UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`CSC SERVICEWORKS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`PAYRANGE, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01186
`U.S. Patent No. 8,856,045
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01186 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,856,045
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST ................................................................................................... 6
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 7
`
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING ............................................................................... 7
`
`NOTE ...................................................................................................................... 7
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ‘045 PATENT .................................................................... 7
`
`PROSECUTION HISTORY ................................................................................. 10
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .................................................. 11
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .................................................................................. 11
`
`VIII. RELIEF REQUESTED AND THE REASONS FOR THE REQUESTED
`RELIEF ................................................................................................................. 11
`
`IX.
`
`DISCRETIONARY DENIAL WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE ........................ 12
`
`A.
`
`Discretionary denial under the Fintiv factors is not appropriate............... 12
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Factor 1: Institution Will Enable a Stay ........................................ 12
`
`Factor 2: District Court Schedule ................................................. 12
`
`Factor 3: Parallel Proceeding Considerations ............................... 13
`
`Factor 4: The Petition Raises Unique Issues................................. 13
`
`Factor 5: The Petition Will Enable Cancellation of Claims that
`Might be Reasserted ...................................................................... 14
`
`Factor 6: Other Considerations Support Institution ...................... 15
`
`X.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE ........... 15
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Challenged Claims .................................................................................... 15
`
`Statutory Grounds for Challenges ............................................................. 16
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1 and 18 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by
`Low and obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Low ................................. 17
`
`1.
`
`Summary of Low .......................................................................... 17
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2023-01186 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,856,045
`
`Claim 1 .......................................................................................... 19
`
`
`
`Claim 18 ........................................................................................ 28
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`D.
`
`Ground 2: Claims 2-3 and 19-20 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`over Low in view of Skowronek ............................................................... 32
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Summary of Low .......................................................................... 32
`
`Summary of Skowronek ............................................................... 33
`
`Reasons to Combine Low and Skowronek ................................... 35
`
`Claim 2 .......................................................................................... 38
`
`Claim 3 .......................................................................................... 42
`
`Claim 19 ........................................................................................ 45
`
`Claim 20 ........................................................................................ 46
`
`E.
`
`Ground 3: Claims 4-6 and 21-23 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`over Low in view of Freeny ...................................................................... 47
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Summary of Low .......................................................................... 47
`
`Summary of Freeny....................................................................... 47
`
`Reasons to Combine Low and Freeny .......................................... 48
`
`Claim 4 .......................................................................................... 52
`
`Claim 5 .......................................................................................... 55
`
`Claim 6 .......................................................................................... 57
`
`Claim 21 ........................................................................................ 59
`
`Claim 22 ........................................................................................ 59
`
`Claim 23 ........................................................................................ 60
`
`F.
`
`Ground 4: Claims 10-14 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Low
`in view of Skowronek and Freeny ............................................................ 60
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Summary of Low .......................................................................... 60
`
`Summary of Skowronek ............................................................... 61
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2023-01186 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,856,045
`
`Summary of Freeny....................................................................... 61
`
`
`
`Reasons to Combine Low and Skowronek and Freeny ................ 61
`
`Claim 10 ........................................................................................ 61
`
`Claim 11 ........................................................................................ 65
`
`Claim 12 ........................................................................................ 65
`
`Claim 13 ........................................................................................ 66
`
`Claim 14 ........................................................................................ 67
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`G.
`
`Ground 5: Claims 8-9 and 25-26 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`over Low in view of Wilson ..................................................................... 67
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Summary of Low .......................................................................... 67
`
`Summary of Wilson ...................................................................... 67
`
`Reasons to Combine Low and Wilson .......................................... 69
`
`Claim 8 .......................................................................................... 71
`
`Claim 9 .......................................................................................... 72
`
`Claim 25 ........................................................................................ 77
`
`Claim 26 ........................................................................................ 77
`
`H.
