Paper No. _____
`Filed: May 10, 2016
`
`
`Filed on behalf of: Mitek Systems, Inc.
`
`By: Edward J. Benz III
`
`Naveen Modi
`
`Paul Hastings
`
`1170 Peachtree Street, N.E.
`
`Suite 100
`
`Atlanta, GA 30309
`
`Telephone: 404-815-2329
`
`Facsimile: 404-685-5329
`
`Email: joebenz@paulhastings.com
`
`
` naveenmodi@paulhastings.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
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00457
`Patent 8,379,914
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`to Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,379,914
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00457
`
`Page
`
`V.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`I.
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`Overview of the ’914 Patent ............................................................................ 2
`II.
`III. Overview of Hoyos .......................................................................................... 7
`IV. Claim Construction .......................................................................................... 9
`A. Mobile Device ..................................................................................... 10
`B.
`Address Database ................................................................................ 13
`C.
`Code Line ............................................................................................ 16
`The Petition Fails to Establish a Reasonable Likelihood that the Petition will
`Prevail in Establishing that any Challenged Claim is Unpatentable Because
`Certain Claimed Features Are Not Disclosed or Taught by the Cited
`References. ..................................................................................................... 20
`A.
`Petitioner Has Not Shown that Hoyos Discloses “a mobile device” as
`Recited in the Challenged Claims. ...................................................... 22
`Petitioner Has Not Shown that Hoyos Discloses Limitation (e) of
`Claims 1 and 10: “identifying an address of a biller on the remittance
`coupon by comparing address content in the extracted content with an
`address database.” ............................................................................... 24
`Petitioner Has Not Shown that Hoyos Discloses Limitation (f) of
`Claims 1 and 10: “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.” ............................................................................ 28
`Petitioner Has Not Shown that the Prior Art Discloses “reading a code
`line on the remittance coupon and correcting a scale of the remittance
`coupon based on a size of the code line” as Recited in Claim 2. ........ 30
`VI. Petitioner Fails to Articulate a Motivation to Combine Hoyos with Any of
`the Cited Secondary References. ................................................................... 31
`VII. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 34
`
`
`
`D.
`
`i
`
`

`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00457
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`CAE Screenplates Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GmbH & Co. KG,
`224 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .................................................................... 17, 30
`
`Dominion Dealer Solutions, LLC v. Autoalert, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00223, Paper No. 9 at 19 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 15, 2013) ........................... 33
`
`Heart Failure Technologies, LLC v. Cariokinetix, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00183, Paper No. 12 at 9 (P.T.A.B. July 31, 2013) ............................ 34
`
`In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................ 33
`
`Kinetic Tech., Inc. v Skyworks Solutions, Inc.,
`No. IPR2014-00530, 2014 WL 4925282 ............................................................ 32
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ...................................................................................... 21, 33
`
`In re NTP,
`654 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 10
`
`In re Rouffet,
`149 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .......................................................................... 33
`
`In re Vaidyanathan,
`381 Fed. Appx. 985 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .................................................................. 10
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C.
`§ 102 .................................................................................................................... 21
`§ 103(a) ............................................................................................................... 21
`§ 313 ...................................................................................................................... 1
`§ 314(a) ............................................................................................................... 21
`
`ii
`
`

`
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00457
`
`37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.100(b)(2014) ............................................................................................... 10
`§ 42.107 ................................................................................................................. 1
`
`M.P.E.P § 2131 ........................................................................................................ 21
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00457
`
`Introduction
`
`In accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 313 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.107, Patent Owner
`
`
`I.
`
`
`Mitek Systems, Inc. (“Mitek” or “Patent Owner”) respectfully submits this
`
`Preliminary Response to the Petition for Inter Partes Review of Mitek’s U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,379,914 (“the ’914 patent”) filed by Rothschild Mobile Imaging
`
`Innovations, LLC. (“RMII” or “Petitioner”). Mitek requests that the Board deny
`
`institution of the inter partes review for at least the following reasons.
`
`
`
`First, the prior art on which RMII relies to establish the unpatentability of
`
`challenged claims 1-7 and 9-10 (the “Challenged Claims”) fails to recite each and
`
`every limitation of any Challenged Claim. Specifically, the prior art fails to recite
`
`at least (i) a “mobile device,” recited in all Challenged Claims; (ii) “identifying an
`
`address of a biller on the remittance coupon by comparing address content in the
`
`extracted content with an address database,” recited in all Challenged Clams;
`
`(iii) “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,” recited in all Challenged Claims; and
`
`(iv) “reading a code line on the remittance coupon and correcting a scale of the
`
`remittance coupon based on a size of the code line,” recited in claim 2. As a result,
`
`Petitioner has not met its burden of demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of
`
`prevailing in proving the unpatentability of any Challenged Claim. Second,
`
`1
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner has failed to provide adequate motivation to combine when advancing its
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00457
`
`obviousness arguments.
