UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`CSC SERVICEWORKS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`PAYRANGE, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2023-01449
`U.S. Patent No. 11,481,772
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. B. CLIFFORD NEUMAN
` UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR
`INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`4855-2030-7071 v4
`
`CSC ServiceWorks - Ex. 1003
`Page 1 of 85
`
`

`

`Neuman Declaration
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 11,481,772
`
`Table of Contents
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. QUALIFICATIONS AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE .......................... 2
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .............................................. 6
`IV. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS .............................................................. 7
`V. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................. 9
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘772 PATENT ...........................................................10
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ...........................................................................12
`VIII. IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE .....13
`A. Summary of References .................................................................................13
`a. Summary of Zhou ........................................................................................13
`b. Summary of Athwal ....................................................................................15
`c. Summary of Low .........................................................................................16
`d. Summary of Arora .......................................................................................16
`e. Summary of Casey ......................................................................................17
`f. Summary of Freeny .....................................................................................17
`B. Reasons to Combine .......................................................................................18
`a. Athwal and Low are Analogous to Zhou and the ‘772 Patent. ...................18
`b. Reasons to Combine Zhou and Athwal .......................................................20
`c. Reasons to Combine Zhou and Low ...........................................................22
`d. Reasons to combine Zhou and Arora ..........................................................24
`e. Reasons to Combine Zhou and Casey .........................................................25
`f. Reasons to Combine Zhou and Freeny .......................................................26
`C. Ground 1: Claims 1-6, 8, and 12-20 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
`Zhou and Athwal further in view of Low. ...........................................................27
`D. Ground 2: Claim 9 is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Zhou and Athwal
`further in view of Low and even further in view of Arora. .................................70
`E. Ground 3: Claim 10 is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Zhou and Athwal
`further in view of Low and even further in view of Casey. .................................73
`
`ii
`
`4855-2030-7071 v4
`
`CSC ServiceWorks - Ex. 1003
`Page 2 of 85
`
`

`

`Neuman Declaration
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 11,481,772
`
`F. Ground 4: Claim 11 is is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Zhou and Athwal
`further in view of Low and even further in view of Arora, Casey, and Freeny ..76
`IX. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................82
`
`iii
`
`4855-2030-7071 v4
`
`CSC ServiceWorks - Ex. 1003
`Page 3 of 85
`
`

`

`Neuman Declaration
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 11,481,772
`
`I, Dr. B. Clifford Neuman, do hereby declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I am making this declaration at the request of CSC Serviceworks, Inc.
`
`in the matter of the Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 11,481,772 (“the ‘772
`
`patent”) to Patel.
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated for my work on this matter and for reasonable
`
`and customary expenses associated with my work and testimony in this
`
`investigation. My compensation is not contingent on the outcome of this matter or
`
`the specifics of my testimony, and I have no other interest in this case or the parties
`
`thereto.
`
`3.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding whether claims 1-
`
`6 and 8-20 (“the challenged claims”) of the ‘772 patent are unpatentable insofar as
`
`they would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art
`
`(“POSITA”) at the time of the alleged invention, in light of the prior art.
`
`4.
`
`It is my opinion that all of the challenged claims would have been
`
`obvious to a POSITA.
`
`5.
`
`In the preparation of this declaration, I have studied:
`
`
`
`
`
`The ‘772 patent, Ex.1001;
`
`The prosecution history of the ‘772 patent (“‘772 file history”),
`Ex.1002;
`
`1
`
`4855-2030-7071 v4
`
`CSC ServiceWorks - Ex. 1003
`Page 4 of 85
`
`

`

`Neuman Declaration
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 11,481,772
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,458,510 to Zhou, Ex.1004;
`
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2003/0130902 to Athwal, Ex.1005;
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,210,501 to Low et al., Ex.1006;
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,898,884 to Arora et al., Ex.1007;
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,255,323 to Casey et al., Ex.1008;
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,958,846 to Freeny, Ex.1009; and
`
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2010/0082485 to Lin et al., Ex. 1010.
`
`6.
`
`In forming the opinions expressed below, I have considered: the
`
`documents listed above, the relevant legal standards, including the standards for
`
`anticipation and obviousness; any additional authoritative documents as cited in the
`
`body of this declaration; and my own knowledge and experience based upon my
`
`work in the field of electronic payments and distributed networks as described
`
`below.
`
`7.
`
`Unless otherwise noted, all emphasis in any quoted material has been
`
`added.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
`
`8.
`
`My complete qualifications and professional experience are described
`
`in my Curriculum Vitae, a copy of which can be found in Exhibit 1011. The
`
`2
`
`4855-2030-7071 v4
`
`CSC ServiceWorks - Ex. 1003
`Page 5 of 85
`
`

