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. 11,481,772
`Issued: October 25, 2022
`Filed: March 14, 2022
`Inventor: Paresh K. Patel
`Title: Method And System For Presenting Representations Of Payment Accepting
`Unit Events
`______________________
`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. 11,481,772
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`III. 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1 
`I. 
`II.  MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. §42.8) ............................................... 1 
`Real Parties-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(1)) .................................. 1 
` 
`Notice of Related Matters (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(2)) .............................. 2 
`Designation of lead and back-up counsel (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(3)) ...... 3 
` 
`  Notice of Service Information (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(4)) ....................... 4 
`STANDING AND ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS ................................ 4 
`Time for Filing (37 C.F.R. §42.202) .................................................... 4 
` 
`Payment of Fees (37 C.F.R. §42.203); Procedural Statements ............ 4 
`Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. §42.204(a)) ..................................... 5 
`Statement of Precise Relief Requested and Reasons Therefor (37
` 
`C.F.R. §42.204(b)) .......................................................................................... 5 
`Claim Construction .............................................................................. 6 
` 
`IV.  THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE ........................... 7 
`  Overview of the Alleged Invention ...................................................... 7 
`The State of the Art Prior to December 2013 ...................................... 9 
` 
`Relevant Prosecution History ............................................................. 14 
`1.  The ’772 Patent Prosecution History ........................................... 14 
`2.  The ’614 Patent Prosecution History ........................................... 15 
`3.  The ’296 Patent Prosecution History ........................................... 17 
`  A Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art ........................................ 19 
`Priority Date of the Challenged Claims ............................................. 19 
` 
`Ground 1: Claims 1-20 Are Unpatentable Under §101 ..................... 20 
`1.  Legal standard .............................................................................. 20 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 11,481,772
`2.  Application to the Challenged Claims ......................................... 21 
`  Ground 2: Low in view of Arora in further view of Casey Renders
`Obvious Claims 1-20 .................................................................................... 39 
`1.  Low ............................................................................................... 41 
`2.  Arora ............................................................................................. 44 
`3.  Casey ............................................................................................ 46 
`4.  Motivation to Modify or Combine Low and Arora ..................... 49 
`5.  Motivation to Combine the System and Method of Low in View
`of Arora with Casey ........................................................................... 52 
`6.  Low in View of Arora and/or Casey Renders Obvious Claims 1-
`20 ...................................................................................................... 53 
`V.  DISCRETION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ................................................ 88 
`1. 
`Factors (a) and (c): (a) The Similarities and Material Differences
`Between the Asserted Art and the Prior Art Involving During Examination
`and (c) the Extent to which the Asserted Art was Evaluated During
`Examination, Including Whether the Prior Art was the Basis for
`Rejection ....................................................................................................... 89 
`2. 
`Factors (b) and (d): (b) The Cumulative Nature of the Asserted Art
`and the Prior Art Evaluated During Examination and (d) the Extent of the
`Overlap Between the Arguments Made During Examination and the Manner
`in which Petitioner Relies on the Prior Art .................................................. 90 
`3. 
`Factors (e) and (f): (e) Whether Petitioner has pointed out sufficiently
`how the Examiner erred in its evaluation of the asserted prior art and (f) the
`Extent to which Additional Evidence and Facts Presented in the Petition
`Warrant Reconsideration of the Prior Art or Arguments ............................. 92 
`VI.  CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 93 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 11,481,772
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinishe Gerate Gmbh,
`IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2020) ...................................... 87, 88
`Advanced Energy Industries v. Reno Technologies,
`IPR2021-01397, Paper 7 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2022) ............................................ 89
`Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`573 U.S. 208 (2014) ............................................................................................ 19
`
`Apple Inc. v. Seven Networks, LLC
`IPR2020-00285, Paper 10, p.30 (P.T.A.B. July 28, 2020) ................................. 90
`Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG,
`IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2017) ............................... 87, 88, 90
`buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
`765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 24
`Cyberfone Sys., L.L.C. v. CNN Interactive Grp., Inc.,
`558 F. App’x 988 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ..................................................................... 25
`In re Elbaum,
`No. 2021-1719, 2021 WL 3923280 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 2, 2021) ............................ 34
`Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .............................................................. 26, 28, 37
`Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 21
`Fort Props, Inc. v. Am. Master Lease LLC,
`671 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 33
