throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 42
`
` Entered: August 15, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`NADER ASGHARI-KAMRANI and KAMRAN ASGHARI-KAMRANI,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case CBM2016-00064
`Patent 8,266,432 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JONI Y. CHANG, JUSTIN T. ARBES, and
`FRANCES L. IPPOLITO, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`CHANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 328(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`

`

`CBM2016-00064
`Patent 8,266,432 B2
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`United Services Automobile Association (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition
`requesting a review of claims 1–55 of U.S. Patent No. 8,266,432 B2
`(Ex. 1001, “the ’432 patent”) under the transitional program for covered
`business method patents.1 Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Nader Asghari-Kamrani and
`Kamran Asghari-Kamrani (collectively, “Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary
`Response to the Petition and a statutory disclaimer of claims 4 and 29.
`Paper 11 (“Prelim. Resp.”); Ex. 2001. Petitioner filed a Reply to the
`Preliminary Response. Paper 13. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 324 and § 18(a)
`of the AIA, we instituted this covered business method patent review, only
`as to claims 1–3, 5–28, and 30–55 of the ’432 patent. Paper 14 (“Dec.”).
`During the course of trial, Patent Owner filed a Response to the
`Petition (Paper 22, “PO Resp.”) and a statutory disclaimer of claims 11, 46,
`49, and 53 (Ex. 2007), and Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 26, “Reply”) to
`the Patent Owner Response. In addition, pursuant to our authorization,
`Patent Owner filed an additional brief (Paper 29) on the issue of whether the
`’432 patent is eligible for covered business method patent review in light of
`the decision issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in
`Secure Axcess, LLC v. PNC Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 848 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir.
`2017). Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 30) to Patent Owner’s additional
`brief. Petitioner also filed a Motion to Exclude Evidence (Paper 32), and
`
`
`1 See § 18(a) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29,
`125 Stat. 284, 329 (2011) (“AIA”).
`
`2
`
`

`

`CBM2016-00064
`Patent 8,266,432 B2
`
`Patent Owner filed an Opposition (Paper 37) to Petitioner’s Motion.
`Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 39) in support of its Motion. No oral hearing
`was held. Paper 41, 3. Patent Owner filed a Motion for Observation
`(Paper 31) on certain cross-examination testimony of Petitioner’s declarant,
`and Petitioner filed a Response (Paper 36). Petitioner also filed a Motion for
`Observation (Paper 33) on the cross-examination testimony, and Patent
`Owner filed a Response (Paper 38).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This Final Written
`Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 328(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
`For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–3, 5–10, 12–28, 30–45, 47, 48,
`50–52, 54, and 55 (“the challenged claims”) of the ’432 patent are
`unpatentable.
`
`A. Related Matters
`The parties indicate that the ’432 patent is involved in
`Asghari-Kamrani et al. v. United Services Auto. Ass’n, Case No. 2:15-cv-
`00478-RGD-LRL (E.D. Va.), and Case IPR2015-01842, which has been
`denied institution. Pet. 2; Paper 5, 2. The ’432 patent also is subject to a
`covered business method patent review in CBM2016-00063. A final written
`decision in CBM2016-00063 is entered concurrently with this Decision.
`
`B. The ’432 Patent
`The ’432 patent relates to “a system and method provided by a
`Central-Entity for centralized identification and authentication of users and
`3
`
`

