`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. __
`
`
`For the Patent Owner
`Lead counsel: Richard Neifeld
`Neifeld IP Law, PC
`4813-B Eisenhower Avenue
`Alexandria, VA 22304
`Backup Counsel: Scott Garrett
`Patents On Demand, P.A.
`4581 Weston Road, Suite 345
`Weston, FL 33331
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`DELTA AIR LINES, FRONTIER AIRLINES, INC., UNITED AIRLINES, INC.,
`US AIRWAYS, INC., AND AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`LOYALTY CONVERSION SYSTEMS CORPORATION
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case CBM2014-00095
`Patent 8,313,023
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`
`ASKELADDEN 1518
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`I. PRUDENTIAL AND STANDING ISSUES WHY TRIAL SHOULD NOT BE
`INSTITUTED ............................................................................................................ 1
`II. RESPONSE TO PETITION SUMMARY (PETITION, SECTION II) ............. 6
`
`currency conversion ................................................................................................... 6
`
`implemented by a human being ................................................................................. 6
`III. RESPONSE TO PETITION OVERVIEW (PETITION, SECTION IV) ........... 8
`IV. RESPONSE TO GROUNDS FOR STANDING (PETITION, SECTION V) . 10
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION (OF TERMS PRESENTED IN PETITION,
`
`SECTION VI) ................................................................................................... 10
`
`"entity" (Petition, section VI.D.2, page 22) ............................................................. 12
`
`"commerce partner" (Petition, section VI.D.3, page 23) ......................................... 14
`
`"non-negotiable credits" (Petition, section VI.D.4, page 24) .................................. 15
`
`"entity independent funds" (Petition, section VI.D.5 page 24-25) .......................... 17
`
`“loyalty points” (Petition, section VI.D.6, page 25) ................................................ 25
`VI. ADDITIONAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS .................................................. 26
`
`"convert" .................................................................................................................. 26
`
`"transferring" ............................................................................................................ 27
`
`"results" .................................................................................................................... 28
`
`"credit-to-funds ratio" .............................................................................................. 29
`
`"in accordance with" ................................................................................................ 29
`VII. GROUND 1 (35 USC 101; CLAIMS 31-34, 36-42, AND 44-46) .................. 31
`VIII. GROUND 2 (35 USC 102(B) 1; MACLEAN; CLAIMS 31-34, 36-42, AND
`44-46) ....................................................................................................................... 42
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`IX. GROUND 3 (35 USC 102(B); ANTONUCCI CLAIMS 31-34, 36-42, AND
`
`44-46) ................................................................................................................ 53
`X. GROUND 4 (35 USC 103; ANTONUCCI IN VIEW OF MACLEAN;
`CLAIMS 31-34, 36-42, AND 44-46) ...................................................................... 68
`XI. GROUND 5 (35 USC112(A)/PRE AIA 112 1ST PARAGRAPH: CLAIMS 31-
`34, 36-42, AND 44-46) ............................................................................................ 70
`XII. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 78
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Prudential and Standing Issues Why Trial Should not be
`I.
`Instituted
`
`A petitioner has the burden of proof to establish that it is entitled to any
`
`relief. 37 CFR 42.20(c).
`
`
`
`The petition contains standing , statutory, and regulatory violations that
`
`should result in non-institution; fails to show that any claim is unpatentable; and in
`
`fact all claims are patentable. This section identifies the standing , statutory, and
`
`regulatory violations.
`
`
`
`(1) petition is not authorized by the named Petitioner, violating 35 USC
`
`312(a)(4), and 37 CFR 42.8(a)(1) and (b)(3);
`
`
`
`(2) the filer failed to comply with mandatory rules for backup counsel,
`
`violating 35 USC 312(a)(4); and 37 CFR 42.8(b)(3), and 42.10(a);
`
`
`
`(3) the petition fails to show with particularity where each element of the
`
`claims is found in the prior art, violating 35 USC 312(a)(3) and 37 CFR
`
`42.204(b)(4); and
`
`
`
`(4) the petition still contains arguments in single spaced claim charts,
`
`violating 37 CFR 42.6(a)(2)(iii) and the Notice, paper 7, page 2, lines 5-25.
