Case 1:24-cv-00733-MN Document 23-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 1522
`
`Exhibit
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00733-MN Document 23-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 2 of 12 PageID #: 1523
`
`Paper No. _____
`Filed: November 24, 2023
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________________
`
`KIOSOFT TECHNOLOGIES, LLC and TECHTREX, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`PAYRANGE INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_____________________________
`
`Case No. PGR2023-00042
`Patent 11,481,772
`_____________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §42.207
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00733-MN Document 23-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 3 of 12 PageID #: 1524
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`Claim Construction .......................................................................................... 2
`
`III. Ground 1 Fails ................................................................................................. 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Petitioners Are Collaterally Estopped ................................................... 3
`
`Petitioners Fail to Prove Claims 7 and 11 Are Patent Ineligible ........ 10
`
`IV. Ground 2 Fails ............................................................................................... 13
`
`A.
`
`The Petition Fails to Show that the Proposed Combination Satisfies
`All Requirements of the Independent Claims ..................................... 13
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`The Petition Fails to Show that the Proposed Combination
`Teaches Element 1.3 ................................................................. 13
`
`The Petition Fails to Show that the Proposed Combination
`Teaches Element 1.7.2 .............................................................. 18
`
`The Petition Fails to Show that the Proposed Combination
`Teaches Element 1.9 ................................................................. 20
`
`The Petition Fails to Show that the Proposed Combination
`Teaches Element 1.11 ............................................................... 26
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The Petition Fails to Show that a POSA Had Reason to Arrive at the
`Additional Limitations of Claim 7 ...................................................... 30
`
`The Petition Fails to Show that the Proposed Combination Satisfies
`the Additional Limitations of Claim 11 .............................................. 32
`
`V.
`
`Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 35
`
`VI. Appendix ........................................................................................................ 36
`
`-i-
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00733-MN Document 23-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 4 of 12 PageID #: 1525
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`The Board should deny institution of inter partes review (IPR) of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 11,481,772 (“the ’772 patent”) because Petitioners KioSoft
`
`Technologies, LLC and TechTrex, Inc. fail to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood
`
`of prevailing. The petition presents two grounds of challenge, both of which fall
`
`short.
`
`Ground 1 attempts to relitigate Petitioners’ failed patent eligibility
`
`challenges to materially identical claims in a previous PGR. In arguing that the
`
`claims are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101, Petitioners invoke the Board’s
`
`previous decision in PGR2021-00093—Petitioners’ challenge to claims of related
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,891,614 (“the ’614 patent”)—where the Board found “very
`
`similar claims” patent ineligible. Pet., 38 (emphasis in original) (citing PGR2021-
`
`00093, Paper 38). Petitioners are correct that the Board has already resolved §101
`
`challenges against very similar claims, and Patent Owner has now disclaimed
`
`claims 1-6, 8-10, and 12-20 of the ’772 patent, leaving only claims 7 and 11. See
`
`EX2001 (statutory disclaimer under 37 C.F.R. §1.321(a) filed on November 22,
`
`2023). Petitioners overlook, however, that this prior decision found that
`
`Petitioners failed to prove patent ineligibility for claims 7 and 11 of the ’614
`
`patent, which are virtually identical to claims 7 and 11 of the ’772 patent.
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00733-MN Document 23-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 5 of 12 PageID #: 1526
`
`Petitioners are collaterally estopped from relitigating the patent ineligibility of
`
`these materially identical claims, and in any event the petition fails to prove that
`
`the Board should reach a different outcome here.
`
`Ground 2 also contains numerous facial deficiencies. This ground argues
`
`that the claims were obvious over a combination of Low, Arora, and Casey, but
`
`Petitioners fail to show that the proposed combination satisfies multiple elements
`
`of claim 1, which claims 7 and 11 inherit via dependency. Petitioners also fail to
`
`show that the proposed combination satisfies the additional limitations recited in
`
`claims 7 and 11.
`
`Petitioners thus fail to meet their burden of proving that claims 7 and 11 are
`
`patent ineligible under §101 or obvious under §103. Accordingly, institution of
`
`inter partes review should be denied.