`
`
`
`For these reasons, the Board should deny RMII’s Petition and deny
`
`institution of inter partes review.
`
`II. Overview of the ’914 Patent
`
`The ’914 patent is entitled “Systems and Methods for Mobile Image Capture
`
`and Remittance Processing” and claims both methods and a computer readable
`
`medium comprising instructions for “capturing and processing images of
`
`remittance coupons using a mobile device and obtaining data from the captured
`
`image which is used to set up or carry out payment of a bill that corresponds to the
`
`remittance coupon” (Ex. 1002 at Abstract, 1:28-32, claim 10). The ’914 patent
`
`contains 2 independent claims, claims 1 and 10, and eight dependent claims, claims
`
`2 through 9. Independent claims 1 and 10 are identical except for their respective
`
`preambles. Whereas the preamble of claim 1 recites a “method of processing a
`
`remittance coupon captured by a mobile device,” the preamble of claim 10 recites
`
`a “computer-readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by a
`
`computer with a processor and a memory, perform a process” (id. at claims 1 and
`
`100. The steps recited in both claims 1 and 10 are:
`
`(a) receiving an image of a remittance coupon captured by a mobile
`device;
`(b) correcting at least one aspect of the image to produce a corrected
`image;
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00457
`
`(c) performing a first content recognition pass on the corrected
`image to extract content from the remittance coupon;
`(d) identifying an address of a biller on the remittance coupon by
`comparing address content in the extracted content with an
`address database;
`(e) 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;
`(f) producing a set of billing information, including the extracted
`content and the identity of the biller, for processing a payment of
`the bill; and
`(g) using the biller profile information of the biller to perform a
`second content recognition pass on the corrected image to extract
`content from the remittance coupon, wherein 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.
`
`
`(Id.). The claimed methods and computer-readable medium provide an advantage
`
`over the prior art by not only providing “a convenient, easy-to-use method for
`
`paying a bill,” but by offering a way to “increase[] the accuracy of the information
`
`gathered from the remittance coupon” (id. at 2:14-16).
`
`
`
`In the invention of the ’914 patent, an image of a remittance coupon
`
`associated with a bill is first captured through an “image capture device,” such as a
`
`“digital camera or portable scanning device,” which is “coupled with, or embedded
`
`within” a mobile device “such as a cellular phone, smartphone, tablet, personal
`
`digital assistant (PDA) or other portable electronic device” (id. at 7:24-30; 9:10-
`
`12). Thereafter, the image is put through a number of “initial image processing
`
`steps” that “provide for an immediate evaluation of the quality of the image” and
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`for “an initial set of image quality testing (IQA)” (id. at 9:23-42). The image is
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00457
`
`then sent to a “remote server” for “content extracting steps to capture the content
`
`of the remittance coupon” (id. at 15:49-52).
`
`
`
`As shown by FIG. 1 below, the remote server is connected to three separate
`
`databases: (i) “an address database 106 which is used to verify address
`
`information obtained from the remittance coupon,” (ii) a “biller database 108
`
`which stores information on billers, such as address information and billing
`
`formats for the remittance coupons,” and (iii) “a content database,” which stores
`
`“extracted data and captured and processed images” (id. at 7:37-48).
`
`
`
`
`
`At the remote server, the captured image undergoes a “first content
`
`recognition pass” in which “data and fields on the remittance coupon” are
`
`extracted pursuant to “rules for capturing fields of interest” (id. at 16:27-30; 45-
`
`47). Such rules can include “restrictions on field location (e.g. in the left-top
`
`quadrant of the document), format (e.g. contains from 3 to 10 digits and up to 3
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`alphas), textual clues/keywords (e.g. adjacent to Account No.),” among others (id.
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00457
`
`at 16:53:59).