`

`Neuman Declaration
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 11,481,772
`
`following is a brief summary of my relevant qualifications and professional
`
`experience.
`
`9.
`
`I received a Ph. D. in Computer Science in 1992 and an M.S. in
`
`Computer Science in 1988 from the University of Washington, and an S.B.
`
`(Bachelor’s) in Computer Science and Engineering in 1985 from the Massachusetts
`
`Institute of Technology.
`
`10.
`
`Since receiving my doctorate, I have devoted my career to the field of
`
`distributed computer systems development and research with a significant portion
`
`of my experience in the area of electronic commerce and internet payments. I have
`
`studied, taught, practiced, and researched in the field of computer science for over
`
`forty years.
`
`11.
`
`I am currently an Associate Professor of Computer Science Practice in
`
`the Department of Computer Science at the University of Southern California
`
`(USC), where I have taught since 1992. I am also the Director of the Center for
`
`Computer Systems Security, an affliated Scientist at USC’s Information Sciences
`
`Institute, and I direct the Computer Security Curricula within the Data Science
`
`Program at USC.
`
`3
`
`4855-2030-7071 v4
`
`CSC ServiceWorks - Ex. 1003
`Page 6 of 85
`
`

`

`Neuman Declaration
`
` Inter Partes Review of U.S. 11,481,772
`
`12.
`
`I teach and have taught numerous courses at USC, including advanced
`
`courses in computer science for upper-level undergraduates and graduate students,
`
`on topics such as distributed systems and computer and network security.
`
`13. As part of my research at USC, I have worked in a number of areas,
`
`including research in distributed computer systems with emphasis on scalability and
`
`computer security, especially in the areas of authentication, authorization, policy,
`
`electronic commerce, and protection of cyber-physical systems and critical
`
`infrastructure such as the power grid. I have worked on the design and development
`
`of scalable information, security, and computing infrastructure for the Internet. I am
`
`also the principal designer of the Kerberos system, an encryption-based
`
`authentication system used among other things as the primary authentication method
`
`for most versions of Microsoft’s Windows, as well as many other systems. I
`
`developed systems which used Kerberos as a base for more comprehensive computer
`
`security services supporting authorization, accounting, and audit.
`
`14.
`
`In addition to my academic experience, I have many years of practical
`
`experience designing computer security systems. For example, from 1985-1986, I
`
`worked on Project Athena at MIT, to produce a campus-wide distributed computing
`
`environment. I also served as Chief Scientist at CyberSafe Corporation from 1992-
`
`2001. I have designed systems for network payment which build upon security
`
`
`
`4855-2030-7071 v4
`
`4
`
`CSC ServiceWorks - Ex. 1003
`Page 7 of 85
`
`

`

`Neuman Declaration
`
` Inter Partes Review of U.S. 11,481,772
`
`infrastructure to provide a secure means to pay for services provided over the
`
`Internet. For example, I designed the NetCheque and NetCash systems, which are
`
`suitable for micropayments (payments on the order of pennies where the cost of
`
`clearing a credit card payment would be prohibitive). In 2000 and 2001, I was on the
`
`advisory board for NetResearch Inc, d/b/a BayBuilder, which was a company
`
`developing online auction platforms.
`
`15. As part of my research on computer security and electronic payment
`
`systems, I was involved with the integration of portable electronic devices such as
`
`smart cards and PCMCIA cryptographic processors with other computer devices
`
`such as card readers and personal computers.
`
`16.
`
`I have authored or co-authored over 50 academic publications in the
`
`fields of computer science and engineering. In addition, I have been a referee or
`
`editor for the following academic journals: ACM Transaction on Information and
`
`Systems Security and International Journal of Electronic Commerce. My curriculum
`
`vitae includes a list of publications on which I am a named author.
`
`17.
`
`I am also a member of the IEEE, Association for Computer Machinery
`
`(ACM), and the Internet Society (ISOC), among others. I have also served as
`
`program and/or general chair of the following conferences: The Internet Society
`
`
`
`4855-2030-7071 v4
`
`5
`
`CSC ServiceWorks - Ex. 1003
`Page 8 of 85
`
`