`

`CBM2016-00064
`Patent 8,266,432 B2
`
`their transactions to increase security in e-commerce.” Ex. 1001, 2:52–55.
`A central-entity is said to allow a user to purchase goods and services from
`an external-entity (e.g., a merchant) using the user’s digital identity without
`revealing confidential personal or financial information, by generating a
`dynamic, non-predictable and time-dependable secure code for the user per
`the user’s request. Id. at 3:35–40. Examples of central-entities include
`banks and credit card issuing companies. Id. at 2:16–18. In a transaction
`between the user and the external-entity, the user presents his user name and
`secure code as a digital identity to the external-entity for identification. Id.
`at Abstract, 2:19–21, 3:19–21, 4:55–58. The external-entity depends on the
`central-entity to identify and authenticate the user and transaction. Id.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 25, 48, and 52 are independent.
`Claims 2, 3, 5–10, and 12–24 depend ultimately from claim 1; claims 26–28,
`30–45, and 47 depend either directly or indirectly from claim 25; claim 50
`depends directly from claim 48; and claims 54 and 55 depend directly from
`claim 52. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative:
`1. A method for authenticating a user during an electronic
`transaction between the user and an external-entity, the method
`comprising:
`receiving electronically a request for a dynamic code for the user
`by a computer associated with a central-entity during the
`transaction between the user and the external-entity;
`generating by the central-entity during the transaction a dynamic
`code for the user in response to the request, wherein the dynamic
`
`4
`
`

`

`CBM2016-00064
`Patent 8,266,432 B2
`
`
`code is valid for a predefined time and becomes invalid after
`being used;
`providing by the computer associated with the central-entity said
`generated dynamic code to the user during the transaction;
`receiving electronically by the central-entity a request for
`authenticating the user from a computer associated with the
`external-entity based on a user-specific information and the
`dynamic code as a digital identity included in the request which
`said dynamic code was received by the user during the
`transaction and was provided to the external-entity by the user
`during the transaction; and
`authenticating by the central-entity the user and providing a
`result of the authenticating to the external-entity during the
`transaction if the digital identity is valid.
`Ex. 1001, 6:24–47.
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`Petitioner relies upon the following prior art references:
`
`
`US 5,740,361
`Brown
`Nicholson US 2007/0022301 A1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1035)
`Apr. 14, 1998
`(Ex. 1034)
`Jan. 25, 2007
`(filed July 14, 2006)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`CBM2016-00064
`Patent 8,266,432 B2
`
`
`E. Instituted Ground of Unpatentability
`We instituted this trial based on the sole ground that claims 1–3, 5–10,
`12–28, 30–45, 47, 48, 50–52, 54, and 552 are unpatentable as obvious under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)3 over Nicholson and Brown. Dec. 35.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Construction
`In a covered business method patent review, claim terms in an
`unexpired patent are interpreted according to their broadest reasonable
`interpretation in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b). Under this standard, claim terms generally are given
`their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of
`ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re
`Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). An inventor
`may rebut that presumption by providing a definition of the term in the
`specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re
`Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`
`
`2 As explained above, Patent Owner statutorily disclaimed claims 11, 46, 49,
`and 53 subsequent to institution. Thus, we do not consider these claims in
`analyzing the asserted grounds.
`3 Because the challenged claims have a filing date prior to March 16, 2013,
`the effective date of AIA, we apply the pre-AIA version of 35 U.S.C. § 103
`in this Decision.
`
`6
`
`

`

`CBM2016-00064
`Patent 8,266,432 B2
`
`
`Here, the Specification of the ’432 patent sets forth the definitions for
`certain claim terms. Ex. 1001, 2:10–12, 2:19–26, 2:35–45, 3:4–6. We
`adopted those lexicographical definitions as our preliminary claim
`constructions in the Decision on Institution. Dec. 15–16. Petitioner does not
`challenge those claim constructions. See generally Reply. However, Patent
`Owner proposes different constructions for certain terms. PO Resp. 3–10.
`We note that only those terms which are in controversy need to be
`construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Vivid
`Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`Here, we find it necessary to address only the claim terms below.
`
`“user”
`
`Claim 1 recites “authenticating a user during an electronic transaction
`between the user and an external-entity.” Ex. 1001, 6:24–25. Independent
`claims 25, 48, and 52 include similar language. The Specification expressly
`defines the term “user”:
`For convenience, the term “user” is used throughout to represent
`both a typical person consuming goods and services as well as a
`business consuming goods and services.
`Id. at 2:10–12 (emphasis added).
`
`In the Decision on Institution (Dec. 15), we adopted the definition set
`forth in the Specification, construing the claim term “user” as “a person or
`business consuming goods and services.” Neither party challenges this
`construction. PO Resp. 3; see generally Reply. We discern no reason to
`modify our claim construction set forth in the Decision on Institution with
`
`7
`
`

