`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00529 Paper No. 27
`IPR2016-00530 Paper No. 27
`CBM2016-00034 Paper No. 31
`June 8, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________
`
`NAUTILUS HYOSUNG, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DIEBOLD NIXDORF, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2016-00529 (Patent 7,229,010)
`Case IPR2016-00530 (Patent 7,229,010)
`Case CBM2016-00034 (Patent 7,314,163)
`____________________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: Thursday, May 4, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before BARBARA A. BENOIT, GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN and
`KERRY BEGLEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday, May 4, 2017 ,
`commencing at 11:00 a.m. at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, 600
`Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00529 (Patent 7,229,010)
`Case IPR2016-00530 (Patent 7,229,010)
`Case CBM2016-00034 (Patent 7,314,163)
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`TIMOTHY W. RIFFE, ESQUIRE
`NICK JEPSEN, ESQUIRE
`DANIEL A. TISHMAN, ESQUIRE
`KEVIN C. WHEELER, ESQUIRE
`FISH & RICHARDSON
`901 15th Street, Northwest
`Suite 700
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`(202) 783-5070
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`CHRISTOPHER B. KELLY, ESQUIRE
`JASON P. COOPER, ESQUIRE
`DAVID S. FRIST, ESQUIRE
`JOSHUA M. WEEKS, ESQUIRE
`ALSTON & BIRD
`One Atlantic Center
`1201 West Peachtree Street
`Atlanta, Georgia 30309
`(404) 881-7000
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00529 (Patent 7,229,010)
`Case IPR2016-00530 (Patent 7,229,010)
`Case CBM2016-00034 (Patent 7,314,163)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
`
` JUDGE BENOIT: Good morning. We are convened for
`
`oral argument in CBM2016 -00034 which challenges US Patent
`
`7,314,163. I'm Judge Benoit. With me in Alexandria is
`
`Judge Begley. And Judge Braden is appearing by video.
`
` So let's start with appearances. Petitioner.
`
` MR. RIFFE: Good morning, Your Honor. Tim Riffe,
`
`lead counsel on behalf of petitioner, Nautilus Hyosung. And
`
`with me today and will be speaking is Nick Jepsen.
`
`10
`
` JUDGE BENOIT: Welcome. Patent Owner.
`
`11
`
` MR. KELLY: Hi, Your Honor. My name is Chris
`
`12
`
`Kelly. I'm here on behalf of the patent owner, Diebold
`
`13
`
`Nixdorf.
`
`14
`
` With me I have -- I'm from the firm Alston & Bird.
`
`15
`
`With me I have David Frist, Jason Cooper and Josh Weeks also
`
`16
`
`of Alston & Bird. And we also have Ed Crooks of Diebold
`
`17
`
`Nixdorf here with us today.
`
`18
`
` JUDGE BENOIT: All right. Welcome.
`
`19
`
` MR. KELLY: Thank you.
`
`20
`
` JUDGE BENOIT: So each side will have 45 minutes
`
`21
`
`to argue. Petitioner has the ultimate burden of
`
`22
`
`establishing unpatentability and will argue first and may
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00529 (Patent 7,229,010)
`Case IPR2016-00530 (Patent 7,229,010)
`Case CBM2016-00034 (Patent 7,314,163)
`
`
`reserve rebuttal time.
`
` But before we begin arguments we had a couple of
`
`administrative matters to take care of. We granted two pro
`
`hac -- pro hac motions for Mr. Tishman and Mr. Wheeler. I
`
`noticed that as of this morning that PTA B End to End had not
`
`been updated.
`
` If you could work with trials to take care of that
`
`and get counsel information updated. I understand there's
`
`some process that requires something from the pe titioner's
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`side and something from the PTAB trials staff to get that
`
`11
`
`done. But if you would take care of it, I'd appreciate
`
`12
`
`that.
`
`13
`
` MR. RIFFE: Point of clarification, Your Honor.
`
`14
`
`Will that prevent those two individuals from making
`
`15
`
`arguments before the board this morning?
