purse
`
`Amendment”) (discussed in Section V.B below). GOOG-1002, 153-58. The
`
`Examiner issued a notice of allowance after the E-Purse Amendment. GOOG-
`
`1002, 7-20.
`
`V. THE ’046 PATENT IS ELIGIBLE FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`
`The ’046 Patent is eligible for post-grant review (PGR) because it contains
`
`at least one claim with an effective filing date that is later than March 16, 2013, the
`
`AIA effective date. See AIA § 3(n)(1). The ’046 Patent issued from an application
`
`filed on June 2, 2015 (post-AIA). Although the application is in a chain of
`
`continuations and continuations-in-part, some of which were filed before the AIA
`
`
`
`– 6 –
`
`
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,600,046 (§ 103)
`
`
`
`effective date, the claims of the ’046 Patent contain limitations that were not
`
`disclosed in those earlier-filed patent applications. See Inguran, LLC v. Premium
`
`Genetics (UK) Ltd., PGR2015-00017, Paper 8, at 10-11 (PTAB Dec. 22, 2015) (a
`
`patent granted from a “transitional application” is PGR-eligible if it contains at
`
`least one claim that was not disclosed in compliance with § 112(a) in any pre-AIA
`
`priority application).
`
`Claims 1-17 contain limitations that were either (i) not disclosed in the pre-
`
`AIA patent applications due to a broken priority chain or (ii) not disclosed in any
`
`application due to unsupported amendments made during prosecution of the ’046
`
`Patent. Just one of these post-AIA claims renders the ’046 Patent eligible for PGR.
`
`See AIA § 3(n)(1).
`
`A. The ’046 Patent’s Broken Priority Chain Creates PGR Eligibility.
`
`As illustrated below, the ’046 Patent claims priority to three pre-AIA
`
`applications—the ’832 application, the ’653 application, and the ’802 provisional
`
`(“the pre-AIA applications”).
`
`
`
`– 7 –
`
`
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,600,046 (§ 103)
`
`
`
`
`
`The applications filed after the AIA effective date—the applications for the
`
`’046 Patent and ’601 Patent (“the AIA Patents”)—contain figures and description
`
`not found in the pre-AIA applications. The two pre-AIA non-provisional
`
`applications (the ’832 and ’653) do not include Figures 1A-1B and the associated
`
`description contained in the AIA Patents (GOOG-1001, 5:29-8:30). These figures
`
`and description were first introduced together in the ’601 Patent. GOOG-1026
`
`(comparison of the ’601 Patent specification and ’832 application specification).
`
`While Figures 1A-1B of the AIA Patents were included in the pre-AIA ’802
`
`provisional, the associated description in the AIA Patents was not. GOOG-1027
`
`(comparison of the ’802 provisional and the ’601 Patent specifications). Instead,
`
`
`
`– 8 –
`
`
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,600,046 (§ 103)
`
`
`
`the ’802 provisional includes a brief, high-level overview of the figures that was
`
`not incorporated by reference into the ’046 Patent. These differences in disclosure
`
`are depicted below:
`
`
`
`GOOG-1003, ¶53.
`
`As discussed below, claims 1, 6, and 15 of the ’046 Patent recite subject
`
`matter supported only in the description of Figures 1A-1B first filed with the ’601
`
`Patent on March 29, 2013, after the AIA effective date.
`
`1.
`
`The “displaying a denial” step in claim 1 lacks written
`description support in the pre-AIA applications.
`
`The ’046 Patent is PGR-eligible because claim 1’s “displaying a denial” step
`
`lacks written description in the pre-AIA applications. Claim 1 recites “displaying a
`
`denial of the payment request when the balance is less than the total amount.”
`
`– 9 –
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,600,046 (§ 103)
`
`
`
`GOOG-1001, 25:52-53. There is no written description supporting this limitation
`
`in any of the pre-AIA applications because such support first appeared in the post-
`
`AIA ’601 Patent.
`
`
`
`The two pre-AIA non-provisional applications, the ’653 and the ’832, lack
`
`written description support for the step of “displaying a denial” based on a failed
`
`balance verification, as recited in claim 1. GOOG-1003, ¶56. The earlier ’653
`
`application (U.S. 8,118,218) lacks any disclosure of a display step. GOOG-1028;
`
`GOOG-1003, ¶55-56. The ’832 application (US 2012/0130838, GOOG-1029) also
`
`lacks any disclosure of a display step; while it generally describes comparing the
`
`balance of an e-token with a purchase amount in association with Figures 6C and
`
`6D, but it fails to describe displaying a denial within the mobile device when the
`
`balance is insufficient. See GOOG-1029, Figs. 6C-6D, [0173]-[0177]; GOOG-
`
`1003, ¶56. 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. GOOG-1029, Fig. 6C, [0174].