`

`Neuman Declaration
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 11,481,772
`
`Symposium on Network and Distributed System Security and the ACM Conference
`
`on Computer and Communications Security.
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`18.
`
`I understand there are multiple factors relevant to determining the level
`
`of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, including (1) the levels of education and
`
`experience of persons working in the field at the time of the invention; (2) the
`
`sophistication of the technology; (3) the types of problems encountered in the field;
`
`and (4) the prior art solutions to those problems.
`
`19.
`
`It is my understanding that the earliest possible priority date for the ‘772
`
`patent is December 18, 2013. A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) in the
`
`field of the ‘772 patent, as of December 18, 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.
`
`Lack of work experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.
`
`20.
`
`For purposes of this Declaration, in general, and unless otherwise noted,
`
`my statements and opinions, such as those regarding my experience and the
`
`understanding of a POSITA generally (and specifically related to the references I
`
`consulted herein), reflect the knowledge that existed in the field as of the alleged
`
`6
`
`4855-2030-7071 v4
`
`CSC ServiceWorks - Ex. 1003
`Page 9 of 85
`
`

`

`Neuman Declaration
`
` Inter Partes Review of U.S. 11,481,772
`
`priority date of the ‘772 patent (i.e., December 18, 2013). Unless otherwise stated,
`
`when I provide my understanding and analysis below, it is consistent with the level
`
`of a POSITA as of the alleged priority date of the ‘772 patent.
`
`IV. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`
`21.
`
`I am not an attorney. In preparing and expressing my opinions and
`
`considering the subject matter of the ‘772 patent, I am relying on certain basic legal
`
`principles that counsel have explained to me. These principles are discussed below.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that prior art to the ‘772 patent includes patents and printed
`
`publications in the relevant art that predate the priority date of the alleged invention
`
`recited in the ‘772 patent.
`
`23.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a patent claim may be invalid
`
`as “anticipated” under 35 U.S.C. § 102 if each element of that claim is disclosed
`
`either explicitly or inherently in a single prior art reference. I understand that a
`
`disclosure is “inherent” if the missing element is necessarily present in view of the
`
`explicit disclosure. The fact that the reference might possibly practice or contain a
`
`claimed limitation is insufficient to establish that the reference inherently teaches
`
`the limitation. For anticipation by a prior art publication or document, I further
`
`understand that the reference’s description must enable a POSITA to practice the
`
`claimed invention without undue experimentation.
`
`
`
`4855-2030-7071 v4
`
`7
`
`CSC ServiceWorks - Ex. 1003
`Page 10 of 85
`
`

`

`Neuman Declaration
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 11,481,772
`
`24.
`
`I have been informed that a claimed invention is unpatentable under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the invention 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 the subject matter pertains.
`
`I have also been informed by counsel that the obviousness analysis takes into
`
`account factual inquiries including the level of ordinary skill in the art, the scope and
`
`content of the prior art, and the differences between the prior art and the claimed
`
`subject matter.
`
`25.
`
`I have been informed by counsel that the Supreme Court has recognized
`
`several rationales for combining references or modifying a reference to show
`
`obviousness of claimed subject matter. Some of these rationales include the
`
`following: (a) combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`
`predictable results; (b) simple substitution of one known element for another to
`
`obtain predictable results; (c) use of a known technique to improve a similar device
`
`(method, or product) in the same way; (d) applying a known technique to a known
`
`device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (e)
`
`choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable
`
`expectation of success; and (f) some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior
`
`8
`
`4855-2030-7071 v4
`
`CSC ServiceWorks - Ex. 1003
`Page 11 of 85
`
`