`
`
`
`Basis (1): The Petitioner is named at petition page 1, lines 4-8. That named
`
`Petitioner is:
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`Delta Air Lines, Inc. (“Delta”), Frontier Airlines, Inc. (“Frontier”),
`
`United Airlines, Inc. (“United”), US Airways, Inc. (US Airways), and
`
`American Airlines, Inc. (“American”) (collectively, “Petitioners”)
`
`A power of attorney by the petitioner, "as part of the petition," was mandatory.
`
`There is no power of attorney in this proceeding from US Airways, Inc. to the
`
`person signing the petition. The filing of the petition on behalf of the named
`
`Petitioner was not authorized by US Airways. In CBM2015-00096, there is a
`
`power filed by US Airways, but that power is ultra vires because at the time shown
`
`therein that it was signed, the person that signed it was a "Managing Director" of
`
`American Airlines, and no longer employed by US Airways. At least so his public
`
`and private LinkedIn records show. Exhibit (hereinafter "Ex") 2004 and Ex
`
`2005. See, for example, Ex 2005, page 1, under "Experience", stating:
`
`Managing Director & Associate General Counsel, US Airways
`
`September 2010 - February 2014 (3 years 6 months) |Washington
`
`D.C. Metro Area
`
`Managing Director American Airlines February 2014 – Present (5
`
`months) | Phoenix, Arizona Area
`
`Exhibit 2006 indicates this same person is an attorney registered with the New
`
`York Unified Court System.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`
`
`Estoppel applies in this proceeding to the named petitioner. AIA Sec.
`
`18(a)(1)(C), (D). If this proceeding continues to a final decision, US Airways, Inc.
`
`may or may not be bound by the final decision, depending on how the lack of
`
`representation is viewed. Analogous to FRCP 19, US Airways, Inc. was made an
`
`essential party by being named as part of the petitioner entity; its rights and patent
`
`owner's rights relative to estoppel are at stake. Lack of clarity on the
`
`petitioner/estoppel issue raises a cloud that is likely to affect other proceedings and
`
`influence the decision whether to appeal from this proceeding. It would be more
`
`just, speedy, and efficient, in this case, for the Board to deny the petition on
`
`prudential grounds, pursuant to 35 USC 324(a), citing the petition's standing defect
`
`(lack of authorization to file) and lack of rule compliance (42.8; and 42.10, noted
`
`herein above), and let the District Court decide validity issues.
`
`
`
`The petitioner fails to meet its burden to show that the petition should be
`
`granted in any respect, because there is no showing of authorization by US
`
`Airways. 35 USC 312(a)(4), and 37 CFR 42.8(a)(1) and (b)(3).
`
`
`
`Basis (2): Moreover, the petitioner has no backup counsel, contrary to
`
`42.10(a). The petition, page 6, section C, also names Stephen Baskin as backup
`
`counsel, and notes that "Petitioners intend to file a motion for Stephen E. Baskin to
`
`appear before the USPTO pro hac vice." USPTO records do not show a Stephen
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`Baskin registered to practice. Ex 2003. No such motion has been filed. 35 USC
`
`312(a)(4); and 37 CFR 42.8(b)(3), and 42.10(a).
`
`
`
`Basis (3): The petition fails to show where each element of the claim is
`
`found in the prior art, as required by 42.104(b)(4). The petition alleges
`
`anticipation by Ex 1004 and Ex 1005 in sections VII.B, pages 35-52, and VII.C.,
`
`pages 53-69. However, sections VII.B.1-4 and VIIC.1-4 do not clearly identify
`
`claim recitations or limitations, and do not even refer to many of the claim
`
`limitations. Sections VII.B.5 and VII.C.5 are claim charts. These charts generally
`
`contain multiple claim elements in each cell on the left side of the chart, and fail to
`
`identify what in the cited passages on the right side of the chart correspond to the
`
`claim elements in the adjacent cell on the left side of the chart. 35 USC 312(a)(3)
`
`requires particularity, lacking here. Cf. Gracenote, Inc. v. Iceberg Industries LLC,
`
`IPR2013-00551, paper 6 (PTAB 2/28/2014) (Decision by APJ Zecher, for a panel
`
`consisting of APJs Zecher, Arpin, and Ward) (Claim charts citing to expert
`
`declarations, lacking argument in the petition, found "inadequate to demonstrate
`
`that elements of the challenged claims are inherent in the cited references"). 35
`
`USC 312(a)(3) and 37 CFR 42.204(b)(4).
