Filed on behalf of: Rothschild Mobile Imaging Innovations, LLC
`
`By:
`
`Steven Ross
`Christopher P. O’Hagan
`Ross IP Group PLLC
`1700 Pacific Ave., Suite 3750
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Tel: (972) 661-9400
`Fax: (972) 661-9401
`E-mail:
`sross@rossipg.com
`cpohagan@rossipg.com
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________________
`
`ROTHSCHILD MOBILE IMAGING INNOVATIONS, LLC
`
`Petitioner
`
`V.
`
`MITEK SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`____________________________
`
`IPR2016-00457
`
`Patent No. 8,379,914
`
`____________________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,379,914
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`I.
`
`Introduction ......................................................................................................1
`Introduction .................................................................................................... ..1
`
`II. Mandatory Notices Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ......................................................1
`II. Mandatory Notices Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 .................................................... ..1
`
`A. Real Party-in-Interest.................................................................................... 1
`A. Real Party—in—Interest .................................................................................. .. 1
`
`B. Related Matters............................................................................................. 1
`B. Related Matters ........................................................................................... .. 1
`
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel .......................................................................... 2
`C. Lead and Back—Up Counsel ........................................................................ .. 2
`
`III. Payment of Fees Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a)....................................................2
`III. Payment of Fees Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) .................................................. ..2
`
`IV. Grounds for Standing........................................................................................2
`IV. Grounds for Standing ...................................................................................... ..2
`
`V. Relief Requested...............................................................................................2
`V. Relief Requested ............................................................................................. ..2
`
`VI. Overview of the ’914 Patent..............................................................................6
`VI. Overview of the ’914 Patent............................................................................ ..6
`
`VII.Prosecution history of the ’914 Patent ..............................................................6
`VII.Prosecution history of the ’914 Patent ............................................................ ..6
`
`VIII.The Effective Priority Date of Claims 1-10 of the ’914 Patent ........................7
`VIII.The Effective Priority Date of Claims 1-10 of the ’914 Patent ...................... ..7
`
`IX. Overview of Prior art ......................................................................................10
`IX. Overview of Prior art .................................................................................... ..10
`
`1. Hoyos (Ex. 1001): ................................................................................... 10
`1. Hoyos (Ex. 1001): ................................................................................. .. 10
`
`2. Pandian (Ex. 1003): ................................................................................. 12
`2. Pandian (Ex. 1003): ............................................................................... .. 12
`
`3. Baker (Ex. 1004): .................................................................................... 14
`3. Baker (Ex. 1004): .................................................................................. .. 14
`
`2
`2
`
`

`
`4. Sipe (Ex. 1005):....................................................................................... 15
`4. Sipe (EX. 1005): ..................................................................................... .. 15
`
`5. Schwalb (Ex. 1006): ................................................................................ 16
`5. Schwa1b(Ex. 1006): .............................................................................. .. 16
`
`6. Du (Ex. 1007):......................................................................................... 17
`6. Du (Ex. 1007): ....................................................................................... .. 17
`
`7. Hung (Ex. 1008):..................................................................................... 17
`7. Hung (Ex. 1008): ................................................................................... .. 17
`
`8. Bressan (Ex. 1009): ................................................................................. 18
`8. Bressan (Ex. 1009): ............................................................................... .. 18
`
`X. Petitioner’s Proposed Claim Construction.......................................................20
`X. Petitioner’s Proposed Claim Construction ..................................................... ..20
`
`“code line”........................................................................................................ 20
`“code line” ...................................................................................................... .. 20
`
`XI. Detailed Explanation of Grounds for Unpatentability .....................................22
`XI. Detailed Explanation of Grounds for Unpatentability ................................... ..22
`