`Gree, Inc. v. Supercell Oy,
`Case No. 2020-2125 (Fed. Cir. May 10, 2021) .................................................. 33
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 11,481,772
`
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp.,
`838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 25
`Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc.,
`876 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .................................................................... 28, 38
`J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. v. Maxim Integrated Products, Inc.,
`CBM2014-00179, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 20, 2015) ....................................... 91
`KioSoft Technologies, LLC v. PayRange Inc.,
`PGR2021-00093, Paper 38 (P.T.A.B. December 14, 2022) ........................... 2, 38
`Ex Parte Latoya H. James,
`2019 WL 2763407 (PTAB June 21, 2019) ..................................................passim
`Lyft, Inc. v. RideShare Displays, Inc.,
`IPR2021-01602, Paper 7 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 11, 2022) ........................................... 90
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
`566 U.S. 66 (2012) .............................................................................................. 19
`Mmodal LLC v. Nuance Communications, Inc.,
`2019 WL 469510, IPR2018-01355, Paper 7 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 6,
`2019) ................................................................................................................... 92
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Power2B, Inc.,
`IPR2021-01190, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 6, 2022) ............................................ 89
`Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth.,
`873 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 34
`Square, Inc. et al. v. Unwired Planet, LLC et al.,
`CBM2014-00156, Paper 40 (P.T.A.B December 22, 2015) ............ 28, 32, 34, 36
`Tranxition, Inc. v. Lenovo (United States) Inc.,
`664 Fed. Appx. 968 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................ 20, 27
`Western Express Bancshares, LLC v. Green Dot Corp.,
`816 F. App’x 485 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ..................................................................... 34
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. §101 ..................................................................................................passim
`v
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 11,481,772
`
`
`35 U.S.C. §103 ................................................................................................. 1, 5, 40
`35 U.S.C. §314(a) .................................................................................................... 92
`35 U.S.C. §324(a) ...................................................................................................... 3
`35 U.S.C. §324(b) ...................................................................................................... 3
`35 U.S.C. §325(d) .............................................................................................passim
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. 1.102(e)(1) ............................................................................................... 14
`37 C.F.R. §42.15(b) ................................................................................................... 5
`37 C.F.R. §42.200 et seq. ........................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. §42.203(a) .................................................................................................. 5
`37 C.F.R. §42.204(a) .................................................................................................. 5
`MPEP §2106.05(d) ................................................................................................... 20
`Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50
`(Jan. 7, 2019) .................................................................................... 20, 21, 22, 33
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 11,481,772
`EXHIBIT LIST (37 C.F.R. §42.63(e))
`
`1002
`
`1003
`1004
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`1009
`
`1010
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`1001
`U.S. Patent No. 11,481,772 to Patel et al. (“’772 Patent”)
`Prosecution History of the ’772 Patent (not including copies of
`references available in the file wrapper)
`U.S. Patent No. 10,210,501 to Low et al. (“Low”)
`U.S. Patent No. 9,898,884 to Arora et al. (“Arora”)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,255,323 to Casey et al. (“Casey”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0082485 to Lin et al.
`(“Lin”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0280956 to
`Chutorash et al.
`Excerpts from ’614 Patent Prosecution History
`Excerpts from ’296 Patent Prosecution History
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US2018/0374076 to
`Wheeler
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US2018/0197167 to
`Ganesan
`Declaration of Safwan Zaheer
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Safwan Zaheer
`
`vii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 11,481,772
`
`Through counsel, real parties-in-interest KioSoft Technologies, LLC and
`
`TechTrex, Inc. (“Petitioners”) hereby petition and request post-grant review
`
`(“Petition”) and cancellation of claims 1-20 (“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 11,481,772 (the “’772 Patent,” EX1001) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§321-329 and
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.200 et seq. This Petition, supported by an accompanying declaration
`
`of technical expert Safwan Zaheer (“Zaheer Declaration,” EX1012), demonstrates
`
`that the challenged claims are not patentable.
`
`This Petition is timely and shows a reasonable likelihood that the Petitioners
`
`will prevail because at least one of the challenged claims: (1) is patent-ineligible
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §101 (“§101”); and (2) would have been obvious in view of the
`
`prior art under 35 U.S.C. §103 (“§103”). Each prior art reference discussed in this
`
`Petition was either not cited or not substantively considered by the examiner 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.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. §42.8)
` Real Parties-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(1))
`
`Petitioners are the real parties in interest for this matter.