`
`16
`
` JUDGE BENOIT: No. They have been admitted.
`
`17
`
`That's just a housekeeping matter.
`
`18
`
` MR. RIFFE: Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`19
`
` JUDGE BENOIT: The panel also would like an update
`
`20
`
`as to the status of the ITC and district court cases
`
`21
`
`involving the challenged patent.
`
`22
`
` Patent owner, can you give us a current status?
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00529 (Patent 7,229,010)
`Case IPR2016-00530 (Patent 7,229,010)
`Case CBM2016-00034 (Patent 7,314,163)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
` MR. FRIST: Good morning, Your Honors. David
`
`Frist. The ITC case as to the 163 patent, the ITC
`
`administrative law judge found the 163 patent invalid under
`
`101. The commission then upheld that ruling. The patent
`
`owner did not appeal that to the federal circuit. And the
`
`district court is still stayed in light of the other patents
`
`in this case.
`
` So as to the 163 patent and the ITC, they have
`
`made their finding. The district court is still alive. And
`
`10
`
`we're here today, as I'm sure you know, to argue the 101
`
`11
`
`issue in front of Your Honors.
`
`12
`
` JUDGE BENOIT: All right. Thank you.
`
`13
`
` I also would like to make sure that we understand
`
`14
`
`all the papers that have been filed. You know, we have the
`
`15
`
`new patents and -- and system. I want to make s ure we're
`
`16
`
`not overlooking anything.
`
`17
`
` So, petitioner, I wanted to confirm with you that
`
`18
`
`you had not filed a motion to exclude any observations on
`
`19
`
`cross-examination or declaration testimony in support of
`
`20
`
`your reply.
`
`21
`
` MR. RIFFE: That's correct, Your Honor.
`
`22
`
` JUDGE BENOIT: Thank you. And I'm not implying at
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00529 (Patent 7,229,010)
`Case IPR2016-00530 (Patent 7,229,010)
`Case CBM2016-00034 (Patent 7,314,163)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`all that any of those papers should have been filed. I just
`
`wanted to make sure I understand what has been filed.
`
` In terms of patent owner, I understand that you
`
`have not filed a motion to exclude or any observations on
`
`deposition testimony or a motion to amend. Is that correct?
`
` MR. KELLY: That's correct, Your Honor.
`
` JUDGE BENOIT: And, again, I'm not implying that
`
`any of those papers should have been filed; just making sure
`
`that we have kept track of the administrative papers in the
`
`10
`
`system.
`
`11
`
` MR. KELLY: Understood. Thank you.
`
`12
`
` JUDGE BENOIT: All right. With those
`
`13
`
`administrative matters taken car e of, petitioner, you may
`
`14
`
`begin when ready.
`
`15
`
` MR. RIFFE: May it please the board. Good
`
`16
`
`morning, Your Honors. Again, my name is Tim Riffe. I'm on
`
`17
`
`behalf of petitioner, Nautilus Hyosung, in CBM2016-00034.
`
`18
`
` As Your Honors know, we will be discussing
`
`19
`
`several grounds of unpatentability and ineligibility today.
`
`20
`
`I will be addressing ground one which is the Section 101
`
`21
`
`ineligibility ground. My colleague Nick Jepsen will be
`
`22
`
`addressing the prior art based grounds which are grounds two
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00529 (Patent 7,229,010)
`Case IPR2016-00530 (Patent 7,229,010)
`Case CBM2016-00034 (Patent 7,314,163)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`through five. And I'll be also giving a short technology
`
`overview for Your Honors.
`
` If Your Honors can direct your attention to slide
`
`five of petitioner's demonstratives, here you see a
`
`reproduction of the cover sheet of the 163 patent and the
`
`abstract.
`
` The abstract notes the 163 patent is directed to
`
`generating a digital image of a received check and then
`
`modifying the check image data to produce a modified check
`
`10
`
`image data that excludes certain sensitive information that
`
`11
`
`was on the check such as the user's personal account number
`
`12
`
`or the routing number.
