Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,891,608
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________________
`
`KIOSOFT TECHNOLOGIES, LLC and TECHTREX, INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`PAYRANGE, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,891,608
`Issued: January 12, 2021
`Filed: January 23, 2018
`Inventor: Paresh K. Patel
`Title: Method and System for Offline-Payment Operated Machine to Accept
`Electronic Payments
`______________________
`
`Post-Grant Review No. Unassigned
`______________________
`
`
`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 321-329 and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.1-42.80, 42.200 et seq.
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,891,608
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 10
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. §42.8(a)(1)) ......................................... 11
` Real Parties-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(1)) ............................................ 11
` Related matters (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(2)) ........................................................ 11
` Lead and back-up counsel (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(3)) ....................................... 12
` Service Information (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(4)) ................................................. 12
`III. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS ............................................................... 12
` Time for filing (37 C.F.R. §42.202) ............................................................... 12
` Fees (37 C.F.R. §42.203); procedural statements .......................................... 13
` Grounds for standing (37 C.F.R. §42.204(a)) ................................................ 13
` Statement of precise relief requested and reasons therefor (37 C.F.R.
`§42.204(b)) ............................................................................................................ 13
`Failure to further limit the claim from which it depends. ..................................... 15
` Claim construction (37 C.F.R. §42.204(b)(3)) ............................................... 16
`IV. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE .......................... 18
` Technology Background of Vending Machines ............................................. 18
` Overview of the Alleged Invention ................................................................ 24
` Prosecution history of the ’608 Patent ........................................................... 26
` Earliest possible effective priority date of the ’608 Patent claims ................. 29
` A POSITA ...................................................................................................... 29
` Ground 1: Claims 19-20 are unpatentable under §112(a) .............................. 30
`1. Legal standard ............................................................................................. 30
`2. Claims 19-20 lack written description under §112(a) ................................. 31
` Ground 2: Claims 1-20 are unpatentable under §112(b) ................................ 34
`1. Legal standard ............................................................................................. 35
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,891,608
`
`
`2. In claims 1-18, “a first interface module configured to output to a control
`unit … one or more electrical pulses” (“CL1”) lacks definiteness under §112(b)
`
`37
`3. In claims 19-20, “a first interface module configured to communicate with
`a control unit … using a serial interface …” (“CL2”) lacks definiteness under
`§112(b) ............................................................................................................... 40
`4. In claims 4, 10, 16, “a second interface module configured to store [or
`sample] control signals from the control unit …” (“CL3”) lacks definiteness
`under §112(b) ..................................................................................................... 42
`5. In claims 19-20, “a second interface module configured to count one or
`more electrical pulses … and to store an output of the control unit …” (“CL4”)
`lacks definiteness under §112(b) ....................................................................... 44
`6. In claims 5, 11, 17, “the offline payment-operated machine is not
`connected to any networks” (“CL5”) lacks definiteness under §112(b) ........... 45
` Ground 3: Claims 5, 11, 17 are not further limiting under §112(d) ............... 46
` Ground 4: Claims 1-20 are anticipated by Breitenbach ................................. 47
`1. Disclosure of Breitenbach ........................................................................... 47
`2. Breitenbach discloses every element of Claims 1-20 ................................. 54
` Ground 5: Claims 1-20 are rendered obvious by Breitenbach and Yung ...... 97
`1. Disclosure of Yung ...................................................................................... 97
`2. Motivation to combine Breitenbach and Yung ........................................... 98
`3. Breitenbach in view of Yung discloses each and every limitation of claims
`1-20 ..................................................................................................................100
` Ground 6: Claims 1-20 are rendered obvious by Breitenbach and Cole......108
`1. Disclosure of Cole .....................................................................................108
`2. Motivation to combine Breitenbach and Cole ..........................................110
`3. Breitenbach in view of Cole discloses each and every limitation of claims
`1-20 ..................................................................................................................111
`V. DISCRETION UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§324(a), 325(d) ......................................115
` 35 U.S.C. §324(a) .........................................................................................115
` 35 U.S.C. §325(d) .........................................................................................119
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,891,608
`
`VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................121
`VII. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF THE PETITION ...................................122
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Table of Authorities
`
`
`Cases 
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,891,608
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................ 30
`Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc.,
`323 F.3d 956 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .............................................................................. 31
`Mass. Inst. Of Tech v. Abacus Software,
`462 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................ 36
`Multilayer Stretch Cling Film Holdings, Inc. v. Berry Plastics Corp.,
`831 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ......................................................... 46, 47, 51, 52
