Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 31
`Date: November 30, 2021
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TARGET CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PROXICOM WIRELESS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2020-00977
`Patent 8,369,842 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before BRIAN J. McNAMARA, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, and
`SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`Google Exhibit 1027
`Google v. SecCommTech
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 31
`Date: November 30, 2021
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TARGET CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PROXICOM WIRELESS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2020-00977
`Patent 8,369,842 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before BRIAN J. McNAMARA, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, and
`SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`Google Exhibit 1027
`Google v. SecCommTech
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00977
`Patent 8,369,842 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background
`
`Target Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for inter partes
`review of claims 1, 5, 9, 12–15, 22, and 24 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S.
`Patent No. 8,369,842 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’842 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”), 1.
`Proxicom Wireless, LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response.
`Paper 9. On December 4, 2020, we instituted an inter partes review of the
`challenged claims on all grounds raised in the Petition. Paper 10
`(“Institution Decision” or “Inst. Dec.”), 39.
`
`Subsequent to institution, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner
`Response (Paper 19, “PO Resp.”), Petitioner filed a Reply to the Patent
`Owner Response (Paper 22, “Pet. Reply”), and Patent Owner filed a
`Sur-reply to Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 23, “PO Sur-reply”). An oral hearing
`was held on September 1, 2021. A transcript of the hearing has been entered
`into the record. Paper 29.
`
`In our Scheduling Order, we notified the parties that “any arguments
`for patentability not raised in the [Patent Owner] response may be deemed
`waived.” See Paper 11, 10; see also Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 66 (Nov. 2019) (“The patent owner
`response . . . should identify all the involved claims that are believed to be
`patentable and state the basis for that belief.”). 1
`
`For the reasons that follow, we conclude that Petitioner has proven by
`a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 5, 9, 12–15, 22, and 24 of the
`’842 patent are unpatentable.
`
`
`1 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00977
`Patent 8,369,842 B2
`
`B. Real Parties in Interest
`
`Petitioner identifies itself as the sole real party in interest. Pet. 5.
`
`Patent Owner identifies itself as the sole real party in interest.
`Paper 4, 2.
`
`C. Related Matters
`
`The parties indicate that the ’842 patent is the subject of the following
`district court proceeding:
`Proxicom Wireless, LLC v. Target Corporation, No. 6:19-cv-
`1886 (M.D. Fla. filed Oct. 2, 2019) (“the District Court
`litigation”). 2
`Pet. 5; Paper 4, 2. The parties further note various petitions for inter partes
`review concerning separate patents, and Patent Owner identifies two
`pending patent applications. Pet. 5–6; Paper 4, 2–3.
`
`D. The Challenged Patent
`
`The ’842 patent disclosure “is generally concerned with facilitating
`the exchange of information and transactions between two entities associated
`with two wireless devices when the devices are in close proximity to each
`other utilizing both a short range and a long range wireless capability.”
`Ex. 1001, 2:55–59. The devices use a short range communication protocol,
`such as Bluetooth, only to detect the presence of other devices and use a
`long range communication protocol, such as Wi-Max, to communicate with
`a central server and to perform the actual substantive communications with
`
`
`2 The identified proceeding was stayed on June 17, 2020, pending resolution
`of ten petitions for inter partes review filed by Petitioner. See Paper 6.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00977
`Patent 8,369,842 B2
`
`other devices. Id. at 6:35–48. Each device transmits identifier information
`via short range communication as a proximity detection process. Id.
`at 6:51–55. This use of peer-to-peer short range communication beneficially
`allows proximity between devices to be determined without the need of a
`global positioning system (GPS), which may not always be present or
`available for use. Id. at 3:57–64. Use of a central server to mediate
`communications between the devices beneficially provides security to the
`transaction, allows for anonymity between the parties, and implements
`policy enforcement. Id. at 4:14–62.