`
`
`
`The system then undertakes a number of steps to ensure that the data needed
`
`to process a payment is as accurate as possible so payment will be sent to the
`
`correct biller and credited to the correct account. The first step involves
`
`identifying the billing entity (id. at 18:8-45). The claimed method employs a two-
`
`part process to accurately identify the biller. In the first part, the system identifies
`
`the biller’s address (id., claims 1 and 10). It does so by comparing the address
`
`extracted from the captured image during the first content recognition pass “to an
`
`address database” which “may be populated with a plurality of addresses from a
`
`United States Postal Service (USPS) database” (id. at 3:24-26; 18:14-18, claims 1
`
`and 10). This ‘identifying’ step is crucial to the invention, as it prevents the system
`
`from relying on the address extracted from the scanned image to identify the biller,
`
`since extracted information may contain errors. As the specification notes, the
`
`identifying step “allow[s] for further qualification and normalization of the address
`
`information obtained from the first pass in S216, which improves the overall
`
`accuracy of the system” (id.).
`
`
`
`Once the “payee address is known with a certain degree of confidence” the
`
`system performs the second part, the “biller lookup,” through which the system
`
`“attempts to identify the entity responsible for creating a bill so that a payment
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`made by a user will be transferred to the correct entity” (id. at 18:36-42). This
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00457
`
`process involves comparing the address identified during the identifying step with
`
`a “biller database” which contains “biller profile information on numerous billers
`
`(payees)” (id. at 18:42-46).
`
`
`
`After the billing entity is identified through the two-part biller lookup
`
`process, “a second content recognition process (second pass) of the captured
`
`image” is performed “with further hints to the OCR 412 engine based on the
`
`information obtained from the address search (S220) and biller lookup (S222)
`
`process” (id. at 20:20-24). Through this second pass, fields extracted during the
`
`first content recognition pass are “re-read” from the captured image, this time
`
`using biller profile information obtained during the biller lookup process (id. at
`
`20:29-62). Such biller profile information might include “more information on
`
`formats masks via regex expressions, as well as information on the biller,
`
`document format, location information and so forth” (id. at 20:25-28). For
`
`example, an “account mask” for a particular biller may indicate that the biller has
`
`“account numbers which are 15 digits and always start with a ‘3’” (id. at 20:60-
`
`62). Using that mask, “the account number field is re-read in the second pass” (id.
`
`at 20:60-64). Thus, an account number read as having only 10 digits during the
`
`first content recognition pass, for instance, will be replaced with the complete 15
`
`digit account number correctly re-read during the second pass using the account
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`mask (id. at 21:2-8). After the second pass is completed, the “final values will then
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00457
`
`be submitted to the banking server 112 which will handle the actual processing of
`
`the payment from a bank account of the user to the payee” (id. at 21:42-45).
`
`III. Overview of Hoyos
`
`In each asserted Ground 1-14 in its Petition, Petitioner relies on U.S. Patent
`
`Pub. No. US 2002/0037097 to Hoyos (“Hoyos”), entitled “Coupon Recognition
`
`System,” as the lone or a principal reference. Hoyos teaches a method and system
`
`in which an “automated transaction machine includes a scanner to receive a bill or
`
`coupon” that is processed “to determine an associated vendor and customer
`
`account information” which in turn are “used to complete a payment transaction”
`
`(Ex. 1001 at Abstract). While the system and method of Hoyos involve the
`
`processing of a scanned image to facilitate payment of a bill, Hoyos goes about
`
`such processing in a completely different manner than the invention claimed in the
`
`’914 patent.
`
`The system of Hoyos includes “a scanner 112, a database of coupon data
`
`116, and a coupon engine 114” (id. at ¶ [0016]). The “coupon database” contains a
`
`number of “sample coupons” that have been “scanned and processed to remove
`
`skew and noise” (id. at ¶ [0037]). In creating the “coupon database,” the sample
`
`coupons are processed “to determine the location and size of various fields,”
`
`resulting in a “listing of the type of elements in the coupon,” including “position
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`and type information for each element of the coupon image” (id. at ¶ [0038]). The
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00457
`
`system’s “coupon engine” is designed to “compare[] a coupon image received
`
`from the scanner 112 with the database of coupon data 116 to determine [the
`
`coupon] type and to extract relevant fields” (id. at ¶ [0016]).
`
`The method performed by the system of Hoyos comprises three principal
`
`segments. In the first segment, a paper bill or coupon is passed through a scanner
`
`“to generate an electronic representation of the coupon” (id. at ¶ [0032]). The
`
`second segment involves locating a coupon in the coupon database that matches
`
`the scanned coupon (id. at ¶ [0033] (data fields from the scanned image “are
`
`compared to a coupon database 116 to determine whether the incoming coupon
`
`matches the type of an entry in the coupon database”)). To locate a matching
`
`coupon, data fields from the scanned coupon are subjected to analysis wherein they
`
`are each identified as a “type,” such as “a barcode, a line, a table, a logo, a text
`
`area, etc.” (id. at ¶¶ [0045]-[0056]). The results of the analysis are then compared
`
`“with information from the coupon database 315” in order “to determine the
`
`coupon type” (id. at ¶ [0046]). Only if “the information from the coupon matches
`
`a set of conditions in the coupon database 315” is the “coupon type” determined
`
`(id.).
