throbber
Paper 52
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
` Entered: April 6, 2016
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ASKELADDEN LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SEAN I. MCGHIE and BRIAN K. BUCHHEIT,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-00137
`Patent 8,297,502 B1
`____________
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, JONI Y. CHANG, and
`GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`We have jurisdiction to hear this inter partes review under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 6(c). This Final Written Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. For the reasons discussed herein, Petitioner has
`shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–30 of U.S. Patent
`No. 8,297,502 B1 are unpatentable.
`
`

`

`IPR2015-00137
`Patent 8,297,502 B1
`
`
`
`A. Procedural History
`Petitioner, Askeladden LLC,1 filed a Petition requesting an inter
`partes review of claims 1–30 of U.S. Patent No. 8,297,502 B1 (Ex. 1001,
`“the ’502 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner, Sean I. McGhie and
`Brian K. Buchheit,2 filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 10 (“Prelim.
`Resp.”). Upon consideration of the Petition and Preliminary Response, we
`instituted an inter partes review of claims 1–30, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §
`314. Paper 31 (“Dec.”).
`In the Scheduling Order, which sets times for taking action in this
`proceeding, we notified the parties that “any arguments for patentability not
`raised in the [Patent Owner] response will be deemed waived.”3 Patent
`
`1 The Real Parties-in-Interest includes The Clearing House Payments
`Company. See Paper 33.
`2 Patent Owner is represented by inventor Brian Buchheit, who is an attorney
`and registered to practice before the Office. At times during the proceeding,
`Mr. Buchheit indicated that he was representing “Patent Owner”
`(Mr. Buchheit and Mr. McGhie), while at other times Mr. Buchheit indicated
`that he was not representing Mr. McGhie, but rather acting pro se. Papers 4,
`34, 46; Ex. 2059. Over the course of the proceeding, we have provided
`instructions to Patent Owner on filing papers, authorized Patent Owner leave
`to refile papers and file papers beyond due dates, and expunged other Patent
`Owner papers that were not authorized, not in compliance with Board rules,
`and/or contained arguments beyond what was authorized. See, e.g., Papers
`8, 9, 34 (and Exhibit 3001), 35, and 46.
`3 See Paper 32, 3; see also Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg.
`48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012) (a patent owner’s “response should identify
`all the involved claims that are believed to be patentable and state the basis
`for that belief”).
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2015-00137
`Patent 8,297,502 B1
`
`
`
`Owner, however, did not file a Patent Owner Response within the time
`period set forth in the Scheduling Order. To ensure clarity in our record, we
`required Patent Owner to file a paper, indicating whether it had abandoned
`the contest.4 Paper 47. Patent Owner indicated that it had not abandoned
`the contest. Paper 50. Patent Owner did not seek authorization to belatedly
`file a Patent Owner Response, nor indicate that it wished to file such a
`Response. We have before us, therefore, the Petition with no Patent Owner
`Response. Nonetheless, Petitioner bears the burden to show, by a
`preponderance of the evidence, that the challenged claims are unpatentable.
`For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has shown by
`a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–30 of the ’502 patent are
`unpatentable.
`
`B. Related Matter
`
`The ’502 patent also is involved in IPR2015-00133. A final written
`decision in IPR2015-00133 is entered concurrently with this decision.
`
`
`4 An abandonment of the contest is construed as a request for adverse
`judgment. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(4). A request for adverse judgment, on
`behalf of a Patent Owner, would result in the cancellation of the involved
`claims of a challenged patent, e.g., without consideration of the Petition, etc.
`On the other hand, when a Patent Owner does not abandon the contest, but
`chooses not to file a Patent Owner Response, the Board generally will render
`a final written decision, e.g., based on consideration of the Petition, etc. See
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(a).
