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
`
`Patent 10,891,608
`
`DECLARATION OF GERALD SMITH IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR
`POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,891,608
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Kiosoft LLC EX1005
`U.S. Patent No. 10,891,608
`
`Petitioner Kiosoft Exhibit 1005
`Page 1
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`Summary of My Opinions ................................................................................ 1
`II.
`Failure to further limit the claim from which it depends. ....................................... 3
`III. Qualifications and Experience ............................................................................ 3
`IV. Materials Considered ........................................................................................ 7
`V. Relevant Legal Standards ................................................................................. 9
`VI. The ’608 Patent ............................................................................................... 15
`A. Technology Background of Vending Machines ......................................... 15
`B. Overview of the claimed subject matter of claims 1-20 ............................. 21
`C. Earliest possible effective priority date of ’608 Patent claims .................... 22
`D. A person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) ............................... 23
`E. Meaning (or lack thereof) of certain terms in claims 1-20 ......................... 23
`1. “a first interface module configured to output to a control unit of the offline
`payment-operated machine one or more electrical pulses” ............................... 24
`2. “a second interface module configured to store control signals from the
`control unit of the offline payment-operated machine that initiate operation of
`the offline payment-operated machine” ............................................................ 28
`3. “a second interface module configured to store control signals from the
`control unit of the offline payment-operated machine that initiate operation of
`the offline payment-operated [machine]” .......................................................... 32
`4. “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” ................................................................. 33
`5. “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” ....... 34
`6. “interface” .................................................................................................... 34
`7. “offline payment-operated machine” .......................................................... 38
`
`
`4843-3366-8070.5
`
`i
`
`Petitioner Kiosoft Exhibit 1005
`Page 2
`
`

`

`
`
`Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,891,608
`
`
`
`8. “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” ................................................................. 40
`9. “initiate a cashless operation of the offline-payment operated machine” ... 46
`10. “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” ................................................................. 49
`VII. Overview of the Prior Art ............................................................................ 52
`A. U.S. Patent No. 9,092,768 (“Breitenbach,” EX1007) ................................ 52
`B. U.S. Patent No. 7,110,954 (“Yung,” EX1011) .......................................... 60
`C. U.S. Patent No. 6,743,095 (“Cole,” EX1014) ............................................ 62
`VIII. POSITA’s understanding of the challenged claims, in view of the ’608
`patent specification and prosecution history ............................................................ 63
`A. Ground 1: Claims 19-20 lack of written description ................................... 63
`B. Ground 2: Claims 1-20 lack definiteness .................................................... 67
`1. In claims 1-18, “a first interface module configured to output to a control
`unit … one or more electrical pulses” (“CL1”) lacks definiteness ................... 68
`2. In claims 19-20, “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” (“CL2”) lacks definiteness
`
`72
`3. In claims 4, 10, 16, “a second interface module configured to store [or
`sample] control signals from the control unit …” (“CL3”) lacks definiteness . 75
`4. 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 ............................................................................................... 77
`5. In claims 5, 11, 17, “the offline payment-operated machine is not
`connected to any networks” (“CL5”) lacks definiteness ................................... 79
`C. Ground 3: Claims 5, 11, 17 fail to be further limiting ................................ 80
`IX. Application of the Prior Art to the Challenged Claims .................................. 81
`A. Claims 1-20 are anticipated by Breitenbach (Ground 4) ............................ 81
`1. Claims 1, 7, 13 and 19 ................................................................................. 81
`2. Claims 2, 8, 14, and 20 ..............................................................................108
`
`ii
`
`Petitioner Kiosoft Exhibit 1005
`Page 3
`
`