`
`Ground 6: Claims 7 and 24 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
`Low in view of Freeny and Wilson........................................................... 78
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Summary of Low .......................................................................... 78
`
`Summary of Freeny....................................................................... 78
`
`Summary of Wilson ...................................................................... 78
`
`Reasons to Combine Low and Freeny .......................................... 78
`
`Reasons to Combine Low and Wilson .......................................... 78
`
`Claim 7 .......................................................................................... 78
`
`Claim 24 ........................................................................................ 80
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01186 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,856,045
`
`
`Ground 7: Claims 15-17 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Low
`in view of Skowronek, Freeny, and Wilson .............................................. 81
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Summary of Low .......................................................................... 81
`
`Summary of Skowronek ............................................................... 81
`
`Summary of Freeny....................................................................... 81
`
`Summary of Wilson ...................................................................... 81
`
`Reasons to Combine Low and Skowronek ................................... 81
`
`Reasons to Combine Low and Freeny .......................................... 81
`
`Reasons to Combine Low and Wilson .......................................... 81
`
`Claim 15 ........................................................................................ 81
`
`Claim 16 ........................................................................................ 82
`
`10.
`
`Claim 17 ........................................................................................ 82
`
`XI.
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................... 83
`
`XII. MANDATORY NOTICES ................................................................................... 84
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Real Party-in-Interest ................................................................................ 84
`
`Related Matters ......................................................................................... 84
`
`D. Del. 84
`
`C.
`
`Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information ............................... 84
`
`CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT ........................................................................................... 86
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ..................................................................................................... 87
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01186 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,856,045
`
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Ex. 1001
`Ex. 1002
`
`Ex. 1003
`Ex. 1004
`Ex. 1005
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`Ex. 1008
`
`Ex. 1009
`Ex. 1010
`Ex. 1011
`Ex. 1012
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,856,045
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,045
`
`Declaration of Dr. Clifford Neuman
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,210,501 to Low et al.
`U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2009/0106160 to Skowronek
`U.S. Patent No. 8,958,846 to Freeny
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,455,223 to Wilson et al.
`Multi-Drop Bus/Internal Communication Protocol (MDB/ICP)
`Specification, Version 3.0, March 26, 2003
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Clifford Neuman
`Statistics regarding Motions to Stay for Judge Noreika
`Statistics regarding Median Time To Trial for District of Delaware
`Waiver of Service of Complaint (July 18, 2022)
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01186 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,856,045
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`CSC ServiceWorks, Inc. (“Petitioner”) respectfully requests the Board
`
`institute inter partes review of and cancel claims 1-26 (“the Challenged Claims”) of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,856,045 (“the ‘045 Patent,” Ex.1001).
`
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioner certifies that the ‘045 patent is eligible for IPR and that Petitioner
`
`is not barred or estopped from requesting IPR challenging the patent claims. 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.104(a). This petition is timely because Petitioner first filed a waiver of
`
`service of a complaint asserting the ‘045 patent on July 18, 2022, which means
`
`Petitioner was served not more than one year ago. Ex.1012; Fed R. Civ. P. 4(d)(4)
`
`(complaint is deemed “served at the time of filing the waiver”); Brinkmann Corp. v.
`
`A&J Mfg., LLC, IPR2015-00056, Paper 10 at 6–7 (PTAB March 23, 2015) (holding
`
`that the date a waiver of service is filed is the date that a petitioner is deemed to have
`
`been served).
`
`III. NOTE
`Petitioner cites to exhibits’ original page numbers. Emphasis in quoted
`
`material has been added. Claim terms are presented in italics.
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF THE ‘045 PATENT
`The ‘045 patent relates to mobile payments, in particular, “mobile-device-to-
`
`machine payment systems over a non-persistent network connection.” Ex.1001,
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2023-01186 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,856,045
`
`1:14-17. The ‘045 patent explains that the concept of payment on a machine (a
`
`
`
`“payment accepting unit”) has been around for “thousands of years.” Ex.1001, 1:18-
`
`19. By the time the ‘045 patent application was filed, the concept of payment on
`
`machines was well known and used in commercial applications such as “vending
`
`machines,” “parking meters, toll booths, laundromat washers and dryers, arcade
`
`games, kiosks, photo booths, toll booths, [and] transit ticket dispensing machines.”
`
`Ex.1001, 1:31-38. It was further already known that mobile payments could be
`
`completed using a machine “that is designed to communicate with a cellular phone
`
`such that it dispenses a product when it receives information indicating that the
`
`product has been selected.” Ex.1001, 2:15-18. These mobile payment systems
`
`included “an interface to communicate with users, a communications system that
`
`enables it to act as part of a network and communicate with a central system, and a
`
`controller, that articulates the communication among the above mentioned
`
`components, to enable a central system to perform diverse actions on a vending
`
`machine.” Ex.1001, 2:56-61. Prior-art mobile payment systems also included
`
`authorization steps performed by a “remote payment server.” Ex.1001, 3:27-30.