`

`CBM2016-00064
`Patent 8,266,432 B2
`
`respect to this claim term. Therefore, for purposes of this Final Written
`Decision, we maintain our claim construction.
`
`“external-entity”
`
`As noted above, claim 1 recites “authenticating a user during an
`electronic transaction between the user and an external-entity,” and the
`remaining independent claims include similar language. The Specification
`expressly defines the claim term “external-entity” in the “Background of the
`Invention” Section:
`As also used herein, an “External-Entity” is any party offering
`goods or services that users utilize by directly providing their
`UserName and SecureCode as digital identity. Such entity could
`be a merchant, service provider or an online site. An
`“External-Entity” could also be an entity that receives the user’s
`digital identity indirectly from the user through another
`External-Entity, in order to authenticate the user, such entity
`could be a bank or a credit card issuing company.
`Ex. 1001, 2:19–26 (emphasis added).
`The Specification further defines this term in the “Summary of the
`Invention” Section by providing the following:
`A plurality of the External-Entities: An External-Entity is any
`party offering goods or services in e-commerce and needs to
`authenticate the users based on digital identity.
`Id. at 3:4–6 (emphasis added).
`Petitioner adopts only the portion of the definition in the “Background
`of the Invention” Section as its proposed claim construction. Pet. 6 (citing
`Ex. 1001, 2:19–21). In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner did not
`
`8
`
`

`

`CBM2016-00064
`Patent 8,266,432 B2
`
`propose any claim construction. Prelim. Resp. 36−37. In the Decision on
`Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed claim construction. Dec. 15.
`After institution, however, Patent Owner adopts only the portion of the
`definition in the “Summary of the Invention” Section as its proposed claim
`construction. PO Resp. 6 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:4–6).
`We agree with Patent Owner in part. Both cited sections of the
`Specification set forth what an external-entity “is,” indicating an intent to
`define the term. See Ex. 1001, 2:19–26, 3:4–6. In view of the Specification
`as a whole, we construe the claim term “external-entity” in accordance with
`the aforementioned definitions—“any party offering goods or services in
`e-commerce that users utilize by directly providing their UserName and
`SecureCode as digital identity, and that needs to authenticate the users based
`on digital identity.”
`
`“central-entity”
`
`Each independent claim (and thus each challenged claim) requires a
`
`“central-entity” to authenticate a user during an electronic transaction
`between the user and the external-entity. For example, claim 1 recites
`“authenticating by the central-entity the user and providing a result of the
`authenticating to the external-entity during the transaction if the digital
`identity is valid.” Ex. 1001, 6:45–47. The Specification expressly defines
`the term “central-entity”:
`As used herein, a “Central-Entity” is any party that has user’s
`personal and/or financial information, UserName, Password and
`generates [a] dynamic, non-predictable and time dependable
`
`9
`
`

`

`CBM2016-00064
`Patent 8,266,432 B2
`
`
`SecureCode for the user. Example of Central-Entity are: banks,
`credit card issuing companies or any intermediary service
`companies.
`Ex. 1001, 2:13–18. The Specification also defines the term “SecureCode”:
`The term “SecureCode” is used herein to denote any dynamic,
`non-predictable and time dependent alphanumeric code, secret
`code, PIN or other code, which may be broadcast to the user over
`a communication network, and may be used as part of a digital
`identity to identify a user as an authorized user.
`Id. at 2:35–40.
`In its Petition, Petitioner adopts the above definition of a
`“central-entity” as its proposed claim construction. Pet. 5−6. In its
`Preliminary Response, Patent Owner did not propose any claim construction.
`Prelim. Resp. 36−37. In the Decision on Institution, we adopted the
`definitions of “central-entity” and “SecureCode” set forth in the
`Specification. Dec. 15.
`After institution, Patent Owner proposes to construe the claim term
`“central-entity” as follows:
`a party comprising one or more computing devices that has user’s
`personal, financial, identification information, UserName, and/or
`Password and provides dynamic, non-predictable and time
`dependable code for the user.
`PO Resp. 5. Patent Owner seems to adopt the definition in the Specification,
`with modifications, as its proposed claim construction. Id. at 3–5.
`We decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction because it
`would not be consistent with the Specification, and the modifications
`improperly import an extraneous limitation into the claims and substantively
`
`10
`
`