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`134 S.Ct. 2120 (2014) ........................................................................................... 35
`Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc.,
`545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................ 35
`Noah Sys., Inc. v. Intuit Inc.,
`675 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ......................................................... 35, 36, 39, 40
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ..................................................................... 16, 35
`Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc.,
`156 F.3d 1154 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ............................................................................ 30
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc .......................................... 36, 37, 38, 39
`
`Statutes 
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,891,608
`
`35 U.S.C. §101 ......................................................................................................... 28
`35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) ................................................................................................ 47
`35 U.S.C. §112(a) ....................................................................................... 30, 31, 34
`35 U.S.C. §112(d) ............................................................................................. 46, 47
`35 U.S.C. §325(d)116 ....................................................................................... 4, 119
`35 U.S.C. §§102 and 103 ................................................................................ 97, 108
`35 U.S.C. §§ 321-329 ......................................................................................... 1, 10
`35 U.S.C. §§ 324(a), 325(d)113 ........................................................................ 3, 115
`35 U.S.C. §112(b) ....................................................................................... 34, 35, 37
`35 U.S.C. §112(f) ........................................................................................ 35, 36, 37
`
`
`Regulations 
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.10(b) and §42.63(e) .......................................................................... 13
`37 C.F.R. §42.200 .................................................................................................... 10
`37 C.F.R. §42.200(b) ............................................................................................... 16
`37 C.F.R. §42.202 ............................................................................................... 2, 12
`37 C.F.R. §42.203 ............................................................................................... 2, 13
`37 C.F.R. §42.204(a) ........................................................................................... 2, 13
`37 C.F.R. §42.204(b) .......................................................................................... 2, 13
`37 C.F.R. §42.204(b)(3) ...................................................................................... 2, 16
`37 C.F.R. §42.24(a) ................................................................................................124
`37 C.F.R. §42.6(a) ..................................................................................................124
`37 C.F.R. §42.6(d) ................................................................................................... 13
`37 C.F.R. §42.63(e) .................................................................................................... 8
`37 C.F.R. §42.8(a)(1) .......................................................................................... 2, 11
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,891,608
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(1) .......................................................................................... 2, 11
`37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(2) .......................................................................................... 2, 11
`37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(3) .......................................................................................... 2, 12
`37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(4) .......................................................................................... 2, 12
`37 C.F.R. §§42.203(a) and 42.15(b) ........................................................................ 13
`37 C.F.R. §§42.6(e) and 42.105(b) ........................................................................123
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.1-42.80, 42.200 ................................................................................ 1
`
`
`
`Other Authorities 
`
`83 Fed. Reg. 51340 (Oct. 11, 2018) ......................................................................... 16
`U.S. Patent Application No. 29/477,025 ................................................................. 27
`U.S. Patent Application No. 61/917,936 ............................................................ 9, 28
`U.S. Patent No. 6,743,095 ................................................................................... 9, 15
`U.S. Patent No. 7,110,954 ................................................................................... 8, 15
`U.S. Patent No. 8,856,045 .......................................................................................... 9
`U.S. Patent No. 9,092,768 ....................................................................... 8, 15, 23, 47
`U.S. Patent No. 9,256,873 .......................................................................................... 9
`U.S. Patent No. 9,547,859 .......................................................................................... 9
`U.S. Patent No. 9,875,473 ................................................................................... 9, 28
`U.S. Patent No. 10,891,608 ........................................................................... 8, 10, 11
`U.S. Patent No. D755,183 .......................................................................................... 9
`U.S. Patent Nos. 9,659,296 (the “’296 Patent”) ...................................................... 11
`U.S. Patent Nos. 10,719,833 (the “’833 Patent”) .................................................... 11
`U.S. Publication No. 2011/0172848 .......................................................................... 8
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,891,608
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST (37 C.F.R. §42.63(e))
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`Not Used
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,891,608 to Patel (“the '608 Patent”)
`
`Prosecution History of the '608 Patent
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Gerald Smith
`
`Declaration of Gerald Smith
`
`Chart of ’608 Patent Priority Chain
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,092,768 to Breitenbach et al. (“Breitenbach”)
`
`Susanne Gruber, et al, “The Commodity Vending Machine”
`
`Michael L. Kasavana, et al. “Innovative VDI Standards:
`Moving an Industry Forward.”