`

`
`
`Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,891,608
`
`
`
`3. Claims 3, 9, and 15 ....................................................................................114
`4. Claims 4, 10, and 16 ..................................................................................115
`5. Claims 5, 11, and 17 ..................................................................................123
`6. Claims 6, 12, and 18 ..................................................................................124
`B. Claims 1-20 would have been obvious in view of Breitenbach and Yung
`(Ground 5) ...........................................................................................................125
`1. Disclosure of Yung ....................................................................................125
`2. Motivation to combine Breitenbach and Yung .........................................127
`3. Breitenbach in view of Yung disclose each and every limitation of claims
`1-20 ..................................................................................................................128
`C. Claims 1-20 would have been obvious in view of Breitenbach and Cole 131
`1. Disclosure of Cole .....................................................................................132
`2. Motivation to combine Breitenbach and Cole ..........................................134
`3. Breitenbach in view of Cole disclose each and every limitation of claims 1-
`20 135
`X. Other evidence relevant to Obviousness ..........................................................136
`
`
`iii
`
`Petitioner Kiosoft Exhibit 1005
`Page 4
`
`

`

`I, GERALD SMITH, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`1.
`
`Introduction
`
`I have been asked by KioSoft Technologies LLC and TechTrex, Inc.
`
`(“Petitioners” and, collectively, “KioSoft”) to provide my opinions in the above-
`
`captioned post-grant review proceeding involving U.S. Patent No. 10,891,608 (“the
`
`’608 patent,” EX1002), which is titled “Method and System for an Offline-Payment
`
`Operated Machine to Accept Electronic Payments.”
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated at the rate of $450 per hour for the time I spend
`
`in connection with the proceeding. My compensation is not dependent in any way
`
`on the substance of my opinions or on the outcome of this proceeding.
`
`II.
`
`3.
`
`Summary of My Opinions
`
`To assist and orient the reader in reviewing this declaration, I have
`
`provided a summary of my main opinion below. A person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(“POSITA”) at the time of the alleged invention would have found the subject matter
`
`of claims 1-20 (the “challenged claims”) to be disclosed and/or obvious in view of the
`
`prior art. Additionally, a POSITA would have found certain elements of the claims to
`
`lack written description or to lack definiteness. A POSITA would have found certain
`
`claims to fail to further limit claims from which they depend.
`
`4.
`
`The specific grounds of unpatentability that I refer to are identified below:
`
`
`4843-3366-8070.5
`
`1
`
`Petitioner Kiosoft Exhibit 1005
`Page 5
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,891,608
`
`
`
`
`Claim(s)
`Challenged
`
`19-20
`
`1-20
`
`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-
`operated machine that initiate operation of
`the offline payment-operated machine;”
`
`2
`
`Petitioner Kiosoft Exhibit 1005
`Page 6
`
`

`

`
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`§112(d) 
`
`§102(a)
`
`§103
`
`§103
`
`Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,891,608
`
`
`
`- “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
`
`III. Qualifications and Experience
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`A copy of my curriculum vitae is provided as Exhibit 1004.
`
`I obtained a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering from Rose-
`
`Hulman Institute of Technology in 1978 and continued post graduate studies at
`
`3
`
`Petitioner Kiosoft Exhibit 1005
`Page 7
`
`

`

`
`
`Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,891,608
`
`
`
`Rutgers University from 1978 to 1983 in Electronics Engineering and Computer
`
`Science.
`
`7.
`
`I am the founder of Generic Smart Cards LLC. I founded this company
`
`in 2012. I have worked extensively with smart cards, terminals, and transaction
`
`solutions since 1983. I have worked in a wide range of technologies relating to smart
`
`cards, including, but not limited to, silicon, operating systems, card applications,
`
`packaging, printing technologies, edge interfaces, terminals, and host system
`
`applications.
`
`8.
`
`For the past 20 years, I have focused on security and identity attributes
`
`of smart cards and smart card enabled solutions. I have served as an International
`
`Standards Organization (ISO) project editor and as a contributor to a number of
`
`major smart card standards, including, and not limited to, ISO/IEC 7816, ISO/IEC
`
`14443, ISO/IEC 24727, FIPS 201, and FIPS 140. I have actively participated in the
`
`Java Card Forum, PC/SC implementations, MULTOS smart card O/S application
`
`development, and Microsoft Windows Smart Card O/S evaluations. In addition, I
`
`have in-depth knowledge and experience with proprietary O/S smart card
`
`implementations, including but not limited to ORGA Micardo, Siemens CardOS,
`
`Schlumberger MultiFlex, Gemplus MPCOS, and G&D StarCOS.
`
`9.
`
`From 1978 to 1983, I was an Officer in the United States Army Signal
`
`Corps attached to the Communications Electronics Command at Fort Monmouth,
`
`4
`
`Petitioner Kiosoft Exhibit 1005
`Page 8
`
`