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 11,481,772
`Notice of Related Matters (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(2))
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,891,614 (the “’614 Patent”), the grandparent of the ’772
`
`Patent via two continuation applications, and U.S. Patent Nos. 10,891,608 (the “’608
`
`Patent”) and 10,719,833 (the “’833 Patent”), have been asserted by the Patent
`
`Owner, PayRange, Inc. (“PayRange” or “Patent Owner”), against Petitioners in co-
`
`pending litigation captioned PayRange Inc. v. KioSoft Technologies, LLC et al., Case
`
`No. 1:20-cv-24342 (S.D. Fla.) (the “’614 Litigation”). The ’608 and ’833 Patents
`
`share common priority claims with the ’614 Patent. A Petition for Post Grant
`
`Review, docketed as PGR2021-00093, was filed June 10, 2021 for the ’614 Patent.
`
`On December 14, 2022, a Final Written Decision was issued finding Claims 1–6, 8–
`
`10, 14-15, and 18–25 of the ’614 Patent unpatentable under §101. PGR2021-00093,
`
`Paper 38. A Petition for Post Grant Review, docketed as PGR2021-00077, was filed
`
`April 29, 2021 for the ’833 Patent. On October 26, 2022, a Final Written Decision
`
`was issued finding Claim 1 of the ’833 Patent unpatentable under §101. PGR2021-
`
`00077, Paper 32. A Petition for Post Grant Review, docketed as PGR2021-00084,
`
`was filed May 27, 2021 for the ’608 Patent; that Petition was not instituted.
`
`PGR2021-00084, Paper 12.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,659,296 (the “’296 Patent”) is the parent via continuation
`
`application of the ’614 Patent and was the subject of a separate patent infringement
`
`lawsuit initiated by the Patent Owner against Petitioners in PayRange, Inc., v.
`2
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`KioSoft Technologies, LLC et al., Case No.: 1:20-cv-20970-RS (S.D. Fla.) (the “’296
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 11,481,772
`
`Litigation”), along with U.S. Patent No. 9,134,994 (the “’994 Patent”). On March
`
`31, 2022, the district court granted summary judgment of noninfringement in favor
`
`of Petitioners concerning the alleged claims of the ’296 Patent and the ‘994 Patent
`
`(docketed as ECF No. 290 in the ’296 Litigation).
`
`Petitions for Covered Business Method Review, docketed as CBM2020-
`
`00026, and Inter Partes Review, docketed as IPR2021-00086, were filed September
`
`15 and October 15, 2020, respectively, for the ’296 Patent. Both CBM2020-00026
`
`and IPR2021-00086 were denied institution based on discretionary grounds—35
`
`U.S.C. §324(b) as to CBM2020-00026, and 35 U.S.C. §314 as to IPR2021-00086.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,074,580 is a continuation-in-part of the ’833 Patent. A
`
`petition for Post-Grant Review, docketed as PGR2022-00035, was filed on April 27,
`
`2022. The PGR was denied institution pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §324(a).
`
` Designation of lead and back-up counsel (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(3))
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(3), Petitioners provide the following
`
`designation of counsel:
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`Backup Lead Counsel
`Safet Metjahic (Reg. No. 58,677)
`Safet.Metjahic@icemiller.com
`Ice Miller LLP
`1500 Broadway, 29th Floor
`New York, NY 10036
`212-824-4943
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 11,481,772
`
`212-824-4982 (Fax)
`
`
`
`
`
`1-317-236-2219 (Fax)
`Backup Counsel
`Thomas Rammer (Reg. No. 62,591)
`Tom.Rammer@icemiller.com
`Ice Miller LLP
`200 West Madison, Suite 3500
`Chicago, IL 60606-3417
`312-705-6016
`212-824-4947 (Fax)
`
`
`Notice of 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. STANDING AND ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
`
`
`
`Time for Filing (37 C.F.R. §42.202)
`
`The ’772 Patent issued on October 25, 2022. This Petition is being filed by
`
`the nine-month deadline of July 25, 2023.
`
`
`
`Payment of Fees (37 C.F.R. §42.203); Procedural Statements
`
`The required fees are submitted herewith in accordance with 37 C.F.R.
`
`§§42.203(a) and 42.15(b). The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) is
`
`authorized to charge fee deficiencies or credit overpayments to Deposit Acct. 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.
`4
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 11,481,772
`Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. §42.204(a))
`
`
`
`
`
`The undersigned and Petitioners certify that (1) the ’772 Patent is eligible for
`
`Post-Grant Review (“PGR”) and (2) Petitioners are not barred or estopped from
`
`requesting PGR of the challenged claims on the grounds identified herein.