`
`13
`
` Referring now to slide seven, we see claim 20 of
`
`14
`
`the 163 patent. I just wanted to note for the record that
`
`15
`
`Diebold, patent owner, d id not challenge or contest claims
`
`16
`
`one through 19. So we'll be focused today on claims 20
`
`17
`
`through 24 of the --
`
`18
`
` JUDGE BENOIT: And you understand that petitioner
`
`19
`
`still has the burden to prove un patentability for claims one
`
`20
`
`through 19?
`
`21
`
` MR. RIFFE: That's correct, Your Honor. And we
`
`22
`
`address those in our -- in our papers. But for the time
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00529 (Patent 7,229,010)
`Case IPR2016-00530 (Patent 7,229,010)
`Case CBM2016-00034 (Patent 7,314,163)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`frame we have here today, Your Honor, we 're going to be
`
`focused on claims 20 through 24 primarily.
`
` With respect to claim 20, that is the independent
`
`claim. It has three steps; an operating step, a generating
`
`check image step and a modifying check image dat a step.
`
` The first two steps that are labeled (a) and (b)
`
`are directed towards collecting data through scanning of
`
`that document which in this case is a check. Again, step
`
`(a) is directed to imaging the check data. And (b) is
`
`10
`
`directed to generating check image data.
`
`11
`
` Looking at slide eight, we see step (c) which is
`
`12
`
`the modifying step. And that step is directed to removing
`
`13
`
`information from the check image that's been created. That
`
`14
`
`data can include what's known as the micr line data. That's
`
`15
`
`the magnetic ink character recognition data that's at the
`
`16
`
`bottom of the check generally, sort of the weird numbers
`
`17
`
`that show your account number and tracking number on the
`
`18
`
`check.
`
`19
`
` And the patent talks about moving or modifying the
`
`20
`
`image that's been created to make sure that that data is not
`
`21
`
`available to the public at large for security purposes.
`
`22
`
` And that leads into slide nine. As Dr. Alexander,
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00529 (Patent 7,229,010)
`Case IPR2016-00530 (Patent 7,229,010)
`Case CBM2016-00034 (Patent 7,314,163)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`petitioner's expert, noted, this problem of providing
`
`security for personal information from financial records has
`
`been a long-standing business issue.
`
` Again, as Dr. Alexander noted, businesses have
`
`long redacted financial information to prevent misuse and
`
`fraud. Removing sensitive financial information by
`
`redaction or other means is a fundamenta l economic practice
`
`that's been widely used long before ATMs even existed.
`
` JUDGE BENOIT: And where is there evidence in the
`
`10
`
`record of that long-standing business practice? I
`
`11
`
`understand that you filed the Federal Register e xhibit as to
`
`12
`
`the business practice regarding ATMs, but is there evidence
`
`13
`
`in the record of the long -standing business practice that he
`
`14
`
`speaks of?
`
`15
`
` MR. RIFFE: Well, Your Honor, we also point and
`
`16
`
`cited to another patent -- it's in the record -- that
`
`17
`
`discusses that as well as noted additional information with
`
`18
`
`respect to the practice of scratching out debit card and
`
`19
`
`credit card authorizations and transactions to remove that
`
`20
`
`financial information from that.
`
`21
`
` When we spoke about how this had been done in the
`
`22
`
`past by humans, removing that sensitive information from
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00529 (Patent 7,229,010)
`Case IPR2016-00530 (Patent 7,229,010)
`Case CBM2016-00034 (Patent 7,314,163)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`documents either by masking it with a simple piece of tape
`
`or scratching it out on the credit card transaction receipt,
`
`those are the types of long -standing practices that have
`
`been in place.
`
` And, as Your Honor noted, the Federal Reserve
`
`itself noted with respect to ATM receipts how important it
`
`was to protect the user's financial information.