`SDFL Administrative Order 2021-33
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,110,954 to Yung et al. (“Yung”)
`
`Vendingmarketwatch article, “DEX and MDB: A Primer for
`Vendors” (“DEX/MDB Primer”)
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,891,608
`
`
`MDB Protocol V4.2
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,743,095 to Cole et al. (“Cole”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,875,473
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,256,873
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,547,859
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,856,045
`
`U.S. Patent No. D755,183
`
`Provisional U.S. Patent Application No. 61/917,936
`
`Meriam-Webster online dictionary definition of “interface”
`
`Complaint (Amended) filed in PayRange, Inc., v. KioSoft
`Technologies, LLC et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-24342 (S.D. Fla)
`
`Scheduling Order in Case No.:1:20-cv-24342 (S.D.Fla)
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,891,608
`
`
`Through counsel, real parties-in-interest KioSoft Technologies, LLC and
`
`TechTrex, Inc. (referred to alternatively as “KioSoft” or “Petitioners”) hereby
`
`petition and request post-grant review (“Petition”) and cancellation of claims 1-20
`
`(the “challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 10,891,608 (“the ’608 Patent,”
`
`EX1002) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§321-329 and 37 C.F.R. §42.200 et seq. This
`
`Petition, supported by the accompanying Declaration of Gerald Smith (“Smith
`
`Declaration,” EX1005), demonstrates that the challenged claims are not
`
`patentable.
`
`This Petition is timely and shows a reasonable likelihood that the
`
`Petitioners will prevail on at least one of the challenged claims. The challenged
`
`claims are anticipated or rendered obvious by one or more prior art references as
`
`detailed herein. Each prior art reference discussed in this Petition is non-
`
`redundant and has particularly unique relevance. For those grounds under §103,
`
`the motivation to combine is provided. Petitioners’ detailed statement of the
`
`reasons for the relief requested is set forth below.
`
`Petitioners request
`
`institution of a post-grant review (PGR) and
`
`cancellation of the challenged claims of the ’608 Patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`II. MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. §42.8(a)(1))
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,891,608
`
`
`
`
`Real Parties-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(1))
`
`Petitioners KioSoft Technologies, LLC and TechTrex, Inc. are the real
`
`parties in interest for this matter.
`
`
`
`Related matters (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(2))
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,891,608 (the “’608 Patent,” EX1002) is being asserted,
`
`together with U.S. Patent Nos. 10,719,833 (the “’833 Patent”) and 10,891,614 (the
`
`“’614 Patent”), in co-pending litigation captioned PayRange Inc. v. KioSoft
`
`Technologies, LLC et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-24342 (S.D. FL) (the “’608 Litigation”).
`
`The ’833 and ’614 Patents share common priority claims with the ’608 Patent. A
`
`Petition for Post Grant Review, docketed as PGR2021-00077, was filed April 21,
`
`2021 for the ’833 Patent.
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 9,659,296 (the “’296 Patent”) and 9,134,994 (the “’994
`
`Patent”), which share common priority claims with the ’608 Patent, are being
`
`asserted in co-pending litigation captioned PayRange, Inc. v. KioSoft Technologies,
`
`LLC et al., Case No.: 1:20-cv-20970-RS (S.D. FL). Petitions for Covered Business
`
`Method Review, docketed as CBM2020-00026, and Inter Partes Review, docketed
`
`as IPR2021-0086, were filed September 15 and October 15, 2020, respectively, for
`
`the ’296 Patent. Both CBM2020-00026 and IPR2021-0086 were denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Lead and back-up counsel (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(3))
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,891,608
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(3), Petitioners provide the following
`
`designation of counsel:
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`Backup Lead Counsel
`
`Holiday W. Banta (Reg. No. 40,311)
`H.Banta@icemiller.com
`Ice Miller LLP
`One American Square, Suite 2900
`Indianapolis, IN 46282
`317-236-5882
`317-592-4226 (Fax)
`
`Safet Metjahic (Reg. No. 58,677)
`Safet.Metjahic@icemiller.com
`Ice Miller LLP
`1500 Broadway, 29th Floor
`New York, NY 10036
`212-824-4943
`212-824-4947 (Fax)
`
`
`
`
`
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(4))
`
` Service on Petitioners may be made by mail or hand delivery to: Ice Miller
`
`LLP, One American Square, Suite 2900, Indianapolis, IN 46282. The fax numbers
`
`for lead and backup counsel are shown above. Petitioners also consent to electronic
`
`service by email at H.Banta@icemiller.com and Safet.Metjahic@icemiller.com.