`Ground 1: Hoyos anticipates Claims 1 and 10 .................................................. 22
`Ground 1: Hoyos anticipates Claims 1 and 10 ................................................ .. 22
`
`Claim 1.......................................................................................................... 22
`Claim 1 ........................................................................................................ .. 22
`
`Claim 10........................................................................................................ 31
`Claim 10 ...................................................................................................... .. 31
`
`Ground 2: Hoyos and Pandian render Claims 1, 4 and 10 obvious.................... 33
`Ground 2: Hoyos and Pandian render Claims 1, 4 and 10 obvious .................. .. 33
`
`Claim 1.......................................................................................................... 33
`Claim 1 ........................................................................................................ .. 33
`
`Claim 4.......................................................................................................... 37
`Claim 4 ........................................................................................................ .. 37
`
`Claim 10........................................................................................................ 38
`Claim 10 ...................................................................................................... .. 38
`
`Ground 3: Hoyos and Hung render Claim 2 obvious......................................... 39
`Ground 3: Hoyos and Hung render Claim 2 obvious ....................................... .. 39
`
`Ground 4: Hoyos, Pandian and Hung render Claim 2 obvious .......................... 41
`Ground 4: Hoyos, Pandian and Hung render Claim 2 obvious ........................ .. 41
`
`Ground 5: Hoyos and Bressan render Claim 3 obvious..................................... 42
`Ground 5: Hoyos and Bressan render Claim 3 obvious ................................... .. 42
`3
`3
`
`

`
`Ground 6: Hoyos, Pandian and Bressan render Claim 3 obvious....................... 44
`
`Ground 7: Hoyos and Baker render Claim 5 obvious........................................ 45
`
`Ground 8: Hoyos, Pandian and Baker render Claim 5 obvious.......................... 47
`
`Ground 9: Hoyos and Sipe render Claim 6 obvious .......................................... 49
`
`Ground 10: Hoyos, Pandian and Sipe render Claim 6 obvious.......................... 50
`
`Ground 11: Hoyos, Sipe and Baker render Claim 7 obvious ............................. 51
`
`Ground 12: Hoyos, Pandian, Sipe and Baker render Claim 7 obvious........ Error!
`
`Bookmark not defined.
`
`Ground 13: Hoyos and Du render Claim 9 obvious…………………………. 53
`
`Ground 14: Hoyos, Pandian and Du render Claim 9 obvious ........................... 53
`
`XII.Conclusion .....................................................................................................58
`
`4
`
`

`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0037097 to Hoyos ,
`Hector ; et al. (“Hoyos” )
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,379,914 (“ ̕ 914 Patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0289182 to Pandian,
`Suresh S. ; et al. (“Pandian”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,862,243 to Baker, et al. (“Baker”)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0093222 to Sipe ,
`Wayne et al. (“Sipe”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,877,403 to Schwalb (“Schwalb”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,734,729 to Du, et al. (“Du”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,749,120 to Hung et al. (“Hung”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,826,665 to Bressan et al. (“Bressan”)
`
`U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/561,772
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 12/906,036
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 12/778,943
`
`U.S. Patent Application Ser. No. 12/346,026
`
`U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/022,279
`
`5
`
`

`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 13/622,329 (‘329
`Application) ( issued as the ’914 Patent)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Fang Qiu
`
`2
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,379,914
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Rothschild Mobile Imaging Innovations, LLC (“Petitioner”) requests inter
`
`partes review of claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 8,379,914 (“the ̕ 914 Patent”)
`
`(Ex. 1002). This Petition shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that there
`
`is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail on claims 1-10 of the ̕ 914
`
`Patent based on prior art that the U.S. Patent Office did not have before it or did
`
`not fully consider during prosecution, and that anticipates and renders obvious
`
`the claims 1-10 of the ̕ 914 Patent. Claims 1-10 of the ̕ 914 Patent should be
`
`found unpatentable and canceled.
`
`II. Mandatory Notices Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`
`A.
`
`Real Party-in-Interest
`
`The real party of interest of this petition pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`
`is Rothschild Mobile Imaging Innovations LLC.
`
`B.
`
`Related Matters
`
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2), Petitioner is not aware of any
`
`other judicial or administrative matter that would affect, or be affected by, a
`
`decision in this proceeding. Petitioner and Patent Owner are involved in
`
`unrelated litigation and are adverse to one another in three additional
`
`proceedings before the Board: IPR2015-00621, -00622, and -00623.
`
`1
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,379,914
`
`C.
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel
`
`Petitioner provides the following designation of counsel.