`
`The ‘045 patent alleges, however, that prior-art mobile payment systems
`
`required a persistent network connection to connect to a remote server to facilitate
`
`cashless payment and resulted in the unavailability of mobile payments if that
`
`connection is interrupted. Ex.1001, 10:1-19. The ‘045 patent thus proposes a method
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2023-01186 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,856,045
`
`whereby the user’s mobile phone uses short-range, non-persistent communication
`
`
`
`technology to communicate with an adapter module of a machine. Ex.1001, 13:22-
`
`34. As shown in this petition, however, this alleged “improvement” was already
`
`described in the prior art.
`
`In more detail, the ‘045 patent describes the adapter module being connected
`
`to the machine (the “payment accepting unit”) via a wired or serial connection, such
`
`that the adapter module controls the dispensation of items or services on the
`
`machine. Ex.1001, 18:48-50; 19:58-67. The adapter module sends an authorization
`
`request for funds to the user’s mobile device via short-range communication
`
`technology, such as Bluetooth. Ex.1001, 3:52-54. The user’s mobile device then
`
`forwards that request to the server using long-range communication technology such
`
`as Wifi or a cellular connection. Ex.1001, 3:54-56. The server then sends an
`
`authorization grant back to the mobile device via long-range communication
`
`technology, and the mobile device then “forwards the authorization grant for funds
`
`to the adapter module using short-range communication technology.” Ex.1001,
`
`3:56-60. The payment accepting unit then dispenses the item or service. Ex.1001,
`
`3:60-64; Fig. 5.
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01186 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,856,045
`
`
`
`
`As shown below, all of these electronic payment concepts claimed by the ‘045
`
`patent were previously known in the art.
`
`V.
`
`PROSECUTION HISTORY
`The ‘045 patent claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No.
`
`61/917,936, filed December 18, 2013. It is unnecessary to determine whether the
`
`‘045 patent is entitled to its earliest possible priority date because the prior art relied
`
`upon herein pre-dates the earliest possible priority date.
`
`U.S. Application No. 14/214,644, the application leading to the issuance of
`
`the ‘045 patent, was a first action allowance with no rejections on the merits. The
`
`Applicant received a Notice of Allowability on June 3, 2014. Ex.1002, 399. The ‘045
`
`patent then issued on October 7, 2014. Ex.1002, 540.
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01186 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,856,045
`
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) of the ‘045 patent in
`
`December of 2013 would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering,
`
`computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent training, and approximately
`
`three years of experience with electronic payment systems, vending machine
`
`technologies, or distributed network systems. Additional education can substitute for
`
`less work experience, and vice versa. Ex.1003, ¶19.
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Petitioner submits that for the purposes of this proceeding, the terms of the
`
`challenged claims should be given their plain and ordinary meaning, and no terms
`
`require specific construction.1
`
`VIII. RELIEF REQUESTED AND THE REASONS FOR THE
`REQUESTED RELIEF
`Petitioner asks that the Board institute a trial for inter partes review and cancel
`
`the Challenged Claims in view of the analysis below.
`
`
`1 Petitioner does not concede that any term in the challenged claims meets the
`
`statutory requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112, or that the challenged claims recite
`
`patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01186 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,856,045
`
`
`IX. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE
`A. Discretionary denial under the Fintiv factors is not appropriate
`The Fintiv factors (enumerated below) weigh against discretionary denial.
`
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11, 5-6 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential). The “Interim
`
`Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel
`
`District Court Litigation” dated June 21, 2022 (“Interim Guidance”) and recent
`
`Board decisions applying these factors confirm discretionary denial is not warranted
`
`here.
`
`Factor 1: Institution Will Enable a Stay
`1.
`The parallel district court litigation between PayRange and CSC is pending in
`
`the District of Delaware before Judge Noreika. See PayRange Inc. v. CSC
`
`ServiceWorks, Inc., 1:23-cv-00278-MN (D. Del.). According to statistics produced
`
`by Lex Machina, since taking the bench in 2018, Judge Noreika has granted stays
`
`pending IPR in approximately 78% of all patent cases where a stay was sought.
`
`Ex.1010. CSC intends to seek a stay of the district court proceedings pending final
`
`resolution of these IPR proceedings. As such, institution will likely enable a stay of
`
`the district court proceedings. This factor favors institution.