`
`In one application, only a user’s device is capable of long range
`communication and the second device is only capable of broadcasting its
`identifier information. Ex. 1001, 7:22–31. This application is illustrated in
`Figure 2, which is reproduced below:
`
`
`Figure 2 shows a block diagram of fixed broadcast device 204 and mobile
`device 202. Id. at 5:8–9. The user’s mobile device detects the broadcast
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00977
`Patent 8,369,842 B2
`
`device and transmits the broadcast device’s identifier information, along
`with a request for information regarding the broadcast device, to central
`server 100. Id. at 14:48–60. The server determines what information
`regarding the broadcast device is available and transmits a description of the
`information to the user’s device. Id. at 14:61–63. The user then has the
`option to download the information. Id. at 14:63–15:3. The server may also
`coordinate the several steps of an electronic commerce transaction between
`the user’s device and the broadcast device. Id. at 17:36–18:64.
`
`E. The Challenged Claims
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 1, 5, 9, 12–15, 22, and 24 of the
`’842 patent. Pet. 1. Claims 1 and 24 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative
`of the challenged claims and is reproduced below:
`1.
`A method for facilitating a transaction between a first
`wireless device and a second wireless device utilizing a server,
`comprising the steps of:
`
`communicating an identifier associated with said second
`wireless device to said first wireless device using a short range
`wireless connection, said first wireless device providing said
`identifier to said server, said server establishing location
`information associated with said first and said second wireless
`devices,
`
`determining authentication information relating to said
`second wireless device or an entity associated with said second
`wireless device, transferring said authentication information
`between the server and the first wireless device and
`
`said server providing authorization to said first wireless
`device or said second wireless device to proceed with said
`transaction based at least in part upon said identifier, said
`authentication information and the location information of said
`first and second wireless device.
`Ex. 1001, 23:22–40.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00977
`Patent 8,369,842 B2
`
`F. Instituted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`The Petition relies on the following prior art references:
`Exhibit
`Name
`Reference
`1005
`Mgrdechian
`US 7,545,784 B2, issued June 9, 2009
`1007
`Swartz
`US 6,837,436 B2, issued Jan. 4, 2005
`Kulakowski WO 2007/084973 A2, published July 26, 2007 1013
`
`We instituted trial based on all asserted claims and grounds of
`
`unpatentability as follows:
`Claim(s) Challenged 35 U.S.C. §
`1, 5, 9, 12, 14, 15, 22,
`102(b)3
`24
`1, 5, 9, 12, 14, 15, 22,
`24
`12–14
`22
`
`Reference(s)
`Mgrdechian
`
`103(a)
`
`Mgrdechian
`
`103(a)
`103(a)
`
`Mgrdechian, Swartz
`Mgrdechian, Kulakowski
`
`Pet. 12. Petitioner submits a declaration of Mr. David Hilliard Williams
`(Ex. 1003, “Williams Declaration”) in support of its contentions. Patent
`Owner submits a declaration of Michael Foley, Ph.D. (Ex. 2010, “Foley
`Declaration”) in support of its contentions.
`
`
`3 The application resulting in the ’842 patent was filed prior to the date when
`the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125
`Stat. 284 (2011), took effect. Thus, we refer to the pre-AIA version of
`sections 102 and 103.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00977
`Patent 8,369,842 B2
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Principles of Law
`
`To prevail in its challenge to Patent Owner’s claims, Petitioner must
`demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the claims challenged
`in the Petition are unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e) (2018); 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.1(d) (2018). This burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner.
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378
`(Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`“Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 a claim is anticipated ‘if each and every
`limitation is found either expressly or inherently in a single prior art
`reference.’” King Pharm., Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1274 (Fed.
`Cir. 2010) (quoting Celeritas Techs. Ltd. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 150 F.3d
`1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). “Anticipation requires the presence in a single
`prior art disclosure of all elements of a claimed invention arranged as in the
`claim.” Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 593 F.3d 1325, 1332
`(Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542,
`1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
`
`A 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 of the invention to a
`person having ordinary skill in the art. 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 skill in the art, and (4) when in evidence, any
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00977
`Patent 8,369,842 B2
`
`objective evidence of nonobviousness. 4 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383
`U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the
`time of the invention (“POSITA”) would have had “a Bachelor’s degree in
`Electrical Engineering, or a related field, and approximately 3-5 years of
`professional experience in the field of wireless communications.” Pet. 17.