`

`
`
`Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,891,608
`
`
`
`New Jersey. The Signal Corps is a division of the U.S. Army that develops, tests,
`
`provides, and manages communications and information systems support for the
`
`command and control of combined armed forces. In the Signal Corps, I actively
`
`participated in the research and development of software intensive terminals and
`
`peripherals encompassing device mechanisms, microprocessor
`
`technologies
`
`(HW/SW) and system integration. I was part of a high level research team exploring
`
`distributed processing configurations. I achieved the rank of Captain prior to leaving
`
`the U.S. Army for private industry.
`
`10.
`
`In 1983, I began work as a technologist at Mars Electronics
`
`International, a company directed to unattended payment systems. I was promoted
`
`to product line manager for all of the company’s North American coin mechanisms,
`
`the core product for the business at that time.
`
`11. From 1989-1993, I was employed at VeriFone where I served as the
`
`Director of Engineering in a unit that developed food service and vending industry
`
`applications implemented through computer software and hardware. During this
`
`time at VeriFone, I worked on development of the Valu-CardTM Stored Value card
`
`system to complement the company’s Point of Sales (POS) business.
`
`12. From 1993-1995, I was employed at Schlumberger where I competed
`
`for, obtained, and developed technology business relating to smart card pilot projects
`
`for VISA and smart card applications for MasterCard.
`
`5
`
`Petitioner Kiosoft Exhibit 1005
`Page 9
`
`

`

`
`
`Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,891,608
`
`
`
`13. From 1995-1996, I worked at Zenith Data Systems / Groupe BULL as
`
`a technical manager for Smart Card Technology and Internet Commerce.
`
`14. From 1996-1999, I served as Director of New Business Development
`
`for ORGA Card Systems Inc., where I was responsible for managing the company’s
`
`Americas region and coordinating with international business units in Germany,
`
`Latin America, and the Far East. In this position, I worked as Project Leader on the
`
`MasterCard Smart Card Access project using the MULTOS platform for secure card
`
`transactions. In 1999, I joined American Express as a Development Leader for the
`
`“Blue from American Express” Smart Card product development initiative. In that
`
`position, I served as Advanced Card Technology leader on IP Management, chip
`
`card specifications, security models using smart cards, and external standards. I was
`
`promoted to Vice President in 2001. Among other duties at American Express, I
`
`served as Product Manager, Business and Technical Architect of the “Summer
`
`Concerts in Blue” product launch (summer of 2000), served as a Board Member of
`
`the Global Platform governance body from 2000-2002, was a contributing member
`
`to GlobalPlatform Card and Card Management System specification, was a
`
`JavaCard Forum representative, and a technical representative to ISO/IEC JTC1
`
`SC17 International Standard body including contact card, contactless card, and test
`
`methods.
`
`6
`
`Petitioner Kiosoft Exhibit 1005
`Page 10
`
`