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2015-00137
`Patent 8,297,502 B1
`
`
`
`C. The ’502 Patent
`The ’502 patent relates generally to consumer reward or loyalty
`programs. Ex. 1001, 1:17–2:11. According to the ’502 patent, entities
`(e.g., airlines or credit card companies) often reward consumers, for utilizing
`their services, with non-negotiable credits, such as frequent flier miles,
`consumer loyalty points, and entertainment credits. Id. at 1:20–22, 7:16–17.
`The ’502 patent discloses a graphical user interface for customers to convert
`non-negotiable credits into entity independent funds that can be used as
`payment for goods or services provided by a commerce partner. Id. at
`Abstract, 2:32–65.
`
`D. Illustrative Claim
`Claims 1, 9, 17, and 25 are independent. Claims 2–8 depend from
`claim 1; claims 10–16 depend from claim 9; claims 18–24 depend from
`claim 17; and claims 26–30 depend from claim 25.
`Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the challenged claims.
`1. A method comprising:
`a computer presenting a graphical user interface (GUI) on
`a display, said graphical user interface showing a quantity of
`non-negotiable credits earned through previous interactions with
`an entity, the graphical user interface comprising a conversion
`option to convert at least a subset of the shown non-negotiable
`credits into entity independent funds in accordance with a
`conversion ratio, wherein the entity independent funds are
`accepted by a commerce partner as at least partial payment for
`goods or services provided by the commerce partner, wherein the
`commerce partner is not said entity, wherein in absence of
`converting the non-negotiable credits into entity independent
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2015-00137
`Patent 8,297,502 B1
`
`
`
`funds the commerce partner does not accept the non-negotiable
`credits as payment for goods or services provided by the
`commerce partner;
`the computer receiving a selection of the conversion
`option; and
`responsive to the received selection being processed, the
`computer presenting within the graphical user interface a
`quantity of available entity independent funds for use as payment
`for the goods or services provided by the commerce partner, said
`quantity of available entity independent funds resulting from
`converting the subset of non-negotiable credits into the quantity
`of available entity independent funds in accordance with the
`conversion ratio.
`Ex. 1001, 6:22–48.
`
`
`
`E. Prior Art Relied Upon
`Petitioner relies upon the following prior art references:
`Postrel
` US 2005/0021399 A1 Jan. 27, 2005
`MacLean
` US 2002/0143614 A1 Oct. 3, 2002
`Sakakibara US 6,721,743 B1
`Apr. 13, 2004
`
`(Ex. 1003)
`(Ex. 1004)
`(Ex. 1005)
`
`F. Instituted Grounds of Unpatentability
`We instituted this trial based on the following grounds:
`
`Claims
`1, 4–10, 12–17, and
`20–30
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Postrel and Sakakibara
`
`2, 3, 11, 18, and 19
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Postrel, Sakakibara, and MacLean
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2015-00137
`Patent 8,297,502 B1
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under the broadest
`reasonable interpretation standard, claim terms 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).
`Petitioner proposes constructions for the following claim terms:
`“entity,” “non-negotiable credits,” and “entity independent funds,” which are
`recited at least in independent claims 1, 9, 17, and 25. Pet. 6–8. In our
`Decision to Institute, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed constructions
`because we determined that those constructions are consistent with the
`broadest reasonable construction. Dec. 5. Neither party has indicated that
`our constructions are improper and we do not perceive any reason or
`evidence that now compels any deviation from our initial constructions.
`Accordingly, the following claim constructions apply to this Decision:
`
`Claim Term
`
`Construction
`an organization that has a rewards program for a
`Entity
`consumer
`non-negotiable credits credits which are accepted only by the granting
`entity of the credits
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2015-00137
`Patent 8,297,502 B1
`
`
`
`Claim Term
`
`entity independent
`funds
`
`Construction
`funds acceptable as payment by at least one entity
`different from the original granting entity of the
`non-negotiable credits
`
`
`
`
`
`B. Principles of Law
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
`the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of
`nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`In that regard, an obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise
`teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for
`a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. A prima
`facie case of obviousness is established when the prior art itself would
`appear to have suggested the claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary
`skill in the art. In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051 (CCPA 1976).