`
`
`
`Statement of Precise Relief Requested and Reasons Therefor (37
`C.F.R. §42.204(b))
`
`Petitioners respectfully request PGR and cancellation of the Challenged
`
`Claims (claims 1-20) of the ’772 Patent based on the unpatentability grounds listed
`
`in the index below. Per 37 C.F.R. §42.6(c), copies of the references are filed
`
`herewith. In support of the proposed grounds of unpatentability, this Petition is
`
`accompanied by the Zaheer Declaration (EX1012), which Declaration explains what
`
`the prior art would have conveyed to a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”).
`
`Challenged
`Claim(s)
`1-20
`
`1-20
`
`Ground
`1
`
`Statute(s)
`§101
`
`Challenge
`Non-statutory Subject Matter
`
`2
`
`§103
`
`Obviousness by U.S. 10,210,501
`(“Low,” EX1003) in view of U.S.
`9,898,884 (“Arora,” EX1004) and
`further in view of U.S. 8,255,323
`(Casey,” EX1005, which
`incorporates by reference in its
`entirety U.S. Patent Application
`Publication No. 2010/0082485 to
`Lin et al. (“Lin,” EX1006))
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`For at least the reasons set forth in this Petition, Petitioners respectfully
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 11,481,772
`
`
`
`request that the Board institute trial on the grounds set forth herein and determine
`
`that the Challenged Claims are unpatentable.
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`
`Petitioners submit that, for purposes of this Petition, the Board need not
`
`construe any claim terms in order to resolve the parties’ dispute, and the claims
`
`should be given their ordinary and customary meaning. Petitioners reserve the right
`
`to further clarify those ordinary and customary meanings in this proceeding, in the
`
`’614 Litigation, the ’296 Litigation, or as disputes may otherwise arise.
`
`IV. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`
`The ’772 Patent appears to be assigned to PayRange and contains twenty
`
`claims. Fundamentally, the “invention” of the ’772 Patent is directed to nothing
`
`more than identifying a merchant and enabling completion of a purchase from the
`
`merchant using conventional and generic wireless and mobile technology—an
`
`abstract matter that is patent-ineligible. For similar reasons, the claims are obvious
`
`over the prior art that discloses and/or teaches these same conventional features.
`
`Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in this Petition, and supported by the
`
`accompanying Zaheer Declaration (EX1012), Petitioners respectfully request that
`
`the Board institute trial on the grounds set forth herein and determine that claims 1-
`
`20 of the ’772 Patent are unpatentable.
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 11,481,772
`
`Overview of the Alleged Invention
`
`The ’772 Patent describes that “[t]he mobile-device-to-machine
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`payment processing system disclosed herein allows a user (having a mobile device
`
`[] with a mobile application [] thereon) to make a cashless purchase from a payment
`
`accepting unit [] (having an adapter module [] associated therewith).” EX1001, 6:1-
`
`6 (reference numbers removed). The ’772 Patent explains that “[v]ending machines
`
`are one type of ‘payment accepting unit,’” and further explains that other types of
`
`payment accepting units include parking meters, toll booths, laundromat washers
`
`and dryers, and kiosks. Id., 1:54-65.
`
`The ’772 Patent acknowledges that “[v]ending machines (or ‘automatic
`
`retailing’ machines), in the broadest sense, have been around for thousands of
`
`years.” Id., 1:45-46. The ’772 Patent also recognizes that “[m]obile payment is
`
`a logical extension,” Id., 2:12, “[a]s the number of people with Internet-
`
`connected mobile devices proliferates....” Id., 2:10-11.
`
`The claims of the ’772 Patent are directed generally to using the conventional
`
`wireless technology and graphical user interfaces of a mobile device to perform the
`
`steps of (1) identifying a payment accepting unit, (2) displaying an interface on the
`
`mobile device for interacting with the payment accepting unit, (3) connecting to the
`
`payment accepting unit, and (4) enabling a purchase from the payment accepting
`
`unit. EX1012, ¶ 74. The ’772 Patent explains that in “general, a mobile device 150
`7
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`may be a user’s personal mobile device 150,” and the device could comprise “smart
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 11,481,772
`
`phones, tablet or laptop computers.” EX1001, 8:59-9:10. The ’772 Patent, for
`
`instance, references the iPhone 5. Id., 20:64. The ’772 Patent further describes that
`
`the “mobile device 150 (with a mobile application 140 thereon) acts as a
`
`communication bridge between the adapter module 100 (associated with payment
`
`accepting unit 120) and the server 130.” Id., 8:62-65.