`
`II.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`In an IPR, a claim is given its ordinary and customary meaning in light of
`
`the specification. 37 C.F.R. §42.200(b). No constructions are necessary to deny
`
`institution because denial is warranted for numerous reasons that do not depend on
`
`claim construction. Infra, §§III-IV.
`
`III. Ground 1 Fails
`
`Ground 1 seeks a do-over of Petitioners’ failed patent-ineligibility
`
`challenges to claims 7 and 11 of the ’614 patent. Petitioners correctly argue that
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00733-MN Document 23-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 6 of 12 PageID #: 1527
`
`the Board addressed “very similar” claims of the related ’614 patent in PGR2021-
`
`00093. Pet., 38 (emphasis in original). But Petitioners fail to contend with the
`
`consequences of the admitted similarities with respect to claims 7 and 11, as these
`
`claims are materially identical to claims that the Board found Petitioners had not
`
`proven to be patent ineligible. PGR2021-00093, Paper 38 at 45-47, 49. In view of
`
`the Board’s prior decision addressing materially identical patent eligibility issues,
`
`Petitioners are collaterally estopped from challenging the patent eligibility of
`
`claims 7 and 11. Even if collateral estoppel does not apply, Petitioners’ repetition
`
`of the same facially deficient arguments from the previous PGR only confirms that
`
`Petitioners have failed to meet their burden of proving that either claim is patent
`
`ineligible.
`
`A.
`
`Petitioners Are Collaterally Estopped
`
`Petitioners are collaterally estopped from arguing that claims 7 and 11 are
`
`patent ineligible under §101. Collateral estoppel applies to AIA proceedings
`
`when:
`
`(1) the issue is identical to one decided in the first action; (2) the issue
`
`was actually litigated in the first action; (3) resolution of the issue was
`
`essential to a final judgment in the first action; and (4) [the party against
`
`whom collateral estoppel is being asserted] had a full and fair opportunity
`
`to litigate the issue in the first action.
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00733-MN Document 23-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 7 of 12 PageID #: 1528
`Case 1:24-cv-00733-MN Document 23-3
`Filed 10/25/24
`Page 7 of 12 PagelD #: 1528
`
`Google LLC v. HammondDev.Int'l, Inc., 54 F.4th 1377, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
`
`Asexplained below,all four elements are satisfied here.
`
` A methodof presenting
`
`representations of payment
`accepting unit events, comprising:
`at a mobile device with one or
`
`A method ofpresenting
`representations of payment
`accepting unit events, comprising:
`at a mobile device with one or
`
`DTOCeSSOTS, Memo
`
`more processors, Memo
`
`4.
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00733-MN Document 23-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 8 of 12 PageID #: 1529
`
`’614 claim 1
`more output devices including a
`display, and one or more radio
`transceivers:
`identifying one or more payment
`accepting units in proximity to the
`mobile device that are available to
`accept payment from a mobile
`payment application executing on
`the mobile device,
`the identifying including
`detecting predefined radio
`messages broadcast by the one or
`more payment accepting units,
`wherein the one or more payment
`accepting units are vending
`machines that accept payment for
`dispensing of products and/or
`services;
`displaying a user interface of the
`mobile payment application on the
`display of the mobile device,
`the user interface being
`configured to display a visual
`indication of the one or more
`payment accepting units and
`accept user input to (i) receive
`selection by a user of the mobile
`device of an available payment
`accepting unit of the one or more
`payment accepting units and (ii)
`trigger payment by the mobile
`payment application for a vending
`transaction initiated by the user of
`the mobile device with the available
`payment accepting unit of the one or
`more payment accepting units;
`establishing via the one or more
`radio transceivers a wireless
`connection between the mobile
`
`’772 claim 1
`more output devices including a
`display, and one or more radio
`transceivers:
`identifying one or more payment
`accepting units in proximity to the
`mobile device that are available to
`accept payment from a mobile
`payment application executing on
`the mobile device,
`the identifying based at least in
`part on an identifier
`corresponding to the one or more
`payment accepting units,
`wherein the one or more payment
`accepting units are payment
`operated machines that accept
`payment for dispensing of products
`and/or services;
`displaying a user interface of the
`mobile payment application on the
`display of the mobile device,
`the user interface being
`configured to display a visual
`indication of the one or more
`payment accepting units and
`accept user input to (i) receive
`selection by a user of the mobile
`device of an available payment
`accepting unit of the one or more
`payment accepting units and (ii)
`trigger payment by the mobile
`payment application for a
`transaction initiated by the user of
`the mobile device with the available
`payment accepting unit of the one or
`more payment accepting units;
`establishing via the one or more
`radio transceivers a wireless
`communication path including the
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00733-MN Document 23-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 9 of 12 PageID #: 1530
`Case 1:24-cv-00733-MN Document 23-3
`Filed 10/25/24
`Page 9 of 12 PagelD #: 1530
`
`the user of the mobile device.