`
`
`
`Basis (4): The petition contains numerous arguments in the claim charts.
`
`Corrected petition, paper 8: page 41, row [31D] ("These restrictions ... commerce
`
`partner."); page 58, row [31B] ("Rules implemented by an online central rewards
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`mechanism" and "For example, Antonucci discloses converting Hilton Reward
`
`points to United Airlines based on a 5:1 ratio."); page 59, row [31D] ("Once the
`
`Hilton Rewards ... from United Airlines."); page 60, row [31I] ("The commerce
`
`partner is compensated for providing the entity independent funds to the
`
`consumer."); page 61, row [31I, to of page] ("conversion engine"); page 61, row
`
`[31K] ("the United miles can be used to purchase an airline ticke[t]."); page 61,
`
`row [31K] ("This system can be implemented with"); page 62, row [33]
`
`("Computers in Retailers 104 manage different loyalty programs."); page 63, row
`
`[34] ("(disclosing a 5:1 conversion ratio)"); page 63 row [36] ("(single Retailer
`
`Terminal 108 in Retailer 104);"); and page 63, row [37] ("(multiple Retailer
`
`Terminals 108 in Retailer104)"). The petition filer was notified in the Notice
`
`According a filing, paper 7, page 2, that repeated violations of 42.6(a)(2)(iii) "may
`
`result in an order to show cause". See also, CAO Group, Inc. v. the Procter &
`
`Gamble Company, IPR2014-00796, paper 11 (PTAB 6/17/2014)(petition
`
`correction requires wholesale deletion of argument sentences to correct claim
`
`charts). 37 CFR 42.6(a)(2)(iii); and Notice, paper 7, page 2, lines 5-25.
`
`These numerous material violations should result in non-institution.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`II. Response to Petition Summary (Petition, section II)
`
`1
`
`
`
`currency conversion
`
`The petition section II, pages 1 and 2, argue that the '023 patent is directed to
`
`"currency conversion," citing the '023 patent, Ex 1001, col. 2:32-39 and Fig. 2.
`
`That statement is incorrect. Ex 1001, the '023 patent at col. 2:32-39 does not recite
`
`"currency," and instead recites "transform[ing] non-negotiable credits". Fig. 2
`
`does not show, and the '023 patent does not describe Fig. 2, as showing currency
`
`conversion. Instead, the '023 patent, Ex 1001, page 11, col. 2:20-24, describes
`
`Fig. 2 as showing "a schematic diagram of successive GUIs that illustrate the Web
`
`based conversion of non-negotiable credits ...." Currency means a "system of
`
`money in general use in a particular country". Ex 2001, page 4. As noted herein
`
`below in the claim construction section, the '023 patent defines "non-negotiable
`
`credits," as credits which have redemption restrictions imposed by the granting
`
`entity. Ex 2002; Ex 2020; Ex 1001, page 11, col. 1:22-24, 33-35. Hence, non-
`
`negotiable credits are not currency.
`
`implemented by a human being
`The petition page 2, second paragraph, asserts that "the ’023 Patent also
`
`
`
`contemplates that the claimed methods can be implemented by a human being,"
`
`quoting the '023 patent col. 3:42-44; emphasis supplied. That statement is
`
`incorrect. Every independent claim of the '023 patent requires use of "at least one
`
`or more computers" performing various method steps. Moreover, the quoted
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`disclosure from the '023 patent is inconsistent with the petition's assertion, because
`
`the quoted disclosure states "at least in part," which is contrary to the petition's
`
`clearly intended inference that the claimed method covers performance entirely by
`
`a human being without use of a computer.
`
`
`
`The petition page 4, lines 3-9, citing MacLean, Ex 1005, ¶ [0017],
`
`summarily argues that MacLean anticipates the '023 patent's claims. The summary
`
`response is that the petition fails to show that, and in fact MacLean fails to disclose
`
`claim 31 and 39's requirements that "a commerce partner agreeing to accept
`
`transfers or conversions"; that these transfers or conversions are "in accordance
`
`with the credits-to-funds ratio"; and "wherein in absence of the non-negotiable
`
`credits being converted or transferred into the entity independent funds the
`
`commerce partner does not accept the nonnegotiable credits for the goods or
`
`services that the commerce partner provides."