`
` And they actually implemented changes to the
`
`banking regulations to truncate that account information so
`
`10
`
`that the public at large when they -- I'm sure Your Honors
`
`11
`
`have seen ATMs with a bundle of receipts that have been left
`
`12
`
`by -- by various consumers at the ATM. They wanted to make
`
`13
`
`sure that that personal information wasn 't available to
`
`14
`
`them.
`
`15
`
` As Your Honors knows, I just noted there are five
`
`16
`
`grounds. We'll skip to slide 16 in the interest of time.
`
`17
`
`Now, again, I'm going to be addressing the 101 i ssue for
`
`18
`
`ineligibility.
`
`19
`
` As Your Honors know, the Supreme Court in the
`
`20
`
`Alice v. CLS Bank case set up a two -step framework that
`
`21
`
`would -- which the courts must look at to determine whether
`
`22
`
`a patent claim is eligible under 101.
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00529 (Patent 7,229,010)
`Case IPR2016-00530 (Patent 7,229,010)
`Case CBM2016-00034 (Patent 7,314,163)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
` The first step of that is to determine whether the
`
`claims at issue are directed to a patent ineligible concept
`
`such as in this case, an abstract idea.
`
` The second step if an abstract idea is found, then
`
`you consider the elements of each claim individually and as
`
`what's called an ordered combination to see if the claims
`
`themselves add anything to transform that abstract idea into
`
`a patent eligible concept.
`
` As Dr. Alexander notes at slide 17 that we've
`
`10
`
`reproduced, the 163 patent is intended to provide -- or
`
`11
`
`improve security by not disclosing that sensitive
`
`12
`
`information that I talked about earlier. And in particular
`
`13
`
`the claims are each directed to the abstract idea of
`
`14
`
`removing information from a check image. Again, the problem
`
`15
`
`that was trying to be solved her e was safeguarding that
`
`16
`
`personal information from public accessibility.
`
`17
`
` If we then turn to slide 18, this is where we want
`
`18
`
`to focus on steps (a) and (b) of the 163 patent, claim 20.
`
`19
`
`If we look at claims (a) and (b), what a re they talking
`
`20
`
`about? They're related to data collection. They're
`
`21
`
`collecting. They're scanning that check. And they're
`
`22
`
`taking data from that check and creating this check image
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00529 (Patent 7,229,010)
`Case IPR2016-00530 (Patent 7,229,010)
`Case CBM2016-00034 (Patent 7,314,163)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`data. So they're collecting data.
`
` Now, the federal circuit has told us in the
`
`Electric Power Group case from 2016 that collecting
`
`information including when limited to particular content is
`
`within the realm of abstract ideas. Moreover, at slide 20
`
`we have reproduced a portion of the federal circuit's
`
`decision in the Content Extraction case.
`
` Now, what's interesting about the Content
`
`Extraction case is that case was in -- related to ATM
`
`10
`
`technology. And patent owner, Diebold, was related -- was a
`
`11
`
`part of that -- I think the district court case in that --
`
`12
`
`in this case.
`
`13
`
` Now, with respect to the Content Extraction case,
`
`14
`
`the federal circuit noted that the concept of data
`
`15
`
`collection, recognition and storage is undisputedly well
`
`16
`
`known. Humans have been performing these functions. And in
`
`17
`
`particular banks have fo r some time reviewed checks,
`
`18
`
`recognized relevant data from those checks such as the
`
`19
`
`amount, the account number -- again, that's part of that
`
`20
`
`micr line data -- and the identity of the account holder and
`
`21
`
`stored that information or did s omething with that
`
`22
`
`information to further the financial transaction.
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00529 (Patent 7,229,010)
`Case IPR2016-00530 (Patent 7,229,010)
`Case CBM2016-00034 (Patent 7,314,163)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
` Turning to slide 20 -- sorry, Your Honors. Let's
`
`move forward to slide 23. And I apologize. We had a few
`
`more demonstratives than I'm using today, but I believe Your
`
`Honors have the full set. So I appreciate your -- your
`
`patience.