`
`The third segment is conducted after “the coupon generates a match,”
`
`wherein “the process proceeds to extract customer information including account
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`number, amount due and similar information” from the imaged coupon using the
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00457
`
`matched coupon from the coupon database as a guide (id. at ¶¶ [0033] and[ 0047]).
`
`In particular, the “coupon database 315 identifies the areas of zones where this
`
`information may be found” (id. at ¶ [0047]).
`
`Thus, in Hoyos, information is first extracted to identify a matching coupon
`
`in the coupon database and thereafter the matching coupon is used to identify the
`
`location in the scanned image of the data fields that must be extracted to process
`
`payment of the bill. Notably, as shown in Fig. 1, Hoyos discloses the use of only a
`
`single database – the coupon database – to identify the biller:
`
`
`
`IV. Claim Construction
`
`Patent Owner presents below proposed constructions for three claim terms
`
`appearing in the Challenged Claims. Any term not construed herein should be
`
`interpreted in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning under the broadest
`
`reasonable construction. Given the different claim construction standards used by
`
`the PTO and district courts, Petitioner reserves the right to argue a different
`
`construction for any term during any litigation proceeding.
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00457
`
`In IPR proceedings, claims are given their “broadest reasonable construction
`
`in light of the specification.” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)(2014). “While the Board
`
`must give the terms their broadest reasonable construction, the construction cannot
`
`be divorced from the specification and the record evidence.” In re NTP, 654 F.3d
`
`1279, 1288-90 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Rather, the broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`“must be in conformity with the invention as described in the specification.” See
`
`In re Vaidyanathan, 381 Fed. Appx. 985, 996 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
`
`A. Mobile Device
`The term “Mobile Device” appears in each of the Challenged Claims.
`
`
`
`Petitioner has not proposed a construction for “mobile device.” The broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of “mobile device” that conforms with the claims and
`
`specification is “a mobile communication device, such as a mobile telephone
`
`handset or Personal Digital Assistant, that includes an imaging device, such as a
`
`scanner or camera, or functionality that allows it to connect to an imaging device,
`
`such as a scanner or camera.” As shown herein, this construction is consistent with
`
`both the claims and the specification.
`
`
`
`Each of the independent claims recite that an image of a remittance coupon
`
`is “captured by a mobile device” (Claims 1-10). Thus, under the plain reading of
`
`the claims, two things are required: (i) a mobile device; and (ii) functionality that
`
`allows the mobile device to capture an image.
`
`10
`
`

`
`The specification teaches that the claimed mobile device can comprise “a
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00457
`
`
`
`
`mobile telephone handset, Personal Digital Assistant, or other mobile
`
`communication device” (Ex. 1002 at 7:54-56); (see also id. at 7:23-27) (“The
`
`system 100 includes a mobile device 102, such as a cellular phone, smartphone,
`
`tablet, personal digital assistant (PDA) or other portable electronic device that may
`
`be connected with a communications network”); (id. at 60:50-52) (“According to
`
`some embodiments, the mobile device 4400 is a mobile phone, smart phone, or a
`
`PDA.”).
`
`
`
`The specification further teaches that the mobile device is either connected
`
`to or has embedded within it an “image capture device” such as a camera or
`
`scanner: “[t]he mobile device 102 will include an image capture device (not
`
`shown), such as a digital camera or a portable scanning device, which is capable of
`
`capturing an image of a document” (id. at 7:27-39, 7:56-59) (“[t]he mobile device
`
`can include a camera or other imaging device, such as a scanner, or might
`
`include functionality that allows it to connect to a camera or other imaging
`
`device”); (id. at 9:9-11) (“the mobile device activates an image capture device to
`
`capture an image of a remittance coupon with the image capture device, such as a
`
`camera, that is coupled with, or embedded within, the mobile device); (id. at
`
`21:57-61) (“The systems and methods disclosed herein allow an image of
`
`remittance coupons . . . to be captured using a camera or other imaging device
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`included in or coupled to a mobile device, such as a mobile phone”) (emphasis
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00457
`
`added).