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`
`Steven Ross
`Reg. No. 35,996
`Ross IP Group PLLC
`1700 Pacific Ave., Suite 3750
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Tel: (972) 661-9400
`Fax: (972) 661-9401
`E-mail: sross@rossipg.com
`
`Christopher P. O’Hagan
`Reg. No. 46,996
`Ross IP Group PLLC
`1700 Pacific Ave., Suite 3750
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Tel: (972) 661-9400
`Fax: (972) 661-9401
`E-mail: cpohagan@rossipg.com
`
`III. Payment of Fees Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a)
`
`The Petitioner respectfully submits that the required fees are being
`
`submitted via Express Mail.
`
`IV. Grounds for Standing
`
`The Petitioner certifies that, under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a), the ’914 patent is
`
`available for inter partes review, and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped
`
`from requesting inter partes review of the ’914 Patent on the grounds identified.
`
`V. Relief Requested
`
`The Petitioner challenges claims 1-10 of the ’914 patent and requests that
`
`these claims be found unpatentable and canceled in view of the following prior
`2
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,379,914
`
`art: U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0037097 to Hoyos et al. (“Hoyos” ) (Ex.
`
`1001); U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0289182 to Pandian et al. (“Pandian”)
`
`(Ex. 1003); U.S. Patent No. 5,862,243 to Baker et al. (Baker) (Ex. 1004); U.S.
`
`Patent Publication No. 2004/0093222 to Sipe et al. (“Sipe”) (1005); U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,877,403 to Schwalb (“Schwalb”) (Ex. 1006); U.S. Patent No. 7,734,729
`
`to Du et al. (“Du”) (Ex. 1007); U.S. Patent No. 6,749,120 to Hung et al.
`
`(“Hung”) (Ex. 1008); and U.S. Patent No. 7,826,665 to Bressan et al.
`
`(“Bressan”) (Ex. 1009). Petitioner requests cancellation of claims 1-10 on the
`
`following grounds:
`
`Ground
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Basis for Rejection
`
`Ground 1
`
`1 and 10
`
`Anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by Hoyos
`
`(Ex. 1001)
`
`Ground 2
`
`1, 4 and 10
`
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Hoyos
`
`(Ex. 1001) in view of Pandian (Ex. 1003)
`
`Ground 3
`
`2
`
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Hoyos
`
`(Ex. 1001) in view of Hung (Ex. 1008)
`
`3
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,379,914
`
`Ground
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Basis for Rejection
`
`Ground 4
`
`2
`
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Hoyos
`
`Ground 5
`
`Ground 6
`
`Ground 7
`
`Ground 8
`
`3
`
`3
`
`5
`
`5
`
`(Ex. 1001) in view of Pandian (Ex. 1003) and
`
`further in view of Hung (Ex. 1008)
`
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Hoyos
`
`(Ex. 1001) in view of Bressan (Ex. 1009)
`
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Hoyos
`
`(Ex. 1001) in view of Pandian (Ex. 1003) and
`
`further in view of Bressan (Ex. 1009)
`
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Hoyos
`
`(Ex. 1001) in view of Baker (Ex. 1004)
`
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Hoyos
`
`(Ex. 1001) in view of Pandian (Ex. 1003) and
`
`further in view of Baker (Ex. 1004)
`
`Ground 9
`
`6
`
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Hoyos
`
`(Ex. 1001) in view of Sipe (Ex. 1005)
`
`4
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,379,914
`
`Ground
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Basis for Rejection
`
`Ground 10
`
`6
`
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Hoyos
`
`(Ex. 1001) in view of Pandian (Ex. 1003) and
`
`further in view of Sipe (Ex. 1005)
`
`Ground 11
`
`7
`
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Hoyos
`
`(Ex. 1001) in view of Sipe (Ex. 1005) and
`
`further in view of Baker (Ex. 1004)
`
`Ground 12
`
`7
`
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Hoyos
`
`(Ex. 1001) in view of Pandian (Ex. 1003) and
`
`further in view of Sipe (Ex. 1005) and Baker
`
`(Ex. 1004)
`
`Ground 13
`
`9
`
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Hoyos
`
`(Ex. 1001) in view of Du (Ex. 1007)
`
`Ground 14
`
`9
`
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Hoyos
`
`(Ex. 1001) in view of Pandian (Ex. 1003) and
`
`further in view of Du (Ex. 1007)
`
`5
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,379,914
`
`VI. Overview of the ’914 Patent
`
`The ’914 Patent discloses processing a remittance coupon. An image of
`
`the remittance coupon is captured by a mobile device. At least one aspect of the
`
`image is corrected to produce a corrected image. A first content recognition
`
`pass is performed on the corrected image to extract content from the remittance
`
`coupon. An address of a biller on the remittance coupon is identified by
`
`comparing address content in the extracted content with an address database.