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2015-00137
`Patent 8,297,502 B1
`
`
`
`The level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of
`record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001);
`In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich,
`579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).
`
`C. Obviousness of Claims over Postrel and Sakakibara
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1, 4–10, 12–17, and 20–30 are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of
`Postrel and Sakakibara. Pet. 14–49. To support its contentions, Petitioner
`provides claim charts and detailed explanations as to how the combination of
`prior art meets each claim limitation. Id. Petitioner also directs our attention
`to a Declaration of Mr. Matthew Calman. Ex. 1002.
`Upon review of Petitioner’s contentions and supporting evidence, we
`are persuaded by Petitioner’s showing, and adopt it as our own, that the
`combination of Postrel and Sakakibara teaches or suggests all of the
`limitations of claims 1, 4–10, 12–17, and 20–30, and renders the claimed
`subject matter as a whole obvious. Pet. 14–49. In our discussion below, we
`provide a brief summary of Postrel and Sakakibara, and then we address
`certain claim limitations in detail as examples.
`
`Postrel
`Postrel discloses a system that has a graphical user interface, in which
`a user may redeem reward or loyalty points earned with a merchant, or may
`redeem the points with another merchant through an exchange network.
`Ex. 1003, Abstract. The user additionally may aggregate reward or loyalty
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2015-00137
`Patent 8,297,502 B1
`
`
`
`points from various merchants into a central exchange account, and then
`redeem the post-converted points for goods or services from any approved
`merchant on the network. Id. ¶¶ 10, 45–50. In short, Postrel’s system
`integrates a user interface for exchanging and redeeming loyalty points with
`an e-commerce interface. Id.
`
`Sakakibara
`
`Sakakibara describes a point managing system that provides a
`web-based user interface, allowing a customer to convert the loyalty points
`of a first business entity into those of a second business entity in accordance
`with an exchange rate. Ex. 1005, 1:57–2:5, 7:7–10, Fig. 9. Sakakibara
`discloses that, prior to conversion, the first entity’s loyalty points are
`redeemable only at the first entity, and the second entity does not accept the
`points issued from the first entity, as payment for the second entity’s goods
`or services. Id. at 12:64–13:30. In short, the first entity’s loyalty points,
`prior to conversion, are non-negotiable.
`
`Graphical user interface for converting non-negotiable credits
`Each of independent claims 1, 9, 17, and 25 requires a graphical user
`interface for converting non-negotiable credits into entity independent funds;
`and the claims require that, in absence of conversion, “the commerce partner
`does not accept the non-negotiable credits as payment for goods or services
`provided by the commerce partner.” See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 6:35–37, 7:38–41.
`In addition, claims 7, 15, 23, and 28 require that the entity independent funds
`to be negotiable funds, and claims 8, 16, 24, and 29 require that the entity
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2015-00137
`Patent 8,297,502 B1
`
`
`
`independent funds to be loyalty points of the commerce partner. See, e.g.,
`id. at 7:18–22, 8:14–18.
`Upon review of the prior art and evidence in this record, we agree
`with Petitioner’s findings, and adopt them as our own, that the combination
`of Postrel and Sakakibara discloses the aforementioned “graphical user
`interface” limitations. Pet. 15–49. For instance, Petitioner sufficiently
`shows that Postrel discloses a system having a graphical user interface (a
`web site) for converting loyalty points issued from various merchants into
`loyalty points of a commerce partner in accordance with exchange rates. Id.
`at 15–16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 43, 45, 47, 49). Indeed, Postrel’s graphical user
`interface allows a user to convert his non-negotiable loyalty points into
`points for an exchange account based on an agreed upon exchange rate (i.e.,
`conversion ration) and fee structure, where “the actual exchange rate and fee
`structure may be set amongst the merchants [e.g., Smith Pizzeria] and the
`exchange server operator [e.g., VISA].” Ex. 1003 ¶ 45. As Petitioner notes,
`Postrel’s aggregated loyalty points in the exchange account are entity
`independent funds because they can be redeemed for goods or services from
`any approved merchant or from a catalog provided by a credit card company
`(i.e., from a commerce partner). Pet. 16; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 43, 45, 47, 49;
`Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 61–67, 105–107, 138–142, 173–177.