`
`
`
`The petition page 3, last paragraph, citing Antonucci, Ex 1004, ¶ [0157],
`
`summarily argues that Antonucci anticipates the '023 patent's claims. The
`
`summary response is that the petition fails to show that, and in fact Antonucci fails
`
`to disclose, inter alia, independent claim 31's requirements that "a commerce
`
`partner agreeing (agrees) to accept transfers or conversions of quantities of non-
`
`negotiable credits to entity independent funds"; "the commerce partner is
`
`compensated"; and a computer "detecting", and "accepting".
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`
`
`The petition page 4, last paragraph, summarily argues that the '023 patent's
`
`claims fail to satisfy 35 USC 112 because "commerce partner" is not adequately
`
`described or defined. The summary response is that the petition failed to consider
`
`the original claims of the '023 patent, and therefore could not meet its burden to
`
`show any claim lacked adequate description, and in addition the '023 patent
`
`adequately describes and defines all challenged claims. The petition page 4, last
`
`paragraph, also summarily argues that the '023 patent claims fail to satisfy 35 USC
`
`112 because they include "terms that were stripped out of the ‘673 Patent claims."
`
`The summary response is that this argument makes no sense.
`
`III. Response to Petition Overview (Petition, section IV)
`
`The petition, section IV.A, page 7, last paragraph argues that the '023 patent
`
`discloses that "client 110 ... can be ... [a] human being." This misrepresents what
`
`the '023 patent discloses, which is that client 110 can include a human being but
`
`also must include hardware of a communication system. Cf. Ex 1001, Fig. 1
`
`elements 105, 110 (consumer and client); col. 3:60-63.
`
`
`
`The petition, section IV.A., page 8, lines 4-6 argue that no "detail regarding
`
`the hardware or structure of servers 120 [to 150]" is shown. That statement ignores
`
`the express appearance in Fig. 1 of data stores in servers 130 to 150, and of
`
`network connections from each server to network 115. Ex 1001, page 8. As to
`
`structure, the '023 patent discloses that server 120 can "supports online purchases",
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`Ex 1001, page 12, col. 4:35-36; can "include distinct payment options for
`
`conversion agency 130," such as "conversion of credits," Ex 1001, page 12, col.
`
`4:36-39.
`
`
`
`The petition, section IV.A., page 8, lines 11-12, argues that "[t]he ’023
`
`Patent does not disclose how the conversion takes place." That statement is
`
`incorrect; it ignores the disclosure at Ex 1001, col. 2:66 to col. 3:45 which inter
`
`alia discloses "a software method for converting non-negotiable credits into
`
`negotiable funds" and "Web-based credit to fund conversion system," which the
`
`specification also discloses "can be implemented as a program " or "in part by a
`
`service agent and/or a machine manipulated by a service agent in response to a
`
`service request." This passage includes Ex 1001, col. 3:1-12, which discloses how
`
`conversion occurs, stating that: a user request is received; there is a "conversion
`
`rate between the non-negotiable credits available to the user"; that negotiable funds
`
`are "automatically determined"; that non-negotiable credits are "automatically
`
`subtracted from the user account"; and that negotiable funds are "automatically
`
`transferred to a financial account."
`
`
`
`The petition, section IV.B., page 12, lines 5-8, imply that claim 31's
`
`limitation "wherein the entity-independent funds are loyalty points of a loyalty
`
`program of the commerce partner;" was newly added to claims of the 13/531,904
`
`application by amendment, after filing. This is not correct. See Ex 1009, the
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`image file wrapper of 13/531,904 , page 21, original claim 23, and page 22,
`
`original claim 29.
`
`IV. Response to Grounds for Standing (Petition, section V)
`
`Petition, pages 13-18. See section I, herein above.
`
`V. Claim Construction (Of Terms Presented in Petition, section
`VI)
`
`
`Petition, pages 20-26, proposes claim constructions. The patent owner
`
`disagrees and proposes the following claim constructions, followed by reasoning
`
`and response to the petition. All following claim constructions in this and
`
`subsequent sections are expressly based upon the 37 CFR 42.200(b) requirement
`
`for a "broadest reasonable construction[sic; BRI] in light of the specification of the
`
`['023] patent." This BRI excludes evidence beyond the specification that might be
`
`probative of claim construction in patent infringement litigation. Patent Owner
`
`reserves all rights to proffer in related litigation claim construction positions
`
`conforming to the standards applicable there.