`
`°772 claim 1
`°614 claim 1
`mobile device andthe available
`device andthe available payment
`paymentaccepting unit of the one or
`accepting unit of the one or more
`more paymentaccepting units;
`paymentaccepting units;
`after establishing the wireless
`after establishing the wireless
`communication path, enabling user
`connection, presenting the user
`interaction with the user interface of
`interface of the mobile payment
`the mobile paymentapplication to
`application and enabling user
`interaction with the user interface of|complete the transaction:
`the mobile paymentapplication to
`complete the vending transaction;
`exchanging information with the
`exchanging information with the
`available paymentaccepting unit via|available payment accepting unit via
`the one or moreradio transceivers,
`the one or moreradio transceivers,
`in conjunction with the vending
`in conjunction with the transaction;
`transaction; and
`and
`in response to receiving the
`after exchanging the
`information, displaying, on the
`information, displaying, on the
`display, an updated userinterface of|display, an updated user interface of
`the mobile payment application to
`the mobile payment application to
`the user of the mobile device.
`
`
`
`
`
`+147;Pet.,14-15.The additional limitations of 772 claim 7 similarly mirror ’614
`
`claim 7, as shownin the following table, which identifies the sole difference with
`
`bold/underline emphasis:
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00733-MN Document 23-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 10 of 12 PageID #:
`1531
`
`’614 claim 7
`The method of claim 1, wherein
`the mobile device includes an
`accelerometer and the method
`further comprises:
`based on data from the
`accelerometer, determining whether
`the user is walking away from the
`available payment accepting unit;
`and
`in accordance with a
`determination that the user is
`walking away from the available
`payment accepting unit, canceling
`the wireless connection.
`
`’772 claim 7
`The method of claim 1, wherein
`the mobile device includes an
`accelerometer and the method
`further comprises:
`based on data from the
`accelerometer, determining whether
`the user is walking away from the
`available payment accepting unit;
`and
`in accordance with a
`determination that the user is
`walking away from the available
`payment accepting unit, canceling
`the wireless communication path.
`
`Petitioners do not even attempt to show—nor could they—that canceling the
`
`wireless “communication path,” instead of canceling the wireless “connection,”
`
`materially alters the patent eligibility analysis. Accordingly, the differences
`
`between ’772 claim 7 and ’614 claim 7 do not materially alter the question of
`
`patent eligibility.
`
`Claim 11 of the ’772 patent similarly mirrors claim 11 of the ’614 patent
`
`while adding a wherein clause that further narrows the claim. The following table
`
`identifies the differences with bold/underline emphasis:
`
`’614 claim 11
`The method of claim 1, wherein
`the user interface of the mobile
`payment application presented after
`establishing via the wireless
`connection includes:
` a visual representation of
`available payment accepting unit;
`
`’772 claim 11
`The method of claim 1, wherein
`the user interface of the mobile
`payment application, after
`establishing the wireless
`communication path, includes:
`a visual representation of the
`available payment accepting unit;
`-7-
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00733-MN Document 23-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 11 of 12 PageID #:
`1532
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00733-MN Document 23-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 12 of 12 PageID #:
`1533
`
`