`We observe that Postrel also recognizes that, absent an exchange
`system, redeeming loyalty points is restricted to goods or services of the
`entity that issued the points. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 5, 41. Petitioner notes that
`Sakakibara discloses the concept that, absent conversion, loyalty points are
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2015-00137
`Patent 8,297,502 B1
`
`
`
`non-negotiable credits. Pet. 17–18 (citing Ex. 1005, 12:64–13:30). We are
`persuaded by Petitioner’s explanation that it was known in the art that
`loyalty points, prior to conversion, are non-negotiable credits, as evidenced
`by Sakakibara. See Ex. 1005, 12:64–13:30. This is consistent with the
`description in the ’502 patent regarding the state of the art at the time of the
`invention, which indicates that “[e]ntities often reward consumers for
`utilizing their services with non-negotiable credits, such as frequent flier
`miles, consumer loyalty points, and entertainment credits.” Ex. 1001, 1:20–
`24 (emphases added).
`Based on the evidence in this record, we agree with Petitioner’s
`reasoning, which is supported by the unrebutted testimony of Mr. Calman,
`and adopt it as our own, that one with ordinary skill in the art would have
`recognized that, in light of Sakakibara, Postrel’s loyalty points, prior to
`conversion, would have been accepted only by the merchant that issued
`those points (i.e., non-negotiable), and would not have been accepted by
`others as payment for their goods or services. Pet. 18; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 56–57,
`97–97, 132–133, and 167–168. We further determine that Petitioner has
`demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination
`would have rendered the aforementioned “graphical user interface”
`limitations obvious.
`
`Reward points from a credit card company
`Each of claims 6, 14, 22, and 27 recites “wherein the non-negotiable
`credits are reward points from a credit card company, which is the entity.”
`See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 7:14–17. We agree with Petitioner’s findings, which are
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2015-00137
`Patent 8,297,502 B1
`
`
`
`supported by Mr. Calman’s unrebutted testimony, and adopt them as our
`own, that Postrel discloses this limitation. See Pet. 25, 33, 40, 47–48 (citing
`Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 82–84, 117–18, 152–53, 180–81; Ex. 1003 ¶ 35). Mr. Calman
`testifies that Postrel describes a network of loyalty programs that includes a
`credit card reward program. Ex. 1002 ¶ 84 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 35, 59–60).
`Indeed, Postrel describes that some banks have their own reward point
`programs (e.g., MasterCard). Ex. 1003 ¶ 35. Postrel also expressly states
`that the “reward server computer may be a credit card reward program such
`as offered by American Express where the user earns rewards based on
`purchases.” Id. ¶ 59. Postrel further discloses that the credit card reward
`server computer maintains user’s earned rewards acquired through the credit
`card program. Id. ¶ 61, Fig. 4.
`Given the evidence in this record, we are persuaded that Petitioner has
`demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of
`Postrel and Sakakibara would have rendered the aforementioned “credit card
`company” limitation obvious.
`
`E-commerce interface
`Each of claims 4, 12, 20, and 26 recites “wherein the graphical user
`interface is an e-commerce interface through which goods or services
`provided by the commerce partner are able to be purchased.” See, e.g.,
`Ex. 1001, 7:3–6. Claims 6, 14, 22, and 27 require the interface to include an
`on-line shopping web site, and claims 5, 13, 21, and 30 require the interface
`to provide payment options, including paying using a credit card or the
`points converted from non-negotiable credits. See, e.g., id. at 7:9–17.