`
`The ’772 Patent describes “wireless communications” between the mobile
`
`device and the payment accepting unit as including conventional “long-range” and
`
`“short-range” “communication technology” or “protocol” including:
`
`Bluetooth (such as Bluetooth 4.0, Bluetooth Smart, Bluetooth Low
`Energy (BLE)), near-field communication (NFC), Ultra Wideband
`(UWB), radio frequency identification (RFID), infrared wireless,
`induction wireless, or any wired or wireless technology that could be
`used to communicate a small distance (approximately a hundred feet
`or closer)
`that
`is known or yet
`to be discovered)…. The
`communications technology shown in the figures may be replaced with
`alternative like communications technology and, therefore, specific
`shown communications technologies are not meant to be limiting. For
`example, Wi-Fi technology could be replaced with another long-range
`communication technology.
`
`Id., 9:65-10:16.
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`The Challenged Claims include three independent claims, each of which is
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 11,481,772
`
`
`
`directed to substantially the same subject matter in method, system, and computer-
`
`readable form.
`
`
`
`The State of the Art Prior to December 2013
`
`By the earliest possible priority date of the Challenged Claims, December 18,
`
`2013, mobile devices such as smart phones and tablet devices were widespread and
`
`well-known. EX1012, ¶¶51-54. Such devices incorporated wireless technology and
`
`the ability to interface with the mobile device through a graphical user interface
`
`(“GUI”). Id., ¶51.
`
`For example, Casey (EX1005) discloses that electronic devices such as the
`
`iPhone had features such as:
`
` the ability to communicate with other devices using short-range
`
`communications such at Bluetooth and near-field communication
`
`(EX1005, 3:65-4:03);
`
` user input structures including “buttons, switches, control pads, keys,
`
`knobs, scroll wheels,” among “other suitable forms” (id., 4:36-39);
`
` a display that may be used to display a GUI to allow a “user to interact
`
`with the device,” which may include “various layers, windows,
`
`screens, templates, or other graphical elements,” and “include icons
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 11,481,772
`
`and other images representing buttons, sliders, menu bars, and the like”
`
`(id., 4:23-27);
`
` input and output ports such as connection ports for transmitting and
`
`receiving data, including a barcode reader, a connection slot such as a
`
`SIM card, and an audio jack, among other features (id., 5:24-43);
`
` a CPU that controls the operation of the device (id., 6:15-25);
`
` long-term storage (id., 6:26-50);
`
` one or more network cards that provide an interface for connecting to
`
`a network, including a local area network (LAN), wide area network
`
`(WAN), or a personal area network (PAN) for connecting to a
`
`Bluetooth network, ZigBee network, or an ultrawideband network
`
`(UWB) (id., 6:51-7:12); and
`
` a motion-sensing device configured to sense motion of the device and
`
`transmit motion data to the CPU (id., 8:4-13).
`
`
`
`Id.
`
`Figure 1 of Casey discloses an electronic device that includes a display 24 that
`
`may include a touch screen and may be used to display a GUI to allow a user to
`
`interact with the device. The GUI can include “various layers, windows, screens,
`
`templates, or other graphical elements that may be displayed in all, or a portion , of
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`the display,” and which “graphical elements may include icons and other images
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 11,481,772
`
`representing buttons, sliders, menu bars, and the like…” (EX1005, 4:41-58):
`
`
`That is—each of these enumerated features were already part of a POSITA’s
`
`“toolbox,” by December 18, 2013. EX1012, ¶¶51-54.
`
`Also, it was well-known by December 18, 2013 that the display features on
`
`GUIs could incorporate features including “Swipe to Confirm,” swipe to decline
`
`payment, and otherwise use a combination of windows, buttons, sliders, by which
`
`the user could interact with the mobile application. EX1005, 20:17-22; Id., ¶¶54,
`
`69.
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 11,481,772
`
`EX1005, FIG. 6.
`
`Various sensors, including accelerometers, were also part of the conventional
`
`mobile device. EX1012, ¶¶127-129. As Casey explains:
`
`
`
`In addition to receiving user input through the input structures 60
`and the touch screen 54, the device 10 may include a motion
`sensing device 62 for receiving user input. The motion sensing
`device 62 may be any device configured to measure motion or
`acceleration, such as an accelerometer or a gyroscope. In one
`12
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 11,481,772
`
`embodiment, the motion sensing device 40 may be a three-axis
`accelerometer that includes a sensing element and an integrated
`circuit interface for providing the measured acceleration and/or
`motion data to the CPU 46. The motion sensing device 62 may be
`configured to sense and measure various types of motion including,
`but not limited to, velocity, acceleration, rotation, and direction.