`
`Biller profile information of the biller, which includes an identity of the biller
`
`on the remittance coupon, is determined by comparing the identified address of
`
`the biller with a database of biller profile information. A set of billing
`
`information, which includes the extracted content and the identity of the biller,
`
`is produced for processing a payment of the bill. The biller profile information
`
`of the biller is used to perform a second content recognition pass on the
`
`corrected image to extract content from the remittance coupon. The biller
`
`profile information includes at least one of a remittance coupon format, a
`
`remittance coupon mask, a location of at least one field on the remittance
`
`coupon and a format of at least one field.
`
`VII. Prosecution history of the ’914 Patent
`
`The ‘914 patent issued on February 19, 2013, from U.S. Application No.
`
`13/622,329, which was filed on September 18, 2012, underwent prioritized
`
`6
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,379,914
`
`examination under 37 CFR 1.102(e)(1). The prosecution history of ‘914 patent
`
`does not include any rejections issued by the USPTO.
`
`VIII. The Effective Priority Date of Claims 1-10 of the ’914 Patent
`
`The ‘914 patent issued on February 19, 2013, from U.S. Application No.
`
`13/622,329, which was filed on September 18, 2012, and claims priority from
`
`U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/561,772 (Ex. 1010), filed Nov. 18,
`
`2011, and is a continuation in part of U.S. patent application Ser. No.
`
`12/906,036 filed on Oct. 15, 2010, which itself is a continuation in part of co-
`
`pending U.S. Patent Application Ser. No. 12/778,943, filed on May 12, 2010, as
`
`well as a continuation in part of U.S. Patent Application Ser. No. 12/346,026
`
`filed Dec. 30, 2008, which in turn claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional
`
`Application Ser. No. 61/022,279, filed Jan. 18, 2008.
`
`The Board has the authority to consider priority in such proceedings. See,
`
`e.g., SAP Am., Inc. v. Pi-Net Int’l, Inc., IPR2014-00414, Paper No. 11 at 11-16
`
`(Aug.18, 2014). A claim in a U.S. application is entitled to the benefit of the
`
`filing date of an earlier filed U.S. application, under 35 U.S.C. § 120, if the
`
`subject matter of the claim is disclosed in the earlier filed application in
`
`accordance with the written description requirement. See, e.g., Lockwood v.
`
`Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The specification, to
`
`comply with Section 112, first paragraph, “must describe the invention
`
`sufficiently to convey to a person of skill in the art that the patentee had
`7
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,379,914
`
`possession of the claimed invention at the time of the application, i.e., that the
`
`patentee invented what is claimed.” Lizardtech, Inc. v. Earth Resource
`
`Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed Cir. 2005).
`
`The independent claims 1 and 10 of the ‘914 patent include, in part, the
`
`below listed limitations:
`
`“identifying an address of a biller on the remittance coupon by comparing
`address content in the extracted content with an address database;
`determining biller profile information of the biller, including an identity of
`the biller on the remittance coupon, by comparing the identified address of the
`biller with a database of biller profile information;”
`U.S. Patent Application No. 13/622,329 (issued as the ‘914 patent ) (‘329
`
`Application, Ex. 1015), is the only application which describe the above
`
`limitations sufficiently to convey to a person of skill in the art that the patentee
`
`had possession of the claimed invention at the time of the application for the
`
`above-disclosed limitations. Further, the subject matter in the above limitations
`
`is not disclosed in any of the earlier filed applications.
`
`See Ex. 1015 at FIGs. 1 and 2:
`
`8
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,379,914
`
`For example, the ‘329 Application first discloses carrying out “a fuzzy
`
`search of address database 106 … [to] allow for further qualification and
`
`normalization of the address information obtained from the first pass in S216”.