`Petitioner acknowledges that “graduate education could substitute for
`professional experience” and “significant experience in the field could
`substitute for formal education.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 8–20, 36–38).
`
`Patent Owner concedes that the level of skill as defined by Petitioner
`“is sufficient for the Board to evaluate the Petition Grounds.” PO
`Resp. 16–17.
`
`The level of ordinary skill in the art usually is evidenced by the
`references themselves. 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). The level of ordinary skill
`proposed by Petitioner appears to be consistent with that of the references,
`and we apply Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill for purposes of
`this Decision.
`
`C. Claim Construction
`
`In an inter partes review, claims are construed using the same claim
`construction standard that would be used to construe the claims in a civil
`
`4 The parties have not directed us to any such objective evidence.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00977
`Patent 8,369,842 B2
`
`action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), including construing the claims in
`accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claims as
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history
`pertaining to the patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019). Thus, we apply the
`claim construction standard as set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
`1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`
`Claim terms are generally given their ordinary and customary
`meaning as would be understood by one with ordinary skill in the art in the
`context of the specification, the prosecution history, other claims, and even
`extrinsic evidence including expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and
`learned treatises, although extrinsic evidence is less significant than the
`intrinsic record. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–17. Usually, the specification is
`dispositive, and it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.
`Id. at 1315.
`
`Only those terms that are in controversy need be construed, and only
`to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v.
`Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`(citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed.
`Cir. 1999)).
`
`Petitioner contends that it “interprets the claim terms according to
`their plain and ordinary meaning consistent with the [S]pecification.”
`Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 22–24). Petitioner asserts that the challenged
`claims use “a term of degree (e.g., ‘short range wireless connection’),” but
`does not explain how this assertion affects claim construction. Id. Petitioner
`acknowledges that “[a] district court in another proceeding has construed
`terms in related patents,” but argues that those “constructions do not impact
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00977
`Patent 8,369,842 B2
`
`the outcome of this IPR, because the prior art meets the claims under these
`constructions.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 67; Ex. 1021).
`
`“Patent Owner does not propose any terms for construction . . . .” PO
`Resp. 15–16.
`
`We determine that no express construction of any term is necessary.
`For purposes of this Decision, we apply the plain and ordinary meaning to
`the claim language.
`
`D. Overview of the Asserted Prior Art
`1. Mgrdechian
`Mgrdechian discloses a wireless communication system. Ex. 1005,
`
`1:32–35. Mgrdechian recognizes that on-line dating and social networking
`applications allow users to search for previously unknown parties based on
`specific qualities or characteristics, but contends that “there is no efficient
`methodology . . . where[by] a person may quickly obtain information about a
`specific individual that he or she may encounter but does not yet know
`anything about.” Id. at 2:43–57. Mgrdechian purports to overcome this
`problem by providing a wireless communication system. Id. at 3:6–9.
`
`Figure 3A illustrates Mgrdechian’s system and is reproduced below:
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00977
`Patent 8,369,842 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 3A illustrates Mgrdechian’s wireless communication system 300,
`showing wireless devices 310, 320 that communicate directly using local
`wireless protocol 330. Ex. 1005, 9:34–37. The system also includes remote
`computer system 360, which communicates with the wireless devices via
`wireless network 340 and Internet 350 and provides access to additional
`information regarding users of the wireless devices. Id. at 10:48–61.
`
`Mgrdechian is particularly directed to a dating application (see
`Ex. 1005, 11:53–14:45), but contemplates use in other applications (see id.
`at 14:49–15:42). In general, communication is initiated by a first user,
`referred to as the initiator or “User A” using “Device A,” who wants to
`gather information about another user, referred to as the target or “User B”
`using “Device B.” Id. at 9:40–55. Device A initiates communication by
`transmitting an identification request over the local wireless protocol. Id.