`
`III. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
`
`
`
`Time for filing (37 C.F.R. §42.202)
`
`The ’608 Patent issued on January 12, 2021 and this Petition is being filed
`
`before the nine (9) month deadline of October 12, 2021.
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Fees (37 C.F.R. §42.203); procedural statements
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,891,608
`
`
`
`
`The required fees are submitted herewith in accordance with 37 C.F.R.
`
`§§42.203(a) and 42.15(b). The Office is authorized to charge fee deficiencies or
`
`credit overpayments to Deposit Account No. 09-0007.
`
`Concurrently filed herewith are Powers of Attorney and an Exhibit List per
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.10(b) and §42.63(e), respectively. The required fee is paid via online
`
`credit card payment.
`
`
`
`Grounds for standing (37 C.F.R. §42.204(a))
`
`The undersigned and Petitioners certify that (1) the ’608 Patent is eligible
`
`and available for PGR and (2) Petitioners are not barred or estopped from
`
`requesting PGR of the challenged claims on the grounds identified herein. 37
`
`C.F.R. §42.204(a).
`
`
`
`Statement of precise relief requested and reasons therefor (37
`C.F.R. §42.204(b))
`Petitioners respectfully request post-grant review and cancellation of the
`
`challenged claims (claims 1-20) of the ’608 Patent based on the grounds set forth
`
`herein. Per 37 C.F.R. §42.6(d), copies of the references are filed herewith. In
`
`support of the proposed grounds of unpatentability, this Petition is accompanied by
`
`a declaration of technical expert Gerald Smith (EX1005), which explains what the
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,891,608
`
`prior art would have conveyed to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`the alleged invention (“POSITA”).
`
`Ground Statute(s)
`
`Challenge
`
`1
`
`§112(a)
`
`2
`
`§112(b)
`
`Lack of written description for “a second
`interface module configured to count one or
`more electrical pulses generated by the coin
`receiving switch of the offline payment-
`operated machine in response to the insertion
`of a single coin of a predetermined type in
`the offline payment-operated machine.”
`Lack of definiteness for the terms:
`- “a first interface module configured to
`output to a control unit of the offline
`payment-operated machine one or more
`electrical pulses;”
`- “a first interface module configured to
`communicate with a control unit of the
`offline payment-operated machine using a
`serial interface to send one or more
`commands to the control unit;”
`- “a second interface module configured to
`store [or sample] control signals from the
`control unit of the offline payment-
`
`Claim(s)
`Challenged
`
`19-20
`
`1-20
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,891,608
`
`
`operated machine that initiate operation of
`the offline payment-operated machine;”
`- “a second interface module configured to
`count one or more electrical pulses
`generated by the coin receiving switch of
`the offline payment-operated machine in
`response to the insertion of a single coin
`of a predetermined type in the offline
`payment-operated machine and to store an
`output of the control unit corresponding to
`an operation of the offline payment-
`operated machine;” and/or
`- “the offline payment-operated machine is
`not connected to any networks.”
`Failure to further limit the claim from
`which it depends.
`Anticipation by US 9,092,768
`(“Breitenbach,” EX1007)
`Obviousness by Breitenbach in view of US
`7,110,954 (“Yung,” EX1011)
`Obviousness by Breitenbach in view of US
`6,743,095 (“Cole,” EX1014)
`
`5, 11, 17
`
`1-20
`
`1-20
`
`1-20
`
`§112(d) 
`
`§102(a)
`
`§103
`
`§103
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,891,608
`
`Because Petitioners are, at a minimum, likely to prevail in showing
`
`unpatentability, this Petition should be granted and trial instituted on all of the
`
`challenged claims.
`
`Given the prior art, the subject matter claimed in the challenged claims was
`
`anticipated by and, at a minimum, would have been obvious to a POSITA. Even in
`
`view of any objective indicia of nonobviousness, the claims would have been
`
`obvious. Thus, Petitioners are at least reasonably likely to prevail in showing
`
`anticipation under §102, or obviousness under §103, based on the prior art.