`

`
`
`Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,891,608
`
`
`
`15. From 2003-2007, I worked at SHARP Microelectronics of the
`
`Americas, a world leader in LCD, Integrated Circuits, RF, Imaging, and
`
`Optoelectronics technology, where I served as the Senior Smart Card Business
`
`Development Manager / Senior Field Technical Manager. Among other duties, I
`
`served as a subject matter expert in the area of Smart Card technologies working as
`
`a development leader for integration of smart card technology into identity, payment,
`
`and telecommunication solutions.
`
`16. Since 2007, I have been employed with ID Technology Partners as a
`
`subject matter expert for a diverse range of engagements related to smart cards,
`
`biometrics and other high assurance identification verification initiatives and
`
`technologies. My projects have included government and non-government
`
`credentialing programs as well as one-off enterprise solutions.
`
`IV. Materials Considered
`
`17.
`
`In formulating my opinions, I have relied upon my training, knowledge,
`
`and experience that are relevant to the ’608 patent. I have specifically considered
`
`the following documents, in addition to all other documents cited in this declaration:
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`
`1001
`
`Not Used
`
`7
`
`Petitioner Kiosoft Exhibit 1005
`Page 11
`
`

`

`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`
`
`Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,891,608
`
`
`
`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.”
`
`Not Used
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,110,954 to Yung et al. (“Yung”)
`
`Vendingmarketwatch article, “DEX and MDB: A Primer for
`Vendors” (“DEX/MDB Primer”)
`
`MDB Protocol V4.2
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,743,095 to Cole et al. (“Cole”)
`
`8
`
`Petitioner Kiosoft Exhibit 1005
`Page 12
`
`

`

`
`
`Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,891,608
`
`
`
`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)
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`V. Relevant Legal Standards
`
`18.
`
`I am not a lawyer. In forming my opinions, I have relied upon various
`
`legal principles, as explained to me by Petitioners’ counsel. My understanding of
`
`these principles is summarized below.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that a patent claim defines the scope of an alleged invention.
`
`I further understand that a claimed invention must be new, useful, and non-obvious
`
`9
`
`Petitioner Kiosoft Exhibit 1005
`Page 13
`
`

`

`
`
`Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,891,608
`
`
`
`over the prior art as of its earliest filing date for it to be patentable. I understand that
`
`in this proceeding, Petitioners have the burden of proving that the challenged claims
`
`would have been unpatentable over the prior art by a preponderance of the evidence.
`
`I understand that “a preponderance of the evidence” is evidence sufficient to show
`
`that a fact is more likely true than not.
`
`20.
`
`In determining the patentability of a claim, I understand that the first
`
`step is to understand the claim from the perspective of a POSITA to determine its
`
`meaning and scope. With that understanding, I have considered the claims at issue
`
`against the prior art from the perspective of a POSITA, as further summarized below.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that the specification of a patent must reasonably convey
`
`to a POSITA that the inventor had possession of the subject matter of each claim as
`
`of the filing date. In this regard, I understand that I am required to objectively
`
`inquire, from the perspective of POSITA, into the four corners of the specification
`
`and, based on that inquiry, determine whether the claimed subject matter would be
`
`understandable to a POSITA and whether it shows that the inventor actually invented
`
`the invention claimed.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that where the patent claims to be a continuation or a
`
`continuation-in-part of an earlier patent or patent application and claims priority to
`
`the earlier filing date of such patent or patent application, the specification of that
`
`earlier patent or patent application must also reasonably convey to a POSITA that
`
`10
`
`Petitioner Kiosoft Exhibit 1005
`Page 14
`
`