`

`CBM2016-00064
`Patent 8,266,432 B2
`
`broaden the claim scope. Specifically, Patent Owner’s proposed
`construction would import an extraneous limitation—“one or more
`computing devices.” Each claim at issue already expressly requires one or
`more computers associated with a central-entity. Id. at 6:28, 7:57–8:7, 9:7,
`10:7–25. Adopting Patent Owner’s proposed construction would conflict
`with the broader term “party” used in the lexicographical definition above
`and potentially render the “computer” limitations superfluous.
`Additionally, Patent Owner’s proposed construction would introduce
`the following modifications to the lexicographical definition: (1) moving
`“and/or” to a different location in the list of information possessed by the
`central-entity, (2) changing “generates” to “provides,” (3) changing
`“SecureCode” to “code,” and (4) adding “identification information.” These
`modifications would substantively broaden the claim scope. For example,
`under Patent Owner’s proposed claim construction, possessing the
`UserName, Password, and SecureCode would be optional. These
`substantive modifications are not supported by the Specification.
`We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that “the
`‘central-entity’ does not necessarily possess or use personal and/or financial
`information, a UserName, and a Password,” such that “the Central-Entity
`has some or all of such user information described in the Background.” PO
`Resp. 3–5. The portions of the Specification cited by Patent Owner do not
`support Patent Owner’s proposed construction because they address the
`items of information that are used for performing a transaction and
`authenticating a user, not the items of information possessed by the
`
`11
`
`

`

`CBM2016-00064
`Patent 8,266,432 B2
`
`central-entity. Id. at 4 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:27–34, 2:41–43, 5:5–58, Fig. 2,
`Steps D–L). Patent Owner’s argument conflates the information that is
`possessed by the central-entity with the information that is used for
`performing a transaction and authenticating a user. Id. The lexicographical
`definition expressly listed the information that is possessed by the
`central-entity—namely, “any party that has user’s personal and/or financial
`information, UserName, Password and generates [a] dynamic . . .
`SecureCode for the user.” Ex. 1001, 2:13–16 (emphases added). Patent
`Owner also does not articulate, nor can we discern, a sufficient reason for
`changing “generates” to “provides” and changing “SecureCode” to “code.”
`For these reasons, we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed
`construction. Rather, as in the Decision on Institution (Dec. 15), we
`adopt the definition in the Specification here as our claim
`construction, and interpret “central-entity” to mean “any party that has
`a user’s personal and/or financial information, UserName, and
`Password, and generates a dynamic, non-predictable and time
`dependable SecureCode for the user,” where a “SecureCode” is “any
`dynamic, non-predictable and time dependent alphanumeric code,
`secret code, PIN or other code, which may be broadcast to the user
`over a communication network, and may be used as part of a digital
`identity to identify a user as an authorized user.”
`
`12
`
`

`

`CBM2016-00064
`Patent 8,266,432 B2
`
`
`“digital identity”
`
`Each independent claim requires an authentication request based on
`
`“a user-specific information and the dynamic code as a digital identity.”
`See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 6:38–44. The Specification expressly defines the claim
`term “digital identity”:
`The term “digital identity” is used herein to denote a combination
`of user’s “SecureCode” and user’s information such as
`“UserName,” which may result in a dynamic, non-predictable
`and time dependable digital identity that could be used to identify
`a user as an authorized user.
`Id. at 2:41–45 (emphasis added).
`
`Neither party proposes a claim construction for this term. In the
`Decision on Institution, we adopted the express definition as our
`construction. Dec. 16. The parties do not provide, nor do we discern, a
`reason to modify that construction. Therefore, for purposes of this Final
`Written Decision, we maintain our claim construction set forth in the
`Institution Decision, in accordance with the Specification’s definition,
`construing “digital identity” as “a combination of a user’s SecureCode and
`the user’s information such as UserName, which may result in a dynamic,
`non-predictable and time dependable digital identity that could be used to
`identify a user as an authorized user.”
`
`“dynamic code”
`
`The claim term “dynamic code” appears in each independent claim.
`For instance, claim 1 recites “receiving electronically a request for a
`dynamic code for the user by a computer associated with a central-entity
`13
`
`