`at 10:38–40. Wireless devices within range of Device A, such as Device B,
`receive the request and respond by sending a reply message that includes
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00977
`Patent 8,369,842 B2
`
`that device’s identification (“device ID”). Id. at 10:41–47. Device A
`receives the reply message and transmits the device ID to the remote
`computer system over the wireless network and the Internet. Id.
`at 10:48–52. The computer system receives and uses the device ID to access
`information associated with the device ID within database 370, and transmits
`the information to Device A. Id. at 10:62–11:22. The transmitted
`information can be profile information regarding User B, which may include
`a variety of personal information about User B and other information,
`including “items or services for sale.” Id. at 11:23–33.
`
`2. Swartz
`Swartz discloses a marketing and shopping system. Ex. 1007,
`
`1:20–25. Figure 1 shows the system and is reproduced below:
`
`
`Figure 1 shows a block diagram of a preferred embodiment of the system,
`which includes portable terminals 12A–12F and central host 14. Id.
`at 3:62–63, 4:58–5:23, 9:8–11. In use, customers identify themselves to the
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00977
`Patent 8,369,842 B2
`
`system, such as by inserting a loyalty card into a card reader. Id.
`at 18:29–33. The system then assigns a portable terminal to the user. Id.
`at 18:58–62. Alternatively, customers can use their own portable terminals.
`Id. at 19:48–49. The customer then proceeds through the store and uses the
`portable terminal to record items the customer wishes to purchase. Id.
`at 20:18–19. This can be done by, for example, using the portable terminal
`to scan a bar code on each item. Id. at 20:19–27. After the customer has
`selected all of the items to be purchased, the customer returns the portable
`terminal to the dispenser unit, and information collected with the portable
`terminal regarding the purchased items is processed by a central processing
`unit. Id. at 22:1–8. The customer then pays for the selected products, with
`the system accounting for any discounts or coupons to be applied. Id.
`at 23:8–11, 23:37–45. By allowing the customers, rather than store
`employees, to scan and bag their selected items as they shop, the store saves
`money and the customer saves time. Id. at 22:48–60.
`
`3. Kulakowski
`Kulakowski discloses “a network security system and method for
`
`detecting clones of true or properly registered client devices attempting to
`steal services without payment or otherwise mimic a real client device.”
`Ex. 1013 ¶ 2. Kulakowski recognizes that malfeasants attempt to steal
`distributed services by creating multiple clients with credentials identical to
`those of a valid client. Id. ¶ 3. Kulakowski’s system purports to detect such
`cloned devices. Id. ¶ 5.
`
`Figure 4 is a flow diagram illustrating operation of Kulakowski’s
`system and is reproduced below:
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00977
`Patent 8,369,842 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 4 is a flow diagram illustrating a method for detecting the presence of
`cloned client devices. Ex. 1013 ¶ 48. The detection process begins when a
`client device sends a message to a system server (step 40). Id. The message
`is adapted to include embedded therein a covert identifier derived from one
`or more operational events at the client device. Id. ¶¶ 6, 37. The covert
`identifier is unique to the specific client device and is based on covert data
`values such as the number of times a client has performed a certain event or
`the microsecond time of day that an event occurred. Id. ¶¶ 8, 34, 50. The
`server extracts the covert identifier upon receiving the message (step 42) and
`compares the extracted covert identifier with stored values corresponding to
`the client credentials (step 44). Id. ¶ 48. The server then determines
`whether there is a match (step 45). Id. If so, the message is processed
`further per normal operating procedures (step 48). Id. If there is no match,
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00977
`Patent 8,369,842 B2
`
`the server generates a report to the system operator indicating that the client
`credentials may have been cloned (step 46). Id. The system operator can
`then take further action as deemed appropriate. Id. ¶ 41.
`
`E. Asserted Anticipation by or Obviousness in View of Mgrdechian
`
`Petitioner argues that claims 1, 5, 9, 12, 14, 15, 22, and 24 would have
`been unpatentable as being anticipated by or obvious in view of Mgrdechian.