`

`
`
`Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,891,608
`
`
`
`the inventor had possession of the entirety of each claim for which the earlier filing
`
`date is claimed.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that where a claim limitation includes a means-plus-
`
`function term, I am required to follow a two-step process in interpreting the term. I
`
`understand that a means-plus-function term can be one where: the term includes a
`
`claimed function and the word “means” or “step” recited for performing that
`
`function; or the term does not recite sufficiently definite structure; or the term recites
`
`function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function. I
`
`understand that the two-step process requires (1) identifying the claimed function
`
`and, then, (2) determining what structure, if any, disclosed in the patent specification
`
`corresponds to that claimed function. I understand that where there are multiple
`
`claimed functions, the patent must disclose adequate corresponding structure to
`
`perform all of the claimed functions.
`
`24. When reviewing prior art, I understand that, for each claim in the patent,
`
`I am to compare each limitation in the claim, as well as the claim as a whole, to the
`
`prior art and determine whether that prior art teaches, implicitly or explicitly, the
`
`limitation. I understand that if a single prior art reference teaches each and every
`
`limitation of a claim, whether implicitly or explicitly, that claim is anticipated by
`
`that prior art reference.
`
`11
`
`Petitioner Kiosoft Exhibit 1005
`Page 15
`
`

`

`
`
`Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,891,608
`
`
`
`25. When reviewing prior art, I understand that, for each claim in the patent
`
`that I review, if a claim limitation is missing in a prior art reference, I am to analyze
`
`prior art and the claim as a whole and determine, from the perspective of a POSITA,
`
`whether that claim limitation would have been obvious to a POSITA as of the earliest
`
`effective filing date of that claim.
`
`26.
`
`I understand each that claim must be analyzed to determine its effective
`
`priority date by comparing each of its elements to the application from which the
`
`patent issued and/or any alleged priority applications.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that in order for a claim to claim priority to a previously
`
`filed application, the claim must have written description support in that priority
`
`document, and the written description needs to have been carried over into the
`
`application in which the claim appears.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that claims are required to be supported by a written
`
`description in the specification that must reasonably convey to a POSITA that the
`
`inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.
`
`29.
`
`I also understand that the supporting disclosure of an application must
`
`be sufficient to inform a POSITA how to both make and use the claimed invention,
`
`without undue or unreasonable experimentation.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that a claim is indefinite if it fails to inform, with reasonable
`
`certainty, a POSITA about the scope of the invention or what is protected by the claim.
`
`12
`
`Petitioner Kiosoft Exhibit 1005
`Page 16
`
`

`

`
`
`Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,891,608
`
`
`
`Moreover, I also understand that claims must particularly and distinctly set out what
`
`is claimed so that the public has fair notice of the claimed invention. For example, if
`
`the language of a claim may be read and understood in more than one way by a
`
`POSITA, then that claim is indefinite. I understand that the claim must be read in
`
`light of the disclosure of the application, the teachings of the prior art, and the
`
`knowledge of a POSITA at the time of the invention of the claim. Further, I
`
`understand that each term in a claim must find clear support or antecedent basis in the
`
`specification.
`
`31.
`
`I have been informed by Petitioners’ counsel that a patent claim is
`
`unpatentable if every element is actually disclosed in a prior art reference as recited
`
`in the claims. The disclosure may be explicit, implicit, or inherent. I understand that
`
`a reference is read from the perspective of a POSITA at the time of the invention.
`
`32.
`
`I understand that an obviousness analysis involves properly construing
`
`a patent claim and then comparing that claim to the prior art to determine whether
`
`the claimed invention would have been obvious to a POSITA in view of the prior art
`
`and in light of the general knowledge in the art.
`
`33.
`
`I also understand that obviousness can be established by combining or
`
`modifying the teachings of the prior art to achieve the claimed invention. I understand
`
`that the reason to combine prior art references must be shown. This reason to combine
`
`can come from a variety of sources, not just the prior art itself or the specific problem
`
`13
`
`Petitioner Kiosoft Exhibit 1005
`Page 17
`
`