`

`Neuman Declaration
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 11,481,772
`
`art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to
`
`combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`V.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`26.
`
`The ‘772 patent relates to systems and methods for transacting with
`
`unattended retail machines (i.e., vending machines) whereby a consumer is notified
`
`of certain events occurring at a vending machine by “notification to a user of the
`
`mobile device via…one or more output devices of the mobile device (e.g., a message
`
`displayed on a display of the mobile device…).” ‘772 patent at 2:39-46. The
`
`background of the ‘772 patent explains that methods for facilitating mobile
`
`payments on vending machines—including by wireless communications between
`
`the machine and a consumer’s mobile device—were known in the art as of the ‘772
`
`patent’s filing date. See ‘772 patent at 1:66-2:15.
`
`27.
`
`The ‘772 patent seeks to enable user interaction with a vending machine
`
`via a user interface on a consumer’s mobile device to allow said user to select a
`
`particular vending machine, trigger payment, and complete a transaction with the
`
`selected vending machine. ‘772 patent at Abstract. The specification of the ‘772
`
`patent explains that a mobile device displays “a user interface 1320 of the application
`
`140 on touch screen 152….” ‘772 patent at 37:4-14. This user interface facilitates
`
`notifications from a vending machine: “after sending a request to a payment
`
`9
`
`4855-2030-7071 v4
`
`CSC ServiceWorks - Ex. 1003
`Page 12 of 85
`
`

`

`Neuman Declaration
`
` Inter Partes Review of U.S. 11,481,772
`
`module…the mobile device obtains (1402) a notification from the payment
`
`module…where the notification indicates an event at the payment accepting unit
`
`associated with the payment module.” ‘772 patent at 37:43-51.
`
`28. As explained in further detail below, this purported benefit of the ‘772
`
`patent was not novel. Each of the limitations in the challenged claims are found in
`
`prior art references before the earliest priority date of the ‘772 patent, including in
`
`the Zhou, Athwal, Low, Arora, Casey, Freeny, and Lin references.
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘772 PATENT
`
`
`29. The ‘772 patent relates to systems and methods for transacting with
`
`unattended retail machines (i.e., vending machines) whereby a consumer is notified
`
`of certain events occurring at a vending machine by “notification to a user of the
`
`mobile device via…one or more output devices of the mobile device (e.g., a message
`
`displayed on a display of the mobile device…).” ‘772 patent at 2:39-46. The
`
`specification of the ‘772 patent acknowledges that vending machines “have been
`
`around for thousands of years.” ‘772 patent at 1:45-46. The specification refers to
`
`vending machines as both “automatic retailing machines” and “payment accepting
`
`units.” ‘772 patent at 1:45-65. Other examples of “payment accepting units”
`
`include: parking meters, toll booths, laundromat washers and dryers, arcade games,
`
`
`
`4855-2030-7071 v4
`
`10
`
`CSC ServiceWorks - Ex. 1003
`Page 13 of 85
`
`

`

`Neuman Declaration
`
` Inter Partes Review of U.S. 11,481,772
`
`kiosks, photo booths, toll booths, and transit ticket dispensing machines.” ‘772
`
`patent at 1:54-65.
`
`30. The ‘772 patent claims systems and methods for providing
`
`representations of payment accepting unit events. The method of providing such
`
`representations is implemented by a “mobile device 150 . . . or a component thereof
`
`(e.g., the application 140).” ‘772 patent at 37:30-35. The mobile device sends a
`
`request to a vending machine in order to initiate a transaction with said machine.
`
`‘772 patent at 37:43-50. In response, “the mobile device obtains (1402) a
`
`notification from the payment module . . . where the notification indicates an event
`
`at the payment accepting unit associated with the payment module.” ‘772 patent at
`
`37:43-50. The mobile device then represents that notification to the user via visual,
`
`aural, or tactile means. See ‘772 patent at 38:4-7, 24-41. These representations
`
`indicate events such as a completed transaction or an aborted transaction. ‘772 patent
`
`at 38:4-16, 38:51-39:8, 39:22-34. Figures 27A and 27B provide an overview of this
`
`process:
`
`
`
`4855-2030-7071 v4
`
`11
`
`CSC ServiceWorks - Ex. 1003
`Page 14 of 85
`
`

`

`Neuman Declaration
`
` Inter Partes Review of U.S. 11,481,772
`
`‘772 patent, Figs. 27A-B.
`
`
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`
`31.
`
`It is my understanding that in order to properly evaluate the ‘772 patent,
`
`the terms of the claims must first be interpreted. It is my understanding that for the
`
`purposes of this inter partes review, the claims are to be construed under the so-
`
`called Phillips standard, under which claim terms are given their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in light
`
`of the specification and prosecution history, unless the inventor has set forth a special
`
`
`
`4855-2030-7071 v4
`
`12
`
`CSC ServiceWorks - Ex. 1003
`Page 15 of 85
`
`