`Pet. 20–53. In support of its showing, Petitioner relies upon the Williams
`Declaration. Id. (citing Ex. 1003). We have reviewed the Petition, Patent
`Owner Response, Petitioner Reply, Patent Owner Sur-reply, and evidence of
`record and determine that, for the reasons explained below, Petitioner has
`shown, by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 5, 9, 12, 14, 15,
`22, and 24 would have been unpatentable in view of Mgrdechian.
`
`1. Independent Claim 1
`Petitioner relies on Mgrdechian to disclose or suggest a method of
`
`using a server to facilitate a transaction between wireless devices as recited
`in claim 1. Pet. 27–42.
`
`a. The Preamble
`Claim 1 recites “[a] method for facilitating a transaction between a
`
`first wireless device and a second wireless device utilizing a server.”
`Ex. 1001, 23:22–24. Petitioner maps Mgrdechian’s “Device A,” which
`Petitioner characterizes as “a customer’s ‘wireless device,’” to the recited
`first wireless device and “Device B,” which Petitioner characterizes as “a
`‘business[’s]’ ‘wireless device,’” to the recited second wireless device.
`Pet. 27 (alteration in original). Petitioner argues that Mgrdechian discloses
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00977
`Patent 8,369,842 B2
`
`an exchange of information between these devices using a server,
`specifically noting an exchange of information “for ‘electronic commerce
`applications including micro-payments.’” Id. at 27–28 (citing Ex. 1005,
`1:31–34, 5:4–7, 5:16–20, 7:43–45, 10:48–56).
`
`Patent Owner does not contest this aspect of the Petition. See
`generally PO Resp.
`
`We are persuaded by Petitioner’s contentions. Mgrdechian discloses a
`wireless communication system and method that provides an exchange of
`information between wireless devices. Ex. 1005, 1:32–35. In general,
`communication is initiated by a first user, referred to as the initiator or
`“User A” using “Device A,” who wants to gather information about another
`user, referred to as the target or “User B” using “Device B.” Id. at 9:40–55.
`Device A initiates communication by transmitting an identification request
`over the local wireless protocol. Id. at 10:38–40. Wireless devices within
`range of Device A, such as Device B, receive the request and respond by
`sending a reply message that includes that device’s identification (“device
`ID”). Id. at 10:41–47. Mgrdechian discloses that its “service and/or
`hardware” can be used “for the electronic commerce applications including
`micropayments,” which “are prepaid accounts that may be used for low
`dollar amount purchases.” Id. at 15:11–15; see also id. at 7:43–45.
`Mgrdechian discloses that “[u]sers of the device and service (i.e. senders or
`recipients, or both), may include individuals, businesses, not-for-profit
`organizations, advertisers, political action groups, or any other
`organization.” Id. at 8:1–4.
`
`Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, to the extent the preamble is
`limiting, Mgrdechian supports Petitioner’s contentions.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00977
`Patent 8,369,842 B2
`
`
`b. The Communicating Recitation
`Claim 1 recites “communicating an identifier associated with said
`
`second wireless device to said first wireless device using a short range
`wireless connection, said first wireless device providing said identifier to
`said server.” Ex. 1001, 23:25–28. Petitioner maps the device identification
`of Device B to the recited identifier and the remote computer system to the
`recited server. Pet. 30. Petitioner argues that Device B transmits its
`identifier to Device A via Bluetooth and that Device A transmits the device
`identification to the remote computer system. Id.; see also id. at 30–32
`(citing Ex. 1005, 3:14–24, 5:4–7, 5:16–20, 6:20–29, 8:1–4, 9:40–53,
`10:10–15, Fig. 3A).
`
`Patent Owner does not contest this aspect of the Petition. See
`generally PO Resp.
`
`We are persuaded by Petitioner’s contentions. As noted above,
`Mgrdechian’s Device B receives an identification request from Device A
`and responds by sending a reply message that includes its device ID to
`Device A. Ex. 1005, 10:41–47. Device A receives the reply message and
`transmits the device ID to the remote computer system over the wireless
`network and the Internet. Id. at 10:48–52. The remote computer system
`“may be an Internet server computer and may include multiple computers
`coupled to the Internet for processing information.” Id. at 10:52–54.