`
`EX1005, 7:59-8:3.
`
`The ability of a mobile device to make payments online or in-store via an
`
`application in the mobile device was well-known (EX1005, 1:20-27, 5:3-8).
`
`EX1012, ¶¶51, 55.
`
`The concept of conducting a transaction between two devices in close
`
`proximity or in contact with each other, including to make a payment transaction,
`
`was also well-known and well-understood. EX1005, 17:19-18:2; EX1006 (Lin, as
`
`explicitly incorporated by reference in its entirety by Casey (EX1005, 16:40-47)),
`
`¶¶[0101], [0112], [0150]; EX1012, ¶57. The fact that one of those devices could be
`
`a “vending machine” or “kiosk” was also well-known. EX1005, 16:36-40 (“The
`
`electronic device 234 may include a handheld portable electronic device, such as a
`
`portable media player or personal data organizer, or may include a point of sale or
`
`purchase terminal, a vending machine or kiosk, or other suitable payment receiving
`
`device.”). By December 18, 2013, a POSITA was well aware of all of these
`
`components and capabilities of a mobile device. EX1012, ¶¶51-57, 127-129.
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
` Relevant Prosecution History
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 11,481,772
`
`The ’772 Patent Prosecution History
`1.
`The prosecution history demonstrates that the Challenged Claims were
`
`allowed to issue without substantive examination. The application that issued as the
`
`’772 Patent (Appl. No. 17/654,732, the “’732 Application”) was filed on March 14,
`
`2022, and included a certification and request for Track 1 prioritized examination
`
`under 37 C.F.R. 1.102(e)(1). EX1002, p.135. The Track 1 request was approved on
`
`April 18, 2022. Id., pp.141-142. The ’732 Application was allowed by the Examiner
`
`on August 31, 2023, such that the issue notification was mailed within six months
`
`and two days of the filing date on September 16, 2022. EX1002, pp.333-340.
`
`The first and only Office Action on the merits was mailed on May 23, 2022,
`
`in which all pending claims in the ’732 Application were rejected on the basis of
`
`obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of the
`
`’296 Patent and claims 1-25 of the ’614 Patent. Id., 144-150. The Examiner
`
`remarked that “[t]he only difference between the instant application and the ’296
`
`patent is merely a labeling difference. It is noted that all the features of claims 1-20
`
`[in the ’732 Application] are contained in claims 1-23 of the ’296 patent.” Id.,
`
`pp.146-147. The same remark was made with respect to the ’614 Patent. Id.
`
`The same May 23, 2022, Office Action also provisionally rejected all pending
`
`claims on the basis of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over
`14
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`claims 2-29 of then co-pending Application No. 17,147,305 (issued as U.S. Patent
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 11,481,772
`
`No. 11,501,296 on November 15, 2022). Id., p.147. The Examiner remarked that
`
`“[b]oth inventions are obvious variations of each other achieving the same end
`
`result.” Id.
`
`A terminal disclaimer was filed on August 19, 2022, disclaiming the terminal
`
`part of the statutory term of the ’296 Patent, ’614 Patent, and then-pending App. No.
`
`17/147,305. Id., pp.166-68. A Notice of Allowance was mailed on September 16,
`
`2022. Id., pp.333-340. In the Notice, the Examiner commented that:
`
`The above recited limitations provide meaningful limitations that
`transforms the abstract idea into patent eligible. The claim as a whole
`effects an improvement to another technology or technical field. These
`limitations in combination provide meaningful limitations beyond
`generally linking the use of the abstract idea to practical application.
`
`EX1002, p.339. The ’732 Application claims priority ultimately to December 18,
`
`2013 through a chain of continuation and continuation-in-part applications.
`
`EX1001, 1:5-34.
`
`The ’614 Patent Prosecution History
`2.
`The ’614 Patent, according to the ’772 Patent Examiner’s double-patenting
`
`rejection (discussed above, EX1002, pp.146-147), has patentably indistinguishable
`
`claims from the claims in the ’772 Patent. The ’614 Patent issued because its
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`independent claims 1, 14, and 20 were limited to further require the underlined
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 11,481,772
`
`limitations on September 10,