`

`Neuman Declaration
`
` Inter Partes Review of U.S. 11,481,772
`
`meaning for a term. For purposes of my analysis below, I do not believe any claim
`
`terms require explicit construction.
`
`VIII. IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`
`32.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions as to whether the challenged
`
`claims of the ‘772 patent would have been anticipated or obvious in view of the prior
`
`art. The discussion below provides a detailed analysis of how the prior art references
`
`identified below teach the limitations of the challenged claims of the ‘772 patent.
`
`33. As part of my analysis, I have considered the scope and content of the
`
`prior art and any differences between the alleged invention and the prior art. For
`
`each challenged claim of the ‘772 patent, I provide an element by element analysis
`
`of the scope and content of the prior art and any differences between the alleged
`
`invention and the prior art.
`
`34. As described in detail below, the alleged invention of the challenged
`
`claims would have been obvious in view of the teachings of the identified prior art
`
`references as well as the knowledge of a POSITA.
`
`A.
`
`Summary of References
`
`a.
`
`Summary of Zhou
`
`35. Zhou discloses methods and systems “for conducting a transaction
`
`between a wireless communication device, such as a cell phone, personal digital
`
`
`
`4855-2030-7071 v4
`
`13
`
`CSC ServiceWorks - Ex. 1003
`Page 16 of 85
`
`

`

`Neuman Declaration
`
` Inter Partes Review of U.S. 11,481,772
`
`assistant, pocket personal computer, and the like, and a vending machine.” Zhou at
`
`2:15-18, Fig. 3 (reproduced below).
`
`
`
`Ex.1004, Fig.3.
`
`36. Zhou discloses using a “vending machine application” on the processor
`
`of a wireless device. Zhou at 5:29-31. This application is launched once the wireless
`
`device enters into a certain proximity distance of the vending machine. Zhou at 5:29-
`
`31. After the application launches, “the vending machine scanner/reader 16
`
`performs an authentication of the IC card 14” that is included in the wireless device.
`
`
`
`4855-2030-7071 v4
`
`14
`
`CSC ServiceWorks - Ex. 1003
`Page 17 of 85
`
`

`

`Neuman Declaration
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 11,481,772
`
`Zhou at 5:42-53. Once this authentication is complete, the wireless device then
`
`sends a “challenge message” to the vending machine. Zhou at 5:54-59, 6:28-30. The
`
`vending machine responds to this “challenge message” with credential information,
`
`which the wireless device forwards to a “vending machine authorization server” for
`
`validation. Zhou at 6:37-49. The authorization server indicates whether the vending
`
`machine is “OK or NOT OK,” and the wireless device displays this as a notification
`
`to the user. Zhou at 6:58-7:3. The user may then choose to continue or abort a
`
`transaction based upon the result of the authentication process. Zhou at 7:3-10.
`
`b.
`
`Summary of Athwal
`
`37. Athwal relates to electronic commerce methods for transacting with an
`
`“electronic retail system” (“ERS”), such as a vending machine, via a consumer’s
`
`mobile device, which communicates with the ERS using short range wireless
`
`technology and communicates with a financial system using long range wireless
`
`technology. Athwal at Abstract, [0002], [0004], [0015]. Specifically, Athwal
`
`discloses that a consumer uses a mobile communication device (“MCD”) to search
`
`for all available ERS’s in their vicinity. Athwal at [0017]. The nearby ERS’s
`
`respond with a wireless signal that includes the name, available products, and prices
`
`of each available ERS. Athwal at [0017]. The consumer then chooses their desired
`
`15
`
`4855-2030-7071 v4
`
`CSC ServiceWorks - Ex. 1003
`Page 18 of 85
`
`