`
`
`
`Every embodiment in the specification involves use of a mobile device, such
`
`as a cellphone, that is coupled to or has embedded within it an imaging device such
`
`as a camera or scanner (id. at 7:18-20) (“The embodiments described herein
`
`provide an end-to-end solution for capturing information from a bill via a camera
`
`on a mobile device and using that information to automate the payment of the
`
`bill”); (id. at 3:37-38) (“activating an image capture device on the mobile device);
`
`(id. at 8:5-6) (“[i]mages taken using, for example, a mobile device's camera); (id.
`
`at 37:2-6) (“preprocessing unit 2110 can be configured to receive a mobile image
`
`2105 captured using a camera of a mobile device”); (id. at 38:64-65) (“the mobile
`
`image can be provided by a camera that is part of or coupled to the mobile
`
`device); (id. at 2:43-48) (“the characteristics of the camera of the mobile device
`
`that was used to capture the image); (id. at 43:40-41) (“Mobile devices can include
`
`cameras that have significantly different optical characteristics”) (emphasis
`
`added).
`
`
`
`FIG. 50, which shows “functional elements of a mobile device,” further
`
`demonstrates that the claimed mobile device must either be embedded with or
`
`coupled to an imaging device such as a scanner or camera. FIG. 50:
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00457
`
`
`
`As shown in FIG. 50, “mobile device 4400 also includes an image capture
`
`50 component 4430, such as a digital camera” (id. at 60:49-50).
`
`
`
`Accordingly, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “mobile device” that
`
`conforms to the specification is the one proposed by Petitioner, and thus
`
`Petitioner’s construction should be adopted.
`
`B. Address Database
`The claim term “address database” appears in each Challenged Claim.
`
`
`
`Petitioner does not propose a construction of address database. The broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of address database that conforms with the claims and
`
`specification is “a database consisting essentially of valid U.S. postal addresses.”
`
`
`
`Both independent claims recite “identifying an address of a biller on the
`
`remittance coupon by comparing address content in the extracted content with an
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`address database” (id., claims 1 and 10). Per the plain meaning of the claims,
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00457
`
`therefore, the address database is used to “identify” a biller’s address. The
`
`specification confirms this purpose by explaining that “the address database [] is
`
`used to verify address information obtained from the remittance coupon” (id. at
`
`7:37-40). In other words, instead of using the biller’s address that is read from the
`
`remittance coupon to look up the biller, an “address database” is used to identify an
`
`address that has a greater degree of accuracy to use for the biller lookup (see id. at
`
`18:14-20) (a “search of address database 106 will allow for further qualification
`
`and normalization of the address information obtained from the first pass in S216,
`
`which improves the overall accuracy of the system.”).
`
`
`
`In order to function for this intended purpose, the address database must
`
`contain addresses that are verified as valid. For this reason, the specification
`
`provides that the “address database 106 may be a United States Postal Service
`
`(USPS) database of valid addresses that can be used to validate the information
`
`read off of a bill with regard to the Payor and Payee” (id. at 18:31-34, 3:24-26)
`
`(“The address database may be populated with a plurality of addresses from a
`
`United States Postal Service (USPS) database.”).
`
`
`
`Importantly, a database cannot be an “address database” simply because it
`
`includes addresses among other pieces of information. Rather, an address database
`
`is one that consists essentially of addresses as opposed to other pieces of
`
`14
`
`

`
`
`information. This distinction is made clear in the claims and specification, both of
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00457
`
`which distinguish between an “address database,” on the one hand, and a “biller
`
`database” (referred to in the claims as a “database of biller profile information),”
`
`on the other (see id. at claims 1 and 10; 7:37-43 (“the remote server 104 may be
`
`connected with an address database 106 which is used to verify address
`
`information obtained from the remittance coupon. . . [and] may also be connected
`
`with a biller database 108 which stores information on billers”). In the ’914 patent,
`
`the biller database is not an address database even though the biller database
`
`includes biller address information:
`
`The biller database 108 may contain biller profile information on
`numerous billers (payees). The biller profile information may
`include their addresses, . . . and other biller-specific fields
`(determined with masks/regex).
`
`(id. at 18:45-51, 19:59-64) (The biller database 108 contains both nationwide biller
`
`address information . . . . ”); (id. at 7:40-43) (“remote server 104 may also be
`
`connected with a biller database 108 which stores information on billers, such as
`
`address information . . . .”). The specification thus confirms that the mere
`
`inclusion of address information within a database does not make the database an
`
`“address database.”