`
` With respect to slide 23, we can see here -- and,
`
`Judge Benoit, this is related to the question yo u asked me
`
`earlier -- the fundamental business practice of removing
`
`information, in particular personal information from
`
`10
`
`financial documents such as checks. The Federal Register,
`
`11
`
`as I mentioned, recognized this in the context of ATMs in
`
`12
`
`particular and changed their regulations to make that
`
`13
`
`accommodation.
`
`14
`
` Interestingly, Dr. Sorensen who is Diebold, patent
`
`15
`
`owner's expert actually testified during deposition that the
`
`16
`
`problem the patent was directed toward solving related to
`
`17
`
`the customer's experience with the ATM not the actual
`
`18
`
`technology of the ATM in and of itself. And this is what we
`
`19
`
`termed the business problem.
`
`20
`
` Indeed, in Dr. Sorensen's case he noted and agreed
`
`21
`
`that the operation of the ATM or its components, the claims
`
`22
`
`didn't go to the improvement of those. Otherwise, it went
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00529 (Patent 7,229,010)
`Case IPR2016-00530 (Patent 7,229,010)
`Case CBM2016-00034 (Patent 7,314,163)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`to how a person confirme d their check was deposited and was
`
`their personal information on there; a long -standing issue
`
`that had been recognized in the financial industry.
`
` Again, Dr. Sorensen agreed that there was no
`
`change pointed out in the claims or recited in the claims to
`
`the processing of the ATM, how it processed or how the
`
`processor -- or the speed or efficiency, how it went through
`
`that process.
`
` Again, looking at slide 25, ag ain, removing
`
`10
`
`information from a check image, from financial records, et
`
`11
`
`cetera, and receipts in particular, a fundamental business
`
`12
`
`practice that existed before deposit automation in contrast
`
`13
`
`--
`
`14
`
` JUDGE BRADEN: But, Counsel, I mean, isn't it one
`
`15
`
`of the -- when I'm looking at this, this specifically says
`
`16
`
`eliminates the requirement that the receipt discloses a
`
`17
`
`number or code. Whereas when I look at the claim, it
`
`18
`
`specifically says in (c) modifying the check image data to
`
`19
`
`produce a modified check image so that you only have a
`
`20
`
`portion of the micr line image data included.
`
`21
`
` I don't see how not requiring banks or financial
`
`22
`
`institutions to include information on a receipt is the same
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00529 (Patent 7,229,010)
`Case IPR2016-00530 (Patent 7,229,010)
`Case CBM2016-00034 (Patent 7,314,163)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`as modifying an image so that you only include a portion of
`
`image data.
`
` MR. RIFFE: Well, Your Honor, I think what's being
`
`talked about here is the modification that happens to that
`
`image data is the same modification that happened and
`
`occurred prior to this invention in the context of either
`
`masking, altering that d ata in some way such as -- and I'm
`
`not discussing the prior art. My colleague Nick Jepsen
`
`will.
`
`10
`
` But discussing how that data was removed from a
`
`11
`
`check image, that -- that information and that technology
`
`12
`
`had been present --
`
`13
`
` JUDGE BRADEN: But I thought you were answering
`
`14
`
`Judge Benoit's question when she asked you about a
`
`15
`
`long-standing business practice.
`
`16
`
` If you're showing here that you had a business
`
`17
`
`practice of disclosing a number or code on a receipt and now
`
`18
`
`the Federal Register is saying that they're amending the
`
`19
`
`regulation so that you no longer -- it eliminates the
`
`20
`
`requirement for that disclosure, how is that the same and
`
`21
`
`how is that showing a long -standing business practice of
`
`22
`
`modifying check image data?
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00529 (Patent 7,229,010)
`Case IPR2016-00530 (Patent 7,229,010)
`Case CBM2016-00034 (Patent 7,314,163)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
` MR. RIFFE: Well, Your Honors, the check image
`
`data that's being modified was that account information. A
`
`portion of that is the account information.