`

`Neuman Declaration
`
` Inter Partes Review of U.S. 11,481,772
`
`product from the appropriate ERS and receives an “electronic ‘bill’” for the amount
`
`due. Athwal at [0017]-[0018].
`
`38. Once the ERS has sent the electronic bill, it uses the long range wireless
`
`technology capabilities of the consumer’s mobile device to contact a third-party
`
`payment system, such as a financial system, to transfer funds and complete the
`
`electronic transaction. Athwal at [0019], [0022]. If funds transfer correctly, the ERS
`
`provides an electronic receipt to the MCD and delivers the requested product/service
`
`to the consumer. Athwal at [0030]-[0035]
`
`c.
`
`Summary of Low
`
`39. Low teaches using a consumer’s wireless device to conduct
`
`transactions with unmanned devices such as vending-machines. Low at 1:16-20.
`
`The wireless device communicates with unmanned devices, which transmit a
`
`machine identifier to said device. Low at 2:11-28. “[I]n some embodiments,
`
`multiple machines may send their unique identifiers, such that the user is able to
`
`select one or more machines to purchase from.” Low at 2:11-28. The user then
`
`selects their desired items, makes a purchase, and the vending machine dispenses
`
`said item. Low at 5:19-30.
`
`d.
`
`Summary of Arora
`
`
`
`4855-2030-7071 v4
`
`16
`
`CSC ServiceWorks - Ex. 1003
`Page 19 of 85
`
`

`

`Neuman Declaration
`
` Inter Partes Review of U.S. 11,481,772
`
`40. Arora teaches using a “personal electronic device” to utilize “a group
`
`of vending machines managed by a vending machine company[.]” Arora at Abstract.
`
`Arora displays to the consumer “either products or vending machines from a list of
`
`options provided via the user interface of the personal electronic device, wherein the
`
`list of options depends on the actual available inventory[.]” Arora at Abstract. The
`
`systems and methods of Arora disclose tracking a consumer’s purchase history and
`
`offering coupons to a consumer based upon the same. Arora at Fig. 3.
`
`e.
`
`Summary of Casey
`
`41. Casey describes “techniques for confirming a payment transaction on
`
`an electronic device that includes a touchscreen.” Casey at Abstract. Casey discloses
`
`methods of using a touchscreen to select payment methods or confirm payment.
`
`Casey at Fig. 5. In particular, a consumer may swipe their finger across a
`
`touchscreen to confirm payment. Casey at 16:36-47, Fig. 5.
`
`f.
`
`Summary of Freeny
`
`42. Freeny discloses methods of transacting with a proximity service unit
`
`via a consumer’s wireless device. See Freeny at Abstract. Moreover, Freeny
`
`discloses a proximity authorization unit (which is a form of wireless device) that
`
`“can operate just like a smart card with the approved credit amount stored in the
`
`proximity authorization unit 2910 until transactions are authorized[.]” Freeny at
`
`
`
`4855-2030-7071 v4
`
`17
`
`CSC ServiceWorks - Ex. 1003
`Page 20 of 85
`
`

`

`Neuman Declaration
`
` Inter Partes Review of U.S. 11,481,772
`
`37:60-63. The customer’s approved credit balance “can be checked at any time by
`
`the user of the proximity authorization unit[.]” Freeny at 38:3-5.
`
`B. Reasons to Combine
`
`a.
`
`Athwal, Low, Arora, Casey, and Freeny are Analogous to
`Zhou and the ‘772 Patent.
`In my opinion, Zhou, Athwal, and Low are each analogous art to the
`
`43.
`
`‘772 patent. All three prior art references relate to electronic payment systems and
`
`describe applying their teachings to unattended retail machines, such as vending
`
`machines. See Zhou at 1:7-11 (“This invention relates generally to the field of
`
`methods and devices for conducting transactions with automated vending machines,
`
`kiosks, and the like . . .”); Athwal at [0016] (“Mobile commerce or ‘m-commerce’
`
`transactions utilizing personal mobile devices 110 will become one of the normal
`
`methods for payment for simple purchases such as pop from vending machines 120
`
`. . .”); Low at 1:15-20 (“The present application generally relates to electronic
`
`payments, and more particularly, to wireless electronic payments to non-Internet
`
`connected machines through user devices.”).
`
`44. With regard to Athwal, both Zhou and Athwal describe a system by
`
`which a consumer’s wireless device displays notifications of certain events
`
`pertaining to transactions with vending machines. Zhou at 7:1-14; Athwal at [0029]-
`
`
`
`4855-2030-7071 v4
`
`18
`
`CSC ServiceWorks - Ex. 1003
`Page 21 of 85
`
`