`
`Factor 2: District Court Schedule
`2.
`As set forth in the Interim Guidance, “when considering the proximity of the
`
`district court’s trial date to the date when the PTAB final written decision will be
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2023-01186 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,856,045
`
`due, the PTAB will consider the median time from filing to disposition of the civil
`
`
`
`trial for the district in which the parallel litigation resides.” Interim Guidance, 3.
`
`Here, the anticipated trial date, as computed in accordance with the Interim
`
`Guidance, is January 2026 (33.7 months from March 15, 2023) Ex.1011. The due
`
`date for a final written decision is approximately January 2025 (18 months after
`
`filing). Accordingly, the final written decision will almost certainly issue prior to the
`
`district court litigation reaching trial in the unlikely event the district court
`
`proceedings are not stayed. This factor favors institution.
`
`Factor 3: Parallel Proceeding Considerations
`3.
`The District Court in the underlying litigation has not yet issued any
`
`substantive order related to the challenged patent. A scheduling order has not even
`
`been entered. The case is at the pleading stage.
`
`Moreover, this petition was diligently filed approximately three months after
`
`PayRange filed its Complaint in the District Court litigation. This factor weighs
`
`against discretionary denial.
`
`Factor 4: The Petition Raises Unique Issues
`4.
`Under the Interim Guidance, “the PTAB will not discretionarily deny
`
`institution of an IPR or PGR in view of parallel district court litigation where a
`
`petitioner stipulates not to pursue in a parallel district court proceeding the same
`
`grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2023-01186 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,856,045
`
`the petition.” Interim Guidance, 7. Referred to as a Sotera stipulation, “[t]his
`
`
`
`clarification avoids inconsistent outcomes between the PTAB and the district court
`
`and allows the PTAB to review grounds that the parallel district court litigation will
`
`not resolve.” Id. at 7–8. The Interim Guidance is “binding agency guidance” to the
`
`Board. Interim Guidance, 3.
`
`Consistent with this guidance, Petitioner stipulates that, if the instant IPR is
`
`instituted, it will not pursue against the ‘045 patent in the parallel district court
`
`proceeding the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have
`
`reasonably been raised in the petition. Accordingly, the Board should not
`
`discretionarily deny institution under Fintiv.
`
`5.
`
`Factor 5: The Petition Will Enable Cancellation of Claims
`that Might be Reasserted
`CSC’s petition is potentially helpful to future defendants. CSC’s status as both
`
`Petitioner and Defendant therefore is, at worst, a neutral factor. Institution would
`
`serve overall efficiency, enabling the Board to determine unpatentability of claims
`
`that Patent Owner might otherwise later assert against others.
`
`Further, members of the Board have noted that Fintiv addresses only the
`
`scenario in which the petitioner is unrelated to a defendant in a parallel proceeding,
`
`finding this should weigh against denying institution, but that Fintiv “says nothing
`
`about situations in which the petitioner is the same as, or is related to, the district
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2023-01186 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,856,045
`
`court defendant.” Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Ramot at Tel Aviv Univ. Ltd., IPR2020-00122,
`
`
`
`Paper 15, at *10-11 (PTAB May 15, 2020) (APJ Crumbley, dissenting).
`
`Factor 6: Other Considerations Support Institution
`6.
`Petitioner submits that there is compelling evidence to institute inter partes
`
`review of the ‘045 patent. As set forth below, the Petition goes beyond merely
`
`providing sufficient evidence to meet the statutory institution threshold; instead, the
`
`Petition presents compelling evidence of unpatentability in light of Low and the
`
`combinations of Low, Skowronek, Freeny, and Wilson, such that, if unrebutted in
`
`trial, would lead to a conclusion that claims 1-26 are unpatentable by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence. Interim Guidance, 4-5.
`
`In summary, the Fintiv factors altogether weigh against discretionary denial.
`
`Even if the Board were to determine that Fintiv factors on balance weigh in favor of
`
`denial, institution should nonetheless be granted because this Petition satisfies the
`
`compelling merits standards. Interim Guidance, 4; Vizio, Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd.,
`
`IPR2022-01458, Paper 8, at 62.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`X.
`A. Challenged Claims
`Petitioner challenges claims 1-26.
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`B.