`
`Accordingly, for at least the reasons set forth in this Petition, Petitioners respectfully
`
`request that the Board institute trial on the grounds set forth herein and determine
`
`that claims 1-20 of the ’608 Patent are unpatentable.
`
`
`
`Claim construction (37 C.F.R. §42.204(b)(3))
`
`Claims in PGR petitions filed after November 13, 2018, are construed using
`
`the same standard as in district court. See 83 Fed. Reg. 51340 (Oct. 11, 2018);
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`
`Specifically, claims are construed in accordance with the ordinary and customary
`
`meaning of such claims as understood by a POSITA and the prosecution history
`
`pertaining to the patent. 37 C.F.R. §42.200(b). Claim terms are generally given
`
`their “ordinary and customary meaning,” that is, “the meaning that the term would
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,891,608
`
`have to a POSITA in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective
`
`filing date of the patent application.” Id. at 1313. For this Petition, Petitioners
`
`submit that claim terms not included in the following discussion should be given
`
`their ordinary and customary meaning.
`
`Claims 1-20 each recite the term “offline payment-operated machine,” with
`
`different hyphenations. Petitioners propose this term be construed to mean: a
`
`machine that is not connected to any network and that accepts cash to perform an
`
`operation, wherein the machine includes a coin receiving switch that generates an
`
`analog signal in response to insertion of a single coin of a predetermined type in the
`
`machine. EX1005, ¶¶82-84.
`
`Claims 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16 and 19 each recite the term “interface.” To the
`
`extent this term is determined by this tribunal not to be indefinite, Petitioners propose
`
`this term be construed to mean: a place at which two or more systems connect to
`
`facilitate communication. EX1005, ¶¶73-81.
`
`
`
`Claims 1, 7, 13, and 19 each recite “storing, in the memory of the payment
`
`module, a number of the electrical pulses that must be received by the control unit
`
`to initiate an operation of the offline payment operating machine.” Petitioners
`
`propose this term be construed to mean: storing, in the non-transitory memory of the
`
`payment module, a number of electrical pulses that must be received by the control
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,891,608
`
`unit of the machine in order to cause the offline payment-operated machine to
`
`perform its intended function. EX1005, ¶¶85-91.
`
`Claims 1, 7, 13, and 19 each recite “initiate a cashless operation of the
`
`offline-payment operated machine.” Petitioners propose this term be construed to
`
`mean: causing the offline payment-operated machine to perform its intended
`
`function without requiring the user of the mobile device to interact with the input-
`
`mechanisms of the machine. EX1005, ¶¶92-99.
`
`Claims 1, 7, 13, and 19 each recite “sending operation information
`
`corresponding to the initiated operation of the offline payment-operated machine
`
`to the respective mobile device via the short-range wireless transceiver.”
`
`Petitioners propose this term be construed to mean: after causing the offline
`
`payment-operated machine to perform its intended function, sending information
`
`corresponding to the fact that the offline payment-operated machine was caused to
`
`perform its intended function and the amount of coins required to cause that
`
`performance to the respective mobile device via the short-range wireless transceiver.
`
`EX1005, ¶¶100-104.
`
`IV. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`
`
`
`Technology Background of Vending Machines
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,891,608
`
`The ’608 Patent relates generally to a mobile-device-to-machine payment
`
`system for handling electronic payments to conventional offline coin-operated
`
`vending machines. EX1002, 1:26-28, claims 1-20. More specifically, the patent
`
`relates to retrofitting standard coin-operated vending machines for a logical
`
`extension of mobile payment using Internet-connected smartphones to allow
`
`customers to make contactless electronic payments to coin-operated vending
`
`machines. Id., 1:67-2:2; EX1005, ¶39.
`
`As admitted by the ’608 Patent, “[v]ending machines (or ‘automatic
`
`retailing’ machines), in the broadest sense, have been around for thousands of
`
`years.” EX1002, 1:32-33. In fact, the first reported coin operated vending
`
`machine was constructed around 100BC by Heron of Alexandria. EX1008, p1.
`
`That particular machine was configured to dispense holy water after the user
`
`inserted a coin. Id.