`
`
`
`– 10 –
`
`
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,600,046 (§ 103)
`
`
`
`Point-of-sale (POS)
`verifies balance
`
`If insufficient,
`offer top-up
`
`
`
`GOOG-1029, Fig. 6C (annotated); GOOG-1003, ¶56.
`
`In the embodiment of Figure 6D, shown below, when the balance is
`
`insufficient at step 674, the process 670 simply ends after a “return message”
`
`denying the purchase is received by the POS manager 623. GOOG-1029, Fig. 6D,
`
`¶[0177]. No denial is displayed in the mobile device. Even if process 670
`
`disclosed “displaying a denial” (which it does not), any such denial would not be
`
`based upon the balance being less than a “total amount” (i.e., the invoice amount
`
`
`
`– 11 –
`
`
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,600,046 (§ 103)
`
`
`
`plus an additional amount from the user). Process 670 does not contemplate a user
`
`entering an additional amount.
`
`If insufficient,
`end without
`display
`
`GOOG-1029, Fig. 6D (annotated); GOOG-1003, ¶56.
`
`Because none of the pre-AIA applications provide § 112 support for
`
`“displaying a denial of the payment request when the balance is less than the total
`
`
`
`
`
`– 12 –
`
`
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,600,046 (§ 103)
`
`
`
`amount,” claim 1 has an effective filing date after March 16, 2013. GOOG-1003,
`
`¶¶55-57.
`
`2.
`
`The “account and bank information of the registered
`merchant” limitation in claims 6 and 15 lacks written
`description support in the pre-AIA applications.
`
`The ’046 Patent is PGR-eligible because claims 6 and 15 lack written
`
`description support in the pre-AIA applications. Claims 1 and 12 recite a tag with
`
`“data” that is captured by the mobile device. Dependent claims 6 and 15 define the
`
`recited “data” to include “account and bank information” of the merchant.
`
`The idea that the tag (or “contactless card”) includes “account and bank
`
`information” of the merchant is supported only in the description of Figures 1A-1B
`
`added to the ’601 Patent specification after the AIA effective date. GOOG-1001,
`
`7:33-40 (corresponding to GOOG-1031 (’601 Patent), 7:14-22). Figures 1A-1B
`
`(filed with the pre-AIA ’802 provisional) disclose only that the contactless card
`
`carried from the POS to the mobile device includes an “electronic card,” as shown
`
`below:
`
`
`
`– 13 –
`
`
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,600,046 (§ 103)
`
`
`
`
`
`GOOG-1001, Figs. 1A, 1B (GOOG-1003, ¶60).
`
`The two pre-AIA applications, the ’653 and the ’832, necessarily lack
`
`written description support for storing “account and bank information” of the
`
`“merchant” in the tag because each application fails to disclose storing any
`
`merchant information on a tag. GOOG-1003, ¶61. At best, the pre-AIA
`
`applications disclose storing customer information in a mobile device tag that is
`
`read by the merchant POS device. See, e.g., GOOG-1029, [0113] (“The cell phone
`
`is equipped with a contactless interface (e.g., ISO 14443 RFID) that allows the cell
`
`phone to act as a tag.”), [0174]; GOOG-1003, ¶61.
`– 14 –
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,600,046 (§ 103)
`
`
`
`The pre-AIA ’802 provisional also does not disclose “account and bank
`
`information” on the tag. As mentioned above, the disclosure is limited to Figures
`
`1A and 1B and a different (high-level) description than the description introduced
`
`in the post-AIA ’601 Patent. This general description includes a bulleted list of
`
`information stored on the “Contactless Smart Card” (i.e., tag) shown in Fig. 1A
`
`(Fig. 1 in the provisional), but “account and bank information” of the merchant is
`
`not on that list.3 See GOOG-1030, 8-11; GOOG-1003, ¶62.
`
`Accordingly, because none of the pre-AIA applications provide § 112
`
`support for claims 6 and 15, these claims have an effective filing date after March
`
`16, 2013. GOOG-1003, ¶¶59-62.
`
`
`
`
`
`3 The only disclosure of anything remotely related to “account and bank
`
`information” is a bullet point noting that “necessary information needed to conduct
`
`the payment” is included in the “Payment Information.” GOOG-1030, 10-11. But,
`
`as shown in Fig. 1A, such “Payment info” flows from the “Personal NFC device”
`
`(i.e., consumer’s mobile device) to the “Payment Gateway,” and is not included in
`
`the “Contactless Smart Card” (i.e., tag). Id. at 8; GOOG-1003, ¶62.
`
`
`
`– 15 –
`
`
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,600,046 (§ 103)
`
`
`
`B.
`
`The ’046 Patent’s lack of written description for subject matter
`added by amendment creates PGR eligibility.