`
`
`
`
`
`Statutory Grounds for Challenges
`
`
`IPR2023-01186 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,856,045
`
`
`Grounds
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Basis
`
`#1
`
`#2
`
`#3
`
`#4
`
`#5
`
`#6
`
`#7
`
`1, 18
`
`2-3, 19-20
`
`4-6, 21-23
`
`10-14
`
`8-9, 25-26
`
`7, 24
`
`15-17
`
`are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 102 by Low and
`obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Low
`
`are obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Low in view
`of Skowronek
`
`are obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Low in view
`of Freeny
`
`are obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Low in view
`of Skowronek and Freeny
`
`are obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Low in view
`of Wilson
`
`are obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Low in view
`of Freeny and Wilson
`
`are obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Low in view
`of Skowronek, Freeny, and Wilson
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,201,501 to Low et al. (“Low,” Ex.1004) was filed on July
`
`25, 2013. Low is thus prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2).
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/1016160 to Skowronek (“Skowronek,”
`
`Ex.1005) was filed on October 19, 2007 and published on April 23, 2009. Skowronek
`
`is thus prior art under at least U.S.C. § 102(a)(1).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,958,846 to Freeny (“Freeny,” Ex.1006) was filed on August
`
`23, 2006. Freeny is thus prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2).
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2023-01186 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,856,045
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,455,223 to Wilson et al. (“Wilson,” Ex.1007) was filed on
`
`
`
`August 29, 2005. Wilson is thus prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2).
`
`None of Low, Skowronek, Freeny, or Wilson was cited or substantively
`
`discussed during prosecution of the ‘045 patent.
`
`
`
`C. Ground 1: Claims 1 and 18 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by
`Low and obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Low
`Summary of Low
`1.
`Similar to the ‘045 patent, Low relates to “wireless electronic payments to non-
`
`Internet connected machines through user devices.” Ex.1004, 1:16-20. Low discloses
`
`a non-Internet connected machine (i.e., a vending machine), lacking an internet
`
`connection with a network, but having “capability of wireline or wireless
`
`communication with user device 110, for example using microwave, radio frequency,
`
`infrared, Bluetooth, and near field communication.” Id., 2:10-16; 4:57-64. The “user
`
`device” is a “consumer device, such as a smart phone or computing tablet.” Id., 2:10-
`
`16. The machine communicates with the user’s device via an “electronic payment
`
`module” having a “storage and communication interface to store and communicate a
`
`machine identifier and other transaction information, as well as processing (including
`
`decrypting) information for dispensing purchased items from vending machine.” Id.,
`
`4:64-5:3; see also 5:54-61; 6:9-16. The vending machine includes a product
`
`dispensing module including input mechanisms for allowing a user to make
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2023-01186 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,856,045
`
`selections of desired items to purchase and dispense. Id., 5:19-30. The electronic
`
`
`
`payment module of the vending machine communicates with the user device to
`
`enable electronic payments without physical money. Id., 5:44-46.
`
`The user device communicates with remote servers, including a “payment
`
`provider server” over a wireless network, such as “a DSL (e.g., Digital Subscriber
`
`Line) modem, a PSTN (Public Switched Telephone Network) modem, an Ethernet
`
`device, a broadband device, a satellite device and/or various other types of wired
`
`and/or wireless network communication devices” to complete the transaction. Id.,
`
`7:40-50; see also 3:20-25; 4:45-56. This arrangement is shown, for example, in
`
`Figure 4 below:
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2023-01186 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,856,045
`
`Once the transaction is authorized by the remote “payment provider server,”
`
`
`
`the authorization is transmitted back to the user device (in some cases, after being
`
`routed to a “vendor server”), then the user device transmits said authorization to the
`
`machine to allow the user to dispense the products. Id., 2:49-62 (“After processing,
`
`the payment provider may approve the payment request and communicate the
`
`approval directly to an operator of the machine, such as a vendor server, or may
`
`communicate the approval to the user device to be transmitted to the operator of the
`
`machine.”); see also 2:34-37, 9:39-62, 10:55-61, 12:9-12.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 1
`
`[1(pre)] A mobile-device-to-machine payment system for facilitating a cashless
`transaction for purchase of at least one product or service by a user from a
`payment accepting unit having input mechanisms,
`First, Low describes a system and method for purchasing products on a non-
`
`Internet connected vending machine (“payment accepting unit”) using a user device,
`
`such as a smart phone (“mobile device”). Ex.1004, 2:11-16; 5:24-35. Low’s system
`
`is for “facilitating a cashless transaction” as it “enables [a] user 102 to make
`
`electronic payments for products 124 in the absence of physical money.” Id., 5:44-
`
`46. The vending machine dispenses “at least one product or service” as a result of
`
`the transaction: “Products 124 may include purchasable products for user 102, such
`
`as drinks, food, items, or other purchasable products included in vending machine
`
`120.” Ex.1004, 5:30-35; Ex.1003, ¶¶76-77.