`
`
`
`For these reasons, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “address
`
`database” that conforms to the specification is the one proposed by Petitioner, and
`
`thus Petitioner’s construction should be adopted.
`
`15
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00457
`
`C. Code Line
`The term “code line” appears only in Claim 2 of the ’914 patent which
`
`
`
`
`
`reads: “The method of claim 1, further comprising reading a code line on the
`
`remittance coupon and correcting a scale of the remittance coupon based on a size
`
`of the code line” (Ex. 1002 at 64:10-12).
`
`
`
`Patent Owner proposes that the Board construe “code line” to mean
`
`“computer-readable text, in the form of alpha-numeric characters only, that can be
`
`used to encode account-related information.” Petitioner, on the other hand,
`
`proposes that the Board construe code line to mean “encoded information that can
`
`be detected and decoded by a computer system to extract information encoded
`
`therein.” The principal difference between the two constructions is that
`
`Petitioner’s construction is broad enough to include a bar code, which is a code
`
`that includes lines or bars. As Petitioner asserts, a “barcode is one such code line,
`
`which is encoded information that can be detected and decoded by a computer
`
`system to extract the information encoded therein” (Pet., p. 39). Patent Owner’s
`
`construction, on the other hand, excludes bar codes because it specifies that the
`
`encoded information contains “alpha-numeric characters only.” While Petitioner’s
`
`proposed construction is broader than patent Owner’s proposed construction,
`
`Petitioner’s construction is not the broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`claims and specification.
`
`16
`
`

`
`First, the claims distinguish between code lines and bar codes. While claim
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00457
`
`
`
`
`2 recites “reading a code line on the remittance coupon,” claim 5 recites “reading a
`
`barcode on the remittance coupon.” It is well-established that in the absence of
`
`evidence to the contrary, the Board “must presume that the use of [] different terms
`
`in the claims connotes different meanings.” CAE Screenplates Inc. v. Heinrich
`
`Fiedler GmbH & Co. KG, 224 F.3d 1308, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Second, the
`
`specification consistently distinguishes between code lines and bar codes, making
`
`clear that they are not one in the same. For instance, FIG. 2, which illustrates “a
`
`method of mobile image capture and remittance processing,” shows step S212
`
`“Read code line” as separate and distinct from step S218 “Read Barcodes” (Ex.
`
`1002 at 4:43-45). Under the heading “Codeline Read,” the specification states that
`
`one “step is to read a code line on the remittance coupon (S212) . . . ” (id. at 16:12-
`
`15). Under the heading “Bar Code Detection,” the specification continues that “a
`
`pre-processing step may include barcode detection and recognition,” wherein “[i]f
`
`a barcode is detected on the financial document, the barcode is read and saved
`
`alongside the coordinates” (id. at 17:60-64). There is thus no question that in the
`
`’914 patent, a code line is not a barcode.
`
`
`
`In addition, the specification states:
`
`
`
`[m]any remittance coupons include a code line that comprises
`computer-readable text that can be used to encode account-related
`information that can be used to reconcile a payment received with the
`account for which the payment is being made.
`
`17
`
`

`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00457
`
`
`(id. at 27:26-30). This reference establishes that code lines are made up of
`
`“computer-readable text” that encodes “account-related information.” Thereafter,
`
`the specification notes that “[c]ode line 905 of FIG. 9 illustrates an example of
`
`code line on a remittance coupon” (id. at 27:30-31). As shown by FIG. 9, which is
`
`a “corrected image” of a “remittance coupon 800 illustrated in FIG. 8,” code line
`
`905 consists of alpha-numeric characters only:
`
`
`
`FIG. 9 also graphically demonstrates that code line 905 is separate and distinct
`
`from “bar code 925,” which, unlike code line 905, is comprised of lines or bars.
`
`(id. at 16:14-20). Accordingly, the specification unequivocally distinguishes
`
`between code lines, which consist of alpha-numeric characters only, and bar codes,
`
`which consist of symbols in the form of lines or bars. It would thus be error to
`
`construe code lines in a manner that would capture barcodes.
`
`
`
`Yet that is precisely what Petitioner’s construction does. Petitioner claims to
`
`18
`
`

`
`
`have derived its construction of “code line” from the following statement in the
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00457
`
`specification:
`
`some remittance coupons also include computer-readable bar codes
`or code lines 905 that include text or other computer-readable
`symbols that can be used to encode account-related information ...
`Code line 905 can be detected and decoded by a computer system to
`extract the information encoded therein.
`
` (Pet., p. 21 citing