`
` And part of the long -standing issue that was being
`
`addressed by some of these manual manipulations or in the
`
`case of the Federal -- the Federal Reserve's change changing
`
`the receipt to include a modified version of that account
`
`information, that was all going -- and -- and in the case of
`
`Riach and Graf which are the prior art references, two of
`
`10
`
`the main prior art references we rely upon, those pieces of
`
`11
`
`prior art were all going to the concept of removing some
`
`12
`
`portion of the user's account information so that the public
`
`13
`
`at large could not get t o that. That fundamental problem of
`
`14
`
`--
`
`15
`
` JUDGE BRADEN: I'm sorry. I guess I'm reading
`
`16
`
`this incorrectly then or can you point me to the slide or
`
`17
`
`where in the record it says that the amendment eliminates
`
`18
`
`the requirement for the complete disclosure or that it only
`
`19
`
`requires a portion or a modified disclosure of the account
`
`20
`
`number or code?
`
`21
`
` Because what I see on slide 23 is that the
`
`22
`
`amendment eliminates the requirement that an electronic
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00529 (Patent 7,229,010)
`Case IPR2016-00530 (Patent 7,229,010)
`Case CBM2016-00034 (Patent 7,314,163)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`terminal receipt discloses a number or code that uniquely
`
`identifies the consumer.
`
` MR. RIFFE: Well, Your Honor, as we no ted in our
`
`-- and I'll go back to slide 23. We noted in our reply and
`
`in the petition that the Federal Reserve change to the
`
`banking regulations allowed the ATM to only include a
`
`truncated amount of that account number.
`
` So I am hopeful that answers your question. So
`
`that there wasn't a complete elimination of the account
`
`10
`
`number, but it was a truncation.
`
`11
`
` And I don't know if Your Honor recalls; but on
`
`12
`
`older ATM receipts you would sometimes just see the last
`
`13
`
`four digits of your account number with maybe some X's or
`
`14
`
`something along those lines, dashes. But that was a known
`
`15
`
`security risk at the time.
`
`16
`
` So when the Federal Reserve did this they were
`
`17
`
`only looking at a portion of that truncated account number.
`
`18
`
`So they weren't requiring the full account number be
`
`19
`
`eliminated but just they were allowing for portions of that
`
`20
`
`such as the last four digits to be shown. And, again, all
`
`21
`
`of this is going --
`
`22
`
` JUDGE BRADEN: All right. I think I understand
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00529 (Patent 7,229,010)
`Case IPR2016-00530 (Patent 7,229,010)
`Case CBM2016-00034 (Patent 7,314,163)
`
`
`your position.
`
` MR. RIFFE: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor.
`
` With step one being established as an abstract
`
`idea under the Supreme Court's guidance in Alice, again, we
`
`turn to whether or not the claims indivi dually or as that
`
`ordered combination add more to this abstract idea of
`
`removing images from checks.
`
` JUDGE BENOIT: Mr. Riffe --
`
` MR. RIFFE: Yes.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
` JUDGE BENOIT: -- before you go onto that step
`
`11
`
`could you answer a couple questions I had about slides 26
`
`12
`
`and 27 --
`
`13
`
` MR. RIFFE: Yes, Judge.
`
`14
`
` JUDGE BENOIT: -- regarding step one. So in slide
`
`15
`
`26 you talk about the idea that the claims can be performed
`
`16
`
`in the mind. Can you tell me a little bit more what you
`
`17
`
`mean by that?
`
`18
`
` MR. RIFFE: Well, Your Honor, if you can -- if you
`
`19
`
`can imagine that if you look at a check, a check image could
`
`20
`
`be formed in the mind of a user. And so that is something
`
`21
`
`that I think other federal circuit cases have looked at to
`
`22
`
`see whether or not this is something that had been human
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00529 (Patent 7,229,010)
`Case IPR2016-00530 (Patent 7,229,010)
`Case CBM2016-00034 (Patent 7,314,163)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`activity prior to -- prior to the claimed invention.