`
`19
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2023-01186 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,856,045
`
`Second, Low discloses its “payment accepting unit” having “input
`
`
`
`mechanisms”: “Vending machine 120 may also include an (sic) product dispensing
`
`module 122 for accepting user input, such as for selecting desired items to
`
`purchase.” Id., 5:3-5:9. The product dispensing module “may include means to
`
`select a product, such as using a keypad, touchscreen, display, or other selection
`
`means.” Id., 5:19-24. A POSITA would have understood inputs, such as a keypad
`
`and touchscreen, to comprise multiple input mechanisms, because a keypad would
`
`have been understood to have multiple keys and a touchscreen would have been
`
`understood to have multiple touch points. Ex.1003, ¶¶78-79.
`
`the user having a mobile device having both short-range
` [1(pre.i)]
`communication technology and long-range communication technology,
`Low describes a user device (“mobile device”) which is a “personal computer
`
`(PC), a smart phone, personal digital assistant (PDA), laptop computer, and/or other
`
`types of computing devices capable of transmitting and/or receiving data, such as an
`
`IPAD® from APPLE®.” Ex.1004, 3:37-48. The user device may communicate with
`
`the machine “via wireless communication, such as Bluetooth or NFC (Near Field
`
`Communication)”—i.e., via “short range communication technology.” Id., 2:11-16;
`
`4:57-5:9. “Bluetooth” and “near-field communication” are two examples of “short
`
`range communication technology” disclosed in the ‘045 patent. Ex.1001, 13:22-32.
`
`The user device described in Low may also communicate with a network, such as “a
`
`20
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2023-01186 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,856,045
`
`LAN, WLAN, PTSN, and/or various other wired or wireless networks, including
`
`
`
`telecommunications, mobile, and cellular phone networks)”—i.e., via “long range
`
`communication technology.” Id., 13:30-39; see also id. at 4:45-56 (describing the
`
`user device’s communication module 118); 8:40-57 (providing other examples of
`
`network technologies for Network 160 that the user device may communicate with).
`
`A “hard-wired, telephone network technology, cellular technology” or “wide area
`
`network (WAN), local area network (LAN), or any wired or wireless communication
`
`technology over the internet” are examples of “long range communication
`
`technology” disclosed in the ‘045 patent. Ex.1001, 13:4-10. Ex.1003, ¶¶80-83.
`
` [1(pre.ii)] the payment accepting unit capable of dispensing at least one product
`or service, said system comprising:
`The vending machine (“payment accepting unit”) disclosed in Low is for
`
`“dispensing items that are purchased.” Ex.1004, 4:57-59. Those items include
`
`“drinks, food, items, or other purchasable products included in vending machine.”
`
`Id., 5:30-35; Ex.1003, ¶¶84-85.
`
` [1(a)] an adapter module associated with the payment accepting unit, said adapter
`having short-range communication technology for communicating with the short-
`range communication technology of the mobile device;
`First, Low describes an “adapter module” in the form of “an electronic
`
`payment module 130 having storage and [a] communication interface.” Ex.1004,
`
`4:64-67. The electronic payment module is associated with the vending machine
`
`21
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2023-01186 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,856,045
`
`(“payment accepting unit”) because it is part of the vending machine. Id., 5:44-46
`
`
`
`(“Electronic payment module 130 included with vending machine 120….”); 5:10-
`
`18. The electronic payment module may be implemented as one or more “hardware”
`
`components within the vending machine (id, 5:14-17; 5:49-53), consistent with the
`
`‘045 patent’s description of the “adapter module” as “a physical device that is
`
`installed in a machine.” Ex.1001, 11:59-61; Ex.1003, ¶¶86-88.
`
`Second, Low discloses that the electronic payment module (“adapter
`
`module”) includes a “communication module 134” which is “adapted to
`
`communic