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2015-00137
`Patent 8,297,502 B1
`
`
`
`
`Upon consideration of the prior art disclosures and evidence before
`us, we agree with Petitioner’s findings, which are supported by
`Mr. Calman’s unrebutted testimony, and adopt them as our own, that the
`combination of Postrel and Sakakibara discloses the aforementioned
`“e-commerce interface” limitations. Pet. 24–25, 31–33, 39–40, 47–49
`(citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 76–81, 112–16, 147–48). For example, Petitioner notes
`that Postrel discloses an e-commerce interface (a web site) that provides on-
`line shopping capabilities (e.g., in the form of a VISA catalog), in which a
`customer may purchase the commerce partner’s goods or services with
`different payment options, including paying with a credit card or loyalty
`points. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 26, 49, 50, 71). As Petitioner explains, the
`customer may select an item from a catalog of items provided in conjunction
`with the central exchange account. Id. at 24 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 49). Indeed,
`in that VISA example disclosed in Postrel, the user interface for exchanging
`and redeeming points is provided by a VISA central exchange server that
`also provides the interface for making a purchase transaction. Ex. 1003
`¶¶ 43, 49. Postrel describes that the exchange server allows a user to view
`his loyalty points, manage the exchange of points, and execute purchase
`transactions with his aggregated loyalty points on a web page. Id. ¶¶ 43, 50
`(“Once the points have been aggregated by the purchaser, he may make a
`purchase transaction . . . with aggregated points only, with points and credit,
`etc. . . . over a web site.”).
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2015-00137
`Patent 8,297,502 B1
`
`
`
`In view of the foregoing, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a
`preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Postrel and
`Sakakibara would have rendered the “e-commerce interface” limitations
`obvious.
`
`Additional claim limitations
`Petitioner relies on Postrel in combination with Sakakibara, along
`with Mr. Calman’s unrebutted testimony, to meet other limitations recited in
`claims 1, 4–10, 12–17, and 20–30. Pet. 14–49; Ex. 1002. Based on the
`evidence in this record, we agree with Petitioner’s showing, and adopt it as
`our own, that Postrel in combination with Sakakibara discloses the
`additional limitations of claims 1, 4–10, 12–17, and 20–30, and renders the
`claimed subject matter as a whole obvious.
`
`Conclusion on obviousness of claims over Postrel and Sakakibara
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has
`demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 4–10, 12–
`17, and 20–30 are unpatentable over the combination of Postrel and
`Sakakibara.
`
`D. Obviousness of Claims over Postrel, Sakakibara, and MacLean
`Petitioner asserts that claims 2, 3, 11, 18, and 19 are unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Postrel,
`Sakakibara, and MacLean. Pet. 49–58. To support its contentions,
`Petitioner provides claim charts and detailed explanations as to how the
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2015-00137
`Patent 8,297,502 B1
`
`
`
`combination of prior art meets each claim limitation. Id. Petitioner also
`directs attention to a Declaration of Mr. Calman. Ex. 1002.
`Upon review of the prior art disclosures and Petitioner’s supporting
`evidence, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s showing, and adopt it as our own,
`that the combination of Postrel, Sakakibara, and MacLean discloses all of
`the limitations of claims 2, 3, 11, 18, and 19, and renders the claimed subject
`matter as a whole obvious. Pet. 30–58. In our discussion below, we provide
`a brief summary of MacLean5, and then we address certain limitations as
`examples.
`
`MacLean
`
`MacLean describes a system and method for managing and
`exchanging reward or loyalty points. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 1, 4. The Background
`Section of MacLean discusses a number of existing web services for
`converting the points from a single loyalty program for negotiable credits.
`Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 2–12. MacLean also discloses a number of specific
`embodiments to provide additional improvements to those services by
`allowing users to accumulate or convert the points from various loyalty
`programs into those of a single program. Id. ¶ 41.
`
`
`5 A brief summary of Postrel and Sakakibara has been provided previously
`in our obviousness analysis based on Postrel and Sakakibara.