`

`
`
`Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,891,608
`
`
`
`the patentee was trying to solve. And I understand that the references themselves need
`
`not provide a specific hint or suggestion of the alteration needed to arrive at the
`
`claimed invention; the analysis may include recourse to logic, judgment, and common
`
`sense available to a POSITA that does not necessarily require explanation in any
`
`reference. It is also my understanding that where there is a reason to modify or
`
`combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention, there must also be a reasonable
`
`expectation of success in so doing.
`
`34.
`
`I understand that a combination of familiar elements according to known
`
`methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. I
`
`understand that when there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and
`
`there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a skilled person has good
`
`reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to
`
`the anticipated outcome, then that outcome is likely a product not of innovation, but
`
`of ordinary skill and common sense, and therefore is considered obvious according
`
`to patent laws.
`
`35.
`
`I understand that when a skilled person would have reached the claimed
`
`invention through routine optimization, the invention may be deemed obvious. I
`
`also understand that such routine optimization involves testing an element or
`
`parameter that is termed a “results-effective” variable (that is, a variable that
`
`14
`
`Petitioner Kiosoft Exhibit 1005
`Page 18
`
`

`

`
`
`Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,891,608
`
`
`
`achieves a recognized result). And I understand that routine optimization involves
`
`using only routine techniques and ordinary skill of one in the relevant art.
`
`36.
`
`I understand that courts have held that when there is a “design need” or
`
`“market demand” and there are a “finite number” of solutions, it would have been
`
`obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to try such solutions. When the
`
`general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to
`
`discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
`
`37.
`
`I understand that when considering the obviousness of an invention,
`
`one should also consider whether there are any objective indicia (also known as
`
`secondary considerations) that support the non-obviousness of the invention. I
`
`understand that objective indicia of non-obviousness include commercial success,
`
`long-felt but unmet need, failure of others, praise in the industry, and unexpected
`
`superior results. I am not aware of any objective indicia that would change my
`
`opinion regarding the claims of the ’608 patent claims.
`
`VI. The ’608 Patent
`
`A. Technology Background of Vending Machines
`
`38.
`
`I have reviewed the ’608 patent (EX1002) and its prosecution history
`
`(EX1003). Based on my review, I found the ’608 patent relates generally to a
`
`mobile-device-to-machine payment system for handling electronic payments to
`
`15
`
`Petitioner Kiosoft Exhibit 1005
`Page 19
`
`

`

`
`
`Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,891,608
`
`
`
`conventional offline coin-operated vending machines. More specifically, I found
`
`the patent relates to retrofitting standard coin-operated vending machines for a
`
`logical extension of mobile payment using Internet-connected mobile device,
`
`such as smartphones, to allow customers to use their personal smartphone
`
`devices to make contactless purchases and electronic payments to coin-operated
`
`vending machines. EX1002, 1:67-2:2.
`
`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. See EX1008,
`
`p1. That particular machine was configured to dispense holy water after the user
`
`inserted a coin. Id.
`
`40.
`
`Prior to the earliest priority date (“EPD”) 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, and provided
`
`customers with a variety of goods (e.g., passport photos, business cards, parking
`
`tickets, cigarettes, sweets, food, drinks) and services (e.g., playing a videogame,
`
`making copies, making phone calls, gambling). As the number of people with
`
`Internet-connected mobile devices proliferated, so did their use for purchasing
`
`goods and services from unattended vending machines. EX1002, 1:64-66. As
`
`16
`
`Petitioner Kiosoft Exhibit 1005
`Page 20
`
`

`

`
`
`Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,891,608
`
`
`
`admitted by the ’608 Patent, it was a logical extension to allow customers to use
`
`their Internet-connected mobile devices 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.
`
`41.
`
`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. See
`
`EX1009, p2. An outcome of the collaboration was the Data EXchange (DEX)
`
`standard. The DEX standard captured machine-level cash in/out data, product
`
`movement data, and financial audit data. 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.
`
`42.
`
` DEX has been the standard used by the vending technology industry
`
`since the 1980s, providing communications between handheld devices and a vendor
`
`17
`
`Petitioner Kiosoft Exhibit 1005
`Page 21
`
`

`

`
`
`Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,891,608
`
`
`
`computer technology including “communi