`
`Term
`
`"entity"
`
`Patent Owner Proposed Construction For the '023 Patent
`
`a unit (such as person, partnership, organization, or business)
`
`that has a legal and separately identifiable existence.
`
`"commerce
`
` an entity that is an independent entity from another entity,
`
`partner"
`
`and associated with that other entity in some commercial
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`activity.
`
`"non-negotiable
`
`credits which have redemption restrictions imposed by the
`
`credits
`
`granting entity.
`
`"entity independent
`
`funds that are independent of restrictions on redemption
`
`funds"
`
`imposed by the entity that granted the corresponding non-
`
`negotiable credits.
`
`“loyalty points”
`
` units of non-negotiable credit granted to a member of a
`
`loyalty program by a granting entity as a reward for the
`
`member's utilizing services or products of that granting
`
`entity.
`
`
`
`
`
`ADDITIONAL PROPOSED CONSTRUCTIONS FOR
`
`TERMS NOT IDENTIFIED IN THE PETITION
`
`"convert"
`
`transform to something different. The word "converted"
`
`therefore means transformed, and the word "converting"
`
`therefore means transforming. See claims 31, 39, 34, 35, 42,
`
`43.
`
`"transferring"
`
`transforming and passing from one to another.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`"results"
`
`
`
`The '023 patent defines "results" to mean: something
`
`that ensues from an action.
`
`credits-to-funds
`
`non-negotiable credits to entity independent funds ratio
`
`ratio
`
`in accordance with based on, or following a pre-existing thing, such as a rule
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`
`"entity" (Petition, section VI.D.2, page 22)
`
`The '023 patent defines "entity" to mean: a unit (such as person, partnership,
`
`organization, or business) that has a legal and separately identifiable existence.
`
`
`
`Dictionary definitions of "entity" are "a separate unit that is complete and
`
`has its own character;" Ex 2007; and "A person, partnership, organization, or
`
`business that has a legal and separately identifiable existence" Ex 2019.
`
`
`
`The '023 patent's use of the term "entity" is consistent with the dictionary
`
`definitions. In the Abstract, the '023 patent states "Restrictions on use prevent the
`
`non-negotiable credits from being directly applied for a purchase of at least one
`
`goods or services of a commerce partner, which is an independent entity from the
`
`entity." Ex 1001, page 1. In this context, the '023 patent identifies both the
`
`"commerce partner" and another entity as each being an "entity" and also notes that
`
`the commerce partner is an "independent" entity from that other entity.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`Independence of these two entities is consistent with these two entities each having
`
`"a legal and separately identifiable existence" and would be inconsistent if such "a
`
`legal and separately identifiable existence" were lacking. In a similar context, the
`
`'023 patent states that "conversion agency can be an independent entity that is not
`
`directly affiliated with the credit providing entities." Ex 1001, page 11, col. 2:38-
`
`40. This recitation would be internally inconsistent if "entity" did not mean
`
`something having "a legal and separately identifiable existence."
`
`
`
`The petition, section VI.D.2, pages 22-23, incorrectly reads into "entity" the
`
`requirement that "entity" also offers a "rewards program to a consumer." That
`
`requirement is inconsistent with references in the '023 patent, for example, that the
`
`"[f]inancial institution server 140 can be any of a variety of entities including, but
`
`not limited to, a bank, a credit card company, an investment firm, and the like," Ex
`
`1001, page 12, col.4:44-46. A financial institution is an entity, and the '023 patent
`
`does not define a financial institution as necessarily having a "rewards program to
`
`a consumer." The petition also incorrectly concludes that the phrase in the '023
`
`patent “[e]ntities often reward consumers for utilizing their services with non-
`
`negotiable credits," (petition page 22, lines 15-17) supports the petition's
`
`construction. In fact, "often" means "Frequently; many times" and "In many
`
`instances." Ex 2024. It does not mean always. Accordingly, the reference to
`
`"often reward" is inconsistent with all entities rewarding, and therefore inconsistent
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`with petitioner's proposed requirement that the '023 patent defines "entity" to
`
`include a "rewards program to a consumer."