`
`Id. at ¶ [0145] (emphasis added) and FIGs. 1and 2. Consequently, first
`
`disclosure of the limitation of “identifying an address of a biller on the
`
`remittance coupon by comparing address content in the extracted content with
`
`an address database” is made in the ‘329 Application.
`
`The ‘329 Application further first discloses that once “the payee address is
`
`known with a certain degree of confidence, a biller lookup process (S222) may
`
`be initiated by a biller lookup unit 416 to identify the biller (payee) on the
`
`remittance coupon.” Id. at ¶ [0146] (emphasis added) and FIGs. 1and 2. The
`
`9
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,379,914
`
`“biller lookup process may perform a “fuzzy” search against the customized
`
`biller database”. Id. at ¶ [0146] and FIGs. 1and 2. “The biller database 108 may
`
`contain biller profile information on numerous billers (payees). The biller
`
`profile information may include their addresses, various aliases they might be
`
`known as”. Id. at ¶ [0146] (emphasis added) and FIGs. 1and 2. Consequently,
`
`first disclosure of the limitation of “determining biller profile information of the
`
`biller, including an identity of the biller on the remittance coupon, by comparing
`
`the identified address of the biller with a database of biller profile information”
`
`is made in the ‘329 Application.
`
`Since the earlier filed applications lack written description support for
`
`claims 1 and 10, the earliest possible priority date for claims 1 and 10 is
`
`September 18, 2012, which is the filing date of the ’914 patent.
`
`Further, the earlier filed applications lack written description support for
`
`claims 2-9 at least because claims 2-9 depend from claim 1. Consequently, the
`
`earliest possible priority date for claims 2-9 is also September 18, 2012.
`
`IX. Overview of Prior art
`
`1. Hoyos (Ex. 1001):
`
`Hoyos Patent Application was published on March 28, 2002, from U.S.
`
`Application No. 09/855,830, which was filed on May 15, 2001, and claims
`
`priority from U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/204,440, filed May 15, 2000;
`
`10
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,379,914
`
`and U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/204,170, filed May 15, 2000.
`
`Therefore the priority date of Hoyos is May 15, 2000, which is before the
`
`effective priority date (September 18, 2012) of the ’914 Patent. Therefore,
`
`Hoyos is prior art to the ’914 Patent.
`
`Hoyos disclosure relates to the same field as the ’914 Patent, which is
`
`automatically recognizing a bill or a coupon used in the sale or purchase of
`
`goods and services. Ex. 1001 at ¶ [0001]; Ex. 1016 at 7-9.
`
`Hoyos disclose describes “a scanner configured to receive a bill or coupon.
`
`The coupon is processed by … [applying] connected component analysis,
`
`segmentation, coupon matching, and data extraction to determine an associated
`
`vendor and customer account information. This information is used to complete
`
`a payment transaction.” Ex. 1001, Abstract; Ex. 1016 at 7-8.
`
`Fig. 1:
`
`In the above process, the image scanned by the scanner undergoes
`
`preprocessing in the preprocessor, where the scanned coupon is corrected. See
`
`id., ¶ [0050]. Further, connected component analysis is performed to extract
`11
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,379,914
`
`data from the image, which underwent correction. Ex. 1001 at ¶¶ [0033],
`
`[0043]-[0046] and [0050]. The useful regions in the coupon image are
`
`identified, and the data corresponding to the regions is extracted (using OCR)
`
`and compared against the data in the database. See id., ¶¶ [0007], [0144] and
`
`[0145].
`
`Fig. 3.
`
`Further, Hoyos discloses a database of vendor data which is used to detect
`
`a match that determines a vendor on the coupon image. See id., ¶ [0007].
`
`Further, the results of the analysis, i.e., vendor’s ID, an account number, and
`
`name and address information are provided to complete a payment transaction.
`
`See id., ¶ [0035], Abstract; see also Ex. 1016 at 7-9.
`
`2.
`
`Pandian (Ex. 1003):
`
`Pandian’s Patent Application was published on December 29, 2005, from
`
`U.S. Application No. 10/894,338, which was filed on July 20, 2004, and claims
`
`priority from U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/579,277, filed June 15, 2004.
`
`Therefore the priority date of Pandian is June 15, 2004, which is before the
`
`12
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,379,914
`
`effective priority date (September 18, 2012) of the ’914 Patent. Therefore,
`
`Pandian is prior art to the ’914 Patent.