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2015-00137
`Patent 8,297,502 B1
`
`
`
`Figure 1 of MacLean is reproduced below.
`
`
`As shown in Figure 1 of MacLean, point management system 100
`facilitates interactions between customer 110, transaction center 120, and
`issuers 130a–c. Id. ¶ 40. The system provides a graphical user interface,
`enabling a customer to exchange reward points from one loyalty program to
`those of another loyalty program in accordance with an exchange rate. Id.
`¶¶ 27, 41. Alternatively, the customer may exchange points issued by
`various loyalty programs into those of a single program, and redeem the
`post-converted points for the goods or services offered by that single
`program. Id.
`
`
`Presenting a second quantity of non-negotiable credits
`
`Claims 2, 11, and 18 require presenting a second quality of
`non-negotiable credits, which represents an amount of non-negotiable credits
`available after converting into entity independent funds. See, e.g., Ex. 1001,
`6:49–56. In regard to this limitation, we agree with Petitioner’s findings,
`and adopt them as our own, that the combination of Postrel, Sakakibara, and
`MacLean discloses this limitation. Pet. 50–52. For example, Petitioner
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2015-00137
`Patent 8,297,502 B1
`
`
`
`notes that Postrel describes a central exchange server that obtains loyalty
`points information from the various databases and accounts, generates a web
`page to display the account totals to the user, and updates records indicating
`the changes and current value of user exchange accounts. Id. at 50; Ex. 1003
`¶¶ 43, 69. Petitioner also explains that MacLean describes a graphical user
`interface, displaying a second quantity of non-negotiable credits (values
`“850,000” listed under element 656) in Figure 6F, which remain after a
`subset of credits (e.g., 644a and 644b from Figure 6E) are converted into
`entity independent funds (e.g., “5,001” and “3,334”). Pet. 51; Ex. 1004,
`Figs. 6E, 6F.
`Moreover, Mr. Calman testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art
`would have included the remaining balance of merchant loyalty points after
`a conversion in Postrel’s web page, in light of MacLean, so that the
`customer viewing such remaining balance knows how many merchant
`loyalty points remain and can plan upcoming transactions based on the
`up-to-date quantity of loyalty points (non-negotiable credits). Ex. 1002
`¶¶ 69–71, 111, 144. We give Mr. Calman’s testimony substantial weight in
`that regard as it is supported by the prior art disclosures and what the
`disclosures would have conveyed to one with ordinary skill in the art at the
`time of the invention. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 43, 69; Ex. 1004, Figs. 6E, 6F.
`Based on the evidence before us, we determine that Petitioner has
`demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of
`Postrel, Sakakibara, and MacLean would render claims 2, 11, and 18
`obvious.
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2015-00137
`Patent 8,297,502 B1
`
`
`
`Confirmation selector
`Claims 3 and 19 require a confirmation selector. Ex. 1001, 6:61–62;
`8:62–64. Upon review of the prior art disclosures and evidence before us,
`we agree with Petitioner’s findings, which are supported by Mr. Calman’s
`unrebutted testimony, and adopt them as our own, that the combination of
`Postrel, Sakakibara, and MacLean discloses the aforementioned limitations
`of claims 3 and 19. Pet. 52–55, 57–58. For instance, Petitioner points out
`that MacLean describes a graphical user interface (web pages) that allows a
`user to convert loyalty points, confirm the exchange selection, and review
`the balance. Id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 52, Figs. 6E, 6H). Indeed, MacLean
`discloses that, in response to the user’s exchange selection, the system
`processes the selection to effectuate changes in the web pages. Ex. 1004
`¶ 52. Importantly, after the user clicks “continue xchange” button 648
`(shown in Figure 6E), the system displays a series of web pages to process
`the exchange (shown in Figures 6F–6H), including an option to confirm the
`exchange selection (a confirmation selector)—“submit” button 678 shown in
`Figure 6H. Id. Therefore, we are persuaded that MacLean describes a
`confirmation selector, as required by claims 3 and 19.