`
`"commerce partner" (Petition, section VI.D.3, page 23)
`
`The '023 patent defines "commerce partner" to mean: an entity that is an
`
`independent entity from another entity, and associated with that other entity in
`
`some commercial activity.
`
`
`
`A dictionary definition of "commerce" is "The activity of buying and selling,
`
`especially on a large scale". Ex 2008, page 4. A dictionary definition of "partner"
`
`is "One that is united or associated with another or others in an activity or a sphere
`
`of common interest, especially: A member of a business partnership." Ex 2009,
`
`page 1. Thus, the ordinary meaning of "commerce partner" is: an entity that is
`
`associated with another in some commercial activity.
`
`
`
`The '023 patent also defines a commerce partner to be an independent entity
`
`from its partner. Ex 1001, page 1, Abstract ("commerce partner, which is an
`
`independent entity from the entity."); Ex 1001, page 14, col. 8:3-4, claim 16
`
`("wherein the commerce partner is an independent entity from the entity"); Ex
`
`1001, page 15, col. 9:45-56, claim 30 ("wherein the commerce partner is an
`
`independent entity from the entity"). The claims 16 and 30 recitations were
`
`original disclosure that is part of the written description, as noted herein below in
`
`the construction of "entity independent funds," and discussion therein of Ex 1009.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`In re Gardner, 480 F.2d 879, 879 (CCPA 1973)("we consider the original claim in
`
`itself adequate 'written description' of the claimed invention. It was equally a
`
`'written description' whether located among the original claims or in the descriptive
`
`part of the specification."). Thus, the '023 patent defines "commerce partner" to
`
`mean: an entity that is an independent entity from another entity, and associated
`
`with that other entity in some commercial activity.
`
`
`
`The petition, section VI.D.3, page 23, fails to lend meaning to the word
`
`"commerce." The petitioner's construction is contrary to the basic rule that claim
`
`construction must "begin with the words of the claim," Trovan Ltd. v. Sokymat SA,
`
`Irori, 299 F. 3d 1292, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2002)(citing earlier cases).
`
`"non-negotiable credits" (Petition, section VI.D.4, page 24)
`
`The '023 patent defines "non-negotiable credits" to mean: credits which have
`
`redemption restrictions imposed by the granting entity.
`
`
`
`The prefix "non-" means indicating negation. Ex 2020. The term
`
`"negotiable credit" means "indebtedness that is freely (unconditionally)
`
`transferable in trading as a substitute for money." Ex 2002, page 1. Consequently,
`
`dictionary definitions result in a common meaning of non-negotiable credit as
`
`indebtedness that is not freely (that is, not "(unconditionally)") transferable in
`
`trading as a substitute for money. The '023 patent further defines "non-negotiable
`
`credits" as credits that "can be applied towards products and/or services provided
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`by a granting entity or its affiliates," which indicates that "non-negotiable credits"
`
`are credits which cannot be applied to at least some products and/or services other
`
`than products and/or services provided by a granting entity or its affiliates. Ex
`
`1001, page 11, col. 1:22-24. Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius, cf. Reflectone,
`
`Inc. v. Dalton, 60 F.3d 1572, 1576; (Fed. Cir. 1995). The '023 patent further
`
`clarifies this definition, stating that "[o]ne such problem is the restriction on usage
`
`[sic; of non-negotiable credits] to goods and/or services of the entity." EX 1001,
`
`col. 1:33-35. Similarly, in discussing the types of non-negotiable credits a
`
`consumer may have, the '023 patent explains that they "can ... each hav[e]
`
`different .. program redemption rules." Ex 1001, page 11, col. 2:4-7. Hence, the
`
`'023 patent defines "non-negotiable credits" as: credits which have redemption
`
`restrictions imposed by the granting entity.
`
`
`
`The petition, section VI.D.4, page 24, fails to identify the common meaning
`
`of the words in the term "non-negotiable credits," Trovan Ltd , supra. The petition
`
`also fails to identify and apply the rule of construction, inclusio unius est exclusio
`
`alterius, to Ex 1001, page 11, col. 1:20-24; and fails to account for Ex 1001, page
`
`11, col. 1:33-35 and 2:4-7.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`"entity independent funds" (Petition, section VI.D.5 page 24-25)
`
`The '023 patent defines "entity independent funds" to mean: funds that are
`
`independent of restrictions on redemption imposed by the entity that granted the
`
`corresponding non-negotiable credits.