`
`Pandian disclosure relates to the field of document recognition based
`
`document management system, where the documents are images captured using
`
`electronic document sources such as facsimile images, scanned images. See id.,
`
`¶ [0002] and Abstract.
`
`Pandian disclosure describes “modules for image capture, image
`
`enhancement, image identification, optical character recognition, data extraction
`
`and quality assurance. The system captures data from electronic documents as
`
`diverse as facsimile images, scanned images and images from document
`
`management systems. It processes these images and presents the data in, for
`
`example, a standard XML format ... [t]he system can extract images directly
`
`from a facsimile machine, a scanner or a document management system for
`
`processing.” See id., Abstract; see also Ex. 1016 at 9-11.
`
`In the above process, Pandian describes that the captured images are
`
`corrected for skewed errors, water marks, holes punched … etc by the image
`
`enhancement module 32 to make the optical character recognition more
`
`accurate. Ex. 1003 at ¶ [0079].
`
`Fig. 2B:
`
`13
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,379,914
`
`Further, corrected images are processed by OCR module 37, where OCR is
`
`performed and a feedback relating to the quality of the OCR is generated. If the
`
`quality of the OCR is lesser than the desired degree of quality, then the
`
`feedback loop module 39 sends the results to the enhancement module to further
`
`enhance the image and perform OCR again. This process is repeated until the
`
`OCR output of desired quality is obtained. Further, Pandian also describes that
`
`the image identification module can distinguish between different types of
`
`document images such as Bank of America statement, Citibank statement and
`
`Utility bill. See id., ¶¶ [0138]-[0141]; see also Ex. 1016 at 9-11.
`
`3. Baker (Ex. 1004):
`
`Baker’s Patent was issued on January 19, 1999, from U.S. Application No.
`
`611,777, which was filed on March 6, 1996. Therefore the priority date of
`
`14
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,379,914
`
`Baker is March 6, 1996, which is before the effective priority date (September
`
`18, 2012) of the ’914 Patent. Therefore, Baker is prior art to the ’914 Patent.
`
`Baker discloses “a system for evaluating barcoded mail which includes an
`
`imaging device to provide an image signal corresponding to an image of a
`
`barcode or an address of a mail piece.” See id., Abstract.
`
`Baker further describes that the barcoded mail are evaluated using OCR.
`
`Specifically, the processor 50 in Baker determines the destination address on the
`
`image of the mail. Further, the address information is decoded from the
`
`barcode on the image. Finally the address is evaluated by comparing the
`
`destination address determined using OCR with the address information
`
`decoded from the barcode. See id., Col. 6, ll.65 - Col. 7, ll. 4. Baker further
`
`describes that these addresses can include ZIP code or “ZIP+4” for detailed
`
`destination address. See id., col. 1, ll. 16-22.; see also Ex. 1016 at 11.
`
`4.
`
`Sipe (Ex. 1005):
`
`Sipe’s Patent Application was published on May 13, 2004, from U.S.
`
`Application No. 10/290,029, which was filed on November 7, 2002. Therefore
`
`the priority date of Sipe is November 7, 2002, which is before the effective
`
`priority date (September 18, 2012) of the ’914 Patent. Sipe is prior art to the
`
`’914 Patent.
`
`15
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,379,914
`
`Sipe discloses a process of creating a address database by taking daily
`
`address information and updating the United States Postal Service (USPS)
`
`NCOA database. Sipe also teaches that this process will enable the collection of
`
`address change information at near real time, validate the change information,
`
`and distribute this new address database to licensed users on a daily or more
`
`frequent basis. See id., Abstract; see also Ex. 1016 at 11-12.
`
`5.
`
`Schwalb (Ex. 1006):
`
`Schwalb’s Patent was issued on January 25, 2011, from U.S. Application
`
`No. 11/751,186, which was filed on May 21, 2007. Therefore the priority date
`
`of Schwalb is May 21, 2007, which is before the effective priority date
`
`(September 18, 2012) of the ’914 Patent. Therefore, Schwalb is prior art to the
`
`’914 Patent.