`

`Neuman Declaration
`
` Inter Partes Review of U.S. 11,481,772
`
`[0032]. As such, both Zhou and Athwal are analogous art to the ‘772 patent. ‘772
`
`patent at Abstract.
`
`45. With regard to Low, both Zhou and Low relate to methods of
`
`conducting wireless transactions with automated vending machines by facilitating
`
`communications between a vending machine and a mobile device. Zhou at 1:7-11;
`
`Low at 2:10-28. Thus, both Zhou and Low are analogous art to the ‘772 patent. ‘772
`
`patent at 1:66-2:15.
`
`46. Similarly, Arora “allows a vending customer to use her own mobile
`
`electronic device as a second, virtual, or replacement ‘front panel’ for one or more
`
`physical vending machines.” Arora at 2:6-9. The disclosure of Arora involves a
`
`customer “selecting either products or vending machines from a list of options
`
`provided via the user interface of the personal electronic device[.]” Arora at
`
`Abstract. Because the disclosure of Zhou also allows a customer to conduct
`
`transactions with a vending machine via their mobile device, both Zhou and Arora
`
`are analogous art to the ‘772 patent. Zhou at 1:7-11; ‘772 patent at 1:66-2:23.
`
`47. Casey relates to “[m]ethods and devices for confirming payment
`
`transactions[.]” Casey at Abstract. Casey specifically contemplates that “[t]he
`
`electronic device 234 may include a handheld portable electronic device . . . a
`
`vending machine or kiosk, or other suitable payment receiving device.” Casey at
`
`
`
`4855-2030-7071 v4
`
`19
`
`CSC ServiceWorks - Ex. 1003
`Page 22 of 85
`
`

`

`Neuman Declaration
`
` Inter Partes Review of U.S. 11,481,772
`
`16:36-40. Thus, Casey recognizes that its method for confirming transactions may
`
`be used in transactions with vending machines, such as those detailed in Zhou and
`
`the ‘772 patent. Zhou at 1:7-11; ‘772 patent at 1:45-2:23. Accordingly, both Zhou
`
`and Casey are analogous art to the ‘772 patent.
`
`48. Freeny
`
`relates
`
`to methods
`
`of
`
`conducting
`
`proximity
`
`authorization/transactions. Freeny at Abstract. Freeny lists a number of systems
`
`which may be improved via its disclosure, including “vending machine systems[.]”
`
`Freeny at 2:8-25. Thus, because both Zhou and the ‘772 patent relate to vending
`
`transactions which could be improved by the disclosure of Freeny, both Freeny and
`
`Zhou are analogous art to the ‘772 patent. Zhou at 1:7-11; ‘772 patent at 1:66-23.
`
`b.
`
`Reasons to Combine Zhou and Athwal
`
`49. A POSITA would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of
`
`Athwal with those of Zhou to achieve obvious and predictable benefits to the system
`
`and method described in Zhou.
`
`50. First, Athwal discloses a method of alleviating the cost associated with
`
`maintaining a wired or wireless data connection for each vending machine. Athwal
`
`at [0020]-[0022]. Athwal teaches a method of using short-range wireless technology
`
`to communicate with a wireless device and use that wireless device’s long-range
`
`wireless technology to establish a connection with a third-party financial system.
`
`
`
`4855-2030-7071 v4
`
`20
`
`CSC ServiceWorks - Ex. 1003
`Page 23 of 85
`
`

`

`Neuman Declaration
`
` Inter Partes Review of U.S. 11,481,772
`
`Athwal at [0022]. While Zhou discloses that a consumer’s wireless device transmits
`
`an authentication request to a remote vending machine authentication server, it omits
`
`details regarding how the method effects payment. Zhou at 6:37-49. A POSITA
`
`would have found it obvious to apply the payment method of Athwal to the
`
`electronic commerce framework of Zhou because Athwal reduces the cost of
`
`transactions, resulting in greater profits for a vending machine operator. Further, by
`
`using the wireless device’s long-range communication capabilities to send both
`
`authentication and payment requests promotes efficiency in vending machine
`
`transactions.
`
`51. Second, Athwal teaches that a consumer’s wireless device “will initiate
`
`an electronic transaction by first performing a search for all available ERS 120 in
`
`their vicinity . . . .” Athwal at [0017]. Implementing Athwal’s disclosure of
`
`identifying all nearby vending machines into Zhou’s authentication method res