`
` JUDGE BENOIT: So the human activity would be I
`
`form the image of the ch eck in my mind and then I modify and
`
`don't think about and remove in my mind some of the account
`
`information?
`
` MR. RIFFE: That's part of our argument in
`
`addition to our argument that's in our papers. We talked
`
`about the ability to trace certain portions of that check
`
`image to create check image data. And then you could modify
`
`10
`
`certain portions of that check image data by either crossing
`
`11
`
`it out, removing it, masking over it in certain instances.
`
`12
`
` JUDGE BENOIT: So that's your pen and ink
`
`13
`
`argument.
`
`14
`
` MR. RIFFE: So that's -- that's our ultimate
`
`15
`
`argument, Your Honor, yes. The formation of the mind, if
`
`16
`
`you will, would be a secondary argument admittedly.
`
`17
`
` JUDGE BENOIT: And regarding using the pen and
`
`18
`
`paper, I can understand what you're saying in terms of one
`
`19
`
`could do that. Is there any evidence in the record that
`
`20
`
`that practice was used, that people did mask out or mark out
`
`21
`
`or use a pen and ink to obscure some of that information on
`
`22
`
`a check?
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00529 (Patent 7,229,010)
`Case IPR2016-00530 (Patent 7,229,010)
`Case CBM2016-00034 (Patent 7,314,163)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
` MR. RIFFE: Yes, Your Honor. With the court's
`
`indulgence I'll just get a citation for you. Again, I had
`
`mentioned that there was a prior art patent. I believe it's
`
`the Zarrow patent. And we'll get the number for Your Honor
`
`in just a minute hopefully.
`
` JUDGE BENOIT: Thank you.
`
` MR. RIFFE: The exhibit number, Your Honor, is
`
`Exhibit 1024. And the full patent number is US Patent
`
`Number 4,645,701. And, again, that was to Zarrow.
`
`10
`
` JUDGE BENOIT: Thank you.
`
`11
`
` MR. RIFFE: And, Your Honor, my colleague just
`
`12
`
`reminded me that that may be Exhibit 1025 due to
`
`13
`
`administrative oversight on the numbering. So I apologize.
`
`14
`
`We will track that down for Your Honors and address that.
`
`15
`
` Did you have further questions --
`
`16
`
` JUDGE BENOIT: So that's all --
`
`17
`
` MR. RIFFE: -- Your Honor?
`
`18
`
` JUDGE BENOIT: That's all I had of questions on
`
`19
`
`step one.
`
`20
`
` MR. RIFFE: Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`21
`
` JUDGE BENOIT: So please proceed to st ep two.
`
`22
`
` JUDGE BEGLEY: Can you explain what that prior art
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00529 (Patent 7,229,010)
`Case IPR2016-00530 (Patent 7,229,010)
`Case CBM2016-00034 (Patent 7,314,163)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`patent that you just referenced discloses specifically?
`
` MR. RIFFE: Yes, Your Honor. It goes to the --
`
`thank you for your indulgence, Your Honor. There was a
`
`physical credit card receipt that was generated in that
`
`technology. And it talked about actually physically
`
`changing portions of that receipt so that the personal
`
`information was not available on that particular receipt.
`
` Does that answer your question, Your Honor?
`
` JUDGE BEGLEY: Yes.
`
`10
`
` MR. RIFFE: Okay. Now, with respect to the second
`
`11
`
`step of the Alice test -- and I'm going to turn our
`
`12
`
`direction to slide 30. That's where we have claim 20
`
`13
`
`reproduced again.
`
`14
`
` As the Alice court told us, claims merely reciting
`
`15
`
`the field of use -- in this case I think Diebold spends a
`
`16
`
`lot of time in their brief talking about the cash dispensing
`
`17
`
`machine. Merely reciting the field of use in which that
`
`18
`
`abstract idea is implemented is not enough according to
`
`19
`
`Alice.
`
`20
`
` Again, in the Accenture case following Alice the
`
`21
`
`federal circuit noted that simply reciting implementatio