`We also are persuaded by Petitioner’s reasoning, which is supported
`by the unrebutted testimony of Mr. Calman (Ex. 1002 ¶ 75), that one with
`ordinary skill in the art would have combined MacLean’s confirmation
`selector with Postrel’s system because it would have reduced error and
`provided the user with the opportunity to consider an exchange selection
`before committing to the transaction. Pet. 52–53. Notably, both MacLean
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2015-00137
`Patent 8,297,502 B1
`
`
`
`and Postrel utilize exchange rates for converting the loyalty points of an
`entity into those of a commerce partner. Ex. 1003 ¶ 45 (“When the
`purchaser utilizes the exchange server for aggregating his or her loyalty
`points from various merchants, exchange rates may be set . . .”); Ex. 1004
`¶ 52 (“In step 510, the customer selects the depositing LP and clicks on
`‘calculate advanced exchange’ button 634. Step 511 calculates the exchange
`rates for this points transaction and displays page 640, a summary of the
`withdrawal and deposit points, as illustrated in Fig. 6E.”). Moreover, both
`MacLean and Postrel utilize an exchange server, enabling users to exchange
`loyalty points from various merchants into a single account. Ex. 1003
`¶¶ 43–47, 59; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 51–52.
`As Petitioner explains, MacLean provides greater detail regarding a
`web interface for providing the point balance and a confirmation selector,
`whereas Postrel discloses greater detail concerning an e-commerce interface
`with on-line shopping capabilities and different payment options. Pet. 50.
`Given the evidence before us, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated
`sufficiently that it would have been obvious, in light of MacLean, to include
`a confirmation selector in Postrel’s user interface, allowing the user to
`confirm and check the exchange selection before finalizing the transaction.
`See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“If a technique has been used to improve one
`device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would
`improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious
`unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.”).
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2015-00137
`Patent 8,297,502 B1
`
`
`
`In view of the foregoing, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a
`preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Postrel, Sakakibara,
`and MacLean would have rendered the “confirmation selector” limitation, as
`recited in claims 3 and 19, obvious.
`
`Additional claim limitations
`Petitioner relies on Postrel in combination with Sakakibara and
`MacLean, along with Mr. Calman’s unrebutted testimony, to meet other
`limitations recited in claims 2, 3, 11, 18, and 19. Pet. 49–58; Ex. 1002.
`Based on the evidence in this record, we agree with Petitioner’s showing,
`and adopt it as our own, that Postrel in combination with Sakakibara and
`MacLean discloses the additional limitations of claims 2, 3, 11, 18, and 19,
`and renders the claimed subject matter as a whole obvious.
`
`Conclusion on obviousness of claims over Postrel, Sakakibara, and MacLean
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has
`demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 2, 3, 11, 18,
`and 19 are unpatentable over the combination of Postrel, Sakakibara, and
`MacLean.
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2015-00137
`Patent 8,297,502 B1
`
`
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Petitioner has
`demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–30 of the
`’502 patent are unpatentable based on the following grounds:
`
`Claims
`1, 4–10, 12–17, and
`20–30
`
`2, 3, 11, 18, and 19
`
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Postrel and Sakakibara
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Postrel, Sakakibara, and MacLean
`
`IV. ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is
`ORDERED that claims 1–30 of the ’502 patent are held unpatentable;
`
`
`and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that, because this is a Final Written Decision,
`parties to the proceeding seeking judicial review of the decision must
`comply with the notice and service requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.
`
`21
`
`

`

`22
`
`IPR2015-00137
`Patent 8,297,502 B1
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`Robert H. Fischer
`AskeladdenIPR@fchs.com
`
`Frank A. DeLucia
`AskeladdenIPR@fchs.com
`
`Stephen Yam
`AskeladdenIPR@fchs.com
`
`Justin Oliver
`joliver@fchs.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Brian K. Buchheit
`bbuchheit@gmail.com
`
`
`
`
`

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