`
`
`
`Prior to the earliest priority date claimed by the ’608 Patent, vending
`
`machines had become ubiquitous, serving as silent shop assistants that were
`
`available 24 hours-a-day, 7 days-a-week. Id., p4. As the number of people with
`
`Internet-connected mobile devices proliferated, so did the use of such mobile
`
`devices for purchasing goods and services from unattended vending machines.
`
`EX1002, 1:64-66; EX1005, ¶40. Indeed, the ’608 Patent admits that “[a]s the
`
`number of people with Internet-connected mobile devices proliferates, so does the
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,891,608
`
`variety of uses for such devices. Mobile payment is a logical extension.” EX1002,
`
`1:64-66 (emphasis added). Mobile payment allows customers to purchase goods
`
`and services from unattended vending machines using only their smartphones,
`
`thereby, in the words of the patent, “bringing mobile payment to the retail sector
`
`in an effort to not only provide options to the user, but also increased
`
`convenience.” EX1002, 1:67-2:2; EX1005, ¶40.
`
`
`
`Prior to 1990, the number and variety of proprietary technologies used in
`
`automated vending machines drove technical specification committee members of
`
`the National Automatic Merchandizing Association (NAMA) and the European
`
`Vending Association (EVA) to collaborate in an effort to standardize the control of
`
`machine-level transactions and event data collection, storage, and transmission.
`
`EX1009, p2; EX1005, ¶41. An outcome of the collaboration was the Data EXchange
`
`(DEX) standard. Id. The DEX standard captured machine-level cash in/out data,
`
`product movement data, and financial audit data. Id. The DEX standard allowed
`
`vending operators to configure their systems to move DEX data to their host vending
`
`management software (VMS) system to manage product inventory and financial
`
`audit data, while simultaneously forwarding data to a cashless gateway system for
`
`processing and settlement. Id.
`
`DEX has been the standard used by the vending technology industry for more
`
`than three decades, providing communications between handheld devices and
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,891,608
`
`vendor computer technology, including “communication information such as sales,
`
`cash in bill validators, coins in coin boxes, sales of units selection, pricing door,
`
`openings, and much more.” EX1012, p2; EX1005, ¶42. In communicating the
`
`information, an ASCII code-based electronic audit file is created by “the VMC
`
`(Vending Machine Controller often called the ‘brain’ of an electronic machine) or
`
`created by a retrofit DEX device in older electromechanical (dip switch)
`
`machines” (emphasis added). Id. The ’608 Patent is directed to the latter. EX1005,
`
`¶42. Regardless of whether the file was created by the VMC or a retrofit device, the
`
`DEX data was downloaded to the handheld device or transmitted via a remote
`
`monitoring device over to software that was able to parse the information. EX1012,
`
`p2. It was known to use mobile devices such as phones to wirelessly send DEX data
`
`to a remote computer. Id.
`
`As of February 7, 2008, 60 to 70 percent of the machines on the market had
`
`VMCs that produced DEX data. Id., p3. Older electronic and electromechanical
`
`machines not equipped with DEX were retrofitted with either a new VMC that
`
`provided DEX or with a retrofit device. Id. However, the DEX standard did not
`
`resolve the problem of incompatibility of proprietary vending technologies that
`
`plagued the industry, resulting in lack of interchangeability or interfacing of
`
`components from different providers. EX1005, ¶43.
`
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,891,608
`
`Prior to 2009, the multi-drop bus/internal communication protocol (MDB/ICP
`
`or MDB) was developed as an interface to handle communications between
`
`electronic components in automated vending machines. EX1009, p3; EX1005, ¶44.
`
`Together with DEX, MDB enabled remote control, operation and auditing of
`
`unattended vending machines using Internet-connected mobile devices. Id. The
`
`MDB protocol served as an interface between various electronic components in the
`
`vending machine (including coin payment mechanisms) and the VMC, without any
`
`regard to proprietary manufacturing specifications. Id. The MDB protocol allowed
`
`for the attachment of an audit (DEX) device that, acting as a passive slave, received
`
`information of all events that happened on the machine (e.g., vends, sold outs, coins
`
`and bills accepted, etc.) and, via DEX, the retrieval of stored information (a
`
`snapshot) through a handheld device. EX1009, p5; EX1005, ¶44. MDB buses were
`
`(and continue to be) used to transfer operational data, including operati