`

`CBM2016-00064
`Patent 8,266,432 B2
`
`during the transaction between the user and the external-entity.” Ex. 1001,
`6:27–30. The Specification does not define the term “dynamic code,” but
`rather defines the term “SecureCode” as follows:
`The term “SecureCode” is used herein to denote any dynamic,
`non-predictable and time dependent alphanumeric code, secret
`code, PIN or other code, which may be broadcast to the user over
`a communication network, and may be used as part of a digital
`identity to identify a user as an authorized user.
`Id. at 2:35–40 (emphasis added).
`Petitioner proposes to construe the claim term “dynamic code” to
`include a “dynamic, non-predictable and time dependent alphanumeric code,
`secret code, PIN or other code, which may be broadcast to the user over a
`communication network, and may be used as a part of a digital identity to
`identify a user as an authorized user.” Pet. 8. In its Preliminary Response,
`Patent Owner did not propose any claim construction. Prelim. Resp. 36−37.
`In the Decision on Institution, we construed the claim term “dynamic code”
`to encompass an “alphanumeric code that is non-predictable and time
`dependent, which may be broadcast to the user over a communication
`network, and may be used as a part of a digital identity to identify a user as
`an authorized user,” in light of the Specification including the claim
`language. Dec. 16−18 (emphases added).
`Subsequent to institution, Patent Owner argues that the claimed
`“dynamic code” corresponds to the disclosed “SecureCode,” citing the
`above-reproduced definition for support. PO Resp. 10 (citing Ex. 1001,
`2:35-40). We recognize that although the claims do not use the term
`
`14
`
`

`

`CBM2016-00064
`Patent 8,266,432 B2
`
`“SecureCode,” the written description appears to use the terms
`“SecureCode” and “dynamic code” interchangeably in certain contexts.
`For example, claim 1 also recites receiving a request for authenticating a
`user based on “a user-specific information and the dynamic code as a digital
`identity.” Ex. 1001, 6:38–42. The Specification defines the term “digital
`identity” as “a combination of user’s ‘SecureCode’ and user’s information
`such as ‘UserName,’” and explains that the central-entity “generates [a]
`dynamic, non-predictable and time dependent SecureCode for the user.” Id.
`at 2:41−43, 3:14–24. Nevertheless, because the above definition of
`“SecureCode” itself includes the word “dynamic” (id. at 2:35–40), we do not
`construe the claim term “dynamic code” to be interchangeable with
`“SecureCode” for all situations. For example, construing “dynamic code” to
`include “other code,” without more, would render the word “dynamic”
`superfluous. See Cat Tech LLC v. TubeMaster, Inc., 528 F.3d 871, 885
`(Fed. Cir. 2008) (noting that “[c]laims are interpreted with an eye toward
`giving effect to all terms in the claim”) (quotation omitted); see also
`Aristocrat Techs. Australia Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 709 F.3d 1348,
`1356–57 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (declining to adopt the appellants’ proposed
`construction because it would render another limitation “superfluous”).
`Patent Owner also argues that the ’432 patent “does not require that
`the SecureCode be alphanumeric.” PO Resp. 10 (citing Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 39–40).
`In light of the Specification and surrounding claim language, we agree with
`Patent Owner that the claim term “dynamic code” encompasses
`alphanumeric and non-alphanumeric codes that are non-predictable and
`
`15
`
`