`
`Schwalb discloses a method of searching a database using fuzzy rules. The
`
`method accepts a word or word phrase such as a person’s name or address and
`
`returns fuzzy rules for searching the database. Further Schwalb discloses
`
`selecting and modifying the fuzzy rules to improve the accuracy of search
`
`results from the database. Schwalb also identifies that there are problems
`
`associated with searching databases for addresses. See id., Abstract and col. 1,
`
`ll. 38-40; see also Ex. 1016 at 12.
`
`16
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,379,914
`
`6. Du (Ex. 1007):
`
`Du’s Patent was issued on June 8, 2010, from U.S. Application No.
`
`10/749,473, which was filed on December 31, 2003. Therefore the priority date
`
`of Du is December 31, 2003, which is before the effective priority date
`
`(September 18, 2012) of the ’914 Patent. Therefore, Du is prior art to the ’914
`
`Patent.
`
`Du discloses a method for displaying, on the portable imaging device,
`
`information associated with an item selected by the user from a remote location.
`
`In the above method Du describes that “a user at the location of the first entity
`
`operates a portable imaging device to capture an image of identifying data, such
`
`as a barcode, that identifies a selected item. The captured image is then
`
`communicated to a server operated by a second entity that is different than the
`
`first entity to obtain item information (e.g., price, availability, etc.) associated
`
`with the selected item. The item information is communicated back to the
`
`portable imaging device for display to the user while the user remains at the
`
`location of the first entity”. See id., Abstract; see also Ex. 1016 at 12-13.
`
`7. Hung (Ex. 1008):
`
`Hung’s Patent was issued on June 15, 2004, from U.S. Application No.
`
`09/736,731, which was filed on December 11, 2000. Therefore the priority date
`
`of Hung is December 11, 2000, which is before the effective priority date
`17
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,379,914
`
`(September 18, 2012) of the ’914 Patent. Therefore, Hung is prior art to the
`
`’914 Patent.
`
`Hung discloses a scanner that can read two-dimensional barcodes from
`
`reflective or emissive electronic displays. See id., Abstract. The scanner can
`
`also adapt to read barcodes from displays with non-square pixels. More
`
`specifically, the scanner captures an image of a barcode displayed on an
`
`electronic screen. The image is provided to the digital processor, where the
`
`known barcode elements are measured and the image data is scaled to produce
`
`barcode elements within the aspect ratio tolerance. See id., col. 13, ll. 1-3. The
`
`processor determines if the two-dimensional barcode elements are square or not
`
`by comparing the lengths of adjoining sides of the regions. Further, in case of
`
`not a square the processor scales the image either by lengthening one axis
`
`or/and shortening the other. See id., col. 11, ll. 61 to col. 12, ll. 2; see also Ex.
`
`1016 at 13.
`
`8. Bressan (Ex. 1009):
`
`Bressan’s Patent was issued on November 2, 2010, from U.S. Application
`
`No. 11/299,453, which was filed on December 12, 2005. Therefore the priority
`
`date of Bressan is December 12, 2005, which is before the effective priority
`
`date (September 18, 2012) of the ’914 Patent. Therefore, Bressan is prior art to
`
`the ’914 Patent.
`
`18
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,379,914
`
`Bressan discloses a system for updating a contacts database. Bressan’s
`
`system uses a portable imager to acquire a digital image of a business card. See
`
`id., Abstract. Thereafter, the image pre-processor performs pre-processing on
`
`the digital image, where the pre-processing includes shadow correction, re-
`
`sizing the image or other corrections. See id., col. 4, ll. 26-31; see also Ex. 1016
`
`at 13-15.
`
`Fig.1:
`
`Further, an image segmenter extracts text image segments from the digital
`
`image, and an optical character recognizer (OCR) generates one or more textual
`
`19
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,379,914
`
`content candidates for each text image segment. Thereafter, a content selector
`
`selects a textual content candidate for each text image segment based on the
`
`scores assigned by a scoring processor. Finally, an interface is configured to
`
`update the contacts list based on the selected textual content candidates. See Ex.
`
`1009 at Abstract; see also Ex. 1016 at 13-15.
`
`X. Petitioner’s Proposed Claim Construction
`
`Petitioner proposes the following claim construction as the broadest
`
`reasonable interpreta