`
`
`
`A dictionary definition of "independent" is "not dependent on..." Ex 2011.
`
`Therefore, "entity independent" means not dependent on the entity. A dictionary
`
`definition of "funds" is "a supply or store of something; stock." Ex 2010.
`
`Therefore, a common meaning of "entity independent funds," without resort to the
`
`'023 patent, is a supply or store of something that is not dependent upon the entity.
`
`
`
`The '023 patent further defines entity independent funds as something that
`
`non-negotiable credits associated with an entity can be converted into.
`
`
`
`The Abstract states "conversion of the subtracted quantity of non-negotiable
`
`credits into the entity independent funds." Ex 1001, page 1; italics supplied. The
`
`'023 patent repeatedly states: "conversion of non-negotiable credits associated with
`
`an entity to entity independent funds." See Ex 1001, Brief description of each one
`
`of Figs. 1, 2, and 3, at page 11, col. 2:16-28; and col. 3:46-48; col. 4:52-54; and
`
`col. 5:33-35; italics supplied.
`
`
`
`Dictionary definitions of "convert" are "to transform (something) into
`
`another form, substance, or state," Ex 2014, page 1, and "to change (something)
`
`into a different form or properties; transmute; transform," Ex 2022, page 1.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`Therefore, conversion means transformation from a first thing to a second thing
`
`that has different properties than the first thing. Therefore, the '023 patent
`
`statements that non-negotiable credits are converted into entity independent funds
`
`indicates that entity independent funds have different properties than the
`
`corresponding non-negotiable credits. As noted above in the construction of "non-
`
`negotiable credits", the '023 patent teaches that the only property that makes "non-
`
`negotiable credits," non-negotiable, is their redemption restrictions imposed by the
`
`granting entity. Consequently, the '023 patent defines entity independent funds as
`
`funds that are independent of restrictions on redemption imposed by the entity that
`
`granted the corresponding non-negotiable credits.
`
`
`
`The '023 patent discloses two types of entity independent funds: (1)
`
`negotiable funds, Ex 1001, page 14, col. 8:37-38 (original claim 24), page 15, col.
`
`9:20-22 (original claim 29) and (2) loyalty points of a program of an entity other
`
`than the entity that granted the non-negotiable credits, Ex 1001, page 14,col. 7:49-
`
`51(original claim 15); col. 8:34-36 (original claim 23). Both types of disclosed
`
`entity independent funds have the property that they are independent of the entity
`
`that granted the corresponding non-negotiable credits, which supports our
`
`construction of "entity independent funds." Corresponding, here, means that the
`
`non-negotiable credits were the source of credit converted into the entity
`
`independent funds.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`
`
`The '023 patent identifies negotiable funds as something non-negotiable
`
`credits may be transformed into at Ex 1001, page 11, col. 2:32-34 ("The present
`
`disclosure permits consumers to transform non-negotiable credits provided by an
`
`entity to negotiable funds in an approximately immediate fashion using the Web.");
`
`page 14, col. 8:37-38, claim 24, and col. 9:18-19, claim 28 ("wherein the entity-
`
`independent funds are negotiable funds."). Negotiable funds are not subject to
`
`restrictions on redemption imposed by the entity that granted the corresponding
`
`non-negotiable credits, and therefore are entity independent funds.
`
`
`
`The '023 patent identifies loyalty points of a program of some entity other
`
`than the entity that granted the corresponding non-negotiable credits, as entity
`
`independent funds, at Ex 1001, page 14, col. 7: 49-51, claim 15 ("wherein the
`
`entity-independent funds are loyalty points of a program of a company or
`
`organization that is not the entity."); page 14, col. 8:3-4, claim 16, and page 15,
`
`lines 37-38, claim 24 (in claim 16, "wherein the commerce partner is an
`
`independent entity from the entity;" and in claim 24 which depends from claim 16,
`
`"wherein the entity-independent funds are loyalty points of a program of the
`
`commerce partner."); page 15, col. 9:2-7 and 14-17, claims 27, and page 15, col.
`
`9:20-22, claim 29 (in claim 27, "wherein in absence of a conversion operation tha