`

`CBM2016-00064
`Patent 8,266,432 B2
`
`time dependent. Indeed, as Petitioner notes (Reply 19), claims 1 and 25
`recite a “dynamic code,” whereas claims 48 and 52 recite the “dynamic code
`is alphanumeric.” Based on claim differentiation, the full scope of “dynamic
`code” includes non-alphanumeric codes that are non-predictable and time
`dependent. Accordingly, we construe the claim term “dynamic code” to
`encompass “alphanumeric and non-alphanumeric codes that are
`non-predictable and time dependent, which may be broadcast to the user
`over a communication network, and may be used as a part of a digital
`identity to identify a user as an authorized user.” No further construction as
`to this term is necessary for purposes of this Decision. See Vivid Techs., 200
`F.3d at 803.
`
`“transaction”
`
`As noted above, claim 1 recites “authenticating a user during an
`electronic transaction between the user and an external-entity,” and the
`remaining independent claims include similar language. Petitioner argues
`that the claim term “transaction” should be construed to include “attempts
`[by a user] to access a restricted web site or attempts to buy services or
`products . . . through a standard interface provided by [an] External-Entity
`. . . and selects digital identity as his identification and authorization or
`payment option,” as described in the Specification of the ’432 patent.
`Pet. 7–8 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:5–22). Patent Owner appears to agree with
`Petitioner’s argument because Patent Owner argues that the disclosure of
`accessing a restricted website of an external-entity by a user provides written
`
`16
`
`

`

`CBM2016-00064
`Patent 8,266,432 B2
`
`description support for the claimed transaction. PO Resp. 17; see also id.
`at 9. Patent Owner also contends that the claim term “transaction” should
`not be construed as a single transaction. Id. at 6–7.
`Figures 4 and 5 of the ’432 patent are reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 4 shows the steps of the transaction phase, whereas Figure 5
`
`illustrates the steps of the identification and authorization phase that involve
`utilizing a centralized identification and authentication system and method.
`Ex. 1001, 5:5–43. The steps in the transaction phase, as illustrated in
`
`17
`
`

`

`CBM2016-00064
`Patent 8,266,432 B2
`
`Figure 4, and the steps in the identification and authorization phase, as
`illustrated in Figure 5, are performed during the same transaction between
`the user and external-entity. Id. at 5:5–43, Figs. 4, 5.
`In light of the Specification and drawings, we agree with Petitioner’s
`interpretation of the term “transaction” insofar as it includes the user’s
`attempt to get access to the external-entity’s restricted website, or to
`purchase goods or services from the external-entity. Id. at 5:5–10, Fig. 4,
`step 110. Further, we observe that the transaction is not completed until the
`central-entity sends an approval or a denial to the external-entity. Id. at
`5:35–43, Fig. 5, steps 140, 150.
`However, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that the
`claim term “transaction” should not be construed as a single transaction. PO
`Resp. 6–7. This argument squarely contradicts (1) Patent Owner’s claim
`construction submitted in Case IPR2015-01842 that involves the same patent
`and claims as those in the instant proceeding (Ex. 1027, 21–23), and (2)
`Patent Owner’s other arguments presented in the instant proceeding (PO
`Resp. 8–9). Notably, Patent Owner argued in Case IPR2015-01842 that the
`steps described in Figure 4 of the ’432 patent are performed during the same
`transaction because the dynamic code is for one-time use; whenever the user
`starts a new transaction and needs an authentication process, the user needs
`to restart those steps again. Ex. 1027, 22–23 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:12–14, 5:5–
`22, Fig. 4).
`Patent Owner’s argument (PO Resp. 6–7) also contradicts its other
`argument, in the instant proceeding, that the claim term “during the
`
`18
`
`