`
`The ’046 Patent is eligible for PGR for the independent reason that
`
`limitations added to claim 12 during prosecution lack written support in any
`
`application, pre-AIA or otherwise. As part of the E-Purse Amendment during
`
`prosecution, the applicants added subject matter to claim 12 that lacks written
`
`description support in the as-filed specification of the ’046 Patent. Claim 12 (and
`
`its dependents) are only entitled to the filing date of the ’046 Patent itself, June 2,
`
`2015 (post-AIA). See PGR2015-00023, Paper 8 at 2-3 (PTAB Feb. 22, 2016)
`
`(under 35 U.S.C. § 100(i)(1)(A), the effective filing date of a claim with an
`
`unsupported amendment is the “actual filing date of the application”).
`
`1.
`
`The specification does not describe a payment gateway
`configured to cause the balance in the e-purse to be
`reduced, as required by claim 12.
`
`In the E-Purse Amendment, applicants amended claim 12 to recite: “wherein
`
`the payment gateway is configured to cause the balance in the e-purse reduced by
`
`the amount.” GOOG-1002, 156. Prior to the amendment, the payment gateway’s
`
`role post-payment was limited to sending a message to the POS device:
`
`
`
`– 16 –
`
`
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,600,046 (§ 103)
`
`
`
`
`
`GOOG-1002, 156 (annotated); GOOG-1003, ¶166. The as-filed specification does
`
`not support the idea that the payment gateway causes the e-purse balance to be
`
`reduced. GOOG-1003, ¶¶166-167, 161-164.
`
`
`
`Neither of the two embodiments in the ’046 Patent that describe e-purse
`
`payments—Figures 1A-1B and Figures 6A-6D—support the concept of the
`
`
`
`– 17 –
`
`
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,600,046 (§ 103)
`
`
`
`payment gateway reducing the e-purse balance. Only the former embodiment even
`
`discloses a payment gateway (element 104 in Fig. 1A), but such disclosure is
`
`devoid of any suggestion that the payment gateway 104 reduces the balance in the
`
`e-purse on the mobile device 110, as shown below:
`
`GOOG-1001, Figs. 1A and 1B
`
`
`
`Figure 1B describes only that the payment gateway receives a payment
`
`request (132), verifies the amount against a balance (134), forwards the payment
`
`request to a payment network (136), and forwards an authorization response to the
`
`merchant (138). GOOG-1001, Fig. 1B; 7:54-8:24; GOOG-1003, ¶169. There is no
`– 18 –
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,600,046 (§ 103)
`
`
`
`disclosure of the payment gateway sending any sort of communication to the
`
`mobile device, much less reducing the balance in the mobile device’s e-purse. See,
`
`e.g., Fig. 1A (showing the only one-way communication from the mobile device to
`
`the payment gateway). The embodiment of Figures 1A-1B is silent with respect to
`
`a balance maintained in the customer’s e-purse. GOOG-1003, ¶169. An e-purse is
`
`mentioned only to the extent that it is a payment option on the mobile device.
`
`GOOG-1001, 7:48-52 (“[T]he customer may choose to settle the charge with an
`
`electronic wallet or purse (a.k.a., e-purse) already created in the mobile
`
`device….”).
`
`Even if the embodiment of Figures 6A-D included a payment gateway
`
`(which it does not), it lacks support for the balance-reduction amendment in claim
`
`12. As described in association with step 660 in Figure 6C, the POS manager
`
`632—not the payment gateway—“deducts or debits the purchase amount from the
`
`e-token of the e-token enabled device 636 at 660.” GOOG-1001, 20:41-44; 20:13-
`
`14 (process 650 is “performed by the POS Manager”); GOOG-1003, ¶170. As
`
`described in association with step 680 in Figure 6D, the e-purse applet debits the e-
`
`token. Id., Fig. 6D, Step 680 (“Send the debit request to e-token enabled device to
`
`debit e-token.”); id., 21:51-55.
`
`
`
`– 19 –
`
`
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,600,046 (§ 103)
`
`
`
`The as-filed specification does not disclose a payment gateway “configured
`
`to cause the balance in the e-purse reduced by the amount,” as recited in claim 12.
`
`Because this concept was added to claim 12 after the ’046 Patent application was
`
`filed, claim 12 is only entitled to the filing date of the ’046 Patent itself, June 2,
`
`2015. 35 U.S.C. § 100(i)(1)(A).
`
`C.
`
`Summary of Effective Filing Dates
`
`For the reasons in Sections V.A.-V.B above, independent claims 1 and 12
`
`(and thus claims 1-17) of the ʼ046 Patent each have a post-AIA effective filing
`
`date. Each cited reference below predates the AIA effective date. See Section IX.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`In a PGR, claims shall be construed “in accordance with the ordinary and
`
`customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b). The
`
`Board only construes the claims to the extent necessary to resolve the underlying
`
`controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