`
`Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Mgrdechian supports
`Petitioner’s contentions.
`
`c. The Establishing Recitation
`Claim 1 recites “said server establishing location information
`
`associated with said first and said second wireless devices.” Ex. 1001,
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00977
`Patent 8,369,842 B2
`
`23:28–30. Petitioner argues that Mgrdechian’s server correlates location
`information for Device A and Device B “because both are communicating
`using the ‘local wireless protocol’ and thus in ‘physical proximity’ to one
`another.” Pet. 33 (citing Ex. 1005, 6:20–29, 6:62–7:5, 10:10–15, 10:22–25,
`14:49–63, 20:35–43). Petitioner argues that if Device B is associated with a
`business and in a fixed location, the server determines the location of both
`devices because the server retrieves profile information regarding the
`business device, “which includes the business’s ‘address,’” and Device A is
`in “physical proximity” with the business device. Id. (citing Ex. 1005,
`6:20–29, 8:5–14, 10:22–25, 11:10–22, 14:49–63).
`
`Alternatively, Petitioner argues that the server determines the “GPS
`information” of each device in order to provide the location information of
`nearby devices. Pet. 33 (citing Ex. 1005, 23:51–57, 24:14–25). Petitioner
`argues that it would have been obvious for the server to determine device
`location via GPS “to enable the server to establish geographic location
`information for both devices . . . such that the server advantageously can
`more precisely determine whether the two devices are operating ‘in the same
`area’ and have not moved away from one another since exchanging
`identifiers via Bluetooth in order to authorize a transaction.” Id. (citing
`Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 120, 123; Ex. 1005, 6:62–7:5, 10:29–38, 23:51–57, 24:14–25).
`
`Patent Owner does not contest this aspect of the Petition. See
`generally PO Resp.
`
`We are persuaded by Petitioner’s contentions. Mgrdechian discloses
`that “Device A may be a business or advertiser” and that “[t]he Devices (A
`and B) themselves can be of multiple forms” and “can have the capability to
`act as both Sender and Recipient.” Ex. 1005, 6:20–29, 14:51–55. Thus, we
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00977
`Patent 8,369,842 B2
`
`find that Mgrdechian discloses that Device B can be a business device as
`asserted by Petitioner. Mgrdechian discloses that the profile information
`associated with users includes their addresses. Id. at 8:7–12. The server
`accesses this profile information based on the received device ID and
`transmits the information to the initiating device. Id. at 10:62–11:22.
`
`Mgrdechian discloses that “GPS information rather than direct
`communications between devices [can be] used to provide responses to
`User A’s request to initiate messaging or other actions.” Ex. 1005, 7:16–19.
`“GPS information [can be] used for determining target devices operating in
`physical proximity to an initiating device.” Id. at 23:52–54.
`
`Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Mgrdechian supports
`Petitioner’s contentions.
`
`d. The Determining and Transferring Recitation
`Claim 1 recites “determining authentication information relating to
`
`said second wireless device or an entity associated with said second wireless
`device, transferring said authentication information between the server and
`the first wireless device.” Ex. 1001, 23:31–35. Petitioner refers to this
`recitation as “1.c” and maps the profile information of Device B to the
`recited authentication information and argues that the server sends the
`profile information to Device A. Pet. 36; see also id. at 36–38 (citing
`Ex. 1005, 4:4–14, 5:4–10, 5:21–30, 6:20–29, 8:5–14, 10:61–11:4, 11:28–33,
`12:18–23, 14:49–63). Petitioner notes that the profile information can
`include images and argues that “[t]he business’s profile information
`authenticates its device by demonstrating that the device is associated with
`the business.” Id. at 36–37.
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00977
`Patent 8,369,842 B2
`
`As noted above, Mgrdechian’s remote server retrieves and sends to
`
`Device A the profile information of Device B. Ex. 1005, 10:62–11:33. This
`profile information can include “images of the users associated with the
`IDs.” Id. at 5:4–10. “Once Device A has received images of the
`neighboring users from the server . . . , User A can scroll through them to
`uniquely select the [entity] with whom they are attempting to
`communicate . . . .” Id. at 5:21–24.
`
`Patent Owner reads the Institution Decision to interpret the Petition to
`map the recited “authentication information” to “profile information of both
`users [which] can include filter parameters that restrict from what entities a
`user will accept messages.” PO Resp. 21 (alteration in original) (quoting
`Inst. Dec. 33). Patent Owner argues that, “if the filter parameters in a user
`profile are equivalent to the claimed ‘authentication information’ as the
`Board provided in its initial review, this cannot meet Element 1c because the
`filter parameters are not ‘transferred between the server and the first wireless
`device.’” Id. at 22; see also PO Sur-reply 2–3.
`
`Petitioner argues that “[Patent Owner] mistakenly contends
`Mgrdechian’s filter parameters are the ‘authentication information.’” Pet.
`Reply 4 (citing PO Resp. 22). Rather, “the business’s profile is the claimed
`authentication information.” Id. (citing Pet. 36–38). Petitioner argues that
`“[Patent Owner] also conflates Petitioner’s (and the Board’s) explanation of
`[1.c] (relating to authentication information) with that of [1.d] (relating to
`authorization based in part on authentication information).” Id.
`
`Patent Owner misreads the Institution Decision. As we explained,
`“Petitioner maps the profile information of Device B to the recited
`authentication information and argues that the server sends the profile
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00977
`Patent 8,369,842 B2
`
`information to Device A.” Inst. Dec. 30 (citing Pet. 36). As we also
`explained, “Mgrdechian’s server uses the device ID (the identifier) received
`from Device A to retrieve profile information (the authentication
`information) associated with that ID (regarding User B).” Id. at 33
`(emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1005, 10:62–11:22). The discussion of the
`Institution Decision quoted and discussed by Patent Owner relates to the step
`of providing authorization. See PO Resp. 21 (quoting Inst. Dec. 33); PO
`Sur-reply 2 (citing same).
`
`Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Mgrdechian supports
`Petitioner’s contentions.
`
`e. The Providing Recitation
`Claim 1 recites “said server providing authorization to said first
`
`wireless device or said second wireless device to proceed with said
`transaction based at least in part upon said identifier, said authentication
`information and the location information of said first and second wireless
`device.” Ex. 1001, 23:36–40. Petitioner argues that the profile information
`sent from the server to Device A includes “items or services for sale,” from
`which User A selects an item or service to purchase by sending a message to
`the server. Pet. 39 (citing Ex. 1005, 3:45–58, 6:20–29, 7:22–33, 11:28–33,
`12:18–23, 15:11–15, 17:67–18:6). Petitioner argues that the server
`authorizes Device A to send micropayment information to Device B. Id.
`(citing Ex. 1005, 6:20–29, 7:22–33, 8:1–4, 14:49–63, 15:11–15). Petitioner
`argues that this authorization is based on 1) the device ID (that is, the recited
`identifier) of Device B because the server uses this information to determine
`where Device A sends messages and to retrieve the profile information of
`Device B; 2) the profile information of Device B (that is, the recited
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00977
`Patent 8,369,842 B2
`
`authentication information) because the server retrieves the profile
`information, including filtering preferences, of Device B and applies the
`filtering preferences to Device A; and 3) the location information of the
`devices because the server only allows communication between the devices
`if they are in the same area. Id. at 39–40 (citing Ex. 1005, 3:45–58, 4:4–14,
`5:4–10, 5:20–30, 6:20–29, 6:62–7:5, 7:22–33, 8:1–4, 10:29–38, 13:50–14:3,
`14:49–63, 15:11–15, 17:67–18:6).
`
`Patent Owner makes several arguments regarding this recitation.
`First, Patent Owner argues that Mgrdechian does not provide a thorough
`description of its electronic commerce application. PO Resp. 23–24. Pat
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