`

`CBM2016-00064
`Patent 8,266,432 B2
`
`transaction” includes the steps or functions performed during the transaction
`phase and the authorization phase involved in using the centralized
`identification and authentication system (id. at 8–9).4 In fact, Patent Owner
`acknowledges that each independent claim requires the recited steps or
`functions to be performed during the same transaction between the user and
`external-entity. Id. at 17−19.
`
` For these reasons, we construe “the transaction,” as recited in each
`step or function of each independent claim, to refer back to the same
`“electronic transaction between the user and an external-entity” recited in
`the preamble. See NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282,
`1306 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Warner-Lambert Co. v. Apotex Corp., 316 F.3d 1348,
`1356 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (noting that the definite article “the” is a word of
`limitation, particularizing the subject which it precedes). No further
`construction is necessary for purposes of this Decision. See Vivid Techs.,
`200 F.3d at 803.
`
`B. Whether the ’432 Patent is a Covered Business Method Patent
`1. Financial Product or Service
`A covered business method (“CBM”) patent is “a patent that claims a
`method or corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or other
`operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial
`
`
`4 Patent Owner proposes construing “during the transaction” to mean “a
`period after the initiation of the transaction between a user and an
`external-entity and before the transaction is completed.” PO Resp. 8–9.
`19
`
`

`

`CBM2016-00064
`Patent 8,266,432 B2
`
`product or service, except that the term does not include patents for
`technological inventions.” AIA § 18(d)(1); 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a). A patent
`is eligible for review if it has at least one claim directed to a covered
`business method. See Transitional Program for Covered Business Method
`Patents—Definitions of Covered Business Method Patent and Technological
`Invention, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,734, 48,736 (Response to Comment 8).
`Our reviewing court has explained that Ҥ 18(d)(1) directs us to
`examine the claims when deciding whether a patent is a CBM patent.” Blue
`Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`(finding that the challenged patent was eligible for review because the
`claims recited “an express financial component in the form of a subsidy”
`that was “central to the operation of the claimed invention”). “CBM patents
`are limited to those with claims that are directed to methods and apparatuses
`of particular types and with particular uses ‘in the practice, administration,
`or management of a financial produce or service.’” Unwired Planet, LLC v.
`Google Inc., 841 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “Necessarily, the
`statutory definition of a CBM patent requires that the patent have a claim
`that contains, however phrased, a financial activity element.” Secure
`Axcess, 848 F.3d at 1381. Furthermore, “the definition of ‘covered business
`method patent’ is not limited to products and services of only the financial
`industry” and “on its face covers a wide range of finance-related activities.”
`Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1326–27 (Fed. Cir.
`2015).
`
`20
`
`

`

`CBM2016-00064
`Patent 8,266,432 B2
`
`
`Here, Petitioner takes the position that the ’432 patent is a covered
`business method patent, arguing that the “method for authenticating a user of
`claim 1 is used for data processing in the practice, administration, and
`management of financial products and services; specifically, for processing
`user financial information for electronic purchases.” Pet. 8–11. According
`to Petitioner, the claims at issue are directed to “a Central-Entity for
`centralized identification and authentication of users and their transactions
`to increase security and e-commerce.” Id. at 9–10 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:51–
`3:6). Petitioner explains that claim 1 is directed to a method for
`authenticating a user during a transaction between the user and an external
`entity, and dependent claim 4 (subsequently disclaimed) requires that the
`transaction be a financial transaction. Id.; Ex. 1001, 6:24–47, 6:61–62.
`Patent Owner counters that the challenged claims “literally do not
`recite any commercial or financial transactions,” and “lack any recitation of
`financial terminology or activity.” PO Resp. 28; Paper 29, 2–4. In Patent
`Owner’s view, the claimed authentication method and system do not involve
`a financial product or service, but rather are, at most, merely incidental or
`complementary to a financial activity. Paper 29, 4–5. Although Patent
`Owner confirms that the ’432 patent describes commercial and financial
`transactions, Patent Owner argues that “others are not (e.g., accessing a
`restricted website)” and any sales or financial transactions are not part of the
`claimed authentication. PO Resp. 28–29 (emphasis omitted). Patent Owner
`contends that “the term ‘external entity’ is not recited as a financial product
`or service in the claims but as a party for example having a restricted
`
`21
`
`

`

`CBM2016-00064
`Patent 8,266,432 B2
`
`website that requires user authentication before allowing access or offering
`its product or service.” Paper 29, 3–4.
`Upon consideration of the parties’ contentions and supporting
`evidence, we determine that Petitioner has established that claim 1, when
`properly construed, recites a method for performing data processing or other
`operations used in the practice, administration, or m

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket